Exciting (0.00 / 0)

How incredible.
I'd love to see an at a glance history.
Perhaps start with the first at a glance from the election, with 4 or 5 highs and lows to the win.

Question: I am surprised by everyone assuming Obama will be the nominee. I still have trouble believing that Hillary will give up while there is the smallest speck of light at the end of her tunnel.

Are there any indications she is getting/or will get pressure from the party to drop out if she does poorly in TX and OH?

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 13:27:24 PM CST

Chris Dodd (4.00 / 1)

It seems to me that Chris Dodd is the vision of a "party elder." His endorsement of Obama today seemed to suggest that the party will begin to line up behind Obama on March 5th if Clinton loses either Ohio or Texas. At this point I think Obama wins Texas outright and loses Ohio by a hair.

I do not think that Clinton will concede that night, but I think that Obama is probably holding back several superdelegates for March 5th. If I was the campaign I would want to drop the hammer with several respected superdelegates on March 5th. That would build a narrative that would lead to Clinton withdrawing from the race.

---

by: StrawMan @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 13:43:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Welcome to the club, (4.00 / 4)

whatever its name may be. It's only when we zoom out that we can see this thing in its totality. This slow-motion beatdown began, arguably, with South Carolina and everything since, including 2/5, has gone according to script.  

---

by: Matt H @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 13:27:53 PM CST

Ha! (0.00 / 0)

What an amazingly apt term: "slow-motion beatdown".

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 13:51:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It may be technically apt (0.00 / 0)

But it's a little thuggish for my part of the world.  Outside the blogosphere and the media snake pit Hillary Clinton has a surprising amount of influence, particularly among women.  Obama may need a few of their votes.

---

by: Upstate Dem @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:50:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't mean it as a taunt (0.00 / 0)

believe it or not. I know that I can't have it both ways here -- some people are going to be offended by the word 'beatdown.'

I would be happy to vote for HRC against McCain, were she to win. While I don't agree with many of her recent tactics, I think they're more a function of her current position rather than some kind of hideous collection of dirty tricks.

I think the term is a vivid and accurate description of the state of the campaign that helps people conceptually get what has been going on. That's why I use it.

---

by: Matt H @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 15:14:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

agreed. (0.00 / 0)

it doesn't look as if we're going to have an open senate seat here in NY any time soon. sorry, david paterson...

It's time:the albany project.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 13:33:14 PM CST

Indiana poll (4.00 / 1)

Link here.  
Obama 40, Clinton 25.

---

by: dreaminonempty @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 13:35:03 PM CST

That clinches it even if March 4 doesn't (0.00 / 0)

Indiana AND North Carolina set off Pennsylvania.  

Which means that, even in the event of a tie, Clinton can't make it up.

---

by: JC @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:16:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks! (0.00 / 0)

Updated.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:20:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It began in December (4.00 / 2)

at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner.  This is a big event in Iowa, especially during the presidential election years.  Clinton came on and breathlessly talked about her 35 years of experience.  Obama followed and brought down the house in rock star fashion talking of hope and change.  I called Iowa for Obama the next morning.  For me, the only real surprise has been a.) the incompetence of the Clinton campaign, and b.) how Clinton pulled off New Hampshire.

---

by: shlenny @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 13:35:44 PM CST

Anyone know (0.00 / 0)

where Michael Whouley is right now? That would be an interesting glance into the Clinton campaign's priorities. (How much of a role he played in winning New Hampshire is unknown, but he definitely played one.)

---

by: illissius @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 13:52:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That was a big moment (4.00 / 5)

If Obama does indeed win the nomination, here are the other "plays of the campaign" which I think would make the highlight reel if ESPN Classic starts getting into the political campaign business:

1. The Obama campaign's decision not to take money from federal lobbyists

This was critically important in establishing Obama as the outsider, reform candidate in the media narrative, and became an issue that he and Edwards used very effectively against Clinton in every debate, stump speech, and TV appearance. The Obama campaign's focus on ethics was an important part in the branding of Obama as the "change" candidate.

2. Obama's answer to the Iran/Syria/Venezuela/North Korea foreign leader question at the YouTube debate

Obama had to answer this question first, and against all conventional wisdom he came out and said he would indeed conduct direct, personal diplomacy with other foreign leaders without requiring pre-arranged concessions. While the Beltway press hammered him at the time (saying it played into the lack of experience that Clinton was trying to box him in with), and he seemed to suffer a dip in the polls, I think when most liberal primary voters stepped back and looked at the issue, they were horrified with the answers they heard from Clinton and Edwards and generally sided with Obama (case in point: this didn't become a recurring theme in the Clinton and Edwards stump speeches, but Obama took almost every opportunity he could to play it up). His campaign handled this one brilliantly.

3. The aftermath of President Clinton's "Jesse Jackson incident."

Looking at the pollster.com national chart for the Dem. nomination, there are two points where Obama jumps up really high. First is the period after the Iowa caucuses, where he proved himself to be capable of winning (and winning big) in a white, rural state. Second is the period after the South Carolina primary. After being destroyed at the polls, the Clinton campaign went into self-destruct mode when Bill disparagingly pointed out that Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina (never mind the fact that that was a caucus with a fraction of the 2008 participation rate or that Obama beat Sen. Clinton 2-1). Not only did that comment create a media firestorm--which the Obama campaign handled deftly by letting surrogates and reporters lead the charge--but it also is said to have been an important factor in winning the endorsement of Ted Kennedy.

4. Obama's eloquent 2002 speech in opposition to the Iraq war

Even though it happened in the infancy of his Senate  campaign, it set the stage for a lot of the success he would have in his Presidential one. Not much needs to be said about this one--while Clinton and Edwards were casting a vote for what would become the biggest incitement of liberal anger since probably the Vietnam War, Obama was doing the right thing and standing in opposition. Whatever you may think about his voting record once he arrived in the Senate, there is no doubt that his being against the Iraq war from the beginning was a major reason for his success in the campaign.

5. Organization, organization, organization

While the Iowa caucus victory (and victory speech) could be included on this list, the reason it happened transcends the borders of the Hawkeye State and is responsible for Obama's lead in pledged delegates despite losses in California, New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Put simply, the Obama campaign ran a much smarter field game than the other candidates'. He had twice as many offices in Iowa than Clinton or Edwards, and was the only candidate who seemed to have any sort of strategy for a campaign lasting after the first four states or, in the case of Clinton, February 5th. Jon Carson and Paul Tewes, among others, deserve a lot of credit for this one.

Anyone else have anything to add to this list?

---

by: Max Fletcher @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:19:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good list (0.00 / 0)

What I find striking is that Clinton could have avoided or finessed every single item to her advantage if she'd been as good a campaigner or had the savvy staff that the MSM spin promoted to conventional wisdom. Obama deserves full credit for an almost-unthinkable achievement, but in the clutch, Clinton let him do it when she could have stopped him. Which, to me, puts the final nail in the "electabity" coffin.

---

by: DaveW @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:28:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Watching Obama is like watching a fast motion nature film (4.00 / 5)

You know, the kind where the seed sprouts, grows, flowers in 10 seconds.  

That's what watching Obama has been like since December.  Hillary kept touting her experience, but not what she learned form it.  Obama just kept growing and evolving before our eyes, until at the last debate he really seemed presidential, he had good command of the relevant facts, anda real sense of grace in how to attack and defend and explain.  

Hillary's biggest failing, IMHO, is that she can't seem to really listen and absorb and evolve based on what she hears.  They had it all figured out in advance and just went with the script, never realizing until last week that it wasn't going to work.  And she's become so graceless lately.  I'll be glad when it's over.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:37:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This comment says it all (0.00 / 0)

Hillary kept touting her experience, but not what she learned form it.

 Best one-sentence distillation of Hillary Clinton's tragic flaw I've ever seen.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 16:46:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Phili Debate where she flubbed immigration (0.00 / 0)

I think a lot of folks were looking for a reason not to support her.

And, Obama's refusal to let his campaign be about race.  While Hillary was playing up gender.  Both were strategies, I didn't know which would work...but his always had the bigger upside.  She pegged herself with women, and men didn't follow.  When one block of that grouping, black women, fell... it through off the balance.  Everyone saying she needs to have a more female attitude is wrong.  She should have ran a campaign not based on holding groups, but reaching out to groups.  Her campaign has done a lot to reach out to women, and done a good job...but black women means that 52-48 math was thrown off.

---

by: cardboard @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:51:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What am I missing? (0.00 / 0)

How does a tie in Texas and a significant gap in Ohio add up to a virtually certain Obama win on the 4th? Are you factoring in Obama's Texas advantage from their bizarre delegate system, or something? I'd like to think this is almost a done deal but don't see where the strong confidence re TX and OH come from.

---

by: DaveW @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 13:50:44 PM CST

It's that (0.00 / 0)

plus the Vermont - RI gap. Chris has argued elsewhere, quite reasonably, that Obama's margin of delegate victory in VT will be greater than HRC's in RI, giving him a small but real EST delegate edge heading into OH and TX.

At this stage I'm assuming that Obama wins TX delegates by at least 10%. That, plus the VT edge, gives him quite a 3/4 edge going into OH.

---

by: Matt H @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:04:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Delegates (0.00 / 0)

Because of the Texas delegate system, Clinton would be hard pressed to make up any net delegates from Ohio and Texas even if the numbers listed above were the final results. Obama would probably net about 20 delegates from Texas, while Clinton would only net about 12 from Ohio.

Vermont also probably cancels out Rhode Island. Throw in big Obama victories in Wyoming and Mississippi, and I have a difficult time seeing how Clinton even pulls even in delegates between now and March 11th. And as others have pointed out, North Carolina and Indiana cancel out Pennsylania.

Obama will win pledged delegates by more than 150, basically no matter what happens the rest of the campaign. Clinton's window has become extremely narrow, and at this point basically requires Obama to receive zero delegates from Michigan.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:25:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for clarifying (0.00 / 0)

But don't you think the next round will radically change the outlook for all the subsequent results? Assuming Obama does win TX, do you see Clinton being able to go on, considering that even Bill said she couldn't?

---

by: DaveW @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:34:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hard to say (0.00 / 0)

If Clinton wins the Texas primary vote, and she also wins Ohio and Rhode Island, then yes, I believe we are going to have a contested primary in Pennsylvania. Start removing any of those three conditions, and the odds of Clinton begin to decrease.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:36:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

question (0.00 / 0)

What's up with the 10 pledged delegates still pending for Colorado? Anyone know when they will be assigned?

---

by: dwbh @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 13:51:47 PM CST

Hooray for Nomination at a Glance (0.00 / 0)

I look forward to "General Election at a Glance".  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 13:52:55 PM CST

Eggs. Hatching. Chickens. Counting. (4.00 / 2)

The order is important.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.

---

by: MC @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:05:50 PM CST

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

  I never, ever count out the beltway-approved candidate until the convention is over. There are some powerful interests deeply invested in a Clinton-McCain matchup, and they haven't given up. Just check out what has become Obama Smear Week.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 16:49:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Our fondest dream here in Illinois is that Blago (0.00 / 0)

appoint himself into Obama's vacant seat. Just saying, as long as we are counting chickens...

Jeff Wegerson

---

by: wegerje @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:17:06 PM CST

Good idea (4.00 / 2)

Illinois has no right to keep its embarrassment to itself when it could share it with the whole country.

---

by: DaveW @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:21:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Based on CURRENT polls, HOW do you see an Obama victory? (0.00 / 0)

If Obama, even slightly, underperforms the current polls, he barely loses Tx (say ties in delegates), loses OH, loses RI, and wins VT.

With a slight underperformance of the current polls by Obama, Clinton will probably gain 10 to 20 delegates for the night.

That would further impact the reporting (Hilary has life!), for Wyoming and Mississippi contests, perhaps causing them to be closer than is now estimated.  So the end result of March 4 to March 11 would be a tie, or where we are now.

Granted, in that situation, Hilary can't make it up, as she is still 160 delegates behind, with over 400 more delegates added.

But you are over-projecting, based on current polls.  

---

by: JC @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:22:59 PM CST

Clinton can win Texas and Ohio and still not gain net delegates. n/t (0.00 / 0)

Jeff Wegerson

---

by: wegerje @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:31:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here is how (4.00 / 2)

Let's assume that all of the above polls end up predicting the final margin precisely.

In Vermont, Obama probably wins the pledged delegates 9-6, while Clinton wins Rhode Island delegates 12-9. They cancel out.

In Texas, Obama probably edges Clinton in the primary delegates, something like 66-60. Even though the vote is roughly tied, the district level delegate breakdown favors Obama. Either way, Obama probably wins a crushing victory in the caucus delegates, probably something like 26-16, at worst. Overall, Obama takes Texas by 10-15 delegates.

In Ohio, Clinton's 7.5% victory translates into a delegate victory of about 10-15. That cancels out Texas, but it does not allow her to make up any ground.

And even if all of the above scenarios go even better than expected for Clinton, Obama still nets 4 delegates in Wyoming, and another 5-11 in Mississippi. So, Obama tacks on another ten net delegates, making it impossible for Clinton to make up any ground in net pledged delegates between now and March 11th.

After that point, Indiana and North Carolina cancel out Pennsylvania. From then on, there are only 217 pledged delegates left. So, really the worst case sceario for Obama right now is that he wins pledged delegates by 150. Clinton has to somehow hope that Michigan, Florida and superdelegates can make up the difference. And that seems pretty unlikely.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:35:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Rhode island (0.00 / 0)

It looks more like 11-10 to me.

---

by: paulgemini @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 15:10:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Got it (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the complete explanation!

---

by: JC @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 15:25:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]