Below the fold, I explain why Obama now has to be considered the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination.
February 9th
Louisiana, Primary, 67 Delegates
Pledged Superdelegates– Obama: none. Clinton: none.
Analysis: In the pre-Katrina Louisiana Democratic primary of 2004, 52% of the electorate was non-white. That’s roughly the same profile as we saw in Alabama yesterday, where 51% of the electorate was black, and in Georgia where 52% of the electorate was black. Based on the results last night out of Alabama (O-56% C-42%) and Georgia (O-67%, C-31%), Obama has to be the heavy favorite in Louisiana.
Nebraska, Caucus, 31 Delegates
Superdelegates- Obama: Sen. Ben Nelson. Clinton: none.
Analysis: Obama swept caucus states last night in New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Idaho, and Alaska, and he did it (except in New Mexico) by enormous margins. Obama’s endorsement by Ben Nelson seals the deal. Obama will win Nebraska and will win almost all of its delegates.
Washington, Caucus, 97 Delegates
Superdelegates- Obama: Rep. Adam Smith, Pat Notter (DNC). Clinton: Sen. Maria Cantwell, Sen. Patty Murray, Rep. Jay Inslee, Former Speaker Tom Foley (WA), Ron Sims (DNC).
Analysis: Obama has won every caucus contest that has been held. However, Clinton has the support of both Cantwell and Murray, and she will have no choice but to put forth a major effort here because her chances are so bad in Louisiana and Nebraska. She can little afford to get swept in all three states. That being said, Obama has to be the narrow favorite based on the fact that this is a caucus and not primary.
February 10th
Maine, Caucus, 34 Delegates
Superdelegates- Obama: none. Clinton: Gov. John Baldacci, Ken Curtis (DNC).
Analysis: Again, this is a caucus format that has favored Obama so far in the nominating process. Clinton’s ace in the hole is the support of Governor Baldacci. However, this contest will come one day after Obama (most likely) sweeps Clinton in Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington. While Clinton has done extremely well in neighboring New Hampshire and Massachusetts and cannot be counted out, I have to favor Obama as the likely winner in Maine.
February 12th
District of Columbia, Primary, 37 Delegates
Superdelegates- Obama: Mayor Adrian Fenty, Dr. James Zogby (DNC), Arrington Dixon (DNC). Clinton: Mary Eva Candon (DNC), Yolanda Caraway (DNC), Hartina Flournoy (DNC), DNC Harold Ickes (DC), Ben Johnson (DNC), Eric Kleinfeld (DNC), Minyon Moore (DNC), Elizabeth Smith (DNC), Marilyn Tyler Brown (DNC), Gerald McEntee (DNC), Carol Pensky (DNC).
Analysis: First, while you might be inclined to dismiss the vote of a mere city, note that DC has more delegates to allocate than Maine. That’s a function of the overwhelming Democratic vote in the city. Hillary Clinton has no chance in this primary and may struggle to reach 15% of the vote.
Virginia, Primary, 103 Delegates
Superdelegates- Obama: Gov. Tim Kaine, Rep. Rick Boucher, Rep. Bobby Scott. Clinton: Terry McAuliffe (DNC), Jennifer McClellan (DNC), Mame Reiley (DNC), Lionel Spruill Sr., Susan Swecker (DNC).
Analysis: This is Hillary Clinton’s only chance on this day. And it isn’t a good chance. Gov. Tim Kaine is endorsing Obama and is regarded as a potential vice-presidential pick. Kaine will be working hard to get the vote out for Obama. All of Clinton’s efforts will go into Virginia, so she has to be given a chance to win here, but the edge goes to Obama.
Maryland, Primary, 99 Delegates
Superdelegates- Obama: Rep. Albert Wynn, Rep. Elijah Cummings, Karren Pope-Onwukwe (DNC). Clinton: Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Gov. Martin O’Malley, Rep. CA Dutch Ruppersberger, Nancy Kopp (DNC)
Analysis: Despite some great endorsements and the support of the Governor, no one expects Clinton to win Maryland.
[Meta Analysis: let’s pause here to note that Obama is strongly favored to win four of the next seven contests, and narrowly favored to win the remaining three. An Obama sweep of all seven contests is not unlikely. In order for Clinton to have much chance in the following contests, she will have had to win somewhere, whether it be Washington on the 9th, Maine on the 10th, or Virginia on the 12th. For the purposes of this analysis, I will assume she has avoided a shut-out and still has some viability.]
February 19th
Hawaii, Caucus, 29 Delegates
Superdelegates- Obama: Rep. Neil Abercrombie. Clinton: Sen. Daniel Inouye.
Analysis: Clinton has the most important endorsement in Sen. Inouye, but that probably cannot overcome Obama’s homestate advantage (he was born in Honolulu).
Wisconsin, Primary, 92 Delegates
Superdelegates- Obama: Rep. Gwen Moore, Gov. Jim Doyle. Clinton: Rep. Tammy Baldwin, Tim Sullivan (DNC).
Analysis: This is Clinton’s last chance to turn the tide. Obama has the support of Gov. Doyle and hails from neighboring Illinois. Obama just dominated the caucuses in neighboring Minnesota last night. Nevertheless, this contest doesn’t really have an innate advantage for Obama. If he has momentum he will probably win it. If he does not have momentum, he could easily lose it.
[Meta analysis: should Clinton lose Wisconsin, the pressure will be overwhelming for her to concede, even though Obama will not have anywhere near the pledged delegates to wrap up the nomination. But, if she has won some early states like Washington, Maine, and Virgina, and she wins Wisconsin, she’ll probably soldier on.]
March 4th
Ohio, Primary, 161 Delegates
Superdelegates- Obama: none. Clinton: Gov. Ted Strickland, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones.
Analysis: this is the first state we’ve discussed where Clinton probably has an innate advantage. The support of Gov. Strickland (a potential vice-presidential candidate) could be very helpful. Obama can win if he has built up a string of victories, but he’d probably lose badly if this primary were held today.
Rhode Island, Primary, 32 Delegates
Superdelegates- Obama: Rep. Patrick Kennedy (RI). Clinton: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rep. Jim Langevin, David Cicilline (DNC), William Lynch (DNC), Mark Weiner (DNC).
Analysis: The battle of endorsements might favor Clinton, or it might not. It’s hard to predict who would win this battle. Obama won Connecticut and Clinton won Massachusetts.
Texas, Open Primary/Closed Caucus hybrid, 228 Delegates
Superdelegates- Obama: Rep. Al Green, Moses Mercado (DNC). Clinton: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Rep. Henry Cuellar, DNC Sue Lovell (DNC), Senfronia Thompson (DNC), Denise Johnson (DNC), Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Rep. Gene Green, Rep. Solomon Ortiz.
Analysis: Clinton has a lot more Establishment support in Texas. Unless momentum overwhelms her, she has a decent chance to win Texas. In fact, she must win Texas to have an argument that she deserves the nomination.
Vermont, Primary, 23 Delegates
Superdelegates- Obama: Sen. Patrick Leahy, Rep. Peter Welch. Clinton: none.
Analysis: With the support of liberals and Sen. Leahy’s endorsement, Obama should win Vermont easily.
[Meta analysis: For Clinton to go beyond a mathematical chance to win a brokered convention to the point where the party will tolerate a brokered convention, she must have won some states (like Washington, Maine, Virginia, and Wisconsin) leading up to the March 4th contests. To maintain her viability, she must have won the majority of delegates on March 4th (probably through dual wins in Texas and Ohio). But even if she succeeds in stopping Obama’s momentum on March 4th, the road immediately returns to Obama-friendly territory.]
March 8th
Wyoming, Caucus, 18 Delegates
Superdelegates- Obama: Peter Jorgenson (DNC), John Millin (DNC). Clinton: none.
Analysis: Based on other caucus states from this region, Obama has to be favored to crush in the Wyoming contest.
March 11
Mississippi, Primary, 40 Delegates
Superdelegates- Obama: Rep. Bennie Thompson, Johnnie Patton (DNC). Clinton: none.
Analysis: In the 2004 Democratic primary, 60% of the Mississippi electorate was non-white. Clinton has no chance in Mississippi.
[Meta analysis: At this point the nomination process takes a six week break until the April 22nd contest in Pennsylvania. Obama will be coming off resounding victories in Wyoming and Mississippi, and will have won the majority of the contests thus far. The delegate advantage probably will be insufficient for Obama to have sewn up the nomination, but the incontestable perception will be that he has won the contest. What rationale will Clinton use to justify a six-week scorched earth campaign to win in Pennsylvania? By this time it will probably be mathematically impossible for Clinton to win without superdelegates, and there’s no reason to believe that most of the superdelegates will be inclined to lean her way. This is the point at which the Clinton campaign will suffer deafening pressure to drop out and endorse Obama. But if she will not, the campaign will go on.]
April 22nd
Pennsylvania, Primary, 188 Delegates
Superdelegates- Obama: Rep. Patrick Murphy, Rep. Chaka Fattah. Clinton: Gov. Ed Rendell, Hon. TJ Rooney (DNC), Rep. Joe Sestak, Rep. Allyson Schwartz, Rep. Paul Kanjorsky, Rena Baumgartner (DNC), Jean Milko (DNC).
Analysis: Provided that Clinton has survived this long, she will have to win Pennsylvania, and she has the institutional support to pull it off. She has the support of Gov. Rendell, Philly Mayor Michael Nutter, and a host of others. If she doesn’t win here, it’s truly over. If she does win after a high profile six week campaign, Obama might come under pressure to drop out and endorse.
[Meta analysis: I don’t see much point in doing a state by state analysis beyond this point. If Clinton survives this long she will have some strengths going forward, with possible wins in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6th, West Virginia on May 13th, and Kentucky and Oregon on May 20th. Obama will be strong in the other three remaining contests in Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico. If they split these, it could go to the convention for a fight among the superdelegates. But, as you can see from this analysis, Obama has enormous advantages. And I didn’t even factor in Obama’s huge and sure to grow money advantage.]
Also published in orange.
Thanks BooMan for this. Last night I found myself in Montreal watching CNN, with no internet access..got so depressed I tuned out.
TPM shares the latest spin from Mark Penn -” that Obama is the establishment candidate.
Not.just.a.little.worried. Are they?
Couple of issues. So Obama captured the red states..is this a result of the caucus process? Whatever; these results gotta influence those super delegates or anyone interested in a Dem capture of the White House and Capitol Hill.
I betcha Clinton is way low on cash. They ejected the Murphy memo..recall that? and she raised a mere $13 million in January with rumors her donors were tapped out. Now they’ll likely finance from their foundation or Bill who had a nice $20 million business deal just weeks ago. As reported by Drudge Report Wolfson when asked on the personal financing thingy said he did not know.
New Orleans no longer what it used to be, black voting patterns are bound to be suppressed, whereas in the past, Orleans Parish would have delivered when the hinterlands would have said no.
I think Obama’s best bets could be wins in Ohio and Texas.
Over a Jack and Jill Politics, B-Serious commented:
I’m down with B-Serious on this one. As I wrote on my blog:
And as I keep pounding…keep in mind that Clinton not only didn’t raise as much funds as Obama, but she outspent him in states she was supposed to win. Just like Mitt Romney did. That’s a horrible ROI, if you’re spending money that you shouldn’t in places that you have locked up.
Except – Clinton’s $13 million in January (the number I’ve read) is still a really nice number. More than any Republican, but well shy of the incredible numbers Obama is pulling in.
$13 million spent wisely can be effective. Mittens would love to see this kind of cash as it might save him a portion of his personal fortune he’s flushing down the drain…heh.
Clinton will do whatever it takes to give her the best chance to win. Like you say above, now she’ll try the debate / free press angle. And just watch how many in the Traditional Media fall for it.
The more I think about it, the more I believe we ain’t seen nothin’ yet from Mrs. Clinton.
She’s a fighter, and will pull out any trick avaliable to her.
Think about the audacity to suggest counting the delegates in Michigan. And yet, she did it without blinking. Go on Fox news? Sure, if I can use it to contrast against Sen. Obama and peel away a few votes if he says no. Why not?
It’s gonna get a lot more interesting before this puppy is put to bed. As I suggest below, I believe we’ll see the end of April before we see Mrs. Clinton ‘bow out gracefully’.
Go Obama!
(PS – I’ve been thinking about you off and on since reading your goodbye over at the orange satan. Hope all is well, and I gave you a little shout out over at First Read a few minutes ago. Much respect from me to you.)
$13 million at the rate they burn cash won’t go far? Think about it. In feb. 2007 Obama started from scratch. Hillary had $10 million on hand and went on to raise $104 million. Now, the rumors that the Clintons are financing their own campaign is confirmed.
TPM: Hillary loaned her campaign $5 million
HMMMMM! It’s a loan to be repaid from? Oh, the … victories will bring more support eh? after NH NV; a mere $13 million in January leads me to conclude her donor base is tapped out. Even Ron Paul has bested her.
But maybe they’ll pony up a huge slice from that $131 million mining deal. Oh, maybe not allowed it was from a foreign source.
Oh, so she’s ALREADY loaned her campaign money? Wow, that’s worse than I thought.
not to worry. Clintons have a personal money pile. $131 million on that mining deal plus another $20 million. They’ve been raking it in.
They run into Romney territory. Do they really want the headlines to talk about how they’re using family money to stay afloat when they’ve always been big fundraisers?
Marc Ambinder receives confirmation that Hillary lent her campaign $5 million at the end of January and is desperate to raise $3 Million in 3 days right now.
The Clinton campaign is broke. Time to spend Chelsea’s inheritance…
If I were on Obama’s campaign, I’d suggest he spin it like this:
Of course Hillary wants more debates. That’s free advertising, and she can’t match us in fundraising. I don’t see the point in giving her any free advertising, especially when she’s already the better known candidate.
We’ve debated. We’ve both got our platforms and positions posted.
I want to spend time with the people who have contributed to my campaign. She wants to spend time with the pundits to get free airtime.
Sorry, Hillary, I can’t help you there. I’ve got a campaign to run. You’re on your own.
That was my very first thought as soon as I read about her “debate-a-week-athon” proposal–she’s running low on cash.
But I think that was always a concern, as far back as the fall. Many people pointed to the fact that while she’s raised lots of cash, she had raised a lot of that from high dollar donors, most of whom had already maxed out. Her campaign likely thought that she’d emerge as the nominee after yesterday so she could ride it out. Clearly, that didn’t happen, so this is coming back to bite her in the butt.
Sure, she can self-finance, but I’m sure she’d seek ways to limit just how big a check she has to write. Thus ploys to get free publicity like more debates. Sheesh, haven’t they had almost 20? And of course, that can still be a high-risk strategy if SHE makes a mistake–witness the driver license response.
Without a proper segue, let me throw this out there–I know this is a delegate race, but it struck me that her strategy seemed to echo John Kerry’s and Al Gore’s: win the big states and hope that you can win the big prize, like OH. I don’t think that bodes well for her.
Well, look at her team. They keep doing the same things over and over again…and losing over and over again. I don’t think they fully appreciate that what worked 15 years ago, isn’t necessarily going to fly today.
You’re right. It didn’t work 8 years ago, nor did it work 4 years ago.
But I’m really surprised that none of the talking heads picked up on it. It’s almost the same strategy of the last few years: pick up the coastal states and hope you can win one or two in the middle to put your campaign over.
Maybe b/c it’s such a vindication of Dr. Dean’s 50 state strategy. (OK, so I think I heard Tweety say that the good doctor was a “flawed prophet.” Whatever man. Just a bit ahead of his time.)
Also read this. I’m not really keen on politico.com, but it was worth a read. Obama doesn’t have this in the bag by ANY stretch, but he’s in the better position for now.
Imagine dude stepping to you today with some old 1993 game – complete with Africa medallion and high-top fade. Mark Penn circa 2008…
Booman, I can’t see how you put PA as a tossup. Obama clearly has a strong advantage here in PA and it will grow as we head to our Primary.
The key isn’t the city areas. Obama won those in many of the bigger states. The key is the rural vote. Is the Philly Obama group doing major outreach to the rural districts there? That will be key to his success there.
I read some speculation somewhere, wish I could remember where, that Hillary is running out of cash and has started putting Clinton family money into her campaign. Anyone else hear any of this, and does anyone think there’s anything to it?
posted a link to Drudge Report.
Did Hillary send out an email congratulating herself on winning Missouri?
the financing speculation is being discussed in orange, apparently the original rumor is from The Page – which offers no evidence.
Tagaris over at OpenLeft was speculating on this.
also, Marc Ambinder is talking about it.
Also, regarding Penn & Ohio, both states have low numbers of Latino’s and 10-12% are African-Americans. Obama needs to make inroads with White voters (which he seems to be doing), and if he does, these states are ripe for the picking.
Hillary has got to be fresh out of funds right now. Got to be. She didn’t deliver the knockout blow to Obama. If not, she’s probably wondering whether her money is going to hold out until the end of primary season. Bill cannot raise any more from those with deep pockets–legally. Look for her to go really desperate, greasing palms with promises if not cash. The only way that she could stem the onrushing flood is to win big in some of these next contests.
The more super/delegates Obama gets, the less these guys will be able to dictate who the nominee will be, even if Obama is in the lead. Meanwhile, small donors will continue to stock Obama’s larder if he doesn’t begin to peak.
This all sounds really good, but I’ll breathe easier when we start seeing polling data from the various states supporting this roadmap to victory. Extrapolating – such as from Alabama and Georgia to Louisiana – is a little bit too “hand waving” an argument given everything that can change in the next month. To me, the strongest evidence that Obama is on the road to victory is the money issue. Even the Clintons ain’t gonna win without it.
BooMeister,
You’ve been doing some neat analysis lately, and I like your overall take above, with one important caveat.
There is very little reason to expect Clinton to back out regardless of the pressure she’ll face after the next couple of weeks or so. First off, I’m not so sure the pressure really will be all that great given the Traditional Media narrative that favors Clinton staying in as long as possible. There will be precious little hard truth coming from our big media friends over the next month or so.
Next, you mention her chances in Ohio and Texas. I can’t see her even thinking about giving in until these two big states have their say. She can win both states. I hope she doesn’t, but based on polling today, she can.
It’s like the dude over on the rec list at DKos with his statement of `Obama is only behind 10 points in Texas, so he’ll win there for sure!’. I know it’s exciting and all, but being 10 points back does not equal an automatic win.
So, no matter what she sticks through to March 4th. And I suspect beyond even if she only has a small chance to win. This is her time at the plate – she won’t give up after strike two and several runs down. She’ll take it all the way to the bitter end, or much closer to it than you suggest above. She won’t bow out until April 23 at the earliest, IMMHO.
All said – go Obama!
Mark Penn has been pimping a survey here that says Hillary has an 18 point lead in Ohio. I have been unable to find any information on this survey other than it supposedly surveyed 800 people and was performed by Opinion Consultants out of Columbus. So I don’t really put much stock in it at this point.
However, outside of the Cleveland and Columbus areas, I think Obama has a definite uphill battle in the rest of the state. Ohioans, generally speaking, are very conservative, mainstream type people. They are slow to accept things which are perceived to be out of the ordinary. There will most definitely be an advantage to Hillary out of the gate, I think, because there is a comfort factor due to her seemingly “mainstream” Democratic bonafides. Obama’s sudden rocketing to stardom is liable to be a little unsettling to many Ohio Democrats, who are used to working “inside the box”. So Obama is going to have provide a lot of face time on the ground here in Ohio to develop a sense among the electorate that he is not some radical new model of Democrat. One with which they have no familiarity and who they will wonder if the can trust. He has the charisma to pull this off, but it is going to take a lot of work.
Ohioans like their candidates plain and easy to understand. If there was a state color here in Ohio, it would definitely be beige.
Tennessee might actually be a good model for Ohio, then. Obama’s loss here wasn’t because Tennessee has a deeply buried but incredibly resilient layer of racism (although it definitely does), but because Tennesseans, as a group, are distrustful of novelty, often to the point of self-injury. Tennesseans will certainly vote for a black presidential candidate, but only the second or third black candidate.
Of course, one vital difference between Ohio and Tennessee is that Tennesseans will always prefer a Southern candidate — even a Southerner by marriage like Hillary Clinton — over a Yankee candidate until they’ve been burned badly enough to reconsider. Nashvillians, for example, only voted for Yankee transplant Phil Bredesen after local scoundrel Bill Boner flamboyantly self-destructed on the Phil Donahue show. So if Hillary Clinton is elected and is a miserable president, Obama might do quite well in the TN primaries eight years from now.
Being a TN progressive is hard. No good idea is ever adopted here until everyone else has been doing it for at least ten years.
Ditto for Ohio. I don’t think race will be an issue here in the primary, as I don’t think that Ohio Democrats think in those terms. However, in a general election, it will loom large in many parts of the state. Democrats can win big here, as Ted Strickland’s landslide for Governor showed. But Ohioans, much like our Tennessee brethren, will often vote against their obvious self interests, as demonstrated by their helping to put our worst-president-ever over the top in 2000 and 2004. They are just now realizing how stupid they were.
I always get the impression that you have a distinctly southern Ohio perspective on things (including Ohio).
Whatever do you mean???
Well, I am sitting right in the center of the probably the reddest part of the state. George Bush and Jean Schmidt country. Where George came to sell his yellowcake story to the country. This is where he comes when he wants to shed a few tears with John Boehner or sweep up a big load of cash for the GOP.
It is sometimes hard to remember that there are actual progressives in a lot of areas of Ohio. You go to Cleveland or Columbus and it’s like going through the Brandenburg Gate. We’ve got Democrats around here, that’s for sure. Though they are definitely a minority. But progressives around here are as rare as white rhinos.
Ditto what BooMan said. I spent 40 years in northern Ohio and it’s a different world than the southern, conservative part of the state.
Consider yourself fortunate. It is completely different, and not necessarily in a good way.
Reminds me of the Mark Twain quote about how if the world ever ends, he’d go to Cincinnati because everything there happens five years late.
Question for you: Did Harold Ford and/or the Ford family play a role in the race? Do they have a good organization there? Just curious.
If it’s about the people, then Obama is right, we are the people we’ve been waiting for.
How many friends have you called or emailed to make sure Obama gets his fair share of representation?
In WA state, we’re the only state that has both the caucus & the primary. Most regular folks, especially the set I’ve called that are new to the Dem party, don’t realize that unlike the Rep party here, the primary votes DON’T count. So they’ve all be sheepishly mailing in their newly minted Obama votes, thinking they don’t have to attend a caucus.
For WA voters, this could add up to a sizeable count.
1.Do we know ANYTHING about the racial makeup of Louisiana democrats now, following the Katrina diaspora? Citing the number from 2004 doesn’t strike me as terribly reliable.
2. Why are you saying that HRC doesn’t have much chance at VA? You didn’t give any analysis here — you just declared it so.
3.I think your analysis very much overplays the value of endorsements. If last night’s results showed us anything, it’s that even high-profile endorsements (assorted Kennedys, Kerry, Shriver) appear to account for diddly-squat in people’s voting patterns.
4.PA (which is where I live) has the 2nd highest percentage of elderly residents in the country (right after FL). I do not know what % of them are eligible to vote in the Democratic primary, but you are talking about Hillary’s top demographic here. That alone is going to make PA somewhat difficult for Obama.
Mind you, I’m a fellow Obama supporter, so I’d love to believe your analysis — as long as we can believe it isn’t mixed with Kool-Aid.
If last night’s results showed us anything, it’s that even high-profile endorsements (assorted Kennedys, Kerry, Shriver) appear to account for diddly-squat in people’s voting patterns.
It depends upon the endorser. Think about the leads in these states that he had to cut into. I think he did that, but didn’t have enough time to seal the deal. Also consider–if Clinton out-spent Obama in Mass, then to me, that’s a problem. Having to spend that money in a neighboring state? That should really be on lock.
More to the point, I think the endorsements were more important on a national level. That also means that fundraising and other networks are open to him.
But I agree with you that I wouldn’t be nearly as sanguine about LA. Does anyone have any idea of who’s voting or likely to vote? Same with PA. Thank goodness it comes later, but that’s going to be a tough nut to crack. I think he can do it, but we need to remain clear-eyed about it.
I feel better about VA than I do LA, I really do. Gov. Kaine has a good organization. Obama’s also received the endorsement of Rep. Boucher and state Dem Leader Del. Ward Armstrong. That’s a good thing, as they represent southwest VA. I don’t think Clinton would do well in SW. If he wraps up SW, Richmond area, Tidewater area (he has strong endorsements of people with good organizations–this I know firsthand) and does well in NOVA (unsure of his endorsements and how organized they are), he should be OK in VA.
Interesting analysis
I have not heard an explanation for why Obama kicks butt in caucuses. Why do you think it is so?
Probably a combination of his strong grassroots on-the-ground campaign teams — and the fact that when met with face to face, sincere, persuasive enthusiasm for a candidate is contagious.
Also, Obama had paid campaign staff in those states — even Alaska! — to help coordinate and focus the grassroots support.
I was wondering that too. Could it have anything to do with the primary voters reflecting the less current, mail in votes? The caucus’rs would be more representative of current energy.
simple answer: high information voters favor Obama by a wide margin.
I basically agree with your general assessments of the races but I disagree with some of your Meta and I wouldn’t conclude that he’s the prohibitive favorite. At all. He has big advantages. He has more cash and a better ability to raise cash. He has a better on the ground organization and the rest of the schedule will allow that to be useful. But I still see the advantage to Hillary based on her ability to carry Texas and Ohio.
Here’s where I disagree:
1. February Caucuses/Primaries – through Wisconsin.
Hillary will soldier on even if she loses them all. She has no reason to drop out with Ohio and Texas coming up. Forget delegate counts at that point – Ohio and Texas have enough delegates to put her right back on the map.
On the other hand, even with a majority of wins and a majority of delegates it might not be enough for Obama. He needs to outperform in order to have a shot at Ohio and/or Texas. No matter how far ahead he is in delegates, it can be wiped out for all practical purposes if he loses Texas and Ohio big. And in order to have any kind of shot of winning Texas and Ohio he needs to look inevitable coming into those races. So I think there’s much more pressure on Obama to win them all but especially whichever State Hillary decides to take him on in. (Virginia?) He needs a significant victory over her in a contested state
2. Ohio and Texas. He’s unlikely to win either of them and if he doesn’t win at least one I don’t see him winning the nomination. Hillary is going to put her all into these states, she’s going for big wins not just in delegates but in popular vote. A big win in both states puts her right back in the drivers’ seat. And if they end up close in delgates at the end I don’t see him convincing the superdelegates to go his way if he hasn’t carried at least one big state. Instead, they will push back against him and want him to agree to be VP.
Now, I have no idea how he wins either Texas or Ohio, but he needs to figure it out. He needs to cut into her lead in women and he needs to not concede the Texas Latino vote to her. I don’t however know how he will do that.
Winning Vermont and Rhode Island means nothing to him at that point if he loses in both Ohio and TExas. (And right now it looks like he will lose both – but let’s let him run his campaign and see how things change.)
If, however, he runs the table in the leadup to 3/4 with at least one victory over Clinton in a hotly contested state AND wins either Ohio or Texas , then I think he’s got it. Anything less means at best he’s still playing catchup to Hillary or he’s done (if he loses big in Texas and Ohio). Because …
3. Pennsylvania – the last big prize favors Hillary. If she wins Texas and Ohio she will win Pennsylvania. She may not be able to clinch delegates but she will look the winner and that’s what will count with the superdelegates.
He’s in a tough position. Her whole strategy is Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. She’ll spend time in Wisconsin and Virgina. He has to spend time everywhere.
One last thing … and I think this is potentially a huge advantage to him, her ability to run a nasty campaign against him is limited by the fact that if she wins she’s going to need him badly and there will be significant pressure for him to be the VP.
That’s very astute. Clinton alone most likely cannot defeat McCain in the general election.
On the other hand, there is a very good reason for him to decline to be on the ticket as VP: he’ll end up smeared with four to eight years of non-stop Clinton scandals by the time it’s all over.
I think Obama’s already relying on the fact that her hands are tied but he has some leeway. Current AP story on the race is headlined “Obama says GOP will have dirt on Clinton.”
He stayed away from this before. So either this is a sign of desperation or (and I think this is more likely)it’s a calculated risk that he can go negative on her but she harms herself by going negative on him.
It’s negative. But it’s also something everyone’s been thinking of all along but every time we try to talk about it someone calls it a “right wing talking point”.
His risk is that it tarnishes his own brand.
I agree the only time he should be doing this is in direct counter to her campaign’s critique of his vulnerability on this point in the GE. He doesn’t need to say this now.
it’d be gore v. bush v.2.0…assuming she could get elected for a first, let alone a second term, an extremely unlikely prospect imo.
unless his political ambitions outweigh his intellect, he would be wise to stay in the senate and build his bonafides there.
lTMF’sA
good point Dada. Why would he after the distortion of his policies. He’ll be slimed..just as Gore was.
I’m conflicted. Deep down I root for Obama. OTH, the economy is coming a crapper. Really a crapper without relief. I have great sympathy for whoever becomes president. The years 2010-2012 will be ugly.
Good points.
Although at this point the VP conversation is simply a dynamic in this race that works for him AND against him. The talk of a joint ticket always seems to assume Hillary is on top. That’s bad for him because it means he isn’t seen as the front runner and, hence, the superdelegates aren’t yet feeling compelled to put him over the top. If that doesn’t eventually change, it’s a bad sign for him.
But it’s possibly good for him in the short run because Hillary, although seen as a frontrunner, is portrayed as a weak frontrunner every time it is pointed out that she might need him as VP either for the votes he brings or to heal the divisions in the party. And to the extent that she knows people believe that she might need him and she can’t shake that perception, it limits her ability to attack him directly. And South Carolina showed that indirect attacks harm her too.
If he doesn’t care if he’s VP there’s nothing to stop him from using this advantage in Ohio and Texas. The question is, as always, does the benefit outweigh the potential harm to himself and his campaign brand.
This was an interesting analysis, Booman, enough to draw me out from lurking at DKos to dust off my account here and cross post my own analysis from Docudharma. You’ve been doing good work this campaign season, both in your objective and pro-Obama modes.
Now, here’s where you’re wrong. ;7)
First, I would like Obama to ratchet down expectations substantially for the Washington caucuses, because Hillary has what machinery exists, it’s her only play, and even though it’s a caucus and everyone thinks Obama should win, she’s going to put her chips there and he’s likely to lose. She should be considered the favorite there, and I say that in both my objective and pro-Obama mode (though in the latter I’m a little louder.) Obama has to learn to lower expectations better.
Second, all you’re going to be hearing from Hillary during these next three weeks of contests is that she just wants to stay competitive in them while she focuses on the big prizes (and they are that) of Ohio and Texas. There is no plausible way she drops out before then, regardless of what happens in Wisconsin. “It’s a race for delegates and I’m going to clean up on March 4” is what you’ll hear. And she’ll argue, convincingly, that the small races after that don’t matter, as she looks ahead to Pennsylvania. If Obama wins 60% of the delgates between now and March 4, that still gives him only a net gain of 120, most of which will be lost in Ohio and Texas.
No one is going to be able to talk Hillary and her husband into dropping out before Pennsylvania.
Third, assuming that she wins Texas and Ohio, which is likely, then even if she wins nowhere else she is likely to win Pennsylvania, which is old, working class, and suspicious. She’ll have the Mayors and Governor working on her behalf. After that primary, expect the delegate counts to be roughly equal.
Finally, all of the above mean that you absolutely do have to look at the post April 22 primaries, which are a mixed bag. The critical day is probably May 6, and the critical primary is North Carolina. If Obama does well there and in Indiana, he may get far enough into a delegate lead where you can hear rumblings of superdelegates going her way. But I think that Obama will do well in Oregon and Clinton will do very well in Puerto Rico. The mystery to me is Kentucky. Like North Carolina, it borders Tennessee, which Clinton won by 13, but this time he’ll have time to focus on it. That’s the best thing he has going for him, that he grows on people.
And then, of course, there is the wild card. Expect nominating conventions (or some other sort of mechanism) in Michigan and Florida — my guess is June 7 if a caucus or convention and June 10 if a primary — as the Dems realize that they can neither seat the previously selected delegates nor ignore these states in the runup to November. That works to Hillary’s advantage, possibly decisively. Obama’s best hope is for Edwards and Gore to finally come out and endorse him. But the prospect that those states will re-enter the mix is another reason that Hillary won’t drop out until she’s mathematically eliminated or humiliated, neither of which is likely before the convention.
Bet on it.
Been there recently, saw that. EVERYfuckingwhere.
Plus it has a very strong emerging hispanic vote.
Plus it elected a strong woman as Governor in 1991. Ann Richards
Thet thar frontier spirit ‘n all, bubba.
Hillary’s got it locked.
Bet on it.
She is.
AG
But Texas is not the USA, no more than Georgia is, no matter what the Dallas Cowboys would have you believe. Obama can lose Texas badly — and Ohio and Pennsylvania too — and still win the nomination.