Probably making the most out of a necessity, the Clinton campaign has gambled everything on big wins in Ohio and Texas to counteract Barack Obama’s ridiculous momentum in February states. Rudy Giuliani’s campaign manager thinks that is a great idea, and indeed recent polls have Hillary ahead by seventeen points.
That’s nice, but it won’t be enough. Let’s count off the reasons – a 17% win in both big states won’t provide enough extra delegates to overcome Obama’s lead, every poll is trending Obama’s way and Obama consistently outperforms the polls on election day. The last bit is especially interesting because i still don’t think that most people have entirely grokked what it means for a race with Obama in it. One Virginia poll had Obama up by 15 points, some last-minute tracking polls put him up by about 20; Obama won by almost 30 points.
Across the various states since February 5th it seems undeniable that Obama consistently outperforms expectations. This probably has a lot to do with momentum; polling necessarily happens before voting. But I suspect that a large part of the disparity comes from the fact that Obama is increasingly bringing in demographics that normally don’t vote (e.g. young voters, single women etc.) or normally don’t vote Democratic. I bet that pony mania is playing hell with likely voter formulas.
Anyhow, given that and the big mo’, I don’t think that a 17-point lead in Ohio is very good news for Clinton at all.
Jen
Is Ohio an open primary? That could affect things too.
Dennis - SGMM
Remember when Clinton was “the prohibitive favorite” with the polls showing her up by 20% or more in every venue? I suspect that most pre-election polling is already stale by the time that it’s completed.
Ride, pony, ride.
Tom Shipley
I actually like them against Toledo tonight.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I think the logic involves inevitability, not delegate math. I hear that her goal will be to say “lookie I won the big states (and my hubby was preznit once) so you have to give me the keys! An’ I wanna pony. Now!”. The plan says that by saying that, the pavlovian training of the dems kicks in and they flock to her.
While I’d love to believe your reasoned, adult concept of things, we’re dealing with Clintons here. Their personality doesn’t function normally, like ours does.
neil
That SUSA poll might be good, but it seems to underweight independents compared to past Ohio elections. Of course, Obama cleans up among independents.
DrDave
Rudy’s campaign manager thought Florida was a great idea for Rudy, too. How did that work out again???
NonyNony
Is Ohio an open primary? That could affect things too.
Depends on what you mean by “open”. You have to declare your party allegiance when you take a ballot. I’ve been told that they can make you sign a “party affiliation” statement if you’ve changed your affiliation since the last primary you voted in, but I’ve never seen it happen. When I switched from Republican to Independent they didn’t make me sign anything. It was years later and a different district entirely when I switched from Independent to Democratic, so no one made me sign anything.
As for “winning big” in Ohio – I don’t think it’ll happen. I mean, it could happen – we’ve traditionally got the right demographics (older, conservative-leaning) for Clinton to win a sizeable margin. But – it seems like the OSU college students are even MORE active here in Columbus than in the last election cycle (where they were incredibly active in comparison to earlier ones). I think the turnout among the college students will be larger than in ’04, which will sway things for Obama. AND – Ohio likes winners. If Clinton is being perceived as a “loser” coming into Ohio, she’s going to lose some level of support. Those two things combined may not push Obama over the top to win the state, but it’ll likely make it much, much closer than Clinton will really need to declare “victory.”
zzyzx
17 points is significant. However, Obama will have three weeks between WI and OH/TX to cut into that lead.
First, though, he has to win WI and HI to keep the momentum argument going.
scott
As a political junkie and proud librul Democrat, I still don’t grok Obama.
But it’s clear he has an appeal that’s undeniably deep and getting wider by the day. Jen mentioned the open primary aspect of this. As a former VA resident, I can tell ya that that does play into this. Who suffers? Well, McMaverick does because even those people who buy into the Villager’s bullshit maverick label, they look at a cranky 71 year old man who’s beyond wooden or a 46 year old man who’s a great orator. Clinton loses because some of those people who just as often as note vote Repug get a chance to cross over giving Obama that much more of a margin.
I’ve got a buddy in NoVA who usta be on Darth Cheney’s staff. He voted for Dumbya in 00 but held his nose and voted for Kerry in 04. He’s flat out stated he’d vote for Obama in a heartbeat, never for Clinton. As he puts it “there’s no black man in America who has as much negative baggage as Clinton”.
We might be seeing a confluence of “Clinton Fatigue” and “Jesus Fatigue” this year. The country will be better if both come to pass.
Scotty
I think that is fairly significant. It seems the more people see of him the more they are impressed, or at least more willing to vote for him. Does this mean the more Clinton is seen/heard the more likely people turn away from her?
Obama is pretty much a shoe-in for Wisconsin. So even if he does lose Hawaii (not likely) he’ll be pulling 1 out of 2. That one being a larger share of delegates.
Scotty
And here comes the negative ads. This is all Clinton has left to work with.
TheFountainHead
If Obama loses Hawaii I’ll eat my cat.
crw
Ohio is one of the hardest hit states in the ongoing economic meltdown. I don’t think Ohions are going to be as receptive to Obama’s emotional message of hope and change for the better. To pull it out he’s going to have to wonk out a bit on economics and get specific addressing their very real insecurities.
On the bright side, for the general, I don’t see how McCain can take Ohio if he keeps focusing on national defense and foreign policy.
jnfr
On the surface, I would think Clinton should be competitive in Wisconsin. That she’s practically conceded that election says to me that her campaign is fading.
I’m still waiting to see Obama take a high population, working class state. If he wins in Ohio, Texas, or Pennsylvania, it’s all over.
Gus
They went there. Off topic hilarity. I don’t know how to embed links, but RedState is calling our current economic problems the “Pelosi recession.” According to one of the shit-for-brains commenters, “Even though they haven’t been able to get any of their idiotic agenda passed, just talking about it for the last 15 months has been enough to trash the economy.” That is some powerful rhetoric!
jcricket
Let me start with the idea that if Obama wins Ohio, Texas and/or PA and really picks up any kind of delegate lead heading into convention season, he has to be made the nominee, even if he doesn’t have the numbers to “lock”. There’s no other way to avoid demoralizing the Dems at that point.
However, let’s suppose Clinton wins Ohio and Texas and maybe PA by a reasonably large margin. Add in the possibility of an Edwards endorsement (who knows) for her. Also add that it’s nearly mathematically impossible for Obama to sew up enough delegates to actually secure the nomination before the convention.
The two candidates are then tied in terms of delegates, or Hillary has some slight advantage.
Why would Hillary not be equally entitled to the nomination at that point. Obama’s “momentum”? Hillary is old news/politics of the past? Doesn’t seem convincing to me. Despite press leanings otherwise, or wishes and hopes of the blogosphere/Obamamaniacs, it would seem (in this scenario) that she got slightly more delegates than Obama, so she managed to convince plenty of Democrats (including super delegates) to vote her way.
I understand the desire to claim things are a “done deal”, and I will fully get behind Obama at the point where these big contests are over if he pulls into a lead of any reasonable size. But if he doesn’t, I think the ride’s gonna be fairly bumpy in terms of jockeying for the nomination.
And I just hope Obama fans can see that it might not be “unfair” or “wrong” for Hillary to get the nod in that scenario.
Zifnab
Wisconsin is one of the most open primaries in the nation, with a single straight ticket that you can vote off of as you please. It’s practically a general election, just with more candidates to choose from.
I have little doubt that Obama will soar in such a contest.
Sasha
In the same vein but more interesting, perhaps, is the last Texas poll that I can find taken in the closing days of January that shows in Texas Clinton at 48% and Obama at 38%. The previous poll at the end of December had Clinton 45% and Obama 28%. Texas may not be a slam-dunk either.
Sasha
Ack. I meant to source those numbers. IVR Polls. http://ivrpolls.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=1
Zifnab
If Hillary somehow magically took Ohio and Texas and maybe Pennsylvannia by reasonably large margins. And Edwards endorsed her. And Obama still didn’t have the votes to lock up the nomination. And the two delegates were tied or Hillary had a slight lead. And monkeys started flying out of my ass. I suppose you would have a point.
However, that’s not what anyone is particularly worried about. The general fear is that Obama and Hillary will remain neck-and-neck without any future blowouts. The convention will come down to Super Delegate counts. Obama will hold the majority of standard delegates, but Clinton will twist arms to wring out a majority of super delegates.
Thus we have a convention in which Obama controls the popular momentum and the electoral mandate, but Hillary has the upper hand in insider Beltway politics. If Clinton takes the nomination on these grounds, many people – independents more than liberals, no doubt – will be soured on the Democratic ticket.
Whether that’s right or wrong, fair or unfair, isn’t much of an issue either. A brokered convention that drops the popular candidate for the establishment candidate will be bad for the business of the Democratic Party as a whole.
TheFountainHead
I think by the time we get to those states, her lead would have to be very significant, at least two to one. Barring some large stumble on Obama’s part, I can’t see how that is in the cards for her.
Billy K
If he can cut that in half (I bet he can) by the primary and more or less split the delegates, that’s all he needs. Same with Texas, though I’m betting he eeks out a win.
DougJ
I do tend to wonder if Obama will pick some key endorsements, say Edwards or Gore, soon. That would really change the dynamic.
My guess is that Ohio ends up being pretty close.
The important thing is this: the Democratic party is badly divided once again. It’s 1968 all over again. There’s on way they can beat a maverick centrist like McCain. They’ll be lucky to hold onto even one House of Congress.
jcricket
Not gonna work. No one outside of the blogosphere and San Fransisco cares/knows about Pelosi. They know Bush. They know Clinton. They know Obama. They know McCain.
Even their whole attempt to call it the “Clinton recession” never caught on outside of right-wing blogistan (seriously).
Democrats do need to do a better job of pinning failures on the Republicans who caused them. There are so many failures and Republicans to blame it’s hard to pick just one. Equally important, Democrats need to do a better job claiming credit for their success. Not enough to be like “look, see, things are incrementally better”.
Find a way to sell the success and people will associate it with you and keep voting for you.
rob
I live in Ohio and will be voting in my first primary (I am almost 50). Ours is usually so late that it doesn’t matter.
I will be voting for Obama, but at this point my wife will be voting for Clinton. But I suspect she will forget to vote, and I won’t remind her.
I hope all I have to do is go to my normal voting location. Which is in a church, and just feels wrong to me, I would rather vote in a school or somewhere a little more neutral.
Kirk Spencer
I have another possible reason Obama keeps outperforming polling expectations.
The models are wrong.
To ‘make sense’ of the numbers received, polls are massaged. They’re massaged to match normal turnout of various components – age, race, education, so on and so forth. The likely voter models are worse – they try to estimate how many of those who SAY they’ll turn out WILL turn out.
The democrats are pulling record number turnouts everywhere. This breaks the models – the “unexpected voters” don’t fit.
And it seems the majority of the unexpected excess want Obama.
A digression. D turnout is so much larger than R turnout, even when both are higher than normal, even in states that are “solid red”. I begin to wonder if this will repeat in the actual elections – if we can expect D turnout to be as enthusiastic in November. If so… we’re looking at making McCain look like McGovern.
chopper
outside of IL?
jcricket
I can agree on that. If they are neck and neck in delegate count, with the situation as you described, I don’t know what the answer is, honestly.
I know Obamamaniacs would claim his momentum and popular appeal are all that matters. Clinton fans would say delegate count matters, party apparatus/support (i.e. the super delegate lead she has in this scenario) matter.
This is why Howard Dean’s already floating the whole trial balloon about the DNC stepping in to prevent a brokered convention. What about (hypothetically), Obama being offered the VP slot (this is if he is behind b/c of the super delegates)? Do you think that would be enough to blunt the impact to the people who supported him?
I’m fine, btw, with him trying to convince super delegates to “switch sides” well before this whole thing plays out/gets decided. If he can get a lead in both those groups of delegates, I can’t see how the nomination isn’t his for the taking.
I think the nightmare scenario is neither Clinton nor Obama “going for it” (whatever the suggestion of the DNC is) and the brokered convention with squabbling all over national TV.
The Grand Panjandrum
A little hindsight makes me believe that SC was what Malcolm Gladwell calls the Tipping Point. This primary season has now gone viral for Obama.
Once Bill and other HRC surrogates were goaded into making imprudent remarks that could be construed as bringing race into the election, the Clinton strength in the African American constituency all but disappeared. Period. Game cover.
Obama then had time to utilize his superior campaign strategy and oratory skills to begin the erosion of other Clinton constituents. He fought the Clinton Machine to a standstill on Super Tuesday. The entire Republican party couldn’t do that! He has now made inroads into the women’s vote. Not decisive, but enough to tilt the balance to his favor.
The Latino vote in Texas is much too diluted to make a difference, if indeed they do go for Hillary. But as people get to see Obama close up and in person they are frequently swayed by his powerful message. Ohio and Texas will go for Obama.
HRC leaves the campaign shortly after March 4th.
Zifnab
Does Virginia or Maryland count?
Tim F.
I think that I said that.
zzyzx
I’m still confused how someone’s whose message is that Obama is mainly winning in red states that won’t really matter in the general is making her firewall be Texas of all places.
Wilfred
I read somewhere that going in to yesterday Obama was leading by 200,000 popular votes. I think he added another 300,000 or so, probably more. All this talk about delegates obscures the fact that people are actually voting in droves for Obama. He should stress that in his campaign and let people decide for themselves who deserves it more.
Andrew
No, Virginia is too Republicanny, and Maryland has too many Democrats.
Capri
Perhaps someone can answer this. Aren’t most polls conducted via phone surveys? And, if so, do they use land lines exclusively?
Don’t many younger folks use their cell phone as their only phone?
How many of those uncounted voters only use a cell phone and are invisible to the polling process?
Billy K
Thsi has been much debated as of late (the last two elections). Your questions are valid. I’ve never heard a good answer.
fester
I have a quick piece on the politics of Southwestern Pennsylvania and how it is plausible that Obama and Clinton are fundamentally tied for the delegate count if the election was to be held today. This region of Pennsylvania is demographically and economically similiar to eastern Ohio (excluding Cleveland) and could be a useful thought exercise.
Clinton’s model of success has been to rack up 65/35 splits with female voters, and non-white, non-black voters, 60/40 splits with white voters and not get blown out like she is a Republican with the African American vote. Both Virginia and Maryland saw her be blown out like a Republican with the African American vote, and then basically split within the MOE the groups she needs to dominate to have a chance. I think this will be a continuing trend.
fester
whoops link is here:
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2008/02/virginia-exit-polls-and-pennyslvania.html
4tehlulz
PotD candidate
jcricket
I think Obama has one (very good) way to seal the deal. Wins in Ohio and Texas, carried there by his momentum, would make it almost a sure thing he’d win in PA as well. At that point if Hillary didn’t drop out (or whatever) it’d be a waste/shame/wrong, regardless of whether he’s got 2000+ delegates.
However, if Hillary wins those states (and PA) it is tied, she’s arrested some of the “momentum” and we are all forced to continue our argument about whose favorables (delegates, super delegates, party apparatus, experience, demeanor, appeal, ability to play win at pool, etc.) are the bestest.
I don’t think there’s a “knockout blow” amongst any of the talking points for either side. At which point we can continue going round and round in circles as is the blogospheric way.
It’s like the economy. Be prepared for a bumpy ride and an uncertain outcome.
J. Michael Neal
That’s because there is no good answer. It isn’t that pollsters are looking for a good answer, but haven’t found it yet. It’s that there’s no good answer to find.
When a significant part of the population you are trying to model becomes unavailable to sample, you’re screwed. All of the pollsters I know are on the academic side, though Charles Franklin is a good friend, and he’s sort of branching out. They’re scared of their data. They know it’s screwed up, and they try to build in weights to fix it, but they aren’t terribly confident that they are right.
Survey research is facing something of a crisis. Along with the problem of people with no landlines (which also includes a lot of poor people with no phone at all), refusal rates have been going up. If anything, that’s a bigger problem than not being able to reach part of the sample, because you can’t use weights to try to deal with it.
Splitting Image
“I don’t think that a 17-point lead in Ohio is very good news for Clinton at all.”
It is significant. Michael Dukakis had a 17-point lead over George H.W. Bush in 1988.
The fact that she needs to win Wisconsin to stop Obama’s momentum is significant as well. Howard Dean famously said “We must win Wisconsin” to keep his campaign afloat.
If Clinton does manage to stop Obama’s momentum at this point and pick up enough delegates to get a clear win, she’ll have earned her reputation as a campaigner and will be able to claim she deserves the nomination on merit.
I don’t think that’s going to happen.
Neal
Damn, money shot.
gogiggs
Anecdotal, for what its worth, etc…
I live in Ohio. I’ve always been registered Independent and have never voted in a primary. This year I plan to register as a Democrat and vote for Obama. Same with my best friend.
gypsy howell
Why not just ask the NSA what people think? They’re already eavesdropping on everything we say and write anyway, so it’s not like they don’t know. Marketing research and polling could be a new profit center for them.
libarbarian
Do We Really Want Another Black President After The Events Of Deep Impact?
Really. Do we?
Lee
Anyone know the stats for Texas?
I can’t seem to find any.
libarbarian
Beloh
Isn’t Ohio the home of Diebold? Don’t they decide who wins?
ThymeZone
Nope, your prediction versus mine, right here, mark it.
Dem 60, Rep 40. Those are your popular vote tallies on Nov 5 for president. That’s the margin .. or it could be greater, it could exceed the Goldwater cockslap.
Notice, I didn’t even say who the Dem was. If it’s Obama, it’s 65-35. Mark it down, and if you want, put some money on it. I’ll go into three figures with a bet, show me the money.
ThymeZone
Comedy gold.
NickM
ThymeZone – I’d bet against you, because I think it’s sure money – but I want you to be right too badly.
I agree that the Republicans are scared shitless of an Obama candidacy. The movementarians who run the party are coming down from a 14-year-long meth binge and realizing as they wake up that they’re in bed with John McCain. They are not going to be very motivated to do much of anything for him, not even vote. Unless Billary pulls their nuts out of the fire by engineering a convention victory – increasingly unlikely, I think – the movementarians are going to be on the losing end of a well-earned and historic defeat. But not 65-35. And Hillary could win but not anywhere close to 60-40.
ThymeZone
Well, I can only handle so much action, let’s see what DougJ wants to do and then if I can handle some more of this action.
I suppose we’ll get in trouble for gambling on the blog.
Oh well. We’re talking Monopoly Money, right?
Heh.
Jen
In addition to the ones he’s taken, which have been mentioned, he’s leading by 10 points in NC, and we have 115 delegates. I am torn by my desire for him to have this thing in the bag by March 5, and my desire for him to campaign here…
ThymeZone
Let’s get him ovet the top as quickly as possible, save our money and energy for the Big Show in September.
zzyzx
Also, isn’t MO considered a high population working class state?
DougJ
That’s assuming McCain picks Alf Landon as his running mate, right? It wouldn’t be as strange as you think, they were born in the same year.
DougJ
I do think McCain’s weaker than is widely believed. He’s just too old. And if he wants to debate Obama on specifics, Obama will clean his clock. The thing about McCain is that he’s just not that bright. And Republicans are wrong about virtually everything on substance.
So if McCain really tries to makes this about substance it will be tired, old, not especially bright man trying to beat a 40 something former Harvard Law editor, while arguing positions that are wrong and which he probably doesn’t even believe himself. I don’t see him winning with that.
McCain’s best chance is to go as nasty as possible, but that undermines the whole good guy/straight shooter thing he’s fooled the press into believing. When his surrogates start spreading rumors about illegitimate kids and ties to Al Qaeda, even David Broder won’t be able to claim he’s such a good guy anymore.
ThymeZone
Um, no Doug, if we bet now, there are no running mates.
The running mates are not part of the bet.
Because you see, there are no running mates now.
DougJ
Um, no Doug, if we bet now, there are no running mates.
Did you get the parties to sign off on this? They’ve agreed that if two anonymous commenters on an obscure political blog agree to place a bet on the spread of the 2008 election, then they in turn will agree to have the candidates run without choosing running mates? I must say I’m impressed.
Tim F.
Do they even know how to poll Texas? Try to think of the last national election or primary when Texas’s vote was in doubt.
ThymeZone
Hmm. I am forced to choose between thinking that you are trying to be funny and failing miserably, or, that you are really dense. I will go with the former, as a courtesy to you.
See, here’s the thing: If you want to toss off my invitation to bet with a reference to running mates, you have have actual running mates. We don’t, now, because … um … we don’t nominees and until we do we won’t have those mates. Ergo, if we bet now, the mates don’t matter, do they?
C’mon Doug, you can just admit that you don’t want to put your money where your mouth is. It’s not a crime, you won’t get arrested. Just say it: I don’t have enough confidence in my prediction to make a wager on it.
This will contrast you with me, you see. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. Name your ticket. $50? $100? More? I am open for business.
DougJ
Okay, what’s the bet? Sixty five or better for Obama you win, less than sixty five you lose?
ThymeZone
The bet is 60 – 40 straight up. Obama v McCain. Total popular vote only.
$50 minimum.
ThymeZone
Sorry, Clinton 60 – 40, Obama 65 – 35.
DougJ
So 60-40 or better for Clinton you win, 59-41 or worse for Clinton you lose?
And 65-35 or better for Obama you win, 64-36 or worse for Obama you lose?
If those are the terms, than I’m down. Mark me down!
ThymeZone
Cool. We probably should make the arrangements offline or else we’ll get slapped or the blog will get slapped for gambling? I don’t know. Don’t want to get anyone in trouble. For the imaginary gambling, I mean. Heh.
Have your people contact me people.
ThymeZone
Er, my people. My pirate talk comes out at times like these :)
DougJ
I’m a little worried about the Diebold machines, but I just don’t think that Obama’s nailed down the over 50 years/under $50,000 domestic minivan driving vegan soccer mom demographic yet. That’ll keep him under 65 percent.
ThymeZone
Any other year I’d agree with you, but I think we are looking at all new dynamics this year.
I think we are going to see massive Dem turnout, and demographic shifts. I think this is a realignment year.
I think Obama changes the game. I think the GOP machine goes after him and loses votes with every attack. Everything they think they know about national politics, on its ear.
ThymeZone
Also, and remember I live in Arizona … McCain just sucks.
I mean, you have no idea how bad this guy sucks and will suck at this level. His Remember The Vietnam War campaign is just a little late.
DougJ
I hope you’re right TZ. But I have a tendency to get too optimistic about these things. Would you believe that after the Patriots beat the Colts, I was predicting they’d go 19-0?
ThymeZone
Everybody was predicting 19-0. But nobody counted on the Giants playing that great defense.
Im obviously being optimistic, but I think that this year is going to be historic in a number of ways.
But I’d love to lose by two percentage points to you. That gives me a Dem landslide and a new outlook on political life.
Conservatively Liberal
Good catch there! I have thought the very same thing, but I think I have figured it out. The reason she is counting on Texas (and Ohio) is that the right hates her so much that she knows they will cross party lines to support her now so McCain can trounce her in the general.
Other than that, I have no idea why the red states that go for Obama now don’t matter, but the red states that go for Hillary next month will matter.
Clinton logic? She is special? Because? ;)
Chuck Butcher
I predicted wben HRC announced that she wouldn’t wear well over time with actual exposure. The broken “inevitible candidate” model hurts her badly, that was her real edge. As it gets more badly broken the votes for the “power player” candidate evaporate.
I was pretty much raised in Ohio, there was a conservative streak, but it was an odd one. I don’t see Ohio as reliable Clinton country this time around. Someone noted OSU, there are a lot of colleges in Ohio and back a ways (ok, I’m no longer young) Ohio had a top notch educational system – this bodes poorly for HRC with the Boomers. Regarding hurting blue collars, I’d vastly prefer to be told the candidate cares and there’s real hope, versus a bunch of obscure detailed economic voodoo. Bad times engender a desire for hope, heck, that’s primarily what FDR did, gave hope. The guvmint dollars didn’t play that strongly on the economy.
I’m no Obama fan, I’m an HRC opponent, both suck for my reasons, but he’s got the stronger and I think winning approach. As far as the General goes, TZ there’s no way I’d take your bet. The bad end of that is taking a look at who the Repubs are that will survive…man they’re gonna really suck.
Just for the heck of it, in won delegates Obama holds between 130-140 lead, near splits in OH, PA, TX aren’t going to do it for HRC.