Clinton set to fight on after March 4th

Superhands

byzantine330.blogspot.com

looks like this one is going to run and run

Her husband may have stated publicly two weeks ago that failure to win both the Ohio and Texas primaries would end her chances of securing the Democratic nomination, but the noises coming out of the Hillary Clinton camp over the last three days suggest that her campaign is set to continue even if she fails to win both states tomorrow.

A memo sent to the press by her campaign staff on Friday attempted to draw attention to Obama's spending power and included the following statements :

If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem. Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear: Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.

The implication is obvious - rather than having to win both Texas and Ohio to justify a continuation of the campaign, the Clinton team believe that only four heavy defeats tomorrow would force the New York senator to quit.

Comments made today by both Mrs Clinton and her chief strategist Mark Penn gave further evidence that the Clinton camp expects the campaign to go on. Speaking to reporters on her campaign plane today, Senator Clinton was already looking forward to the post-March 4th states saying :

I think I know what's happening and I believe I'm going to do very well tomorrow. I think that's going to be a very significant message to the country, and then we move on to Pennsylvania and the states coming up. I'm just getting warmed up.

Penn meanwhile also spoke of the contests to come after March 4th, saying "there are 16 [sic] remaining contests after Tuesday.There's nothing wrong with letting the people in the remaining jurisdictions have their say." These comments will have done little to assuage the fears of senior Democrats like New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who have both spoken openly about the damage a prolonged nomination race will do to the party.

Opinion polling suggests the contests in Texas and Ohio are too close to call with the Realclearpolitics average of polls giving Clinton a lead of 6.4% in Ohio and 0.3% in Texas. So far this primary season pollsters have struggled to accurately predict results, and a comparison of previous Realclearpolitics averages and actual voting percentages in primaries and caucuses shows polling has tended to be particularly inaccurate in close races, with five of the eleven contests in which the Realclearpolitics average showed a margin of less than 10% going against the candidate leading in the opinion polls.

Two of the biggest turnarounds vis-a-vis polling and actual results have occurred in New Hampshire and California, where larger than expected turnout among female voters (in New Hampshire) and Hispanics (in California) proved decisive, further emphasising the key role that racial and gender demographics have played in this years Democratic nomination contest.

In Texas, Obama has a strong lead among blacks (85% to 8% according to Zogby), Mrs Clinton has a substantial advantage among Hispanic voters (55% to 33%) whilst the two are effectively tied among whites, suggesting the relative turnouts among blacks and Hispanics (respectively 21% and 24% of voters in the 2004 primary) could be crucial in determining the outcome of the statewide popular vote, a vote which both candidates realise has enormous propaganda value despite delegates being awarded based on outcomes in individual senate districts and precincts.

The demographics in Ohio are radically different, where 81% of Democrat voters are white , 14% black and just 3% Hispanic. In both states Mrs Clinton leads among women, seniors, Hispanics and traditional Democrats whilst Obama has the edge among men, younger voters, blacks and independents according to Zogby. Interestingly, Obama will be in Texas tomorrow night as the results come in, Mrs Clinton in Ohio, as good an indication as any as to where each expects to do best.

Where once it seemed likely that Super Tuesday II (as March 4th has been dubbed) would prove decisive, it now seems increasingly likely that, barring two enormous victories tomorrow for Obama, the race for the democratic nomination will continue on past March 4th. With Obama currently leading Clinton by 155 in the pledged delegate count, and with 599 pledged delegates still up for grabs in the post-March 4th states, the Clinton campaign may feel there is still plenty of time to catch up.

Clinton also still has aces up her sleeve in the form of support from superdelegates potentially making up for a loss in pledged delegates (an idea which is becoming increasingly controversial) and the possibility of do-over primaries or caucuses in Michigan and Florida, both of whose "rogue" primaries were won easily by Mrs Clinton.

However, even if Obama loses both Texas and Ohio he is likely to gain victories by wide margins in the next two contests after March 4th (Obama has excelled in caucuses in rural sates like Wyoming, and Mississippi has the largest percentage of black voters of any of the 50 states), and again in North Carolina on May 6th (another southern state with a large black population and the second most important remaining state in terms of delegates), giving credence to the claim made by Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe that it will be "virtually impossible" for Mrs Clinton to catch the Illinois senator in the pledged delegate count.

Given this, it is unclear how long the patience of senior Democrats like Howard Dean, Bill Richardson, Al Gore, John Edwards and others will last before Hillary comes under enormous pressure from the Democrat establishment to step aside for the good of the party, and allow Democrats to unite behind one candidate and concentrate on winning the general election in November, as Republicans have already been doing since early February.

Remaining primaries and caucuses and number of delegates at stake

4 Mar Texas hybrid 193
4 Mar Ohio primary 141
4 Mar Rhode Island primary 21
4 Mar Vermont primary 15
8 Mar Wyoming caucus 12
11 Mar Mississippi primary 33
22 Apr Pennsylvania primary 158
3 May Guam caucus 4
6 May Indiana primary 72
6 May North Carolina primary 115
13 May West Virginia primary 28
20 May Kentucky primary 51
20 May Oregon primary 52
3 Jun Montana primary 16
3 Jun South Dakota primary 15
7 Jun Puerto Rico caucus 55

speedboatchase

I've never seen so much spinning by a candidate in a campaign in my life. A month ago, Hillary was the clear favourite in Ohio and Bill himself said that if she doesn't win both she won't have a chance.

Now a month later and Hillary is repackaging herself as the "underdog" in these states that she still barely leads, how does that work?! I would love if she lost both TX and OH but she won't, even if she did I think she still wouldn't bow out gracefully.

She's determined to take this to the Dems convention and risks tearing the party apart for the next few months whilst given McCain free reign to travel across America with his campaign

ghostdancer

good article in Newsweek outlining the trouble the clinton campaign still faces even if it wins the big 2 tonight:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240/output/print

By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 11:23 AM ET Mar 4, 2008

Hillary Clinton may be poised for a big night tonight, with wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Clinton aides say this will be the beginning of her comeback against Barack Obama. There's only one problem with this analysis: they can't count.

I'm no good at math either, but with the help of Slate’s Delegate Calculator I've scoped out the rest of the primaries, and even if you assume huge Hillary wins from here on out, the numbers don't look good for Clinton. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week for the rest of the primaries.

So here we go: Let's assume Hillary beats expectations and wins Ohio tonight 55-45, Rhode Island 55-45, Texas, 53-47 and (this is highly improbable), ties in Vermont, 50-50.

Then it's on to Wyoming on Saturday, where, let's say, the momentum of today helps her win 53-47. Next Tuesday in Mississippi—where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary—she shocks the political world by winning 52-48.

Then on April 22, the big one, Pennsylvania—and it's a Hillary blowout, 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 30, and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6, with the Hoosiers going for Hillary 55-45. The same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state: enough North Carolina blacks desert Obama to give the state to Hillary 52-48, netting her five more delegates.

Suppose May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. The identical 55-45 result on May 20 in Kentucky nets her five more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Oops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3, and primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates. She has enjoyed a string of 16 victories in a row over three months.

So at the end of regulation, Hillary's the nominee, right? Actually, this much-too-generous scenario (which doesn't even account for Texas's weird "pri-caucus" system, which favors Obama in delegate selection) still leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 58-delegate lead.

Let's say the Democratic National Committee schedules do-overs in Florida and (heavily African-American) Michigan. Hillary wins big yet again. But the chances of her netting 56 delegates out of those two states would require two more huge margins. (Unfortunately the Slate calculator isn't helping me here.)

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal.

For all of those who have been trashing me for saying this thing is over, please feel free to do your own math. Give Hillary 75 percent in Kentucky and Indiana. Give her a blowout in Oregon. You will still have a hard time getting her through the process with a pledged-delegate lead.

The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how Obama can't carry any large states besides Illinois. How he can't close the deal. How they've got the Big Mo now.

Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator.

Dave!

So she won Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas......
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0340558620080305?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=69

ghostdancer

she didn't win Texas though. she won the Texas primary. Caucuses elect 1/3rd of the overall delegates, and only 1/3rd of them have reported results so far, and the major urban centres, which will go heavily Obama, will be among the last to report.

added to this Texas doesn't allocate delegates based on state voter percentages, which is what the news organisations use to call a "win". if this were the way things work, Al Gore "won" the presidency in 2000.

unfortunately this doesn't fit into a "Comeback Kid" soundbite for the morning papers/news, which gets papers sold and viewers tuning in, and journalists with more stories to write.

the news organisations/papers called a Nevada "win" back in January for Clinton, based on the voter totals, and that's what they ran with the next morning. hours later, it became clear that Obama won 1 delegate more than her, thus in the grand scheme of things where delegates are the only thing that matters, Obama won Nevada.

apparently Clinton "won" New Hampshire, according to every news organisation, which they will stand by, as she won the popular vote. the only problem with that is both her and Obama walked away with the same amount of delegates, which are the only thing that matters going to the DNC.

the conclusive results for Texas won't be known until tonight at the earliest, and will be incredibly tight, probably only 2/3 delegates of a difference for whoever ends up winning overall.

Clinton failed to make any significant inroads in delegates, regardless of the outcome of the caucuses. her campaign will spin it for all it's worth, the facts though, are that she failed to do enough to claw herself back into it.
it's like scoring a goal in the 85th minute when you're 5-0 down. yeah, you scored, you might get a boost, but you're still almost certainly going out.

Obama will win Saturday's Wyoming caucus, worth few delegates, then easily win Mississippi, opening up an even larger delegate lead than before.

then it's on to Pennsylvania, with Clinton in worse shape than she was yesterday....

kenco

I think last told us that the Democrats really aren't 100% sure on Obama and are not prepared to close the deal for him. That said Hillary should have this well tied up by now (Super Tuesday tbh) and given her machine, experience, etc the fact she has not is damning.

I can see this going to the convention and somewhere along the line the Dems leadership must realise that they are damaging - perhaps fatally - the chance of either Hillary or Obama beating McCain.

To be honest, I think they may be too far down the road with the current candidates and maybe its time to look at compromise candidates and offer Obama the VP slot if he is still leading on delegates when they get to make that decision.....

sugark

While I don't agree that a compromise candidate is going to happen, I do think it is time to start looking a little differently at what's going to happen next. I think both candidates are entitled to think that they should win the nomination, for various reasons (Obama has the pledged delegates, Hillary won the bigger states, still a lot of undecided superdelegates, etc.). However, the Democratic National Party need to find a solution which will lead to a united party fighting against McCain.

This is the time, I believe, when Florida and Michigan come back into play. Now, not for a second am I suggesting that their delegates should be allowed vote for Hillary automatically. That would be grossly unfair as Obama either didn't campaign or wasn't on the ballot. But these are very big states to leave out of the convention and to do so would be (I think) unprecedented.

What about the possibility of running the Florida and Michagan primaries again, with both on the ballot and both campaigning? With a large amount of seats at play, surely this would throw up a definite, clear-cut winner.

It's probably not going to happen but I do think that the Dems will have to get imaginative if they are going to not split the party and be able to win in November. Any other ideas out there?

FatherTed

kenco wrote: »

I think last told us that the Democrats really aren't 100% sure on Obama and are not prepared to close the deal for him. That said Hillary should have this well tied up by now (Super Tuesday tbh) and given her machine, experience, etc the fact she has not is damning.

I can see this going to the convention and somewhere along the line the Dems leadership must realise that they are damaging - perhaps fatally - the chance of either Hillary or Obama beating McCain.

To be honest, I think they may be too far down the road with the current candidates and maybe its time to look at compromise candidates and offer Obama the VP slot if he is still leading on delegates when they get to make that decision.....

Why would Obama accept VP if he is leading on delegates?

And if Obama has more pledged delegates but Clinton wins the nomination because she was able to persuade more super delegated to go for her, then a whole lot of Obama supporters will jump to McCain.

whatawaster

Florida and Michigan broke the rules, they were told not to hold early primaries and they did. And rightly, there are consequences.

Last night was a good night for Obama if you look at where he was in the polls a month ago. He's still strong favourite.

is_that_so

whatawaster wrote: »

Florida and Michigan broke the rules, they were told not to hold early primaries and they did. And rightly, there are consequences.

Last night was a good night for Obama if you look at where he was in the polls a month ago. He's still strong favourite.

If you're simply cheering for one side or the other , both had a good night and both are still in it. Obama didn't lose that much and Clinton actually won a few primaries. The Dem elders are less likely to be happy, however much excitement and an example of "democracy at work" it has all generated. It still means that the contest will go on for at least another 5 weeks.

Meanwhile McCain can get out and start campaigning properly. Without the distraction of the nomination he can focus on scoring points on the currently distracted Dem candidates. The problem for the Dems is that they have two attractive candidates. In any election year either would have almost been a guaranteed candidate. As it stands they will continue to go at each other which also gives McCain plenty of time to identity their weaknesses. Also the longer it carries on the less GE campaign time the eventual Dem candidate will have.

In a year where the White House was "The Dems' for the the taking" I think it's advantage McCain for now.

sugark

Completely agree with everything you said there, Is That So, McCain is in a very strong position right now, and can work away at courting ultra-conservatives in the Republican Party while not having to worry (too much) about what the Democrats are doing.

Whatawaster, I think its impossible to deny that Tuesday was Hillary's night. Yes, Obama is still in the strongest position but how even the most ardant of his supporters can say that Tuesday was a good night for him is incredible spin. She won the night and fair play to her. He could've wrapped it up and didn't but I'm sure he'll bounce back.

Re Florida and Michigan,Whatawaster, completely agree that they broke the rules and they should suffer the consequences. I'm just wondering what's the best way to avoid chaos on convention night, because a chaotic, tight, fighting on the Convention floor may have been fun on the West Wing but it will not bode well for the General Election. Those delegates from Florida and Michigan will want to be seated, whether or not they should isn't the issue (I think we can all agree that they shouldn't), it's how will it affect the peception by the electorate of the Democratic Party.

kenco

FatherTed wrote: »

Why would Obama accept VP if he is leading on delegates?

And if Obama has more pledged delegates but Clinton wins the nomination because she was able to persuade more super delegated to go for her, then a whole lot of Obama supporters will jump to McCain.

In my opinion the Dems dont feel comfortable with either candidate but for very different reasons. If Obama had been Governor of Illinois or had a couple more terms in the Senate he would have been more likely to have the nomination wrapped up by now. Clinton on the other hand, despite all her advantages has not been able to tie this deal up, be it her gender, her personality, her history, etc. This cant be resolved.

Obama it would appear can only get better over time and being offered a VP slot on a strong Dem ticket with the likelyhood of being President in time could be more appealing than being the Pres nominee for a very weakened party who are not fully behind him due to concerns over this experience.