Are Democratic voters in Ohio and Texas different from those in Virginia?
That's the working assumption--or prayer--of Hillary Clinton, especially now that she was embarrassed by Barack Obama in Virginia (wham: 29 points!), Maryland (bang: 27 points!), and the District of Columbia (pow: 51 points!). But is there any reason to believe that assumption is valid?
As I point out elsewhere, Obama won just about everybody's vote among the Democratic electorate in Virginia and Maryland: women, men, low-income people, the well-to-do, the young, the old, Latinos. Clinton only held on to white women. Ohio and Texas are made up of the same folks (with Latinos comprising more of the Lone Star State's population than in Virginia). Will they not react in a similar fashion to Obama and Clinton?
By the time Ohio and Texas roll around (March 4), Clinton will have no name-recognition advantage in either state. Obama will have plenty of time after next Tuesday's Wisconsin and Hawaii primaries--both of which he is expected to win--to work those two states. And so far in this campaign, whenever Obama has had the chance to spend time in a state, he has done rather well. The major disappointment for the Obama camp this year has been California. But one can argue that that in the short period between South Carolina and Super Tuesday, Obama did not have enough time to campaign in the Golden State and connect with its many voters. That won't be true for Ohio and Texas.
Then there's the money. Obama has opened up a fundraising lead. In Ohio and Texas, he will have more money than she will for ads and organization. And his staff appears to be working quite well these days, while Clinton has had to weather a staff shakeup amid a losing streak.
So does Clinton have a leg-up in these (possible) make-or-break states? Maybe not. Is there more affection for Clinton (or the Clintons) in Texas and Ohio than elsewhere? The playing field in each state seems pretty level to me. Each candidate will have a full opportunity to make his or her case.
Now imagine if Obama wins either. What happens to Clinton's rationale? It's blown apart on the prairie wind or it sinks in the Cuyahoga. Given that the Democratic Party awards delegates proportionally, if Obama does prevail in Ohio or Texas, the delegate count could still be close. At this point, it's essentially mathematically impossible for either candidate to win enough delegates through the primaries to reach the magic number. (Superdelegates will be needed by either to get over the top.) But should Obama end up winning more states than Clinton, bagging a big state or two, winning in swing states (such as he did in Missouri, Colorado and Virginia), and opening up a lead in pledged delegates, she will not have much of an argument left. (Except for maybe this one: the superdelegates really, really like me.)
Clinton could well be right: the race may turn on Ohio and Texas. But that could be her last stand. She should not forget a famous cry: Remember the Alamo!
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
David,
A couple of more points:
Senator Clinton won the "white woman" vote, but only barely. Senator Obama won every other gender, age and ethnicity category, usually by huge margins.
Senator Obama lost California, possibly because of the nearly 2 million absentee/early votes cast. Voting had been taking place for a month before the general election day. Senator Obama had not achieved the name recognition and momentum before Super Tuesday.
And now Senator Clinton is down in Texas, pandering to Hispanic voters. There are reports out that many of the Republicans in Texas who have no need to vote in their primary will now crossover (there is no party affiliation in Texas for voter registration) and vote for Senator Obama in the Democrat primary.
Interesting times.
Tom
Posted by: Tomcantu
| February 13, 2008 9:50 AM
"Remember the Alamo" or jumping from a plane sans parachute with a "Geronimo!"
I really hope one or the other can get enough support to make it clear who is the winner.
I also hope the general election is unequivical and a clear winner rises to the top.
The country has had enough of the 50/50 support.
Posted by: capt
| February 13, 2008 10:31 AM
Democratic Voters Dwarf Republicans in ‘Potomac Primary’
[…]
114,000 Democratic ballots were cast in Washington, D.C., compared to 6,000 for Republicans. In Maryland, 973,000 Democratic ballots were cast compared to 485,000 for Republicans, and in Virginia, 740,000 Democratic ballots were cast compared to 287,000 for Republicans.
In total, 1,827,000 Democratic votes were cast yesterday compared to 778,000 for Republicans. Sen. Barack Obama, who swept all three contests, earned 620,000 votes in Virginia alone — more than the combined total of the six Republicans who appeared on the ballot.
*****
Will these kind of numbers hold up in the general election?
Posted by: capt
| February 13, 2008 11:03 AM
The MSM tried to prop Hillary up as the front runner long before the first ballot was even cast when in fact she never had the support of most Democrats. The reason was she raised the most money but they never thought to inquire who was funding her (Murdoch et all). The Republicans are desperate to have her as the candidate as that is the only thing that will galvanize the party.
What has really been fun is watching the MSM scrambling, before they have the chance to rewrite history.
Posted by: GG
| February 13, 2008 12:55 PM
Is Obama Good for Business?
[…]
So what would an Obama Presidency look like for business? "It would be a pragmatic, center-left administration," says Democratic political strategist Steve McMahon, who is unaligned with a Presidential candidate this year. "He's been pretty clear that business would have a seat at the table, but business wouldn't be able to buy all the chairs."
*****
An interesting take from Germany.
I don't expect any politician from either party to be the ticket to good governance - it takes the people being involved to achieve that goal and then only by degrees.
Posted by: capt
| February 13, 2008 1:37 PM
Bill Clinton campaign chief backs Obama
Posted by: eyes_open
| February 13, 2008 2:14 PM
PR gov backs Obama for president
Is BHO's momentem finally giving the superdelegates cover?
Posted by: eyes_open
| February 13, 2008 2:15 PM
Eye's
I hope so
Good stuff - thanks!
Posted by: capt
| February 13, 2008 3:00 PM
... And the broken clock strikes the correct hour.
Senate votes to ban waterboarding
WASHINGTON - The Senate has joined the House in voting to prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods.
Posted by: eyes_open
| February 13, 2008 5:53 PM
eyes_open
LOL!
Posted by: David B. Benson
| February 13, 2008 6:55 PM
Post A Comment