Texas Math

Chuck Todd is predicting a net win of delegates for Obama in Texas, possibly a net win large enough to overcome Clinton's net delegate pickup in Ohio. If that's even close to correct, then the bottom line is that it continues to be unclear how Clinton can actually win barring some catastrophic Obama meltdown.

UPDATE: Texas officially gets called for Clinton, raising the question of whether Todd's delegate calculus is right. Everyone on TV says it's onward to Pennsylvania, though it still seems that Clinton is drawing dead.

Comments

I'm not really a boxing fan, this analogy might not be right-on, but it feels right to me: This is the 8th round of a 12 round fight, and Hillary just got up off the canvas, after being knocked down. She's back on her feet again, but she's so far behind on the judges' cards that if Obama just stays on his feet until the end of the fight, he wins. Hillary still has to knock him out to win, and there's not really a way for her to do it electorally. I'm not sure what it would take, but I think it still comes down to a huge mistake or scandal for Obama.

Posted by doofman | March 5, 2008 12:28 AM

I love Texas Democracy.

Posted by Andruw | March 5, 2008 12:29 AM

All the superdelegates will go for Hillary!

And if that's not enough, then we will probably add more new superdelegates that have promised to vote Hillary. Or maybe we'll bring back "black people only count for 3/5ths of a vote."

Whatever it takes baby! No rule change is off the table, no matter how ridiculous.

Posted by cd6 | March 5, 2008 12:31 AM

But what will the narrative be tomorrow morning? You got it: The Comeback Kid! The Comeback Kid! Turns out not quite every state in the union hates Hillary after all, so she's staying in!

If there is justice in this world, the media will press Hillary every bit as hard tomorrow morning about how she can justify staying in given the math at this point as it pressed Obama about this Rezko/Muslim/Farrakhan BS from the past week.

Posted by SDinIA | March 5, 2008 12:31 AM

"Chuck Todd is predicting a net win of delegates for Obama in Texas, possibly a net win large enough to overcome Clinton's net delegate pickup in Ohio."

All of this despite her winning of the popular vote in TX. But there's nothing undemocratic about that, right? I wanna hear everyone who decries those evil superdelegates potentially "overturning the will of the people" be intellectually honest and bitch about how caucuses subvert the popular will and are biased against working people, sick people, non-English speaking people, and old people.

I wanna hear it.

Posted by Israel | March 5, 2008 12:32 AM

Obama's campaign got complacent. They let Hillary dictate the message. She threw the kitchen sink and she is fighting Obama like he is a Republican. This is terrible for November.

He may eek out Texas, and will most likely get the delegates, but Hillary will not quit. He needs to win the popular vote in Texas, or this goes into June, wastes a lot of democratic money, and damages Obama.

Brian
http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by Brian | March 5, 2008 12:34 AM

I love Matthew Y. democracy, ya know, when you cheer on the less liberal candidate who earns more Dem votes.

Posted by Andruw | March 5, 2008 12:34 AM

Obama (and his partisans) are going to regret focusing on "the math.". First, it is a bloodless argument that talks about rules over voters. If you accept the thesis that delegate counts matter more than votes, you lose the rationale for excluding the superdelegates. In fact, it would make sense to many that superdelegates are there to protect against unforeseen consequences from arcane caucus math.

Second, if Florida and Michigab re-vote in June, the primary math changes. If Hillary sweeps PR (which is a total machine election), she can get to near parity by the convention. If Obama leads by less than 50 pledged delegates, the media is going to call it a tie and give the superdelegates the breathing room to make independent choices.

Posted by Ephus | March 5, 2008 12:34 AM

The caucuses started at 7 PM. So I guess they hurt the night shift voters. (Guess Hillary can't caucus!)

The sick vote. Hmm, yeah, a major Hillary constituency.

They have translators at caucuses. Really, they do.

As for old people, Obama volunteers have been driving them over. I'm sure some of Hillary's have done the same.

Not that I'm a huge proponent of caucuses, but they are a fair indication of whose base is more "fired up."

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 12:34 AM

Israel - The Texas caucuses started at 8:00pm Texas time, no? And I would suggest that non-English-speaking people are not fully invested enough in our society to deserve representation. (My parents are immigrants, before you call me a xenophobe.)

Sick and old, I'll grant.

Posted by nbt | March 5, 2008 12:36 AM

The rules are what they are, Israel. Just because Hillary didn't know what the hell they were until two weeks ago doesn't mean they weren't there in broad daylight for anyone to see. Hell, wasn't Ickes heavily involved in writing them?

But I'm sure when all those rules were written years ago, back when the Texas primary/caucus didn't matter one iota, they were written that way just so they might screw Hillary Clinton someday. Because as we know, everyone is out to get her.

Figures a Clinton supporter would come around and complain about the rules after the fact.

Posted by SDinIA | March 5, 2008 12:37 AM

I honestly wonder sometimes whether people are willfully ignorant.

Ephus: "The math" is determined by "the votes." Obama is winning in states, the popular vote, and the delegates. Saying that "the math" backs him up is saying that all of the above back him up.

Posted by Zar | March 5, 2008 12:38 AM

So, a few weeks ago, the Clinton camp basically argues that we should all ignore all the states Obama was then winning, and that she would make up the difference in delegates on March 4.

As March 4 comes closer, it becomes clear that this is next to impossible for her to manage (needing massive wins in both Ohio and Texas to do it). I can't help but think that the media is only ready to accept the Clinton camp's redefinition of success because the alternative would have been too boring for them. If at all possible, the media is only too happy to manufacture a made-up election night drama, no matter how little effect their declarations of winners and momentum actually have on the underlying delegate math.

Posted by Spenser | March 5, 2008 12:40 AM

Speaking of Texas math... I've been crunching the numbers, and I don't think there's any remaining chance for Obama to catch Clinton in the Texas primary vote. People seem to be counting on late returns from big cities, but the early voting results have already been tallied, and most of the missing precincts are in counties that favor Hillary. She's going to win by 2-3%.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | March 5, 2008 12:42 AM

Clearly, Ohio doesn't count.

Posted by jim | March 5, 2008 12:42 AM

Spenser, there's no doubt that the media wants to draw this out. Great for ratings. I bet they're pushing for another debate (!).

Seriously, Obama should release a memo of all the Clinton quotes saying the gap would be gone after Firewall Tuesday. And then one by one over the next seven weeks have a different superdelegate endorse him.

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 12:43 AM

Israel-
I wanna hear everyone who decries those evil superdelegates potentially "overturning the will of the people" be intellectually honest and bitch about how caucuses
Bzzzzt that's where you fail. If you want to complain about situations where one can lose the popular vote but win in delegates because it is not truly representative, fine.

But that is based on the decision to allocate delegates by performance within state senate districts not whether or not caucuses or primaries are used to tally votes in that district.

Of course, you also have the option of just whining about caucuses some more, even though it's irrelevant. It's not my candidate who can't motivate supporters enough to caucus for her.

Posted by cd6 | March 5, 2008 12:43 AM

Also, Israel, I would not count on Clinton winning the TX popular vote quite yet. If you're watching the updated totals, they're starting to turn against Hillary again as the urban precincts continue to count and the rural ones stop. I'd say Obama ekes out the popular vote in the end.

Posted by Zar | March 5, 2008 12:43 AM

"the bottom line is that it continues to be unclear how Clinton can actually win barring some catastrophic Obama meltdown."

You mean like losing most of the coming contests?

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 12:44 AM

This is a basic conceptual problem with many Clinton supporters: they think "the math" is just another argument. But "the math" is not an argument, it is an objective description of reality.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 12:44 AM

Obama's campaign got complacent. They let Hillary dictate the message. She threw the kitchen sink and she is fighting Obama like he is a Republican. T

I, for one, seriously hope that Obama has a roundtable meeting with his campaign staff, does some serious soul-searching about their tactics, and then retools their message and ground operations. Obama has a serious weakness: while he beats Hillary when he manages to outflank her campaign or organize his voters under the radar, he wins. However, when he fights Hillary head-to-head (eg, NH and MA before and OH and possibly TX today), he loses.

Posted by Tyro | March 5, 2008 12:46 AM

This is a basic conceptual problem with many Clinton supporters: they think "the math" is just another argument. But "the math" is not an argument, it is an objective description of reality.

Boiled down: That depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Posted by Kevin | March 5, 2008 12:48 AM

Woo-hoo! Texas called.

Three in a row for Clinton.

Obama is bleeding...

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 12:48 AM

Zar - the "math" is about the delegate count. The overall popular vote is in flux, and not what Obama has been hanging his hat on. The number of states could not conceivably be less relevant.

If Hillary wins Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico and Obama wins Mississippi, Oregon, Wyoming and North Carolina, you are going to see June or July primaries in Michigan and Florida. IMHO, whoever wins both will get the nomination (even if Obama has a 40 pledged delegate lead).

Posted by Ephus | March 5, 2008 12:48 AM

Zar: you may be right. Missouri tightened very fast at the end to give Obama a 1% margin. Still, I think the "horse race" narrative is more about "off the floor" than it is n delegates for Obama, m delegates for Clinton.

I thought Clinton's opening remarks tonight in her speech were quite canny - it's very late in the day, but by finding a way to emotionally connect to potential voters "this is for those of you who've been knocked down and got up one more time..." she gives her continued candidacy a purpose which is about more than just experience vs change.

Posted by Andrew | March 5, 2008 12:48 AM

"If Hillary wins Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico and Obama wins Mississippi, Oregon, Wyoming and North Carolina, you are going to see June or July primaries in Michigan and Florida. IMHO, whoever wins both will get the nomination (even if Obama has a 40 pledged delegate lead)."

Pretty much spot on.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 12:52 AM

I posted this in the comment threat of another post yesterday:
"In my opinion, one of the worst outcomes for Obama tomorrow would be for Hillary to win majorities in Ohio and Texas, but for Obama to actually win more delegates in Texas due to the allocation process."

This is lose-lose for Obama. I'd say he's still a 80% or more favorite to win the nomination. However, if Hillary does eek out the popular vote in TX, the outcome tonight is the precise scenario in which Hillary gets to claim big media victories while simultaneously shine a spotlight on the flaws of the delegate allocation process. I saw Chuck Todd on MSNBC earlier explaining how the border counties have disproportionately fewer delegates than the urban counties and there was a palpable awkwardness and the ultimate implication -- even the primary (let alone the caucus!) is not one-person, one-vote -- finally seemed to dawn on the panelists.

What people aren't realizing is that Hillary knows full well she cannot win a majority of pledged delegates. Where does that leave her? She has to undermine the whole notion of using pledged delegates as the basis for superdelgate-persuasion or fundamentally, the nomination. If people catch on that a huge share of Obama's delegates came from caucuses and Hillary can point to *obvious* examples like Texas where even primaries seem to be undemocratic, (and especially if she wins the majority of the popular vote nationwide), she might actually have a chance at having a claim to the nomination at the convention! The "some states don't count" argument was just the test missle for the nuclear war about to follow.

Posted by Ryan | March 5, 2008 12:53 AM

Obama is bleeding...

I just want to take a moment to thank Petey for all he's doing for the Democratic party.

Nothing like a good internecine knife fight to help the Democrats and the long-suffering American people . . .

Posted by southpaw | March 5, 2008 12:54 AM

Just let it be known. If Hillary usurps Obama and takes the democrat nomination, I am voting for John McCain in the fall. And I am going to defect to the republican party for the foreseeable future. And I will do everything in my (albeit limited) power to ensure Hillary loses and McCain wins in november. Fuck Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Nick | March 5, 2008 12:54 AM

I can't remember ever being so angry as I've been tonight.

As someone else on the board said, Remember the good old days, when she needed blow out victories? Remember when the polls had her up by 20 in Ohio and 15 in Texas? Now it looks like she will barely pick up any delegates, and in fact may end up losing the delegate count, and all anyone's talking about is her sudden resurgance and momentum. WHAT THE HELL?? There is no way she gets more delegates. NO WAY. Do people not realize that yet? Hopefully when the dust settles from today in a couple days, people will realize, hang on, she gained nothing, and Obama still has an insurmountable lead! It's probably wishful thinking but... we'll see.

Posted by Gus | March 5, 2008 12:55 AM

I am a staunch Obama supporter, but you lose fuckin' Ohio AND Texas on friggin' March 4th then you've got serious problems.

If she wins Pennsylvania, even if she's trailing slightly in pledged delegates and popular vote, she's got a very legitimate claim.

We're screwed, how are they gonna work this out?

Posted by mike | March 5, 2008 12:56 AM

I just want to take a moment to thank Petey for all he's doing for the Democratic party.

Nothing like a good internecine knife fight to help the Democrats and the long-suffering American people . . .

So, Petey, just for the sake of argument, if Obama gets the nomination, who will you vote for?

If Clinton gets the nomination, I will vote for her in November.

Posted by Kevin | March 5, 2008 12:56 AM

Tyro,

Despite later claims to the contrary, Clinton competed in a lot more states with Obama than that. Clinton also ducks states where she thinks she has no hope of winning, whereas Obama does not.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 12:56 AM

Ugh, the NYT piece on tonight is awful.

The worst part is she's going to go more negative. I can't believe Obama has gone this long without "accidentally" calling her Monica. I'd have my surrogates doing that weekly. Probably why I'll never be president.

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 12:57 AM

Hopefully a blood vessel in her brain will explode tomorrow. That would solve the problem.

I'll be praying hard for that tonight.

Posted by patriot | March 5, 2008 12:59 AM

"Nothing like a good internecine knife fight to help the Democrats and the long-suffering American people..."

Obviously, southpaw, you've never seen the Untouchables. It's funny seeing how Barack refuses to apply any of the lessons from that movie.

His big problem is that he's not playing Chicago-style. If she's pulling a knife, he needs to pull a gun; if she's sending his campaign to the hospital, well, then he needs to send hers to the fucking morgue.

Posted by Greg | March 5, 2008 1:00 AM

Hopefully a blood vessel in her brain will explode tomorrow. That would solve the problem.
I'll be praying hard for that tonight.

You are a sick, twisted asshole.

Fuck off.

Posted by Kevin | March 5, 2008 1:00 AM

If people catch on that a huge share of Obama's delegates came from caucuses and Hillary can point to *obvious* examples like Texas where even primaries seem to be undemocratic, (and especially if she wins the majority of the popular vote nationwide), she might actually have a chance at having a claim to the nomination at the convention!

The conventional wisdom seems to be that this kind of thinking is completely insane, but I'm not sure why. If Hillary catches up in the popular vote, why shouldn't the superdelegates give her the nomination? I support Obama, and I'm pretty sure if he were in that position I would say the superdelegates should do exactly that. Wouldn't it make the result appear more, not less, legitimate to most people?

Of course if she doesn't catch up in the popular vote it doesn't matter what happens from now on.

Posted by Brendan | March 5, 2008 1:00 AM

It's caucuses, open primaries, and state senate district receiving more delegates based on past performance that make this thing absurd. Either way, this all proves that the pledged delegate metric is no better than others.

I would argue the final tally of the democratic popular vote should prevail -- why does some Bush voting, clueless, gullible idiot get to decide my nominee.

Good news is that PA is a closed primary, the way these things should be. And Puerto Rico, well... this should be fun.

Where's all that precious smug you Obama people have been exuding lately?

Posted by Israel | March 5, 2008 1:01 AM

Nick - the kind of voter whose existence is an argument against democracy.

And I say this, mind, as a Green. I see unacceptable commonalities between Obama/Clinton and McCain. But if you're for Obama over McCain on the issues, Nick's position is utter irrationality.

Posted by Kalkin | March 5, 2008 1:03 AM

Gus, that was me, and the millions of average voters don't read The Atlantic. They'll read the Times piece maybe, or listen to MSNBC, dubbing her "The Comeback Kid II" even though all she managed to do was not blow massive leads in states that suitor her very well demographically (Latinos in TX, old people/less educated in Ohio). They'll think hmm, maybe there is something to this woman after all. She's a fighter!

Then we'll get more photos of Obama in Kenyan garb, probably one with a cigarette. We'll see an ad extremely exaggerating what Hillary did in the White House. Obama, being the man that he is, will refuse to point out even one of the hundred skeletons in the Clinton closet. We'll take this thing to convention. Clinton, with the clout of a former president behind her, will push lawsuits and do whatever it takes to get the nod.

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 1:03 AM

Obama needs to go negative - REAL negative. Nuke negative. Through surrogates, of course, not himself. Take the gloves off. Blacken the evil creature's name to an extent that she will be one of the most hated women in history.

And it should be easy. You KNOW how much oppo on her has to be out there.

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 1:04 AM

I just want to take a moment to thank Petey for all he's doing for the Democratic party.

Nothing like a good interecine knife fight to help the Democrats and the long-suffering American people . . .

Posted by southpaw | March 5, 2008 12:54 AM >>

I want to thank Obamabots for their commitment to democracy...WTF/STFU, the most even fight in 40 years of Dem primaries is a 'knife' fight.

Yet, HRC is divisive.....

Posted by Andruw | March 5, 2008 1:05 AM

So far we have one f-bomb dropped on Hillary with a promise to vote for McCain if Hillary is nominated and one wishing death on her. Stay classy, San Diego.

We need a Democrat in the White House. Either of these candidates would be light-years better than McCain.

Posted by ephus | March 5, 2008 1:05 AM

So far we have one f-bomb dropped on Hillary with a promise to vote for McCain if Hillary is nominated and one wishing death on her. Stay classy, San Diego.

We need a Democrat in the White House. Either of these candidates would be light-years better than McCain.

Posted by ephus | March 5, 2008 1:05 AM

Bill O'Reilly was just on with Brit Hume giving Rush the credit for the Clinton comeback. There is no doubt that it was Republicans trying to sabotage the Democrats by voting for the least electable candidate in Hillary.

This is a big story; will the media run with it? Will the Democratic party superdelegates allow their process to be corrupted by sinister Republicans salivating to take on super corrupt Hillary with all of her baggage?

If the media doesn't run with this, then you know Rush will. He is probably the happiest person right now.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 1:06 AM

"Where's all that precious smug you Obama people have been exuding lately?"

It's right here. I keep it next to the insurmountable delegate lead and the overwhelming cash advantage.

Posted by mankiewicz | March 5, 2008 1:08 AM

I swear it's groundhog day...rescuing defeat from the jaws of victory. Leave it to the chronically stupid left to screw up a can't-lose proposition. This is as laughable as it is pathetic.

Barack Obama is the first serious liberal with any bonafides to have a shot at winning the presidency since JFK, and what's the lunatic fringe decide to do?

Hold everything, Mabel! we need to resurrect the Clinton spectre and maybe figure out a way to hand this thing to the GOP.

This isnt suicide, it's cannibalism.

Posted by resh | March 5, 2008 1:08 AM

LarryM, if you've studied Barack's other tough races, he got his ass kicked because he's utterly incapable of playing Chicago rules. As a result, there's a good chance he'll probably fail to do what you suggest and lose.

Posted by Greg | March 5, 2008 1:08 AM

"Where's all that precious smug you Obama people have been exuding lately?"

It's right here. I keep it next to the insurmountable delegate lead and the overwhelming cash advantage.

Posted by mankiewicz | March 5, 2008 1:09 AM

It is this simple: Obama is a hyper-liberal, just like Yglesias, and is simply unelectable in the big picture.

Closest approximations of the big picture: California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, Massachussets, Ohio, Michigan.

Hillary won all of these. That makes her electable.

Yglesias would be surprised to find that the people he talks to at Washington cocktail parties, the people swooning over Obama, are not representative of the United "Big" States of America.

Posted by Ringo Meza | March 5, 2008 1:09 AM

Obama has a serious weakness: while he beats Hillary when he manages to outflank her campaign or organize his voters under the radar, he wins. However, when he fights Hillary head-to-head (eg, NH and MA before and OH and possibly TX today), he loses.

Well, that certainly sound like someone the Democrats ought to rally behind: someone who permits herself to get outflanked.

And how is it that the only states that count as head-to-head fights are the states Hillary won? Picking Massachusetts as the only "head-to-head" state of the 2 dozen contested on Super Tuesday seems like a pretty severe case of cherry picking.

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 1:10 AM

"There is no doubt that it was Republicans trying to sabotage the Democrats by voting for the least electable candidate in Hillary. This is a big story; will the media run with it?"

Check the exit polls before you open your dumbass mouf...

Yglesias, you should be proud of your readers.

Posted by Israel | March 5, 2008 1:12 AM

I want to thank Obamabots for their commitment to democracy...WTF/STFU, the most even fight in 40 years of Dem primaries is a 'knife' fight.

Yet, HRC is divisive.....

Honestly? I congratulate Senator Clinton on her victories, but I regret the manner of them. Let's recall the "kitchen sink" campaign of the last week--the lead regained in Texas by painting a fellow Democratic candidate as weak and untrustworthy on national security. And let's also recall what I was responding to, Petey's glee that: "Obama is bleeding . . ."

Heal thy own cause, Andruw.

Posted by southpaw | March 5, 2008 1:13 AM

It is this simple: Obama is a hyper-liberal, just like Yglesias, and is simply unelectable in the big picture.

Apparently Obama is both a "hyper-liberal", according to "Ringo", and a closet Republican if you believe Petey.

He's both too liberal, and not liberal enough.

Fascinating.

Posted by Kevin | March 5, 2008 1:14 AM

Don't forget the conference call the Clintons had asking the media to investigate Rezko. I can't believe Obama didn't do the same for Hsu or Afghanistan.

And can Clinton supporters stop bringing up Michigan? Motherfucking Undecided got 40% there.

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 1:17 AM

Here is what obama fanatics refuse to get about the math:
The pool of possible pledged delegates that can get him alot closer to 2025 just got a lot smaller.
He is closer to 2025 but so is Hillary in equal measure. IT JUST got even more impossible for him to get to 2025 without Hillary leaving race and now she has absolutely no reason to leave race.
Math-wise he can't get there. She can't either but he can't get there at all without superdelegates and he's already said that isn't legitimate.
And now he's gone and completely lost his momentum.
What happens if Richardson or Edwards endorse hillary?
And where are caroline and maria shriver and Teddy lately?
She has the momentum and she's the underdog still.
it must suck to be an obama supporter tonight and tomorrow.

Posted by michael C. | March 5, 2008 1:18 AM

If Clinton gets the nomination, she will lose at least 45 states, including California. That might not have been the case if she won the nomination with a wire to wire victory, but the only way she can win now is with the super delegates. And whatever one thinks of the "fairness" of that, if she wins that way, 1/3 of the dems will vote for McCain and 1/3 will stay home or vote third party. And, of course, her sleeze tactics against Obama which are, if anything, worse than what we see from the Republican slime machine.

Obama has his electoral weaknesses, but at least he has a shot, probably better than 50%. Though that diminishes weekly, as Clinton does everything she can to elect McCain so she can have another shot in 2012.

I still think that Obama wins this - mathematically she can't come anywhere near catching up in pledged delegates, and the supers won'r go for her unless it's very, very close, and maybe not even then. But she may well injure Obama fatally., Which is at least part of her goal.

Now, I'm not a big enough Obama fan to care that much, normally, but I do think that McCain is a dangerous lunatic. Not quite dangerous enough to make me choose Clinton over him, but dangerous enough.

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 1:20 AM

Obama's campaign got complacent. They let Hillary dictate the message. She threw the kitchen sink and she is fighting Obama like he is a Republican. This is terrible for November.

I'm not sure if they got complacent or if they gambled that they could take at least one of the two big states, most likely Texas, without having to go negative. The gamble failed. Now they're going to have to do it, in part because Hillary has forced it on him with her own 100% negative campaign (both overt and subterranean), and also to prove to wavering voters and superdelegates that he can deal with the inevitable Republican attacks.

This is tricky though; the sexism police will try to rein him in, and for all their bitching about the media, Clinton pushback has been amazingly effective.

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 1:20 AM

Michael C, that's ridiculous. All the Obama supporters have ever argued is that the superdelegates should ratify the choice of the primary and caucus voters--i.e. the pledged delegate leader. The math on that works just fine for us.

Posted by southpaw | March 5, 2008 1:22 AM

MY should start renaming his Democratic nomination posts to reflect the true nature of the threads: "Yet Another Conversation with Petey"

"Republicans trying to sabotage the Democrats by voting for the least electable candidate in Hillary."

People can barely peel themselves off the couch to vote for a candidate they like. People don't go to the polls to vote for someone they hate because of some lame speculation about electability. "Let's rally the conservative base for Hillary!! Her head to head poll numbers are 4 points worse than Obama's and negatives are still over 40%! Tally ho!" Not every lame idea some activist thinks up actually becomes a feature of mass behavior.

Some Obama people talk as if Hillary is the second coming of Adlai Stevenson. She would be favored over McCain just like Obama should be.

Posted by Colatina | March 5, 2008 1:24 AM

"And let's also recall what I was responding to, Petey's glee that: "Obama is bleeding"

Damn fucking straight. Nothing but glee.

We're going to take down Obama, and then we're going to take down McCain.

This ain't a Republican year. This ain't an Independent year. This is a Democratic year.

If you're not for universal healthcare, you're not getting into the White House.

-----

"and (Obama is) a closet Republican if you believe Petey."

No. He's a spineless centrist in my book. He thinks standing for universal healthcare will make him look too lefty and will cut into his upscale donor base, so he sells out the Democratic base instead.

It's classic spineless centrism. Quite different than Republicanism.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 1:25 AM

Remember that strange Hillary comment she made when asked about Obama's faith on 60 Minutes? Axelrod said that she knew very well about Obama's faith; that they had been to prayer breakfast's together.

Now Hillary could have said that and been classy. Instead she chose a very deliberate set of wording to plant doubt in some minds.

It's time to go as mean and negative on Hillary as possible. I'm all for clean politics, but you have to do it with other classy people. With the Clintons it is like fighting criminals; you have to get mean.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 1:26 AM

Greg and LarryM, (among others)
Obama (and his campaign) aren't incapable of drawing out the knives. How could that be...it's the easiest thing in the world! It's that he states to represent a different kind of politics, and so chooses not to. He has painted himself into a corner of his own making; incidently, that make his (some) of his supporters giddy (this one included). You know why people are gushing at his rallies? Because the sour taste caused by personal insults don't happen, and therefore don't ruin the high.
This ain't over yet. But, to me, it feels like the quick-drawing outlaw just killed the deputy; and now the sheriff has someone to meet at high noon. But the only weapon he has to use is an argument for a new kind of politics. I will keep the hope alive.

Posted by colleeniem | March 5, 2008 1:26 AM

Michael C, no candidate can win anything but the most one-sided race without superdelegates, so what you posted makes no sense.

Does it suck to be an Obama supporter? I'm pleased with how I voted.

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 1:26 AM

I hate to bring this up, but you do realize that Obama's voting record is probably more liberal than Hillary's, right? Unless you count AUMF or Kyl-Lieberman or cluster bombs as liberal.

God damn the internet. It's so tough arguing with idiots. And yet so hard to stop.

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 1:28 AM

Where are Hillary's tax returns? There should be people at every Hillary rally asking this with signs? A website should be set up, showing a count up timer.

The media should pound away at this. The media got rolled and manhandled by the Clinton campaign this past week.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 1:29 AM

southpaw: "Let's recall the "kitchen sink" campaign of the last week--the lead regained in Texas by painting a fellow Democratic candidate as weak and untrustworthy"

Be still my beating heart.

Seriously?

Meanwhile, read Digby.

Posted by Andruw | March 5, 2008 1:31 AM

"He thinks standing for universal healthcare will make him look too lefty and will cut into his upscale donor base"

By your standard, Hillary has only been "standing for universal health care" for a few weeks now, since a bit after Edwards came out with his plan. By making mandates the bar for universal health care, you've managed to put Mitt Romney to the left of Obama on the issue, which is absurd.

It's the basic problem with Hillary's message: everything she accuses Obama of, she's guilty of times five. "Spineless centrism" is on the short list for best descriptions of her whole life in politics.

Posted by Colatina | March 5, 2008 1:34 AM

What the Obama campaign needs to do: go after Hillary in a more strong way...you gotta have sharp elbows now. Also, go after Hillary more than McCain; you have to dispense with her first.

The Obama campaign needs to get on the offensive again, and put Hillary back in defensive mode.

That means questioning her tax returns, or lack thereof...and other stuff. Because the Republicans would never neglect to do that.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 1:34 AM

cm, that's Obama's job, to be honest, not the media's. He's going to have to get his hands dirty. And it's certainly not an illegitimate thing to bring up. Norman Hsu seems like a distraction, but no more so than Rezko.

And in reference to your previous vote about Hillary's sleazy little remark on 60 Minutes, that's one reason why it doesn't suck to be an Obama supporter: I don't have to apologize for or explain away having cast a vote for someone like that.

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 1:34 AM

I can't help feeling the Clintons will find a way to subvert democracy (MI, FL, Superdelegates) and take the nomination away from Obama. I'm convinced they will say anything, do anything, hurt anyone to get what they're after. As an independent voter, I hope the Republicans crucify her if she gets the nomination. I will never vote for a Clinton (again).

Posted by kady | March 5, 2008 1:35 AM

Lmao, this nomination is over. It's been Obama's for a while. No matter what fantasies Clinton supporters have about super delegates, it's not going to happen.

Posted by Soullite | March 5, 2008 1:35 AM

colleeniem,

Yes, you have indeed highlighted one of the reasons why I'm only a reluctant Obama supporter. That new politics bullshit.

The other is his continued support of the hegemonic project and the national security state. But I'll take him over McCain (insane warmonger) and Clinton (Bush lite, and with the integrity of slime mold ... no, that's unfair to slime mold) any day. Especially since there are at least a few hints that his foreign policies might not kill quite as many people as would Clinton's and McCain's. And he does seem to have some integrity. Perhaps a little too much, alas.

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 1:35 AM

Obama has a serious weakness: while he beats Hillary when he manages to outflank her campaign or organize his voters under the radar, he wins.

He has a serious weakness, all right, but his election day strategy has zilch to do with it.

His serious weakness is that he can't win an election without blacks, liberals, or independents--ideally two out of three. That's all that accounts for every single one of his wins.

Like I keep telling you--the demographics are unchanging, and they won't change. This was Obama's last chance to try. And, from what I can tell, he was not trying to convince the base in Texas--most of his radio ads were aimed at independents and Republicans. In short, he was trying to rig the race in his favor.

All the talk about going negative is delusional. Obama won't win any other group than the two groups he already has locked up, no matter what he does.

Posted by Cal | March 5, 2008 1:36 AM

Look, there are understandable reasons to prefer Clinton over Obama. Not good reasons IMO, unless you think that the Bush foreign policy would have been just fine if competently executed, but understandable reasons.

But people who support Clinton because they think she is more liberal than Obama - well that's just lunacy. It would be like people who want to withdraw from Iraq voting for McCain.

Oh wait ...

God, Americans are stupid.

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 1:42 AM

Cal: nice of you to dismiss blacks, liberals, and independents...I guess you believe that it's bad for the Democratic party to have a candidate that appeals to those groups. I mean, it's not like we need independents to win in the general election, is it?

Plus, Obama has won huge in all types of states with all types of people...Mo, Wi, Co, et al. Again, those are the swing states that the Democrats need to win.

As for the states won by Hillary...NY, Calif, etc...well, most of those are going to be blue states anyway in the general election, regardless. In many ways, they are the least important to prove yourself in now.

There is one exception: if Hillary continues this fight, and steals the nomination, she could very well rip the party apart and then she would lose huge to McCain in the general election.

Of course her strategy may be to sabotage Obama so he cannot win the general, and then she can run again in 2012.

Hillary is evil, and needs to be stopped. That is majority opinion in this country now, because the Republicans believe it, and now half the Democratic party believes it too.

I liked Bill, but now I wish he had been removed from office during his impeachment, just to stop this ruthless, vicious, unprincipled power couple.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 1:43 AM

Cal, that is just not true. Ohio is making everyone forget February, when he won the majority of the white vote, and even the women vote in some states (VA I believe, an important swing state). These states favor her very much, and she almost blew it in TX and held serve in Ohio. Nothing's changed.

kady, you have that feeling because it's exactly what she's been doing and what she will continue to do. For months she argued that it would be OK for the superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegates. In December she admitted on NPR that there was no reason to get off the ballot in MI/FL because they "won't count." This week we had her aligning herself with John McCain in an effort to make Obama look weak. This isn't about taking the White House back for America or Democrats; it's about taking it back for the Clintons. Sorry Clinton Crew, but I'm absolutely convinced.

What has our country come to, where you HAVE to attack, insult, and embarrass your opponents to get elected?

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 1:44 AM

Be still my beating heart.

Nah, keep your pulse up, fella. Obama now has to give your candidate as good as he got. Whoever wins (and don't kid yourself, it will be him) will end up dirtied and compromised and have a tougher time in the fall. But hey, it's all worth it for the greater glory of the Clinton family and the promise of an non-passable health care plan.

Maybe Obama can go on 60 Minutes and say that Hillary isn't a lesbian, as far as he knows. It'll be just great for the party.

Posted by southpaw | March 5, 2008 1:44 AM

"In short, he was trying to rig the race in his favor."

Stop the presses. We've just discovered that Obama tried to rig the election by running radio ads. Not only that, but he tried to rig it in **his favor**.

Posted by Colatina | March 5, 2008 1:45 AM

No they don't. Most Democrats, even Obama supporters, like Hillary and vice versa. Quit catastrophizing.

Posted by John Petty | March 5, 2008 1:45 AM

Petey: This ain't an Independent year.

If you don't want my vote, I'm willing to give it to McCain.

I'm an libertarian-leaning independent. Obama isn't a perfect fit, but at least he's willing to work with people like me.

Clinton and Petey want to fight? Well, it doesn't have to be that way, but if you're determined to fight, I guess we'll fight.

If you win the nom, that is.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | March 5, 2008 1:46 AM

The only way to put an end to the Clintonian style of mean, dishonest politics is to punish them for it. As long as it works, they and others will keep using it.

And yes, that means the Obama campaign needs to get tougher with them. There are so many targets...the tax returns, Hillary's mythical experience on national security, etc.

Posted by cm | March 5, 2008 1:48 AM

Well, he has called her on natl. security, just not that publicly:

http://tinyurl.com/28zts2

Posted by ZednCu | March 5, 2008 1:49 AM

"By your standard, Hillary has only been "standing for universal health care" for a few weeks now, since a bit after Edwards came out with his plan."

She actually xeroxed the Edwards plan right after Labor Day 2007. That's about six months ago.

And if Obama were to somehow reverse himself and adopt the Edwards plan tomorrow, Barack would suddenly be OK by me too.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 1:53 AM

I don't want to pile on Petey while he's absent, but if he's under the impression a Democrat can be elected president with no independent votes, he must be stuck in 1964.

Not to belabor the point, but the 60 Minutes thing just really goes to show what an unprincipled sleaze Hillary is, so much so that the pro-Hillary blogs were too embarrassed to bring it up. But hey, she's suddenly pretending she's against the war, and she's white! Yippee!

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 1:53 AM

I think Obama would probably be a fine president (certainly far better than McCain), his internet supporters are one of the most obnoxious cults out there. Look at all the spoiled, entitled whining in this thread. This is politics, your man is showing weakness, if he keeps showing weakness he will lose. Deal.

With the exception of the Potomac Primary in Maryland and Virginia, every time Hillary has faced Obama in a major state primary where media (as opposed to caucus organization) was key, she has won. If Obama can't regain his momentum -- if Hillary takes Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and do-overs in Florida and Michigan -- then there's no way Obama takes the nomination. Going in there with all those delegates from winner-take-all caucuses in North Dakota or Vermont or whatever is not going to do it against a major party figure who has swept just about all the most populous states.

On to Pennsylvania. May the best person for the party win.

Posted by mq | March 5, 2008 1:55 AM

The Hillary Clinton v. Barack Obama thing reminds me of MTV's: Celebrity Death Match. Announcer: And, Clinton just handed Obama his head ... but wait ... he's screwed it back on; and, he's holding up a chalkboard. What's he trying to say? Oh no, it's the total number of delegates he's won! That's got to hurt folks. Clinton is countering with the kitchen sink. Obama's got a blowtorch. Wow! That sink is red hot; he's welding the pipes together. Wait, who's that getting into the ring? Hey, he's not supposed to ... look out Obama! Bill Clinton just handed Hillary, a pair of oven mitts. Oh, here comes Michelle Obama ... with five-gallon jerry can of Texas style barbeque sauce. Man that stuff is hot. She's marinating both Clintons. Folks this is humiliating. Those Texas delegates just threw Barack a flamethrower ... oh no ... but wait, who’s that? It’s Monica Lewinsky; the Clintons are using her as a human shield. Well fans, somebody’s got to win this primary, but it doesn’t look like it’ll be Monica: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 5, 2008 1:56 AM

I won't vote for Hillary in a general election. The clincher was her mocking of him with the whole "the sky will open and everything will be alright" thing literally days after claiming how "honored" she was to be on the same stage with Obama at the debate.

Before this entire election started I would have been honored to vote for either Hillary or Obama. True, I was, and am, an Obama supporter.

But watching how Hillary has conducted herself, ranging from dismissing states she hasn't won as unimportant (including my own), refusing to congratulate her opponent when he wins and she loses, to trying to get states that all candidates agreed would not count seated, to her continual racist approach to campaigning and smear tactics have soured me on her.

Since I cannot in good conscience vote for McCain, who is so insane that he'll vote to allow torture even though is a former POW, and I refuse to indulge Nader's narcissism by voting for him, I'll sit this election out if Obama doesn't win the nomination at this point.

This is just one person posting on a blog, but I'm probably not the only one. Hillary Clinton has done serious and lasting damage to the party with the tactics that she has used. After eight long, LONG, long years of Bush I was looking forward to someone different. The realization that I've gradually come to is that Hillary isn't enough of a difference to qualify in my mind.

Posted by Jim Crozier | March 5, 2008 1:56 AM

I thought Clinton's opening remarks tonight in her speech were quite canny - it's very late in the day, but by finding a way to emotionally connect to potential voters "this is for those of you who've been knocked down and got up one more time..." she gives her continued candidacy a purpose which is about more than just experience vs change.

Oh good grief. For all the talk about the narcissism of the Obama campaign, the Clinton campaign continues to be about the noble struggle of the multi-millionaire former First Lady who would be denied the Presidency by all kinds of nefarious forces. Maybe others find that this resonates with their daily struggles, but personally, I find the characteristically self-indulgent comparison to be absurd.

Posted by RS | March 5, 2008 1:58 AM

And this election has been quite polite in general, certainly compared to what the general is going to look like. If Obama can't handle the tame stuff Hillary has been throwing at him, then he shouldn't be nominated.

Posted by mq | March 5, 2008 1:58 AM

Just let it be known. If Hillary usurps Obama and takes the democrat nomination, I am voting for John McCain in the

fall. And I am going to defect to the republican party for the foreseeable future. And I will do everything in my (albeit limited) power to ensure Hillary loses and McCain wins in november. Fuck Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Nick | March 5, 2008 12:54 AM

Hopefully a blood vessel in her brain will explode tomorrow. That would solve the problem.

I'll be praying hard for that tonight.

Posted by patriot | March 5, 2008 12:59 AM

Obama needs to go negative - REAL negative. Nuke negative. Through surrogates, of course, not himself. Take the gloves off. Blacken the evil creature's name to an extent that she will be one of the most hated women in history.

And it should be easy. You KNOW how much oppo on her has to be out there.

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 1:04 AM

Cute. Is this going to become another one of those sites for the next few months? That would be sad, Mr. Yglesias.

Sheesh no one will ever convince me that Obama supporters on the net aren't more obnoxious, I've seen too much evidence, there's almost no way one could make up for it. I don't have a favorite as to either candidate, I think they both have good sides and bad sides that balance out. Supporters, though, that's different: if anyone's tearing the party apart, it's Obamabots on the net. I don't understand why his netroots outreach is not trying to tamp down things he himself would Sister Souljah. It really reflects badly on him, much worse than what Hillary surrogates do, because it's so common, constantly scattered all over the liberal blogosphere.

Posted by artappraiser | March 5, 2008 1:59 AM

"I don't want to pile on Petey while he's absent, but if he's under the impression a Democrat can be elected president with no independent votes, he must be stuck in 1964."

I think Clinton is going to get her fair share of independents in the general election while losing fewer Democrats to McCain than Obama would.

Of course getting independent votes in the general election is a good thing. But choosing a nominee who loses the Democratic primary vote to accomplish that task is a bad thing. That's a trade-off you consider making in a bad year for your Party, not in a good year for your Party.

And 2008 is indeed a good year for Democrats.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2008 1:59 AM

We're going to take down Obama, and then we're going to take down McCain.

And then we're going to bomb Iran, yeeeeaaaaaaaaa!

Where are Hillary's tax returns?

Yes yes yes. Obama cannot go negative but he can insist that Hillary be "fully vetted" prior to a general election. If Clinton's evasiveness happens to remind the country of travelgate and other sordid scandals in the Clinton past, well so be it. I don't think such and approach would rub off on him like a negative attack would.

Posted by Just Karl | March 5, 2008 1:59 AM

"And yes, that means the Obama campaign needs to get tougher with them."

No, he doesn't. His campaign knew that the nomination would not be a knockout, simply because Hillary has a very solid base that's not moving very much. It's not negativity, unprincipled politics, etc. it's a big mountain of support. Obama has more of it (which is why, even tonight, HRC people are talking about which groups really count), so he'll be fine if he keeps playing his game. You can't expect to come out of nowhere and then just overwhelm a candidate that has been the favorite for three years.

Posted by Colatina | March 5, 2008 1:59 AM

YES SHE WILL!

/plagiarism with a stupid twist

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 2:00 AM

I think tonight's even better for Hillary than I originally said up there an hour ago. Josh Marshall just posted a video of Chuck Todd talking about delegates and how Obama is dominating the caucus in Texas. His adopted the tone that due to delegate math Hillary's victories are hollow. But I can see people thinking -- "That's strange, but he lost the primary. What is this caucus thing?"

The Obama campaign really doesn't want anyone thinking or talking about that. Having Obama win a two-to-one margin in the caucus on the same day that he loses a primary in the same state undercuts *every single one of his caucus victories* because Hillary can say "I would have won those too if they were fair!!!"

Will the media buy it? Will the voters? Will the superdelegates? No idea. But she's back.

Posted by Ryan | March 5, 2008 2:01 AM

Sheesh no one will ever convince me that Obama supporters on the net aren't more obnoxious, I've seen too much evidence, there's almost no way one could make up for it. I don't have a favorite as to either candidate, I think they both have good sides and bad sides that balance out. Supporters, though, that's different: if anyone's tearing the party apart, it's Obamabots on the net....It really reflects badly on him

I agree completely with this. It's sad, because Obama himself has been pretty classy on the campaign trail. Probably more so than Hillary (although she hasn't been that bad). But on the net...whew. A bunch of whiny immature cultists. The Republicans are starting to use the whole "Obama cult" thing to dismiss him too.

Posted by mq | March 5, 2008 2:03 AM

LarryM,
I believe and empathize with your reluctance to embrace bullshit, and I fully understand that this is primarily what politicians produce-Obama included.
To all that I ask, who so far has been willing to attempt to frame the campaign argument in (albeit marginally) different terms? To me, that clearly is the candidate we both represent. I don't expect the sky to open up and angels to rain down on me and hand out an affordable healthcare premium to me and all my neighbors. But I do expect that politicians, whose career should (and I realize that is the opperative word)depend on a politically active citizenship, at least posture toward a type of discourse that makes it okay for everyone to join in a policy debate. Including Clinton and McCain. I don't see them doing that to the same extent (indeed at all).
Preaching to the choir done.

Posted by colleeniem | March 5, 2008 2:03 AM

Creamy, are you an idiot? Voting for McCain, more than anyone else, guarantees ForeverWar. I'll call on a far better writer than me to explain the consequences of that:

"To the victors the most brilliant of successes, to the vanquished the most calamitous of defeats; for they were utterly and entirely defeated; their sufferings were on an enormous scale; their losses were, as they say, total; army, navy, everything was destroyed, and, out of many, only a few returned. So ended the events in Sicily."

A President McCain will assuredly result in our own Sicilian Expedition, if we're not there already. I hope you enjoy it.

Posted by Greg | March 5, 2008 2:03 AM

artappraiser, you should check out Taylor Marsh. Here, it's a fraction that gets nasty. There, it's pretty much required.

Posted by ZednCu | March 5, 2008 2:04 AM

Let me also go on record that I hope Obama does NOT go negative on Hillary Clinton.

There is a difference between arguing a legitimate difference of an opinion on the issues and burning the entire liberal agenda, which Hillary has shown an increasing willingness to do with her destructive campaign style.

I would rather Senator Obama stay on the positive, inclusive message that got him this far and lose than change that to win. Call me a naive, true-believing, head-in-the-clouds, Obama supporter if you like. Hell, we Obama supporters are fairly frequently called everything from naive to cultists to idiots by non-Obama supporters.

But that's who I am. Folks who participate frequently on blogs forget that you vocal gladiator types are a minority of the population who are fighting it out bare fisted. Most of the rest of us are tired of the same old shit year after year. Say what you want about me being naive, but I want that dynamic to change. If Hillary wins the nomination and then wins the general election, the entire Republican party will spend years fund-raising off of her and blocking her agenda. She cannot build a large enough coalition to actually get anything meaningful done.

Can Obama? Who knows. Maybe and maybe not. But I think he has a chance to.

So please Senator Obama, don't listen to the people here. Stay the candidate that you have been and continue to lead by example.

Posted by Jim Crozier | March 5, 2008 2:06 AM

Just Karl, it's spelled "Byaaah!"

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 2:06 AM

I think Clinton is dragging this out as long as possible because she thinks the democrats have a real chance at winning. She sees the machine Obama has built, and she wants to drive it really bad. Compared to the junker McCain is running, it seems like it's guaranteed to win the race.

The thing is, if even 10% of Obama's support are sore losers and sit out in the general, she'll likely be attending President McCain's inauguration. By going negative on Obama, she's making it more likely that his support will not be happy to see him fall, and they won't solidify under her in the primary. In effect, she can drive his car all she wants, but the engine will be missing.

If the dems have any sense they'll end this tomrrow instead of letting their eventual candidate get savaged by his own party for months on end.

Posted by mullingitover | March 5, 2008 2:08 AM

And this election has been quite polite in general, certainly compared to what the general is going to look like. If Obama can't handle the tame stuff Hillary has been throwing at him, then he shouldn't be nominated.

This line is frequently offered as a defense of Clinton's various smears and false attacks (presumably because other defenses don't easily present themselves), but seems to confuse the substantive argument that these smears and false attacks are objectively distasteful with some kind of strawman process argument that Obama shouldn't forcefully respond to such attacks. Of course he'll get treated to some of this nonsense and of course he ought to run an effective campaign that overcomes it, but it doesn't make the nonsense any less nonsensical.

Posted by RS | March 5, 2008 2:09 AM

Hillary is doing everything in her power to hurt the Democrat's chances in November. Looks like that is exactly what she wants.

If it was any other candidate, they would have left the race after 11 straight losses.

And if it was Obama who said "Shame on you Hillary Clinton", he would have been crucified in the press. But instead it was Hillary who said "Shame on you Barack Obama" one day after claiming she was honored to share the stage with him.

This woman has absolutely no scruples.

Posted by KR | March 5, 2008 2:11 AM

People can barely peel themselves off the couch to vote for a candidate they like. People don't go to the polls to vote for someone they hate because of some lame speculation about electability. "Let's rally the conservative base for Hillary!! Her head to head poll numbers are 4 points worse than Obama's and negatives are still over 40%! Tally ho!" Not every lame idea some activist thinks up actually becomes a feature of mass behavior.

I thought I'd actually go ahead and look this up.

Here's what the CNN exit poll (for Texas) has to say:

Vote By Party ID:

Democrat (67%): 54% Clinton, 45% Obama
Republican (9%): 47% Clinton, 52% Obama
Independent (24%): 49% Clinton, 48% Obama

Compare to, say, the Missouri exit poll, another Open Primary state:

Vote By Party ID:

Democrat (73%): 50% Clinton, 47% Obama
Republican (6%): 21% Clinton, 75% Obama
Independent (22%): 30% Clinton, 67% Obama

So, okay, Republicans and Indpendents were WAY more likely to vote for Clinton in the Texas primary than they were in the Missouri primary. What explains that?

I see three possibilities:

1. There's some inherent difference between TX Republicans and Independents and MO Republicans and Independents. TX Republicans have always been more comfortable with Clinton than MO Republicans.

I'd be a little surprised if this were the case. If anything, I'd expect TX Republicans to be more conservative than other states.

2. Between 2/5 and 3/4, Clinton tacked rightward and gained the sympathies of Republicans and Independents, or Obama tacked leftward and lost them.

Can anyone point to such a move by either candidate? I don't see any credible explanations there, except maybe the NAFTA brouhaha.

I'd be more inclined to accept that Independents may have been swayed to Clinton than Republicans.

3. Republicans and Independents who favor McCain voted tactically.

While I don't normally put much credit into tactical voting, I think that the numbers suggest that it may have happened here.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | March 5, 2008 2:12 AM

What I have yet to hear from anybody is a realistic scenario for how Hillary Clinton takes the nomination without blowing the Democratic Party all to hell.

What is the Party going to say to the millions of newly-inspired African American voters, or to the millions of young people who have been drawn into the political process by Obama? "Whoops, sorry-- all that good energy you brought to the Party is going to be ignored, because the superdelegates just voted to give Hillary the nomination, despite Obama's lead in earned delegates."

That just isn't going to fly. There will an outpouring of anger and disillusionment that could spell the end of the Democratic Party. And to think that this is happening in a year when the Republicans are handing us the fucking White House, gift-wrapped.

We are headed for a trainwreck, and I hope that Howard Dean has the good sense to straighten this out before it's too late.

Posted by cousin vinnie | March 5, 2008 2:13 AM

The Republicans are starting to use the whole "Obama cult" thing to dismiss him too.

Coming from the people who want to rename the entire United States after Ronald Reagan, that's rich. Not to put too fine a point on it, but who gives a shit what they think?

Will the media buy it? Will the voters? Will the superdelegates? No idea. But she's back.

You don't get to be a superdelegate by being a complete idiot, so I doubt they will buy it. he media are obviously another story.

I shouldn't have to explain this to the Hillarybots, but not everything that goes against your girl was specifically drawn up to go against your girl. The rules in Texas have been like this all along, before anyone knew who Barack Obama was. Bill Clinton never once complained about them as a candidate. Now, they're illegitimate because Hillary might not win.

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 2:13 AM

I think on the whole, Hillary has been much more "dirty" and unfair than Obama, and I'm a supporter of hers. That said, I don't think the general tone of the primary campaign is all that horrible and it certainly doesn't offset the huge gains of a protracted race (free media, organization, etc.). Short of Hillary calling Obama the "n-word" or Obama holding up a stained-blue dress at a campaign rally, I'm happy to see this go to Pennsylvania and possibly beyond.

Posted by Ryan | March 5, 2008 2:15 AM

But on the net...whew. A bunch of whiny immature cultists. The Republicans are starting to use the whole "Obama cult" thing to dismiss him too.

Is this how it works? Overinterpret some cherry-picked comments from the internet to argue that a candidate's supporters are literally cultists, and then express concern that the Republicans will borrow the farcical meme that you've created to attack that candidate?

Posted by RS | March 5, 2008 2:16 AM

Ohio is making everyone forget February, when he won the majority of the white vote

No, it's not. Obama has won the white Democrat vote in two primaries--New Mexico and Illinois. He wins caucus votes, but that isn't a meaningful metric of actual white Dem support.

When Obama wins the white vote in the primaries, he does it with independents--not Democrats.

As I said, he has a major weakness. He has only won one race without the overwhelming presence of blacks (over 30%), liberals (caucuses), or independents/Republicans (gave him the huge margin in Virginia and Wisconsin).

Blacks are important (liberals aren't, though). However, they aren't more important than white and Hispanic Democrats, and Obama has enormous and unshakeable disadvantages in both groups.

Posted by Cal | March 5, 2008 2:19 AM

Michael E Sullivan - Further to your post, consider the numbers from Virginia, Wisconsin, and Ohio:

72-28 obama in wisconsin
72-23 obama in virginia

54-45 obama in ohio

I'm pretty skeptical of the "tactical voting" explanation as well, but there's at least some reason to consider the idea.

Posted by RS | March 5, 2008 2:19 AM

What is the Party going to say to the millions of newly-inspired African American voters, or to the millions of young people who have been drawn into the political process by Obama?

Just send Hillary and Ed Rendell out to explain to them patiently that while we need African-American voters, it's just asking too much to expect the party of Lyndon Johnson and John Lewis and Jesse Jackson to ever nominate one. Hopefully they will understand. Maybe Hillary could do her derisive black preacher voice again to really send the message home.

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 2:20 AM

Blacks are important (liberals aren't, though). However, they aren't more important than white and Hispanic Democrats, and Obama has enormous and unshakeable disadvantages in both groups.

I think there are sound electability arguments on both sides, but with respect to that issue, why should we believe that white and Hispanic Democrats are more important than Republicans and independents (whom you concede to be breaking for Obama)? Aren't the latter groups more "swingable"?

Posted by RS | March 5, 2008 2:22 AM

I am not at all surprised by the Obamanots (is this was we're calling them?) ever-presence. And they should be taken with the grain of salt that a majority of them probably are part and parcel to his base-young voters, whose savvyness with the internet does not exceed their persuasive argument abilities. I do not condone their behavior, but maybe we should try and look at what the reason for their viralness (again, not a word?). This is the outlet they know, developed without established etiquette and rules of restraint. We shouldn't be cheering that the masses use this forum the way they do and represent a candidate poorly, but they're active they way they know how to be--and for a voter who has not been alive without a Bush or Clinton in the White House, that is really saying something.

Posted by colleeniem | March 5, 2008 2:25 AM

Unfortunately, Obama was unable to deliver the knockout punch tonight. Here's what happens next. Al Gore and John Edwards and Bill Richardson endorse Obama. A compromise on Florida and Michigan that splits them 50/50 or based on the pledged delegate count or with a revote. Superdelegates line up in a straw poll that guarantees Obama gets the nomination. Hilary is told by her Senate colleagues that she has a choice between relevancy or irrelevancy. This happens over the next two weeks. Pennsylvania ratifies Obama as the nominee and Hilary suspends her campaign.

Posted by elliottg | March 5, 2008 2:27 AM

With the exception of the Potomac Primary in Maryland and Virginia, every time Hillary has faced Obama in a major state primary where media (as opposed to caucus organization) was key, she has won.

Geez, you want to add a few more qualifiers on there, mq? I mean, why bother to let all those people vote for the Democratic nomination at all if they don't really count?

Posted by Redshift | March 5, 2008 2:27 AM

RS: It's Michael B Sullivan. There's a Michael E Sullivan who also sometimes comments on political blogs, maybe including this one. I am not he.

Having thought more about it, I could see the drop off in Obama's share of Independents as being due to Clinton's negative campaigning: he was maybe up on a pedestal before, and seeing some tarnish on him might have an unusually profound effect.

But I don't buy that explaining Clinton's higher share of Republicans. I could believe that attacks on Obama could convince his Republican supporters to stay home, but not to vote for Clinton. And they clearly didn't stay home in Texas: 9% of the Democratic primary were Republicans!

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | March 5, 2008 2:29 AM

On independents--I think the obvious explanation isn't tactical voting, but that Texas independents pattern closely with Oklahoma (where Hillary won independents).

Again, independents aren't any one thing, which is why it's moronic to point to Obama's support among them in the primaries as meaningful.

Posted by Cal | March 5, 2008 2:30 AM

Michael B Sullivan - Apologies for the confusion. Your theorizing appears sound on its face, but we really lack the data to make any meaningful claims here.

Posted by RS | March 5, 2008 2:33 AM

And really, cousin Vinnie's response is THE bottom line. And I haven't heard ANY Clinton supporter even attempt to answer it. Oh, there are plenty of arguments as to why there wouldn't be anything wrong with the superdelegates voting for the candidate who is behind in the pledged delegate count. But those arguments, logical or not, even if they are correct at some level of Platonic truth, aren't going to convince angry Obama supporters. That's not even mentioning people like me (who honestly wouldn't care as much about such a scenario, but who have plenty of other reasons not to vote for Clinton).

I mean, the most optimistic scenarios for Clinton right now would still leave her roughly 100 delegates behind come the convention. And if she somehow goes into the convention 100 delegates behind and still gets the nomination, it WILL, at a 100% level of certainty, tear the party apart and guarantee a McCain victory.

No one has really disputed this logic. Instead we have this bloodless analysis of why Hillary "should" win, even if she is behind in delegates.

And really that's Clinton in a nutshell. I don't expect her to have much int he way of loyalty to the Democratic party (I sure don't any more), but her vicious pursuit of a nomination (against a candidate who, on the issues, is fairly close to her) which, if she somehow wins it, will only lead to guaranteed defeat ... well, selfish and self involved doesn't begin to say it.

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 2:34 AM

One more depressing note from Ohio: idiot Dennis Kucinich is keeping his seat from the 10th District. I thought maybe the people there would be tired of having a congressman who doesn't want to do his job. Guess not.

It looks like my county was Obama's best county. Small comfort.

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 2:36 AM

Again, independents aren't any one thing, which is why it's moronic to point to Obama's support among them in the primaries as meaningful.

I have no idea what this means. Do they all have to have the same skin color or some such for their voting tendencies to become meaningful?
The only relevant question about them is how swingable they are, a question that is equally relevant for the Latinos and downscale whites that the Clinton supporters are touting as their unique assets.

Posted by RS | March 5, 2008 2:36 AM

RS: No problem on the name, and agreed on the substance.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | March 5, 2008 2:37 AM

Greg: Creamy, are you an idiot?

*bow*

Certain conservatives on conservative sites I visit seem to think so. Certain liberals on liberal sites I visit also seem to think so.

Regardless of ideology, my idiocy quotient closely correlates with tolerance for dissent. People who can't stand disagreement tend to dismiss me as an idiot. People who enjoy robust debate, not so much.

Voting for McCain, more than anyone else, guarantees ForeverWar.

One of the tragedies of the ongoing stalemate for the Democratic nomination is that neither candidate can afford to engage John McCain fully on the debate over Iraq. I think an Obama/McCain debate would be very good for the country. I also suspect that MY is right and that Obama would win.

But it's going to be harder than you think to leave Iraq.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | March 5, 2008 2:39 AM

I think there are sound electability arguments on both sides, but with respect to that issue, why should we believe that white and Hispanic Democrats are more important than Republicans and independents (whom you concede to be breaking for Obama)?

Because it's not "Republicans and independents" who break for Obama. It's "republicans and independents who vote in Democratic primaries", and that's a whole nother thing, with an enormous selection bias.

So when you say "Yeah, Clinton wins the democratic voters, but Obama wins Republicans", you aren't comparing apples to apples.

No one has any idea who the independents and Republicans will vote for in the fall, and every single bit of history says that candidates who do well with independents in primaries can't count on their vote in the fall.

BTW, my previous post about independents was addressed to the issue of tactical voting, not your question.

Posted by Cal | March 5, 2008 2:40 AM

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751

The link enclosed takes you to a Daily Kos post by 'Pocket Nines.' He lays out the math, and it is absolutely devastating for Hillary Clinton.
There is no scenario where she can overtake Obama in earned delegates. None. Her only path to the nomination is some sort of flim-flam with the superdelegates, and that would be flat out unacceptable to a huge % of Democrats.

As a party, we have got to acknowledge the reality and put an end to this madness.

Posted by cousin vinnie | March 5, 2008 2:43 AM

Matt,

Hillary might be behind in the delegate count, but Obama will not have enough delegates to win either. Todd stated that on MSNBC. It's going to come down to FL, MI, and the superdelegates.

Hillary has won all the big states except for Missouri, and she lost by 1%. Obama outspent her 3 to 1. He had favorable media coverage until this weekend. The Saturday Night Live skits were right on, and the Jack Nicholson endorsement is a hit on the web.

You have discounted both Hillary and her supporters and underestimated the power of her campaign. If Howard Dean and the superdelegates try to hand this nomination to Obama, she will be a write in candidate in November.

Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas - thank you so much for this night. You are awesome!

Go Hillary 08!!!!

Posted by EWard | March 5, 2008 2:45 AM

Latino Voters in Texas & California

Thank you so much for supporting Hillary.

Go Team Hillary!!!!

Posted by EWard | March 5, 2008 2:52 AM

This is a sad night for me though I am sure I would feel better tomorrow. I really like Obama and for him to lose two big states is devastating. Whoever wins the nomination, please for the love of god, don't pull any sleazy tactics before november.I want one candidate that I did not have to hold my nose for ONCE during November.

Posted by nyx | March 5, 2008 2:57 AM

"With the exception of the Potomac Primary in Maryland and Virginia, every time Hillary has faced Obama in a major state primary where media (as opposed to caucus organization) was key, she has won."

Mq,

Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Georgia, and South Carolina are major states also, and Obama won the primaries in those states, and media is very important in those states. In addition, most of Hillary Clinton's wins in big state primaries came on Super Tuesday, where her greater name recognition and institutional support could not be blunted in time by Obama's organization.

When you look at the post Super Tuesday big state primaries, where Obama and Clinton competed on a more equal basis, the record is mixed. Obama won Virginia & Maryland & Wisconsin, and Clinton won Ohio and Texas. Obama won Virginia and Maryland 60-40, and won Wisconsin 58-41. Clinton won Ohio 55-43, and won Texas 51-47. Obama's Wisconsin win and Clinton's Ohio win amount to a wash. Moreover, while Texas is a much bigger prize than Virginia/Maryland, Obama only lost Texas by four percentage points. This means that neither has a decisive advantage in big state primaries when they compete head-to-head. Moreover, just as Obama's decisive win in Wisconsin did not lead to a win in Ohio, Clinton's decisive win in Ohio won't necessarily lead to a win in Pennsylvania.

Posted by eltoro | March 5, 2008 3:00 AM

Because it's not "Republicans and independents" who break for Obama. It's "republicans and independents who vote in Democratic primaries", and that's a whole nother thing, with an enormous selection bias. . . . So when you say "Yeah, Clinton wins the democratic voters, but Obama wins Republicans", you aren't comparing apples to apples. . . . No one has any idea who the independents and Republicans will vote for in the fall, and every single bit of history says that candidates who do well with independents in primaries can't count on their vote in the fall.

First, while I understand the limits of making electability inferences based on the Democratic primary votes of different groups, I don't really understand how this explains why the vote of Republicans/independents is less meaningful than that of white and Latino Democrats.

Yes, due to the lack of granular data, we don't know for certain that the Republicans/independents that Obama is winning are actually as likely or more likely to defect to the Republican nominee than the ones that Clinton are winning. But by the same token, we don't know for certain that the white and Latino Democrats that Clinton is winning are actually more likely to defect to the Republican nominee than the ones that Obama is winning.

Second, notwithstanding the absence of the detailed data that we need to resolve that question, it seems fair to presume that self-identified Republicans and independents voting in the Dem primary are more likely to defect than self-identified white and Latino Democrats voting in the Dem primary. But if you've got data suggesting otherwise, I'm happy to see it.

Posted by RS | March 5, 2008 3:08 AM

It looks like Obama's winning Texas on delegates-- so they split the night, two wins each, with Clinton pulling a single-digit delegate gain out of the affair. That's huge for her, because it marks the first time in the entire campaign she's actually won a night's elections. Realistically, I've seen math suggesting she could win each and every remaining contest by more than 24% and she'd still lose by 50 or so delegates.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | March 5, 2008 4:49 AM

As a Mexican-American Obama supporter, I am ashamed at my peepz for voting for a power-mad guera over a simpatico mulatto brotha. Brown is brown, hermanos y hermanas, and this pendeja is stiff drink of more of the same racist bullshit we saw under her tubby hubby. Vote Barry O, Latinos of Wyoming! Lo siento, I mean Latino...

Posted by Gregorio | March 5, 2008 4:50 AM

What I nhave noticed is on the Republican side, when major candidates have lost. They get out of the way and they endorsed John McCain. Thompson, Romney, Giuliani they all done it. They didn't like it but they done it. Credit to them.

Hillary has lost 11 contests, and she now still wants to continue when there is no path for her.
Only Dodd has endorsed Obama. No Richardson, No Biden, No Edwards. This is a selfish party that only thinks of itself.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 5, 2008 5:36 AM

This is a really divided party when it comes to these two candidates, right now things are a mess in terms of any argument of why one or the other can or cannot win, that mess will not end cleanly now no matter what happens, and the entire campaign ceased being about major policy, organizational, and supporter differences maybe two months ago.

From now on it's a battle of attrition. In such circumstances I give a narrow edge to Clinton. Not for any great or even admirable reasons, but for my intuitions about how HRC has many of these questionable routes to explore and may very well do so at whatever cost to the party it may seem (a cost which itself is an argument which I see as real, but which many, many Democrats do not).

And it may also be the case, the simple reality of life, that the height which the modern Democratic Party can aspire to is the weak, disappointing, and loss-trending land of the 1990s.

I also agree with a theme expressed previously: given the stage we're in past any major differences, I just can't be pretended to be interested in its intricacies anymore.

Posted by El Cid | March 5, 2008 6:27 AM

Just a couple quick overview notes:

First, there appear to be some people who still think momentum is a significant factor in this contest, and that as a result Clinton now has a chance to win or at least significantly close the pledged delegate contest even though she failed to do that last night, which was her best remaining opportunity to do so. I would suggest that next week's contests in Wyoming and Mississippi will put those ideas to the final test. Specifically, if Obama wins those two states by significant margins, and if between those states and the states tonight he ends up increasing his pledged delegate lead, I think it will finally become clear to all concerned that momentum is not a strong factor in this contest and that Clinton has no real hope of significantly closing the pledged delegate gap with the remaining contests.

Second, it appears that many people still don't realize that math applies to the superdelegates. Specifically, if Clinton cannot significantly close the pledged delegate gap, she could get more superdelegate votes than Obama and still lose the nomination by a wide margin. I am not sure exactly what it will take to make this point clear to people, but I suspect it wouldn't hurt if Obama continued to close the superdelegate gap.

Of course, strictly speaking that isn't necessary: Obama has already closed the superdelegate gap more than far enough to win the nomination (assuming that the remaining superdelegates allocate themselves in roughly the same percentages to Clinton and Obama as they have so far, which is a very charitable assumption for Clinton). But I suspect that from this point forward, any stories drawing attention to the superdelegate count will gradually get people to start thinking more seriously about how math applies to the superdelegates. And when they do, it should become obvious why it is not realistic for Clinton supporters to hope that the superdelegates will save her.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 7:03 AM

If Hillary is the nominee the big winner will be...

George W. Bush.

If both candidates for the general election supported this terrible war in Iraq, it will absolutely be used as evidence to prop up his awful legacy. Just a little side note to ponder.

Posted by swarty | March 5, 2008 7:30 AM

What Texas and Ohio mean is that Hillary can raise enough money to pay back the Clintons' loans to the campaign.

Posted by Carrington Ward | March 5, 2008 7:35 AM

Even though I strongly dislike Hillary I think she has an argument for the nomination, based on the fact that she is winning the most reliable Democratic voters who will show up at the polls in the general election (ie, white women). We have no guarantee that Obamacans or Obamo-independents will stay with him in the general, we know 50 year old plus white women will stay with Hillary.

I do not like this fact, and I am distraught that Obama's potential redrawing of the electoral map, as shown in Wisconsin and Virginia, did not hold for Ohio or Texas.

The Democrats have a big problem on their (our) hands, where whichever side is edged out of the nomination will be bitter and make proclamations how they'll never vote for the other nominee. I feel that way. I can't STAND Hillary and her politics of fear, veiled racism, nasty innuedo, and entitlement. But, do I want McCain and 4-8 more years of republicans?

I think a Michigan and Florida redo is now necessary to help clear things up.

Unfortunately our country is still very retrograde and I don't know if Obama can triumph, as much as that's what I want for 21st century America.

Posted by minna | March 5, 2008 7:40 AM

On the supposed irrationality of Democrats voting for McCain over Hillary:

Not if you think dynastic politics is -- has already proved to be -- a long term HUGE negative. Not if you think the Clintons did huge damage to the Democratic Party the last time they were in office. Not if you think it's in the long term interests of the Democratic Party to field yet another candidate who supported the Iraq War.

People contemplating voting for McCain aren't blind to his policies, but they may think it's more strategically sensible to stick him with the Iraq mess, since George Bush has done his level best to make sure it's a problem for the next President, rather than one he fixes himself. And McCain has one term written all over him. Better a more appealing Democrat in 2012 than Billary for another 8 possible years. They didn't do shit for progressive causes last time around.

Posted by Bill | March 5, 2008 7:44 AM

I don't really understand how this explains why the vote of Republicans/independents is less meaningful than that of white and Latino Democrats.

It's not a matter of being less meaningful, but which indicator is leaps and bounds more reliable.

If it were a pure sample of Republicans and independents who were expressing their direct preference for Obama over McCain, then it might be meaningful.

But it's not. It's a skewed sample. Simply by voting in the Dem primary, the Republicans and independents expressed a skew. You have no idea first, whether these same voters would prefer Obama over McCain. Second, you have no idea whether these independents and Republicans are a representative sameple.

Thus, the Democrat vote--which, except for caucuses, is not skewed--is a far more reliable indicator.

Republican and independent support is a nice to have--that is, it might give you some information about how to appeal to them in the general. But their behavior can't be generalized.

So you're saying "How come independents and Republican support matters less?" and that's not the question. The question is "Can I predict that Republicans and independents will support Obama based on their support", and the answer is no.

In fact, the far more reliable indicator for Republican preferences is conservative blue-collar Democrats.

Posted by Cal | March 5, 2008 7:53 AM

I totally agree with the vote-against-dynasty argument but then what about pushing the Supreme Court (further) over the edge not to mention billions (now up to 3 trillion) more into the war? Alot can happen in 4 years and McPOW might have an appealing personality but he's a weasel, who will owe favors to the far right for being elected/crowned.

What potential paths of semi-acceptable reconciliation do people see in terms of choosing a Democratic nominee?

Posted by minna | March 5, 2008 7:54 AM

I think on the whole, Hillary has been much more "dirty" and unfair than Obama, and I'm a supporter of hers.

And I admit that is part of Hillary's appeal to me as a candidate. I know she'll be even worse to McCain.

Short of ... Obama holding up a stained-blue dress at a campaign rally,

Truthfully, I'd have a lot more respect for Obama's potential for giving a death-blow to his opponent in an election if he did something like this. I want to know that a candidate has a killer instinct, and I keep waiting to see it from Obama and... it's not happening.

He needs to heed the message of Gore Vidal: "It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail."

I can't STAND Hillary and her politics of fear, veiled racism, nasty innuedo, and entitlement. But, do I want McCain and 4-8 more years of republicans?

Look, to those who are going to feel "cheated" and embittered by having their candidate of choice lose the Democratic primary, here's the solution: don't donate any money, don't volunteer, don't hold a sign outside your window. Just get involved with a local campaign of your choice and vote for the Democratic presidential candidate on election day: you do your duty without feeling like you've sullied yourself.

Posted by Tyro | March 5, 2008 8:07 AM

WHY WON'T THE CLINTONS RELEASE THEIR TAX RETURNS?...

http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html

.

Posted by Onslow | March 5, 2008 8:15 AM

I just can't get behind people saying Obama won't be able to turn out hardcore Dems in November. I mean, you have to admit that a HUGE percentage of them automatically vote Hillary when they see the last name. And if Obama wins it, and Hillary does the respectful (and pretty much required) thing of endorsing him, I honestly thing he'll be fine with the base, at which point it becomes a race for an independent.

Any hardcore Democrat who isn't terrified of McCain should have their citizenship taken away.

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 8:17 AM

I'm not into gloom and doom. Obama over the past week showed that he's not quite ready for prime time yet- he hasn't figured out how to parry attacks (which after all are mild compared to what our candidate can expect in the fall) while still getting his positive message across. Better he figures out how to do that now rather than struggling to figure it out in the fall. And if he can't adjust, that simply says to me that contrary to what I thought, Clinton really is our stronger GE candidate. But I think Obama will adjust and will show that he's the right candidate to win the GE.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 5, 2008 8:46 AM

Looks like Clinton wil pick up a net of 12 pledged delegates for the night. A lot of districts went narrowly 3-1 Clinton instead of 2-2.

Posted by eric1974 | March 5, 2008 8:48 AM

honestly thing he'll be fine with the base, at which point it becomes a race for an independent.

That's probably wishful thinking. In 2004, 12% of Democrats in California voted for Bush. Do you really think McCain won't pick up more than that? And if that's California, what will those numbers be like in Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania?

The Pew Report, which really goes into the granularity of the Dem electorate, shows 25% of Democrats willing to vote for McCain if Hillary isn't the nominee. Her support is far stronger than Obama's, and her voters are far more at risk for switching.

You might hope that Obama holds on to them, but it's difficult to realistically think that he will--particularly not in critical states.

Posted by Cal | March 5, 2008 8:56 AM

Obviously the arguments of people like Cal make no sense. In particular, they are simply ignoring a key piece of information, which is that partisanship has consistently proven itself to be the most important factor by far in determining people's choices in a general election--much more important than race, gender, socioeconomic class, or so on.

What that means is that it is very likely the vast majority of registered Democrats supporting either Clinton or Obama will switch their support to the other one in the event they become the nominee (barring something like a nomination process that is viewed as fundamentally illegitimate). Of course, there may be marginal differences in how they do among certain subgroups, but overall there is no reason to expect a significant difference in their performance among registered Democrats.

But obviously, partisanship does not apply to independents and cross-over Republicans. Now, it is true that Obama's support among independents and Republicans voting in the Democratic primaries is only a weak proxy for his overall support among independents and Republicans--although clearly it is far better to have that factor in your favor than not. But that evidence is supplemented by all the general polls of independents and Republicans, including head-to-head polls featuring McCain, which consistently show Obama outperforming Clinton among those groups.

Even then, no one can guarantee what will happen among these groups by November, after months of head-to-head campaigning and various external events. But the bottomline is that all the evidence available right now consistently suggests that Obama would start out WAY ahead of Clinton in these groups, and so it would be pretty foolish not to go with him in the absence of some very compelling counterargument--and Clinton has not been able to come up with such a counterargument.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 8:57 AM

This prolonged primary/caucus season is demonstrating that although both candidates have strong and committed support, both also have important flaws that are preventing voters from coalescing around either of them with full confidence. I suspect that those who aren't committed partisans are experiencing real bafflement about who to support. This has been interesting and a bit predictable to watch. I had a bad feeling things would go this way once the influx of independents and youth voters were able to beat Edwards in Iowa. I'm watching in wonderment as democrats figure out how to snatch defeat from victory in an election year that should have guaranteed a presidential win. I can only hope that the extended primary "toughens up" the winner instead of presenting him or her as "damaged goods."

Posted by downhill | March 5, 2008 8:57 AM

You know, I just thought of the perfect Obama ad. Video of Rush cheering on Clinton and taking credit for her victories.

On top of a tax return ad. Of course there is much, much more, and it would be best done through surrogates. Are there any pliant 527s out there like the ones that Clinton is using in PA?

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 8:59 AM

When the Individual Voter doesn't count:

So, Clinton wins the popular vote in a state but, because of The Rules, Obama gets more delegates.

Obama later claims that, since The Rules have permitted him to amass more delegates than Clinton, and since he carried more states (Idaho+Nebraska+Kansas=3 for him; California=1 for her), super-delegates must vote for him, regardless of The Rules.

It's as though One-Man/One-Vote was still a pending issue.

Seems like The Math, in '08, is about as democratic as was The Electoral College back in '00.

Only in America.

Posted by fjschmitz | March 5, 2008 9:01 AM

Obama HAS to get tougher, no question- and will need to do so in the fall as well. I'm disturbed by the signals currently coming out of his campaign (and from the candidate himself) that they think business as usual is going to cut it. It won't. Not now and certainly not in the GE.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 5, 2008 9:04 AM

You know, I just thought of the perfect Obama ad. Video of Rush cheering on Clinton and taking credit for her victories.

I suspect we are about to see a massive swell of independently produced viral videos attacking Clinton.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | March 5, 2008 9:36 AM

Definitely a big blow to Obama last night, but we saw this coming. HRC went negative and she sharpened her "experience" attack.

and i agree that the delegate math is a bloodless argument.

She talks like a scrapper on the stump, he talks like a professor.

to me, someone who consistently talks about how tough they are really isnt tough at all, so all her claims to mettle fall flat to me.

Obama HAS to:

1) label HRC, much better than he has been, as as the status quo. HRC says both she and McCain offer a lifetime of washington experience, fine, everything should be "McCain/Clinton" politics...and he has to ask a very valid question: how can she claim to fight drug companies and lobbyists on behalf of working folk when she takes more money from them than anyone running for president?

2) Hit back harder. Call her on her "experience," ask her to stop "blurring the lines" between President Clinton's achievements and her own. This will, of course, highlight the presidential schedules situation.

3) keep pushing her non transparency: "If Sen. Clinton won't be straight with us now during the Democratic primary, how can we expect transparency during a third Clinton Administration? (NOTE: i know the tax returns will be filed on tax day, but she still hasnt releasaed her returns from last year).

4) keep pushing the Dynastic angle. "We need new leaders, new ideas, fresh approaches to our politics. We can't afford to be held hostage to the same politics that get's nothing done and blames other people..."

5) talk tougher on the stump. unlike HRC, he actually has fought for working people, she studied community organizing, he lived it. He has a great line, "Working poeple brought me to politics, politics didnt bring me to working people." he needs to keep hammering that idea home - and contrast his humble beginnings with hers.

6) talk about being an American more on the stump and what it means to him. the muslim smear killed him in Ohio. He doesnt have to disavow Muslims but he has to, has to, wrap himself in the flag much more than he has been.

7) the tax returns are going to come out before Pennsylvania votes. Hopefully he'll get a boost from whatever she's been trying to hide.

8) he has to, has to, do a "till you drop" press conference about Rezko. i dont know why the fuck he hasn't done it already. does he honestly think people are going to forget?

9) tighten up his ship. No more nafta-gates, no more fodder to fuel the right wing nutjobs coming from Michelle.

10) keep his cool but be more agressive.

Posted by Enough | March 5, 2008 9:39 AM

Cal, a SurveyUSA poll found Obama doing BETTER than Hillary in match-ups against McCain in California. Ann Selzer has found that independents in Michigan are very skeptical of Hillary Clinton, and they were a big part of John Kerry's victory.

Her voters may be a lesser risk for switching, but they are probably not enough in and of themselves. Jimmy Carter got 77% of registered Democrats and won. John Kerry got 89% of registered Democrats and lost.

Posted by Dark Heart | March 5, 2008 9:39 AM

Yeah! All the way to June. Plenty of time to begin (or rather, continue) accusing Obama of actually being Osama (and black, and a drug-user, and supporting NAFTA (like she did, sheesh,..., he's such a hypocrite), and whatever else sticks) and to scare the super-delegates into supporting her (or "else") despite the fact that she'll never get enough delegates to overcome Obama's lead even if she wins all races from here on out. The only thing that matters here is "winning", ladies and gentlemen. Governance and leadership simply can't be left to the whims of some goofy idealists.

Speaking of, damn those "unreliable" independents, young people, and "small" states. How dare they think they should get to pick the nominee? And who do those peons think they are, to try to refute her obvious gobs and gobs of economic and foreign relations experience. Hosting secret healthcare reform meetings and watching other people do their job doesn’t count for nothing, you know. They need to understand that "rules is rules", even when they're not, like Florida and Michigan.

Even if we go all the way to June, she will still have plenty of time to accuse McCain of fathering an illegitimate interracial child ala' Rove. And the Manchurian candidate BS should work well on McInsane, too, you know, given all that, well,..., you know, nudge, nudge, hint, hint. Truly inspiring stuff, people. The bonus, of course, is that she'll begin triangulating those who oppose staying in Iraq (Democrats) with those afraid to let McCain pick any Supremes (Democrats). Awesome! Roosevelt and Kennedy would be proud!

I for one, look forward to our super-delegate appointed Clinton Overlords.

Posted by Rihilism | March 5, 2008 9:46 AM

the ads he should have been running when that 3am ad came out is simply her floor speech justifying her war authorization vote, where she said "my 8 years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania avenue..."

Is that the experience we need?

Nothing is more powerful than the candidates own words. I'm surprised they havent done this earlier.

Posted by Enough | March 5, 2008 9:49 AM

Wait -- didn't the reliable, hard-core, loyal, classic Democratic base turnout and vote for Kerry?

Is that why we have President Kerry?

Posted by El Cid | March 5, 2008 9:58 AM

well, ladies and germs, hold on to your hats...cause it looks like Axelrod is about to take BAM's gloves off:

http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/05/change-versus-more-of-the-same-part-ii/

Posted by Enough | March 5, 2008 9:58 AM

Cal, a SurveyUSA poll found Obama doing BETTER than Hillary in match-ups against McCain in California.

Polls this far out are virtually meaningless.

As just one example, Gallup's recent tracking polls showed that Obama had cut Clinton's lead among Hispanics by 10 points (it's showing 55-45). In Texas, Clinton was still 2:1 in Hispanic Dems.

Demographics, conventional wisdom, and history are much more reliable than polls about future behavior.

Kerry also won the independent vote, btw. He still lost. His loss was due to Florida and Ohio--two states that Obama almost certainly can't win.

Posted by Cal | March 5, 2008 10:02 AM

I don't think you'll find too many supporters of Mrs. Clinton who don't think Barack Obama won't make a fine president a few years down the road.

But maybe you don't know that because Clinton supporters have been - blessedly - quiet.

And however classless the tactics of Mrs. Clinton's campaign at times, however classy (until recent days) the campaign of Mr. Obama, some of that fellow's supporters and surrogates have become unbearably annoying; the dailykos is frequently unreadable these days. I don't know if it hurts him but when I hear 1990s Limbaugh talking points repeated about that lady it makes me want her to win. When I hear her called "the Clintons" it makes me want her to win.

You may think that what the country needs is hope and inspiration. Maybe you should pick up a Bible or one of the better poets; politicians are for policymaking, not inspiring.

Posted by Linus | March 5, 2008 10:33 AM

Kerry also won the independent vote, btw. He still lost. His loss was due to Florida and Ohio--two states that Obama almost certainly can't win.

Posted by Cal

By that logic I am no more reassured that Hillary can win those states against John McCain either.

Posted by El Cid | March 5, 2008 10:46 AM

It will be bad if Obama goes really negative on Hillary. There goes his claim to representing a new politics if he does.

Essentially, the party can't make up its mind, and the nomination rules are perfectly crafted to make it very hard to break this kind of deadlock. The key going forward is for both candidates not to muddy each other up, and for the supporters of each to remain energized against the Republicans in the fall. What you see on the net from the Obama supporters is not encouraging.

Posted by mq | March 5, 2008 11:14 AM

It will be bad if Obama goes really negative on Hillary. There goes his claim to representing a new politics if he does.

Well, Hillary should have thought of that ahead of time before going negative on Obama. The good thing is that I think that after this experience, Obama supporters aren't going to be so enamored of "new politics" anymore and will be more likely to understand when "kitchen sink" tactics are needed. It's been a good lesson for them, and one that will ensure that they don't get disillusioned if Obama starts bringing big guns to the knife fight.

Posted by Tyro | March 5, 2008 11:36 AM

Last week I was having a discussion with my fellow democrats about the primary process. I am 26 years old and new to this process. I came to find out that regardless of party affiliation, you can participate in either the democratic or the republican primary as long as you were aware that you would have to participate in that party’s caucus. So we began talking about the possibility of sabotage. If you are a McCain supporter and are concerned about losing to a strong candidate, what are you going to do? How about vote for the candidate has less chance of defeating your party?

I believe, and have confirmed that to be the case. I am an Obama supporter. Unfortunately, not only do I think that he has a better chance of defeating McCain so do republicans. I overheard a coworker of mine talking about how her republican friends came out in numbers to make sure that Barack wouldn’t be the nominated democrat. This was also confirmed again by friends of mine who attend the University of Houston who also heard this going on as well as republicans calling in to radio stations admitting to this behaviour. I believe that to be a disgrace to our 2 party system. A party’s nominee is supposed to be the one that the party feels is best representative of its views. It’s bad enough that we only have 2 candidates to choose from for president, who hypothetically only have 2 different solutions for our country’s concerns. How is it that someone from another party is given the right to vote in the opposing party’s primary election? RUSH LIMBAUGH was calling on republicans to get out and keep Obama out of the race… enough said.

This process of primary voting is hardly a democracy (at least not in Texas) in this state where you have the ability to sabotage a party’s candidate, and potentially sabotage the presidential election and the immediate future of our country. Good day.

Posted by sean andrews | March 5, 2008 12:08 PM

"How is it that someone from another party is given the right to vote in the opposing party’s primary election? RUSH LIMBAUGH was calling on republicans to get out and keep Obama out of the race…"

How many Democrats voted for McCain in the primaries? Payback's a bitch.

It's time for Obama to concede now, for the good of the party. It's Hillary's turn. Let Obama finish his first Senate term before he runs for President again.

Posted by Juan | March 5, 2008 12:49 PM

It's Hillary's turn.

That's the wonderful sort of reasoning from Republicans like you that got Bob Dole nominated.

Posted by Tyro | March 5, 2008 1:12 PM

Texas has never made a difference in the past for the Democratic or the Republican primaries. Do you really think that Dole got his nomination from democrats? No, he got it because the republicans around the country are self centered morons. and democrats didn't vote for McCain in the primaries, why would they waste their vote when this race is so close? that comment made no sense at all. And if you're speaking of when he was running against bush in the primaries, democrats voting for McCain would have helped him and probably been better for our country. Bush became president unlawfully... enough said about that.

Posted by sean andrews | March 5, 2008 6:04 PM

I misread the comment about Dole... I appologize. But that just goes right in line of what I was saying. Thanks.

Posted by sean andrews | March 5, 2008 6:07 PM