The Rush Factor

I dismissed Rush Limbaugh's efforts to get conservatives to go vote for Hillary Clinton in order to make things easier for John McCain. Markos' efforts to do something similar on Mitt Romey's behalf didn't achieve anything. And, after all, why should it work -- the motive for voting is mostly expressive, so people are disinclined to do this kind of thing. But Dave Weigel rounds up some evidence that the Rush effect was real and put Clinton over the top in Texas.

And, of course, it worked. Clinton still won't win the nomination -- after Mississippi and Wyoming she'll be further behind in the delegate count than ever with fewer than ever delegates still up for grabs -- but for another couple of months McCain will have a high-profile anti-Obama surrogate in the field telling people the likely nominee is unfit for executive leadership.

Comments

It doesn't really matter. The people who haven't already made up their mind between Obama/Clinton and McCain won't start paying attention until the conventions at the earliest, and Obama or Clinton will give a much better convention speech than McCain. For that matter many won't focus intently on the campaign until the debates where Clinton or Obama will utterly destroy McCain. There's plenty of time to conclude the primary campaign and still win in November.

Posted by Ron | March 5, 2008 12:47 PM

And, of course, it worked. Clinton still won't win the nomination -- after Mississippi and Wyoming she'll be further behind in the delegate count than ever with fewer than ever delegates still up for grabs...

Matt, please oh please don't descend into Andrew Sullivan-land. We're all entitled to support whichever candidate we wish, but smugly brushing aside Senator Clinton's very real chance at taking the nomination is below you.

I think it's fair to say Senator Obama is still the favorite. But claiming "Clinton still won't win the nomination" without even the appearance of a qualifier makes you sound bitter and condescending.

Posted by Jasper | March 5, 2008 12:48 PM

Uh no. It just makes him sound reality based. The math that leads to a Clinton victory only exists in fantasyland.

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

I don't think Clinton can be counted out yet. It doesn't matter what "the lead" or "the numbers" etc. suggests. In the end it will be the DNC at the convention who decides, and that is a political decision done by no alien supercomputer. It is open to fights on every level and down every path, and I think it is very likely that Hillary can gain the nomination whether or not Obama has some lead in pledged delegates.

Posted by El Cid | March 5, 2008 12:51 PM

It was also on display in Ohio, where I live. Look at those southern counties. You think Hillary is going to get that many votes in a general? What are you smoking? It was the good ole boys and girls having a fun time at the Democrats' expense. I can't blame em, really - at the end of the day it's probably more fun to try to sabotage your opponent's election than it is to do whatever it is they do in Portsmouth on a rainy Tuesday afternoon.

And isn't this what the superdelegates are for? To fortify the voice of the people, and to ensure that the Democrats elect the strongest candidate in November?

Look at the new Rasmussen poll out of Washington state today. McCain beats Hillary by 9 points. In Washington.

The writing on the wall is in flashing neon.

Posted by Craig | March 5, 2008 12:52 PM

Jasper, deal with reality. After all of last night's hooha, she went from... about 160 delegates down to about 150 delegates down. And with a lot fewer delegates now remaining on the table. Wow, that's momentum for you. Facts are stupid things, eh? And no, the supers won't cut their party's throat by overturning such a significant margin in committed delegates.

That said, I incline to the view that her staying in the race is good for Obama; he needs to toughen up before the fall. Sounds like he knows that. I'm looking forward to watching it.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 5, 2008 12:53 PM

With all due respect to Kos, his reach isn't quite that of Rush's, and Kos's readers don't seem like the types to throw away their votes on a silly stunt. Rush's listeners are by definition morons, so it's easier to buy with him.

In the meantime, can't somebody get out there and tell Hillary that her continuing to compare Obama negatively to McCain is absolutely beyond the pale? I've never seen anything like that before in a nomination fight.

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 12:53 PM

Has that overgrown frat boy Rush Limbaugh ever made a positive contribution to America? Or is his core belief just sticking it to Democrats, irrespective of the outcome for America?

Posted by Jamey | March 5, 2008 12:55 PM

There isn't any real evidence of what you are suggesting. If you read Jay Cost's analysis of how the demographic groups broke compared to other contests, Obama did significantly worse among several groups Tuesday than he has in previous contests. This is simply wishful thinking on your part, and a rather lame and transparent attempt to discredit Clinton's very real victory last night.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 12:57 PM

Based on what I've heard of the Democrats' byzantine super-delegate system, El Cid sounds correct. If the regular delegate count is close -- and if Hillary has won the majority of the recent primaries -- why assume that the super-delegates would automatically vote for Obama? After all, Hillary has won the biggest states: NY, TX, CA, FL.

It seems like Matt formed his opinion of Obama's inevitability during Obama's 11-0 streak. But now Hillary is 3-1 in the most recent contests, after Obama made his first major campaign gaffe (the Canadian memo indicating that Obama's economic adviser told a Canadian diplomat to disregard Obama's rhetoric on NAFTA as dishonest pandering, essentially).

Posted by Fred | March 5, 2008 12:58 PM

The math that leads to a Clinton victory only exists in fantasyland.

Well, it's not exactly a fantasy, but it's close. All she has to do is convince a huge majority of superdelegates -- 2/3 or so -- to vote for her at the convention, despite the fact that she'll be trailing in pledged delegates, most likely by a triple-digit margin.

Realistically, it would seem to require an Obama implosion of some kind for her to achieve that kind of superdelegate support. Electability is going to be the only argument that could sway that many superdelegates -- and that means polls. (Her big state argument just isn't going to cut it.)

But, to be fair, since it's a long time between now and August, a number of unforeseen things could happen. Intrade has her at 29% this morning -- that seems slightly optimistic, but not by too much. The Clintons have earned that kind of fear and respect, I'm afraid.

Posted by Ban Johnson | March 5, 2008 1:01 PM

Off topic, from Ambinder:
NBC News's Chuck Todd, about the smartest delegate counter I know, estimates that Hillary Clinton closed the pledged delegate gap by a minimum of six delegates last night.
A 6 delegate win that will be wiped away after Obama wins Wyoming and Mississippi.

Posted by bjd | March 5, 2008 1:02 PM

There isn't any real evidence of what you are suggesting.

There's quite a bit. Numerous polling places in heavily republican districts in Ohio reporting large numbers of change of party to Democrat and those districts going heavy Clinton.

But I'm sure that the Republicans just like Clinton more.

Posted by Craig | March 5, 2008 1:03 PM

The math that leads to a Clinton victory only exists in fantasyland.

You wish. Clinton now has the popular vote margin down to within 300k or so. Throw in Florida and it's down to about 100k. Throw in Michigan and she's in the lead. Yes -- these are all debatable admissions. But also debatable is the contention that the pledged delegate winner -- especially if it's a very narrow "win" -- will necessarily win the superdelegate contest. And as we all know, Senator Obama, too, needs superdelegates to construct a nominating majority. Moreover, a revitalized and highly competitive Clinton campaign infused with momentum will make it awfully difficult for Howard Dean to resist calls for either seating Michigan and Florida's delegation, or, more likely, sanctioning a re-vote.

I believe if Hillary Clinton possesses a popular vote edge over Obama after the last contest in June, her candidacy will arguably possess a stronger mandate than the plurality holder when all is said and done -- especially given the fact that the popular vote symbolizes pure democracy, while much of the pledged delegate count results from the less democratic caucus system.

This one ain't over by a long shot, but keep telling yourself that. Overconfidence in the Obama camp can only help Senator Clinton's chances.

Posted by Jasper | March 5, 2008 1:05 PM

There isn't any real evidence of what you are suggesting.

There's quite a bit. Numerous polling places in heavily republican districts in Ohio reporting large numbers of change of party to Democrat and those districts going heavy Clinton.

But I'm sure that the Republicans just like Clinton more.

Posted by Craig | March 5, 2008 1:05 PM

Won't there be pressure to enfranchise Michigan and Florida by running their primaries again if Hillary keeps it close going forward?

Posted by Fred | March 5, 2008 1:07 PM

I just can't help imagining what the reactions would be like if the current situation was reversed. Would all of the Clinton supporters talking about what a good chance she has be willing to afford Obama that same chance if he was near elimination? Would Obama supporters be talking about how it should all come down to the popular vote(which she won't have anyways)and superdelegates if they were the ones trailing? I think i know the answer, but I'm not sure...

Posted by Wade Garrett | March 5, 2008 1:11 PM

"And, after all, why should it work -- the motive for voting is mostly expressive, so people are disinclined to do this kind of thing."

Speak for yourself. I voted for Pat Buchanan to screw Bob Dole. And I'm a Democrat. But I routinely switch parties to vote in the best primary. Sometimes I vote for someone I want; sometimes I vote for the weakest opponent of the candidate I want. It's the smartest voting strategy. And even Rush knows it.

As for the math, it doesn't eliminate Clinton. I see this scenario: Clinton ends up 80 behind in the pledged delegate race but won the largest states, outperformed Obama in the later contests, and is about even in the overall popular vote. Given that situation, there's no compelling reason for the superdelegates to stick with Obama. And I suspect everyone of those superdelegates was already in Hillary's rolodex long before the campaign started. She can still pull this out, but the rest of us will view it as unfair.

Posted by fostert | March 5, 2008 1:13 PM

After all, Hillary has won the biggest states: NY, TX, CA, FL.

Are you suggesting that Clinton would win Texas in the general or that Obama would lose New York and California? If not, how is this point relevant to anything?

For that matter, I don't see any direct correlation between ability to win the Democratic primary in a swing state like Florida and ability to win the general election there, but if there is one, Obama has won swing states as well.

Posted by KCinDC | March 5, 2008 1:15 PM

I just can't help imagining what the reactions would be like if the current situation was reversed.

The supporters take after their candidates. Obama's-- cool, rational, aloof, a touch condescending, somewhat whiney.
Clinton's -- hot, emotional, fighters, a bit thuggish, fairly shameless.

Posted by Ban Johnson | March 5, 2008 1:16 PM

These are the remaining contest. Please tell my why the media is ignoring Mississippi and Wyoming? Is it because the folks in Mississippi are too black and the folks in Wyoming state too small. Or is it because Obama will win them..
3/8 Wyoming - (number of delegates)12
3/11 Mississippi- 33
4/22 Pennsylvania- 158
5/3 Guam - 4
5/6 Indiana -72
5/6 North Carolina 115
5/13 West Virginia- 28
5/20 Kentucky- 51
5/20 Oregon- 52
6/3 Montana - 24
6/3 South Dakota - 23
6/7 Puerto Rico – 55
Total remaining delegates left 627

Posted by Tennesseegurl | March 5, 2008 1:16 PM

Tennesseegurl, the media are ignoring MS and WY because Clinton is ignoring them, and the media are currently mindlessly following the Clinton spin because they love having a fourth "unexpected turnaround" story for this race.

My hope is that before too long they'll take a look at the numbers and realize there's yet a fifth unexpected turnaround story to come, because Obama clearly will win the nomination in the end. Unfortunately they'll need an event to pin it too, and I fear PA won't be it.

Posted by KCinDC | March 5, 2008 1:28 PM

You wish. Clinton now has the popular vote margin down to within 300k or so. Throw in Florida and it's down to about 100k. Throw in Michigan and she's in the lead. Yes -- these are all debatable admissions. But also debatable is the contention that the pledged delegate winner -- especially if it's a very narrow "win" -- will necessarily win the superdelegate contest. And as we all know, Senator Obama, too, needs superdelegates to construct a nominating majority. Moreover, a revitalized and highly competitive Clinton campaign infused with momentum will make it awfully difficult for Howard Dean to resist calls for either seating Michigan and Florida's delegation, or, more likely, sanctioning a re-vote.

Percentage chance that the superdelegates will deny Obama the nomination of he finishes with the most pledged delegates: 0%.

The only remaining question is how much damage Hillary will do before she succumbs to reality.

Posted by J.B. | March 5, 2008 1:29 PM

What Matt said is true but also -

If you concentrate you can smell the terror.

It is a caricature come to life.

The liberal earnestly and obessively fine tuning and then with a beaming smile they present this ridiculious Rube Goldberg contraption.

That is the Democratic nomination process.

It really isn't Clinton's fault she didn't design the ridiculious contraption. It is tough to really rip her for playing by the rules and trying to win. Worse she might win, and if you really ripped her, where are you then?

The only real choice is to invent this silly math mantra.

Posted by someguy | March 5, 2008 1:30 PM

There's quite a bit. Numerous polling places in heavily republican districts in Ohio reporting large numbers of change of party to Democrat and those districts going heavy Clinton.

This is consonant with what has transpired in other areas. Missouri is a good example. Obama narrowly took this primary, but he did so by riding fat majorities in urban areas the Democrats usually win going away -- even in bad years for the Democrats. Clinton, on the other hand, won more culturally conservative rural areas heavily populated with working class whites -- areas the Democrats need to win in '08 if they're to take the purple states necessary for an electoral college victory. I expect what transpired in Texas was similar. Obama's very impressive victories in Virginia and Wisconsin bucked the trend, but for the most part I see this race as being a pretty classic Hubert Humphrey vs. Eugene McCarthy style matchup -- with the main difference this time being McCarthy's stranglehold on African-American voters.

I know Obama is doing well with independent voters, but I wonder how politically moderate they are. I strongly suspect many, if not most of them, are political liberals who, for whatever reason, happen not to register as Democrats. Forty years ago nearly all of them would have been Democrats, in my view.

Posted by Jasper | March 5, 2008 1:31 PM

Craig:

Clinton won Texas by nearly 100,000 votes.

Did you also notice from the exit polls that Clinton not only decisively won registered Democrats (by a much larger margin than could be explained by a few hundred or couple thousand party switchers) while Obama won Republicans. It's also worth noting that Clinton won over independents outright in Ohio and came within one point in Texas.

What's your conspiracy theory for that?

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 1:33 PM

"but for another couple of months McCain will have a high-profile anti-Obama surrogate in the field telling people the likely nominee is unfit for executive leadership."

yeah. her name is hillary clinton.

Posted by freaktown | March 5, 2008 1:36 PM

There's no conspiracy. It's pretty well laid-out. Right-wing radio, the National Review, and Republican partisans have been actively encouraging Republicans to vote for Clinton in Ohio and Texas. And they did.

It's not that hard to understand.

Posted by Craig | March 5, 2008 1:38 PM

Tennesseegurl, the media are ignoring MS and WY because Clinton is ignoring them, and the media are currently mindlessly following the Clinton spin because they love having a fourth "unexpected turnaround" story for this race.

Pennsylvania is already in the news because it's a big state. MS and WY are not. The media hasn't say much about Rhode Island or Vermont either, even though they voted yesterday; the coverage was all Texas and Ohio. In the other words, the media is paying attention to big states where there are lots of delegates. This isn't rocket science.

Admittedly, the media was far too slow to pick up on the pledged delegate counts, as opposed to the much more familiar state-by-state horse race results. The press has had a tough time adjusting to the fact that small state blowouts mean more than close wins in big states, in primaries where the delegates are awarded proportionally. But even that's been changing of late; pretty much all the reporting and commentary out there is talking up delegate counts.

Posted by Haggai | March 5, 2008 1:38 PM

And by the way, I do live in a rural area of Ohio. And believe them, there are a lot of gloating Republicans today talking about voting for Hillary.

If you can't understand the difference between Republicans crossing over to vote for Obama because they like him vs. Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary in order to sabotage the Dems, then you're a lost cause, my friend.

Posted by Craig | March 5, 2008 1:42 PM

The mistake is in thinking that the raw numbers matter that much; they don't. If Clinton takes Pennsylvania and Indiana (the other remaining decent size state), and does decently in the others, then she can spin a story about Obama having peaked early and not being able to close. This is all going to come down to sales and marketing, not math (unless the math is crushing)

Posted by James Robertson | March 5, 2008 1:42 PM

Tennesseegurl asks:

Please tell my why the media is ignoring Mississippi and Wyoming?

Tennesseegurl's question affords us an excellent opportunity to explore the "infradelegate" phenomenon.

Unlike the more widely known "superdelegates," "infradelegates" are delegates chosen in state primaries and caucuses. The delegates from Wyoming and Mississippi will be infradelegates. Technically, I suppose it's true that infradelegates are permitted to attend the convention and vote for the candidate of their choice, but their votes don't count count, if you know what I'm saying.

Why don't infradelegates count?

Often it's because the candidate who won those delegates used underhanded means to win them, such as the old "setting up a field operation" ploy or the "holding campaign rallies" scheme.

Sometimes it's because the voters who selected the infradelegates based their votes on patently improper grounds, such as "listening to what the candidate says" or "skepticism about the acutal extent of the First Lady's responsibilities in our constitutional scheme of government."

Whatever the reason, be sure to remind your local media representative that infradelegates don't really count, and should be omitted from any fair evaluation of the current race for the nomination.

Posted by alkali | March 5, 2008 1:42 PM

The Republican hatred for Clinton is overstated. The establishment hates her, but the voters are more reasonable. One of my good friends is a Texan Republican, and her husband is in the army. They've soured on Bush, and both voted for Hillary Clinton because they like her better on national security.

Or, you know, maybe they're just racist.

Posted by Caitlin | March 5, 2008 1:54 PM

Craig:

What definitely isn't hard to understand is that you are desperate to grasp any straw that would undermine Hillary Clinton's victory over Barack Obama last night. Whether or not a handful of Limbaugh supporters voted for her she won Democrats, on Ohio she won independents... she liberals, moderates and conservatives... so this was nearly a full spectrum win, it wasn't some squeaker.

Look at the demographics from the three out of four states Clinton won. She demolished him with white women, with seniors, with latinos... three groups a Democrat must win big in November but are not in the bag. Obama has his youth who may or may not show up and independents, but she did a lot better with them last night.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 1:54 PM

Caitlin,
Your second guess is probably more likely, because the hatred Republicans have for Hillary is definitely NOT overstated.

Posted by Stacy | March 5, 2008 2:03 PM

"Are you suggesting that Clinton would win Texas in the general or that Obama would lose New York and California?"

No.

"If not, how is this point relevant to anything?"

It's relevant if you think that the opinions of Democrats in the country's largest states are relevant.

Posted by Fred | March 5, 2008 2:20 PM

There isn't much risk of Obama losing California or New York.

There is a risk of Obama losing Florida because he under-performs with Latinos and Senior citizens, or loses Ohio because he under-performs with voters making less than $50,000 a year, or loses Pennsylvania because he under-performs with white women.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 2:25 PM

Tim K, you can doubt all you want but I got the information firsthadn from my Dem sister in a heavily GOP part of San Antonio. The big topic of conversation amongst her neighbors was Limbaugh's call to cross party lines to vote for HRC. Sure enough, when she showed up to vote, nobody was on the GOP side. Her GOP neighbors were there to vote for HRC - someone they loathe.

Afterwards, she attended the caucus, where - being a math teacher - she was roped into serving as a vote counter. Obama handily won the caucus.

Posted by JR | March 5, 2008 2:29 PM

I see this scenario: Clinton ends up 80 behind in the pledged delegate race but won the largest states, outperformed Obama in the later contests, and is about even in the overall popular vote.

To make up this kind of ground, Clinton would have to kick some serious ass in the coming months. If she is doing that, than Obama's campaign is probably compromised anyways and I don't think many would ultimately object to the supers giving it to Clinton. But Clinton would actually have to do well. Not her campaign bullshit where all the small states don't count. She'd actually have to win be decisive majorities in nearly all the remaining states. This is next to impossible given 1) Obama's support in many of these states and 2) the inability of her team to actually do the work of campaigning

Posted by mpowell | March 5, 2008 2:32 PM

JR:

Well anecdotal evidence should be taken for what it's worth. But in a state where over 2,000,000 votes were cast it takes more than that.

I sympathize with many of your feelings of desperation and disappointment, but this is really sad to watch people so embittered.

This certainly wasn't my reaction when Obama won Virginia or Wisconsin.

When somebody beats your candidate fair and square it is a time for graciousness and reflection, not a time to behave as a petulant child.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 2:33 PM

Tim K,

I think it's reasonable to acknowledge that Clinton won fair and square in Ohio. But the margin of victory in Texas wasn't 2,000,000. It was about 100,000. Now, a small margin of victory in Texas doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't much impact the delegate count and it's not important in the general. But if you want to flag Texas as a big victory, you have to defend that 100,000 margin. And the facts are, Clinton did much better among conservative voters compared to liberal voters than she has in previous states. Remember all those complaints that Obama was losing among registered Dems? It was the other way around in Texas. We know that some Republicans voted for Clinton to hurt the Dems. The question is just how many. The evidence suggests it might be as many as that 100,000. That's not being petulant. That's just pointing out that any celebration over this margin of victory in Texas may be inappropriate.

Posted by mpowell | March 5, 2008 2:44 PM

For the last time, everyone, ignore Tim K. He is a troll. He also posts under the name Michael C. The guy has problems.

Posted by C.Michol | March 5, 2008 2:51 PM

2,000,000 votes were cast in total, if you actually read what I wrote. And 100,000 votes is a pretty significant margin of victory, considering that probably amounts to about the number of people who participated in some of those caucus states Obama was able to do so well in.

It's more likely that Clinton did better among conservatives, moderates and independent voters in these states because of the doubts she was able to raise about Barack Obama's readiness to be commander-in-chief with the so-called "red phone" ad, and attacks on his credibility vis-a-vis NAFTA. Just because Rush Limbaugh said something, and then something else happened subsequent to that, doesn't mean Limbaugh caused that thing to happen.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 2:51 PM

It seems pretty clear that the Republicans would rather run against Clinton(s) than against Obama. Doesn't that tell you something about, inter alia, how they view the electability issue?

Posted by hello | March 5, 2008 2:51 PM

There is a risk of Obama losing Florida because he under-performs with Latinos and Senior citizens

in Democratic primaries

or loses Ohio because he under-performs with voters making less than $50,000 a year

in Democratic primaries

or loses Pennsylvania because he under-performs with white women

in Democratic primaries

Seriously, how hard is this to understand? An Obama / Clinton match for the nomination is not the same as either one versus McCain in the general election. Most of the regions of Ohio that Senator Clinton won last night will go for McCain in November. There isn't going to be a massive stampede of conservative rural Ohioans voting for a "liberal Democrat" woman whose husband gave us NAFTA, over an anti-choice white guy who wants to blow lots more darkies to bits and keep the homos from having any rights. (Though I suppose Clinton could run ads touting DOMA and Kyl-Lieberman to steal some of McCain's thunder.) There are electability arguments to be made, sure, but not based on performance in Democratic primaries and caucuses. And if Democrats in those groups (or Obama's) stay home or vote for John McCain instead, then fuck us all, we get the government we're stupid enough to deserve.

Oh, and congratulations on Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas, Senator Clinton. Congratulations on Vermont and Texas, Senator Obama.

Posted by mds | March 5, 2008 2:55 PM

C Michol:

Actually that's just false, I never post under any other name. A lot of other people here do post ridiculous statements under my name, from time to time, however.

If anybody is trolling or being provocative it is the ones who are peddling in innuendo based on scant evidence about Limbaugh supposed effect on a handful of voters in Texas.

It's an irrelevant debate to be having that will have no bearing on how this contest is settled.

If you want to talk about that then you should be ignored, not me.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 2:57 PM

C Michol:

Actually that's just false, I never post under any other name. A lot of other people here do post ridiculous statements under my name, from time to time, however.

If anybody is trolling or being provocative it is the ones who are peddling in innuendo based on scant evidence about Limbaugh supposed effect on a handful of voters in Texas.

It's an irrelevant debate to be having that will have no bearing on how this contest is settled.

If you want to talk about that then you should be ignored, not me.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 3:00 PM

Tim K., it wasn't enough to win last night. Hillary needed to make big pledged delegate gains. She didn't do that. She can win all the rest of the states and still not make up the deficit.

Mathematically, she has two options:

1) concede
2) divide the party by trying to wrest the nomination from the clear pledged delegate leader

Which would you rather happen?

Aside to Fred, why do the opinions of Democrats in the largest states matter more than the opinions of Democrats in all the other states? The large states get proportionally more delegates so why is there a need for an extra level of specialness?

Posted by Face The Music | March 5, 2008 3:07 PM

McCain will have a high-profile anti-Obama surrogate in the field telling people the likely nominee is unfit for executive leadership

Sounds like somebody's been staring into the abyss a bit too long.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | March 5, 2008 3:08 PM

Most of the regions of Ohio that Senator Clinton won last night will go for McCain in November. There isn't going to be a massive stampede of conservative rural Ohioans voting for a "liberal Democrat" woman.

Maybe. Maybe not. But they're exactly the types of areas Democrats need to do better in if they want to peel of any of Bush's 2004 states. Most places in this country inhabited by working class, culturally conservative whites are hurting economically. I think such precincts are eminently winnable for the Democrats if they have the right standard-bearer. Hillary Clinton has consistently outperformed Obama among such voters. We saw this in Missouri, in Louisiana, in Tennessee, in Arkansas, in Florida, in New Mexico, and now we've seen it in Ohio (and in Texas). Yes, Obama wins blue metro areas by healthy margins. Heck, Mondale probably won them against Reagan back in 1984. And that helps us win in November how?

Posted by Jasper | March 5, 2008 3:13 PM

We'll never really know if there was a significant Rush factor in TX and OH, unless there was some exit polling to that effect.

We just have to accept that HRC is a very established candidate, and a lot of people were already set to vote for her regardless.

If I have to watch a McCain inauguration in Feb, allow me to issue a heart felt thanks for nothing, y'all.

Posted by cmholm | March 5, 2008 3:17 PM

...it wasn't enough to win last night. Hillary needed to make big pledged delegate gains. She didn't do that. She can win all the rest of the states and still not make up the deficit.

If Clinton wins "the rest of the states" it is a near certainty she'll enjoy a healthy lead in the popular vote. Maybe most superdelegates will buck the will of most Democratic primary voters (and the overwhelming majority of registered Democrats), but I rather doubt it.

Posted by Jasper | March 5, 2008 3:18 PM

I ask again: isn't it clear that the Republicans think they have a better chance of winning against HRC than against Obama? Clinton supporters: do you think the Republicans are wrong about their own self-interest here?

Posted by hello | March 5, 2008 3:25 PM

If Clinton wins "the rest of the states" it is a near certainty she'll enjoy a healthy lead in the popular vote. Maybe most superdelegates will buck the will of most Democratic primary voters (and the overwhelming majority of registered Democrats), but I rather doubt it.

There is no fantasy scenario where Clinton gets the tiara and rose petals fall from the sky and everyone slips into a happy swoon until November. That scenario exists for Obama because he has won the most delegates - the goal of the nominating contests.

There is no other goal of the nominating contests. No prize for largest states won, most states won, most momentum at the end, or any of a million other grasping-at-straws scenarios we can come up with.

So I ask again, are you Clinton folks cool with dividing the party by wresting the nomination away from the clear pledged delegate leader?

Posted by Face The Music | March 5, 2008 3:54 PM

It's not just that the GOP think they have a better chance against HRC, this is deeply personal. Having the opportunity to tear down the Clintons' legacy, the Christmas season will be VERY early for the GOP. It will be their best Thanksgiving ever.

They drink her milkshake!!!

Posted by Judy | March 5, 2008 4:03 PM

You know as a Texas Democrat who lives in an incredibly conservative precinct in Tarrant County, I find this whole conspiracy theory rather amusing. The Obama caucus attendees were about 30% 'wingers at my precinct.

I saw a dozen of my neighbors there who I am pretty damn sure would never vote for a Dem. Like the jerk who has a StopHillaryClinton.com bumper sticker and a NRA bumper sticker on his SUV, the family of three who had a Mitt Romney sign on their lawn from September through January, the guy who was precinct captain for Fred Thompson (he knocked at our door twice last year!) ... and then a bunch who I have encountered around the neighborhood sporting some sort of Huckabee sticker or sign on their person, vehicle, or house.

Don't believe everything you hear ... expecially when it just so happens to coincide with your prejudices, folks.

Posted by Texas Yankee | March 5, 2008 4:37 PM

Maybe. Maybe not. But they're exactly the types of areas Democrats need to do better in if they want to peel of any of Bush's 2004 states.

This is just ridiculous. How can you criticize Obama b/c he is winning the primary based on independents in one breath and then turn around and claim that Clinton will do better with the voters Dems need to win in the fall? Aren't those voters known as independents? Clinton reversed this trend in Texas, leading to the Rush-oriented suspicion, but that doesn't change the national trend.

Posted by mpowell | March 5, 2008 6:26 PM

How can you criticize Obama b/c he is winning the primary based on independents in one breath and then turn around and claim that Clinton will do better with the voters Dems need to win in the fall?

I'm not criticizing Obama for anything. I'm suggesting that Clinton, contrary to much of the opinion in progressive circles, is the stronger candidate in the general election because of her hold on the two cohorts most strongly associated with swing voters: Latinos and downscale, economically vulnerable purple state whites.

There is no fantasy scenario where Clinton gets the tiara and rose petals fall from the sky and everyone slips into a happy swoon until November.

There doesn't need to be a "fantasy scenario" for Clinton to win the nomination because there are plausible scenarios for her to accomplish this end. As for the "happy swoon" question, obviously millions of Democratic voters will be disappointed no matter which of the two prevails. Still, the polling indicates the party as a whole is quite satisfied with its two choices, and I expect a united party will prevail over the Republicans this November.

That scenario exists for Obama because he has won the most delegates - the goal of the nominating contests. There is no other goal of the nominating contests.

The "goal of the nominating contests" is to win enough delegates to build a nominating majority. Barring some major eruption of scandal or other unforeseen event, neither candidate will secure said majority via these "nominating contests." And that means the two candidates have something in common: each needs the help of superdelegates to prevail. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will obviously both vigorously compete for these superdelegates. The plurality holder of pledged delegates will be in a strong position to compete for their votes, as will the winner of the popular vote. I suspect Hillary Clinton stands a reasonable chance at winning the latter.

Posted by Jasper | March 5, 2008 8:02 PM

So I ask again, are you Clinton folks cool with dividing the party by wresting the nomination away from the clear pledged delegate leader?

Yes, I'm "cool" with failing to nominate the pledged delegate leader if the nominee is the popular vote leader.

Posted by Jasper | March 5, 2008 8:07 PM

I was actually wondering about this last night - checking the results on CNN there were quite a few counties in central Texas where things didn't smell right. Like Eastland Co, where Huckabee won on the Republican side, but Hillary miraculously has just as many supporters. In county after county in central Texas, Clinton equals or exceeds the vote of the Republican winner. I'm sorry, I just can't believe that TX is that blue.

Posted by Chasm | March 5, 2008 9:09 PM

It's just anecdote, but my dad, who thinks the war was a bad idea and whose political activism entails watching eight minutes of cable news a week, voted for HRC on the rationale that she'd be easier for McCain to beat than Obama. And, again anecdotally, this appears to be common among the Dallas banking/real estate/lawyer circles he works and plays golf with. Rationale he told me is that "he's scared" of a Democrat win. He'd absorbed the memes that Obama was inexperienced and all talk.

Posted by Mike | March 6, 2008 12:35 PM