come close in Texas, and probably declare some sort of victory (4.00 / 1)

yeah, like the US in Iraq.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 13:27:43 PM CST

Your Chart (4.00 / 2)

Your chart seems to predict a Clinton victory in the Texas caucuses. That's a mistake, right?

---

by: HatchInBrooklyn @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 13:43:20 PM CST

Yes, it was a mistake (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for catching it. Makes things look even worse for Clinton in the delegate count.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 13:50:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I will repeat (0.00 / 0)

my comment from last week: there is substantial volatility remaining in this race.  Assumptions about Indiana and North Carolina are dangerous at this point.

I think we may be heading for a re-vote in Florida if the Clinton people are smart enough to see that it would benefit them.  Clinton cannot win a majority of pledged delegates.  But imagine a REAL win in Florida after wins in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.  

It would be enough to change the narrative, and would begin to sway super-delegates.

I still think Obama has the edge and is the most likely nominee, but my view of polling over the last two days suggest Clinton wins in Texas and Ohio.  That will be enough to extend this race.

---

by: fladem @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 13:48:08 PM CST

I accept that changes can happen (0.00 / 0)

but the only delegates I can project are based on current polling. Clinton needs to do better than these projections, because she loses according to them even if everything else goes her way.

She needs to change the narrative, and earn some momentum with wins in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. However, I am not convinced that wins in those states can overcome the organizing and media narratives--not to mention delegate counts--that are already out there.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 13:53:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Indiana -- deep red A-B-C (4.00 / 1)

Indiana has demographics like Ohio and Wisconsin, but it's also a deep red anti-Clinton kind of state.

Meaning, the Obama advantage might be explained by GOP anti-Clinton group-think bleeding over to their Democratic neighbors. Or it might be due to the fact that Northern Indiana is in the Chicago media market.

Wisconsin has a long progressive tradition, while Ohio is a GOP leaning classic swing state. The demographics may be similar, but the politics are unique to each of them.

---

by: -ck- @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:06:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

IN, open primary (0.00 / 0)

I think this Republican voting block in open primaries would make a nice analysis diary for Chris, since they are so into it.

I've heard from conservatives that they are voting for Obama because they believe McCain can beat him easier than Hillary.  In the press I've heard the opposite.

I do not know which is true, but I heard that extensively from Utah GOP voters.  

I'd love to see an analysis of the GOP voting in Dem primaries that was statistically objective to give some insight as to what is really going on here.

If Obama gets Lugar in his camp then there is Evan Bayh and more importantly a lot of Dems won in their 2006 congressional races.  They know what their constituents will and will not tolerate (yes it is a very very different place) in terms of positions and I'd look to landing those Congress representatives from '06 as endorsements if it were me.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:48:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

huh (0.00 / 0)

Well, if she stays in (which I think she should) that campaign better get on Indiana.  Those numbers are dismal considering they too are like Ohio, decimated by offshore outsourcing, insourcing, bad trade deals, no health insurance and on and on.  Really bad, so her numbers there don't add up.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 13:50:10 PM CST

Sure they do (4.00 / 1)

Indiana may be like Ohio, but Ohio is also like Wisconsin.

Obama has consistently dominated deep red states that Bush twice won by 10% or more. There are many reasons for this, one of which is the lack of Clinton organizing in those states.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 13:54:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

trade effect (0.00 / 0)

Be interesting to see (obviously I'm obnoxiously focused on economics/trade) what happens in Ohio but I perceived Obama really winning the misinformation wars in WI on trade and finally Hillary fought back, but after WI.  Now we have the added bonus of NAFTA gate.  I sure would vote on this one issue and I know many in those states would also, so the question is will it have an effect now and does Hillary have enough of a Populist/Progressive (actually strategically wise, I mean the trade deficit is only running about ~6.5% of US GDP w/ 70% of US GDP from shopping)....positions and message to switch it.  I couldn't believe the Hillary campaign let those fliers and NAFTA misinformation blasts go on as long as it did.  Are they that oblivious to the Bill Hatred due to selling out the US workers on things like the WTO, China PNTR, fast track to not see that one coming?  Or are they more afraid of the US Chamber of Commerce, which threatened to put huge bucks in an "anti candidate" campaign against anyone who dared speak any truth on these trade deals, globalization?  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:20:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clinton's delegate blurring strategy (4.00 / 2)

At this point, Hillary's campaign seems to have taken DC's approach to blurring disasterous losses( like Iraq) and applying them to campaigning(like her 11 straight primary defeats).  Keep inching the goal posts further up the bleachers while keeping the donors and voters close enough to not be concerned about the string of crippling failures.

Doubt, the only tactic left and used quite deftly in the closing hours of this phase of the campaign.  Will it work?  I can't help but predict a split decision tomorrow.  Not only is Hillary trying to tap into voter angst about an Obama presidency but she is also trying raise the specter of the 2004 primary here.  We Democrats were quite hasty to nominate John Kerry and it led to an unexpected defeat in November.  Do Democrats want to make the same mistake again?  

With Clinton being the overwhelming, bone crushing favorite for more than a year, it's hard for me to buy into anything Clinton spins.  But I think this doubt thing, like the tear thing, will have limited play.  So I think that Obama will have plenty of time to adjust his message, up his game and go on to victory in PA.

I agree that organizing PA will probably be a very good thing since McCain seems to hold an advantage in such a critical state.  

Until fundraising drys up for Hillary, I suspect that she will keep inching the goal posts every step of the way, even to the convention.   In the final analysis, I believe she thinks that this is her only shot at winning the nomination and the presidency.  At worst, I bet she figures even if it comes to a knife fight on the convention floor where even our delegates here in MI and those in FL are somehow added in, to the ire of millions of Democrats, she picks Obama as her running mate to "heal" the party.  Are you willing to fight for it?  Like we didn't do in 2000. Because we sure as hell know the GOP will do everything in their power to hold onto to the presidency with both houses of Congress already lost to the Democrats.  In addition, a GOP hold on the white house, allows the conservatives the opportunity to move the supreme court decidedly to the right for decades even if their electoral propects are crippled for the next decade or so.  So that's what I think, she's thinking.

---

by: gaspare @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 13:56:15 PM CST

Delegate blurring strategy (0.00 / 0)

I quite like that.....

---

by: fladem @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:13:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

NPR -- Clinton stays in, no matter what (0.00 / 0)

On an NPR update this morning, Hillary said she was staying even if she doesn't win anything tomorrow.

That was probably a rally-the-troops comment, but still . . .

---

by: -ck- @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 13:56:35 PM CST

Everyone says that (0.00 / 0)

Every candidate is in the race until the very end, until they're not. As I recall, John Edwards was going all the way to the convention...until he dropped out.

---

by: Kal @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 15:59:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Miscellania - expectations, and FL and MI, going on to Penn. (0.00 / 0)

The expectations narrative can be extremely frustrating - a month ago, Obama is downy by 20 in OH and TX, according to polls.  Now, he is basically tied with Clinton, and may narrowly lose the Texas popular vote.  And lose OH from 5-10%.  

And yet - somehow, this is an "unexpected" Clinton victory?  Where she beats expectations?

Also - I would really like a redo in both Florida and Michigan.  

I think there would be a lot of participation, and this would get more people involved.

I don't even mind going on to Pennsylvania, as you say, it helps build up infrastructure.  Still, 6 weeks for the contest to get more acrimonious?  I hope both camps can keep it sorta civil, to not alienate the supporters of either (any more than they are alienated now.)

If Clinton does win both big states, the only question when it comes to pledged delegates, is whether the polling for Indiana holds.  There has been only one poll and, while I'm confident that North Carolina will vote strongly Obama, would like more confirmation from Indiana.

---

by: JC @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 13:58:49 PM CST

Obama's weak (0.00 / 0)

The fact that he's still struggling to beat her in Ohio and Texas suggests major weakness. He's got enormous momentum. He's been the recipient of overwhelmingly positive media coverage, while Clinton has been trashed as a racist and worse.

And he's still losing Ohio to her. BY TEN POINTS.

He may squeak out the nomination, but clearly there's a pretty strict cap on how far his charm will take him. Everyone who is going to go ga-ga for him already has. He's maxed out. He'll lose in November.

Read Krugman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03...

---

by: Jason C. @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 13:59:15 PM CST

Doesn't it bother you (4.00 / 4)

To have such obviously slanted spin on the situation? It is comments like these that makes me wonder what happens to people's brains when they get hard behind one candidate or another.

Real Clear Politics has Clinton by 6.4% in Ohio, and Pollster.com has her by 5.8%. That ain't 10%, as you say.

Further, both of those leads are down from about 18-19% just two weeks ago. Clinton was way ahead in Ohio, and Obama has cut her lead by about 70% in the state. That is hardly "weak."

I don't mind people supporting candidates. What I do mind is when they lose their ability to think as a result of that support.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:10:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not about the exact number (0.00 / 0)

We'll see what the exact margin is tomorrow; maybe Obama will even pull it out.

But if he loses convincingly in those states, you don't think it raises some concerns? The landscape for him right now is as favorable as it will ever be. If he still loses tomorrow, you have to wonder what's wrong. After 11 straight victories, or whatever it's been, he should be leaving her in the dust.  

---

by: Jason C. @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:15:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No... (4.00 / 1)

It won't raise "concerns"... Both the states were heavily favored for Clinton just 2 weeks ago.  If Clinton ends up netting delegates tonight, it'll be in the realm of around 10.

While it's not ideal for Obama's campaign, he can certainly take it.  The only people it should raise concerns for are the Clinton people, because it'll just reinforce the fact that even if they win, they can't make up Obama's delegate lead.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:19:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think you're misunderstanding me (0.00 / 0)

I'm agnostic on the question of whether Hillary still has a shot at beating Obama for the nomination. Obviously, it's not too late in any strict sense, but my purpose isn't to argue that Obama's going to lose the nomination.

The 'concerns' I'm talking about have to do with the general election. Obama, in my opinion, is a much weaker general election candidate than is commonly supposed.

---

by: Jason C. @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:26:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And many people thing just the opposite... (0.00 / 0)

While I like Clinton, I've had concerns about her in the general election ever since she announced her candidacy.

And I think plenty of people have already mentioned this... but Primary performance is hardly indicative of General Election performance.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that if Obama wins Texas that he'll win it in November, or similarly for Clinton.  

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:33:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

sure does (0.00 / 0)

as does the media story plants from the Obama campaign about how Hillary should drop out and people not seeing that as what it is, media story plants to push public opinion.

Irrational exuberance is what gets people to buy tacky Hummers, and sign up for insane mortgages to get in now before prices go up and so on.  

Someone needs to publish "the seaweed sea of media manipulation and how you can avoid getting tangled and drown" 101 course and make the class mandatory in the US.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:25:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clinton was the overwhelming favorite for a year (0.00 / 0)

Clinton held double digit leads in most states was considered the odds on favorite even deep into December.  If anything, these two candidates seem to be very evenly matched with different strengths and weaknesses.  Neither one able to provide a convincing knockout.  Obama has made up huge 20 and 30 point deficits to get to where we are today.  Clinton has found a way to slow Obama's momentum but her messaging doesn't galvanize a majority of Democratic voter's.  Sure one would prefer that one candidate beat the other by 3/5 or more showing a decisive grasp of the electorate.  However, it seems that both candidates are being given the anti-Kerry effect.  First, with Clinton, denying her the front-runner status that she had been enjoying and now with Obama, casting doubt to his narrative.  We were quick to pick Kerry in 2004 and the electorate is taking a very careful and thoughtful look at each one.  
They are very evenly matched.

---

by: gaspare @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:11:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pot calling kettle black (0.00 / 0)

In terms of who is "weak".

Look, clearly Obama has some weaknesses.  But so does Clinton.  

Given how Clinton, with all the advantages she had going into the primary, has performed so badly against Obama, I disagree that Obama is weaker.  In fact, he has a lot of strengths, in  a lot of areas.

---

by: JC @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:16:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's the thing (0.00 / 0)

Of course, both candidates have strengths and weaknesses. But some are more relevant than others.

What Obama has proven thus far: he can eke out a victory over his opponent, when he is treated with rapturous press coverage, and when his opponent is slimed on a daily basis by the media.

Which is all well and good, but that's not the job description for the Democratic nominee. The Democratic nominee will have to win when the tables are turned: when THEY are being slimed daily, and when their opponent is being fellated in the press.

Hillary's shown that she can at least hold her own in such circumstances. There's no reason to think Obama can.

I'm not trying to bag on Obama just for the hell of it. I really, really don't want to see another four years of the GOP in office, and I'm convinced that if Obama is the nominee, that's exactly what will happen. This is a disaster in the making.  

---

by: Jason C. @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:23:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clinton has barely shown this... (0.00 / 0)

If Clinton had shown that, then according to you she should be winning this Primary.

If you're talking about her Senate runs, I think only the first was considered competitive at first (particularly when running against Giuliani), but I dunno that I'd necessarily consider either of her opponents as giving her a particularly tough race.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:40:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This comment ignores a lot, re: electability (0.00 / 0)

Here's a list:

a. You're ignoring that, if Clinton was such a strong candidate, this wouldn't have gone beyond 2/5.
b. "Eking out a victory", isn't really what Obama has done.  Obama has come from behind in a MONSTER way, over the course of this contest.  
c. You ignore the history of Obama being an organizer, which runs right through, as the key to his success now, in the primaries.
d. You ignore the charisma factor.  Always important, especially given the new MONSTER donations, Obama is bringing in.  (A million people have given to his campaign, remember).

So your point is, that Obama can't handle the Repub slime machine.  That's a projection judgement call, and, it is possible you are right.  But I disagree, for the following reasons.

a. Attacks often simply slide off Obama - as they do with great media candidates (Reagan, Clinton, come to mind).
b. The "rightwing smear machine", has a history with Clinton, as does the press of the 90's - that combination - the smear machine working hand in glove with MSM - simply won't be as true, or potent, with Obama as a candidate.
c. I believe Obama's team and Obama himself have had very good judgment, and rapid response, when it comes to attacks.  

So, while of course I can't see into the future, as you can't, I do disagree with your assesment.  

But let's agree that electability arguments are, in the main, fairly weak projections into the future.  

---

by: JC @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:48:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

The 'electability' arguments will always consist, by and large, of speculation. There's just very, very little data to base predictions on. Ultimately, it is always a judgment call about how much various factors will weigh on the electorate. Still, I think rational discussion can be had; people just have to keep in mind that it's not a science.

What bothers me is that Obama's electability is mostly, in the liberal blogosphere and in the mainstream press, taken for granted. There has never really been a serious discussion about whether he can actually win or not. And there are all kinds of reasons to suspect that he cannot. There are arguments to be made against Hillary's chances, too, of course. But the discussion isn't really even being conducted, and that's dangerousness. I think we are about to nominate someone without even really considering whether or not he can actually win.  

---

by: Jason C. @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 19:23:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You (0.00 / 0)

are certainly true to your candidate.  Clinton has held her own by consistently losing swing state after swing state despite having lots of money and a seasoned campaign staff and decades-deep ties with individuals and organizations in and around the Democratic Party.  If she wins Ohio, we'll chalk one up for her, but losing Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, and Washington, doesn't inspire confidence that she's on solid footing, even in a year when a lampost goes into the general with a 5 point edge.  

---

by: historyrocks @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 17:31:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not a weak candidate, 2 strong ones... (0.00 / 0)

Please... It's a close contest, and Clinton is favored in some states/areas just as Obama is favored in other states/areas.  Both of them have solid support and a lot of their supporters simply don't want to just simply switch their vote for the winner just because they're probably the winner.

Unless Clinton starts pulling in the same kind of momentum that Obama has had, starting to win places by 20+ points, she's going to fall short.  The fact that she's not being treated like Huckabee right now is a testament to the fact that she's a strong candidate... just not as strong as Obama.

And that's the story of this election... 2 strong candidates, one managing to out-raise and out-organize the other.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:16:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

He's cut 30 points off of her lead in a matter of weeks (0.00 / 0)

he's going against the highest profile Democrat in the nation. Your comment makes no sense.

---

by: illlaw @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 15:35:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We'll see about that 10 points (0.00 / 0)

this time tomorrow.  

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 16:41:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

she can fool the press but can she fool the party? (4.00 / 3)

I wonder if the superdelegates are going to buy into her continuing the campaign if she doesn't make serious inroads into Obama's pledged delegate lead tomorrow. She may be able to spin the press that a slender popular vote win in Ohio is a reason to continue, but the party elders aren't going to be fooled. I have to think if she doesn't gain on Obama by mutliple tens of delegates (20+) tomorrow the tidal wave of superdelegates to Barack is going to put an end to this fairly quickly.

---

by: redwards95 @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:18:56 PM CST

so then, how is the popular vote counted in Texas? (0.00 / 0)

how is the this determined between caucuses and primaries?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 14:44:44 PM CST

primary=popular vote (0.00 / 0)

Presumably the popular vote only includes the primary.

---

by: redwards95 @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 15:01:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Unless aliens come down and abduct (0.00 / 0)

Obama it is realistically impossible for her to make up her delegate deficit.

The only thing she's going to do is hurt the Democratic Party.

I understand some bloggers care more about Clinton (Go DLC and Blue State+1 Strategy!)than they do about beating McCain or preserving the Democratic Party, but those bloggers are doing a disservice to their legacies and all of the good they have done over the years.  

---

by: illlaw @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 15:34:26 PM CST