Looking into Feb

The WaPost gives us a look at the demographics of the upcoming primary contests:
Jan. 26
State Women White Black Latino 18-29 65+
S.C.   57     51     47     1    9   20 

Jan. 29 
State Women White Black Latino 18-29 65+	
Fla.   55     69     21     9    6   35

Feb. 5
State Women White Black Latino 18-29 65+	
Ariz.  59     72      2    17    7   33
Calif. 53     68      8    16   11   22 
Conn.  53     89      7     2    5   27	
Del.   57     79     16     2    9   23
Ga.    56     49     47     3   11   19
Mass.  54     90      5     3    9   26  
Mo.    52     82     15     1    9   24
N.Y.   57     65     20    11    8   26
Okla.  53     82      8     2    6   30
Tenn.  54     74     23     1    7   23

Feb. 9
State Women White Black Latino 18-29 65+	
La.    54     48     46     5    7   23

Feb. 12
State Women White Black Latino 18-29 65+	
Md.    58     58     35     3    8   22
Va.    56     63     33     2    8   23
There are a few states missing from this list for the 5th, including Illinois and Alabama, and then Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, and caucuses in Colorado and North Dakota.

Also on the 9th, Washington state will hold its caucus, and also on the 12th, DC will hold it's primary. The month closes out with the Wisconsin primary on the 19th.

Ultimately, this is about delegates, but the wins are going to drive the media coverage, especially for Obama. I'll predict that Clinton pretty well wraps it up on Feb 5th, but lets suppose she doesn't, then what's the most reasonable best-case 'threshold' scenario for Obama to continue competitively after Feb 5th?

In that case, on the 5th, IL, AL, and GA should be in his column. Clinton views TN as a battleground, and established a campaign office there this week, and there too. MO, with the help of McCaskill; CO, since it's a caucus; SD, with the help of Daschle and since its a caucus. Maybe that's about it, which would make 7 states for Obama, and Clinton would take the remaining 15 states.

If Obama could do that, he'd probably have lost the delegate race on Feb 5th by a pretty large margin, but he'd be able to go on fairly easily. If Obama takes 4 or less states on Feb 5th, it's pretty much over, but lets stick with 7 for the narrative.

Then the rest of Feb looks much better for Obama. LA, and a caucus in WA, are both contests that Obama could win on the 9th; and a sweep of MD, VA, and DC on the 12th would also be feasible.

Those wouldn't be enough delegates make-up for all the other losses that are assumed above, but the 'win' narrative would be pretty strong heading into WI on the 19th for Obama.

Anyway, that's how I could see Feb playing out, if it continues to be competitive past Feb 5th. What's your Feb scenario look like?

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

80 Comments

Re: Looking into Feb

I think Missouri might be the most interesting 2/5 state.  Swing state, reasonable demographics, and it's going to be very important to see who can turn out the most new voters there in preparation for the GE.

by Steve M 2008-01-23 05:07PM | 0 recs
TX, PA and OH

Hillary has the TX and PA Democratic establishment firmly behind her.

In Ohio she has Strickland among others.

She wants to wrap on Feb 5 so she can move to the general ahead of the Republicans.  But given the states that loom after Feb 5 it is a fairy tale to think Obama can win it.

I don't understand why Obama is fighting the fight the way he is.  There are lot of Democrats - like me - who said he'd be great for President a little ways down the road.   Now with his attacks and his race baiting there are some Democrats - like me - that don't care if we ever see or hear from him again.

He can't win.

by dpANDREWS 2008-01-23 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: TX, PA and OH

TX and PA are easy money.

In OH I'm not clear on exactly how strong the Democratic "machine" is.  That was a Republican state for quite a while, we only just took it over.

by Steve M 2008-01-23 05:17PM | 0 recs
Just saying that she the Gov. in her corner

The GOP machine is gutted.

I am interested in watching the African AMerican vote in the north vs. the south.

In the north African Americans over the years have at times voted for white candidates over African Americans candidates.   It will be interesting if the tension is as high as in the south.

I dunno.

by dpANDREWS 2008-01-23 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Just saying that she the Gov. in her corner

Detroit turned out bigtime for Obama and his name wasn't even on the ballot.  He will be fine with AA voters everywhere.

by Steve M 2008-01-23 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: TX, PA and OH

I wouldn't say the TX Dem establishment is firmly behind Clinton. The TX Dem establishment is too weak (pathetic?) to be firm about much of anything, and it's just now dawning on them that their primary may actually mean something.  

Clinton is very strong in South Texas, which tends to dominate primary turnout, but Obama does well in the low turnout urban areas and will probably have a higher delegate/vote ratio than Clinton. Edwards strength is mainly in east Texas (and the blogs) so he will concentrate his votes for better viability. Edwards is also popular with the trial lawyers who have bankrolled much of the Democratic organization in the state for the past few years, and they can probably whip up some reasonable org if they think it makes strategic sense.

Clinton wins, but maybe not as many delegates as you would think.

by IVR Polls 2008-01-23 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: TX, PA and OH

You have got to be kidding. It's Hillary and Bill who have gone deep into the gutter, with their race baiting and anything-to-win slash-and-burn strategy.

I once was open to a Hillary presidency. Now I dread it.

by JD Lasica 2008-01-23 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: TX, PA and OH

Here is Hillary's original quote:   "Dr King's dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done."

It's factually true.   It took both MLK and LBJ to get the Civil Rights Act into law...a President, which is the office that both are running for.

Obama's camp decided to play this as a racist card.  Bullfeathers.   But I think it's going to blow up in his face.   He hadn't been the "black candidate" but now he has made himself one.

Furthermore, if Obama's fans are crying foul over this, one wonders what they will do if Obama were the nominee and the Republican noise machine swings into full gear.

by InigoMontoya 2008-01-23 08:10PM | 0 recs
Difference of opinion

I for one, and I am not alone by a long shot, think that Obama started this race war after he lost New Hampshire and looked at a revived Clinton campaign and the realities of the political map.

by dpANDREWS 2008-01-24 08:36AM | 0 recs
MO

Yeah, I saw the Obama KC office open (I drive by it on the way from the office to the Plaza) and was absolutely shocked by its presence when it opened.  Some of this was envy:  all these resources before NH (and during Dean, we couldn't get much b/c Dean conceded MO to a favorite-son Gephardt -- the assumption at the time).

Cleaver makes a difference in KC, but his influence will be muted by some of the support Obama receives in the African-American community.  McCaskill's the closest we have to a state-wide candidate.  Carnahan probably comes in 2nd.  Both endorsed Obama, I think.

St. Louis:  I think -- and I might be wrong -- that the Establishment elected officials went to Obama.

Springfield and Columbia:  I don't know, honestly.  One presumes Columbia to be a strong Obama area, while Springfield would not be.  I might be wrong.

Also, remember the narrative that Obama's trying to set up:  Colorado, Missouri, SD, the South.  Red States, Purple States.  He's trying to build up an "electability" argument after 2/5 in addition to picking up delegates.  It might be wrong (okay, strictly speaking, it is wrong), but it is a good spin.

by ChrisR 2008-01-23 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: MO

Plus Hillary has a huge negative endorsement... I don't think people have to be reminded in Missouri just how unpopular Bob Holden was.

by Dave Sund 2008-01-23 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: MO

Nope, St. Louis mayor Francis Slay has endorsed Clinton, along with Bob Holden and Warren and Betty Hearnes.

by Denny Crane 2008-01-23 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: MO

I may be an exception to the rule but McCaskill endorsing Obama is not a plus to me. Not a fan of Third Way Dems or Dems who vote with the Republicans on Iraq and FISA.

May vote for Edwards. Who knows at this point, not me.

by MOBlue 2008-01-23 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Hillary has to win in California. If she loses in CA, her campaign is pretty much over.

by Politico80 2008-01-23 05:16PM | 0 recs
Not really

If she loses it will be a close delegate split in Ca,  and TX, OH, and PA will just matter more.

Obama would get a lot of credit and mo for a CA win.  But it would be over.  There is no way he wins more states on Feb 5 than Clinton.

by dpANDREWS 2008-01-23 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

It wasn't a post about 'putting in his pocket' those states you mention; more like what would he need to win to go on strong.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-01-23 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

I completely disagree with your frame of analysis here Jerome.   What is this, Barack Obama is supposed to be dependent on the number of black people in a caucus to win that state? If there are too many women/white people, he is screwed? Conversely, we are to presume that Hillary will have a rough ride if their are "too many" black people or too few women?  

This reminds me of the CNN article which said that black women had a very difficult choice between their race and their gender.  I think we should have a more sophisticated discussion than that.  

by gobacktotexas 2008-01-23 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

To put it bluntly:

Yes

The polling is quite stark:

Clinton dominates among women, white, Latino/a, and 45+ voters.

Obama dominates among African American and young voters.

by hwc 2008-01-23 05:27PM | 0 recs
More sophisticated?

Like just pull numbers out of a hat and ignore the demographic realities?

Don't project such nonsense here.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-01-23 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: More sophisticated?

I think people might be considerably more interested in the issues and who they consider to be the best qualified candidate than voting their race/gender.  

by gobacktotexas 2008-01-23 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: More sophisticated?

John Edwards won 37% of the African-American vote in the 2004 South Carolina primary.

Among that exact same demographic, he is currently polling at 1%.  Unless he murdered someone I'm not aware of in the last four years, the disparity is striking.

Of course people don't blindly vote according to their demographic, but overall, the trends are undeniable.  Obviously Clinton is going to do better in places with lots of old people, and Obama is going to do better in places with lots of young people.  We don't have to be stupid about this stuff.

by Steve M 2008-01-23 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: More sophisticated?

You haven't seen the youtube video in which a fellow named Barry Sinclair claims to have witnessed Edwards pulling the trigger on The Notorious B.I.G.?

by DPW 2008-01-23 05:56PM | 0 recs
so I guess 1 percent

of the democratic primarygoers really didn't like Notorious B.I.G.  

by gobacktotexas 2008-01-23 06:01PM | 0 recs
Yes

Obama has not proven after Iowa that he can do anything but win the African American vote.

I may be wrong but I think Clinton hung close with young voters in NH and NV ... I'll check.

But she is crushing him with older voters, women, and latinos.

I said over a month ago.   Obama miscalc'd bigtime.

You need a wider slice of traditional Democrats to win and he never really showed any ambition to chase them actually.

by dpANDREWS 2008-01-23 05:41PM | 0 recs
he can't do anything

...he can't do anything but win the African AMerican vote.

by dpANDREWS 2008-01-23 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes

After Iowa there have been two states (not counting Michigan), neither one with an extremely large black population, and in both states, Obama and Clinton have been within a few percentage points of each other.  

by gobacktotexas 2008-01-23 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes

Amen.

by danIA 2008-01-23 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes

Michigan does have a signficant AA vote and it wasn't even close. The women's vote and the white vote broke overwhelmingly for Clinton.

Same story in Nevada, plus a huge Latino/a vote for Clinton.

by hwc 2008-01-23 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes


Michigan does have a signficant AA vote and it wasn't even close. The women's vote and the white vote broke overwhelmingly for Clinton.

Are you joking with me? Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot, just Hillary.  That's hardly representative sampling there.  Besides, if it were representative, it would only prove my point that elections don't break along race/gender lines.    

by gobacktotexas 2008-01-23 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Let me flip it on you. Assume that, say, 75% of likely Democratic primary voters in South Carolina were white, rather than just shy of half. What would the polls there look like then?

The demographics are what they are. I would have been inclined to decry that fact of life on Obama's behalf except for his campaign awkwardly making an issue out of Sen. Clinton's MLK comments, a fair reading of which shows that Clinton was clearly absolutely complimentary of King. Sen. Obama boxed himself into a niche that he had deftly theretofor avoided by creating a racial issue where none existed before. And now his campaign has sustained lasting, and probably terminal damage.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-01-23 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

I'm sure that Senator Obama is crestfallen to not have you at his side decrying the facts of life, dude.  

by gobacktotexas 2008-01-23 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re:Beyond being Political Correct


It already started in MI

Nothing started in Michigan, because Hillary was the only one on the ballot there.   According to your own theory, Barack would have won MI, because it has a huge black and middle-eastern population.    

In Nevada, there's not a huge black population, but there is a large Hispanic population.  Nevertheless Hillary only won there by a few percentage points.    

by gobacktotexas 2008-01-24 02:31AM | 0 recs
Re:Beyond being Political Correct
MI:
Obama's supporters pushed heavily for people to go out and vote uncommitted while Hillary had no presence in state except being on ballot.
NV:
True on the race situation BUT Obama had culinary workers endorsement by far the biggest union in state (60,000+ members) and they did a heavy gotv in last 3-4 days before caucus.
by del 2008-01-24 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

The one monkey wrench in California is that the Republicans closed their primary while Democrats didn't.  This hurts McCain and really helps Obama since his strength is with independants.  Also, keep in mind that Democrats assign delegates proportanilly.  If he does well in the black community in New York City and Newark, it would really hurt the delegate count coming out of New York and New Jersey for Clinton.  Also, Obama is focucing more on the midwest and Rocky Mountain West whereas Clinton seems to be pouring everything into New York, New Jersey, Arkansas, and California.  The CW is that the 2/5 battleground favors Clinton, but given how many times CW has been wrong over the last month, this could be interesting.

by tlsmith 2008-01-23 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

she is also focused on the midwest and is not pouring in money into states that she knows she will win by a good margin.

Independents in CA actually favor CLINTON!!! That was the latest Politico poll. Also, the absentee voters, which account for 40%, are in firmly Clinton camp according to that poll.

Obama will most likely get ND and possibly KS. MO and MN are not Obama territory. She has ads running in OK.

Hillary will stump in MA, CT, NY, NJ, DE, AZ, NM, CA
Bill will stump in ND, KS, OK, UT, ID
Bill and Hillary will stump in GA, AL, TN, IL, MO, AR and CA together. That is my bet.

Just watch, the Clintons will own Feb 5, if they are smart, which they are.

by American1989 2008-01-23 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

MO not Obama territory?

The Carnahans, Claire McCaskill, and others have endorsed Obama.

Bob Holden, who as governor made Matt Blunt look popular, and was defeated by McCaskill in the primary, endorsed Hillary.

Missouri is very much in play for Obama.

by Dave Sund 2008-01-23 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

It's definitely in play, but not a done deal for Obama there.  I think he'll end up winning it, though.

by Denny Crane 2008-01-23 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

I dont think Obama would put much of a dent on Clinton in NY - even with NYC having much of the pull.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-01-23 05:41PM | 0 recs
NY is a state I hope Obama spends time in

Being a solidly Democratic state it isn't like southern states that have to create districts for African Americans to win in.

Most of its districts are pretty diverse.  Upstate they are very red, and very white.   Clinton will do well in these.  Clinton is popular in NY, even among a lot of rank and file Republicans.

by dpANDREWS 2008-01-23 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Not true, was in AZ (67 delegates, heavy hispanic) Tues. Huge rally over 10,000 people and she has large lead. Gov has endorsed Obama, but the prople seem to like her better. New poll from ASU has her 45 and him 24, dates 1/17-20.

He is up on the air here but doesn't talk about his proposals only about how inspiring he is.

It comes across arrogant, and his pres out of S.C. seems whiny.

Maybe the Clintons are being hard on him, but don't you think that you better be able to handle it if you want to POTUS?

by del 2008-01-24 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

I just don't understand the electability argument with GA, SD, etc.  These states went red by 15%.  Just because Obama might win them in the primary/caucus, doesn't mean they will turn blue.

I would agree, CO and MO are a true swing states in 2008.  However, so are NV, NM, and AZ (assuming McCain is not the nominee), IMO.  His struggles with Hispanic voters will cause him problems there.

MO should be the most interesting state to watch on 2/5.  HRC has already been there since Nevada, so she sees its importance.

by CVDem 2008-01-23 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

I think Ga went red by about 20% in 2004. Last GE poll I saw had Obama getting about 35% of the vote in a general election matchup.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-23 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Is that including young/new voters/independents going to the polls though?

by obama is ready 2008-01-23 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Yes. Obama does poorly in GA and the rest of the south in the General election.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-23 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

It doesn't matter.  Speaking as an Atlanta resident for the past 8 years, there is no chance in hell that Obama or Hillary carries Georgia in the GE.  None.

by Denny Crane 2008-01-23 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

I think you meant ND rather than SD. ND has only 13 delegates. As for MO, I don't think that McCaskill's support will do it, because the Dems there are moderate to conservative with a penchant for the military.

CO is a strong Hispanic state, but the caucus thing is unpredictable; as for UT, not many blacks there in addition to ID.

GA will most likely either tie or be close with Obama with a small edge, but no blowout. Same thing might happen in AL. TN will be a battleground.

OK for Clinton along with DE, NJ, CT, MA, NY.

by American1989 2008-01-23 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

The last poll in Alabama showed Clinton leading, in fact. And it wasn't some poll from last summer. It was released on Monday.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-01-23 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Listen, I know we haven't voted for a Democrat since LBJ, but we are holding a caucus on 2/9, as well.

by Dave Sund 2008-01-23 05:40PM | 0 recs
Respect the Nebraska Democratic Caucus

You tell'em, Dave.

by Skylewalker 2008-01-23 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

NE used to have good primaries in the 60's and 70's too.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-01-24 03:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb
Obama will come out of South Carolina with a 20 delegate lead this Saturday.
The Feb 5th states are proportional delegate allocation. My own calculations have Hillary with a 100 delegate advantage over Obama on Feb 5th and that assumes she wins California by 10 points and takes some republican districts.
Unless Obama runs out of money, this thing will go well beyond Feb 5th.
The evidence so far has been that in places that they've both invested resources and campaigned neither can beat the other by more than 10 points.
by joachim 2008-01-23 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Don't you think that his money is starting to dry up though after three losses? IIRC, Hillary outraised him by 2 million last quarter and the reports were that he spent more in IA than she did.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-23 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

3 losses? He wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.

by Dave Sund 2008-01-23 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

He chose to remove his name from the MI ballot.  I guess if you like you can pretend he thought he had a chance to win, but removed his name anyway.

by Steve M 2008-01-23 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Yeah but he has his name on the FL ballot so it goes down as a loss. If you don't even try to win, you lose don't you?

He made a huge tactical error.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-23 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb
He's has not had 3 losses. He won Iowa. Its more about money at this point than anything else. If Hillary had lost NH her money would've dried up. At this point they both have enough. But they both will be broke on Feb 6th after heavy expenditure for Feb 5th.
Who has the capacity to raise money at that point will have the advantage going forward.
by joachim 2008-01-23 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Well he lost NH, MI and NV so I would count that as three.

by Ga6thDem 2008-01-23 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Someone ought to create a new map of the US that doesn't include MI & FL, just for the Obama folks.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-01-24 03:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Nonetheless, it's pointless to keep up a candidacy if you constantly trail by 10% and will not ultimately succeed.
by killjoy 2008-01-23 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Using exit polls for primaries is silly ... a lot of those states weren't very competitive. In most states African-Americans will turn out in roughly double the percent of the state that they are, unless the DP is very strong in that state (like NY or CA). And even then it will be at least 133% of their representation in the state.

In addition to the seven you mentioned, DE is a possibility. He's going to play in UT where he's polled well in the past, maybe KS since it's a caucus. MN is a quasi-caucus too. Alaska has very few Dems and they're all hippies. Probably ID as well. DE is plausible.

So, I think his zone of competition is IL, GA, AL, DE, SD, CO, MO, KS, MN, UT, ND, ID. Plus as many delegates as he can in CA, NY, and NJ.

With 23 states up for grabs, he can't win more than a third of them unless something flukey happens.

by niq 2008-01-23 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

If she does win, because of her campaign tactics she will be a damaged candidate and will lose to McCain un Nov.

by BDM 2008-01-23 06:07PM | 0 recs
Clinton beats McCain

Actually, the new LA Times national poll released today shows Clinton beating McCain:

Overall
Clinton: 46%
McCain: 42%

Women
Clinton: 54%
McCain: 37%

Men
Clinton: 38%
McCain: 47%

Independents
Clinton: 39%
McCain: 39%

She beats the other Republicans by much larger margins. Obama loses to McCain 41% to 42% with more undecideds.

Obama has serious problems with men voters against McCain and a smaller edge among women:

Women
Obama: 46%
McCain: 34%

Men
Obama: 36%
McCain: 52%

by hwc 2008-01-23 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton beats McCain

That is one poll all other poll's show MCcAIN AHEAD.

by BDM 2008-01-23 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Obama isn't getting the significant AA vote in SC b/c of the race card, it's, because of his victory in Iowa. AAs who were sitting on the fence saying that they didn't think he could win, started thinking he could win.  The race card was unnecessary and inflammatory and I think to his detriment.  I think Obama has boxed himself in as the AA candidate, thanks to JJJ and others, but Hillary(imo) still has the support of the AA community, if not there vote in SC and they will show up for the GE if Hillary is the nominee.  I would say go back to the debate in SC and look and listen to the reaction of the crowd.  They definitely pro-Obama, but Hillary certainly got her props that night.  Pre-debate people thought Hillary was going to be booed and racial tensions would really fly, that didn't happen.  Hell Bill's been in SC all week and don't think he hasn't made any headway.  Now this could become further soured if Obama puts JJJ out front again, but I don't think so.  Obama, post SC, will be back on the unity bandwagon and we won't see or hear from JJJ again.

by Kingstongirl 2008-01-24 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

I agree about the demographics. Missouri is 12-13% AA statewide. I assume that most are democratic voters, so with an AA candidate on the ballot, I would expect something closer to 25% of the primary turnout to be AA (and possibly more).

by DPW 2008-01-23 06:16PM | 0 recs
Stop pointing out race

many people are TIRED of it.

by puma 2008-01-23 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop pointing out race

Well, many people are tired of your unfounded assertion that Hillary will lose to McCain, repeated over and over and over again, my friend, you tell me we're on the eve of destruction.

by InigoMontoya 2008-01-23 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop pointing out race
Wishful thinking. Assume state X has 100 delegates.
Clinton wins 44% to Obama 32%. Yes its a win for Hillary but she get 44 delegates and Obama gets 32.
And the pattern repeats for the states that Obama wins.
Unless i am missing something how does one a decisive delegate count in this process with 2 well financed candidates that are unable to know each other out.
by joachim 2008-01-23 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop pointing out race

Unfortunately, there's probably at least the bulk of this century before it doesn't matter anymore. If I lived to see the end of it, that be fantastic.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-01-24 03:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

If Obama wants to extend past Feb fifth he's going to need some big wins.  Since the Clinton win is so easy to see, let's look at the Obama scenario, figuring Edwards is still in the race.  This could change based on SC (especially if Obama wins the white vote, or Edwards win/gets second place) but this is how I see it.  All of these states tighten up as the election draws closer because people finally start paying attention.  Obama does well in rural areas, while Hillary does well in the cities, however, up until now; none of the states with large cities (not counting Michigan because there was no campaigning) has had a sizable African American presence that will change come stupid Tuesday.  if Obama wins in the rural parts of states, and in rural states (Oklahoma, Kansas, not saying he'll win, but Iowa was the most rural of the state's who have voted so far, and he did win it) and the he doesn't lose the big cities by much due to the sizable AA presence there are several states he could win.  GA, AL, IL look good, TN is tossup to lean Obama, much of Missouri borders IL (Arkansas too) so it'll be a tossup.  North Dakota and Idaho are rural states he's been paying attention too that (correct me if I'm wrong, without ripping my head off) Hillary hasn't paid much attention to.  Not many delegates, but a wins a win.  Utah, who knows?  Arizona's in her column, CO is lean to Hillary favored.  DE might be a tossup or lean Hillary, and she'll win the northeast, no question.  However, the AA population votes for him by large margins, and he wins in rural parts.  I'd say her wins in those areas would have to be what, at least double digits?  Then there's Minnesota, which could go either way, or Alaska, who cares.  I'd say Obama can't win out right on Feb 5th, only Clinton can.  If however, he were to win AL GA TN CA and maybe ND ID UT OK he'd keep it going.  The

One overlooked aspect is the favorite son factor.  Six states have favorite sons who, while not all running, or still on the ballot. Alaska, (Gravel) New Mexico (Richardson) Delaware (Biden) Connecticut (Dodd) Illinois (Obama) ad New York (Hillary).  In 2004 Vermont voted overwhelmingly for dean despite him dropping out of the race.  Kerry was the defacto nominee then, so the voting didn't matter at all, I doubt it will be the case this time, unless Hillary wins SC.  However, I can imagine a sizable number of voters in states where their favorite son has left (except Alaska, seriously, does anyone take gravel seriously) that could, in theory determine the winner.  Look to New Mexico specifically, as it has 2 rural districts, a sizable Hispanic population, and a Hispanic candidate on the ballot, though not running.  As Richardson failed to endorse anyone, many of his followers, especially from the Hispanic community, could vote for him out of affection, or just to give the first credible Hispanic candidate a win.  For the other two (Dodd Biden) I'd say rank and file democrats would be the most likely to vote for them even though they're not on the ballot.  That would certainly help Obama who does not do as well among the rank and file as he does with the independents.  Then of course there's the Edwards factor which could be anything from splitting the anti-clinton vote, to absorbing the rather stupid "I won't vote for a black guy" vote.  All in all, Feb fifth is going to be one for the books.  

by Doug Tuttle 2008-01-23 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Excellent analysis, Doug.

by JD Lasica 2008-01-23 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

I'm glad we're finally talking about Feb 5. As for speculation - I'll just speak about Massachusetts. Obama has Kerry's nod, but more importantly he has Deval Patrick. Not only did Patrick coast to glorious victory using what is now Obama's campaign theme - his supporters are many, and the kind that show up to primaries. Patrick's working hard for Obama.

And it should be noted that Massachusetts definitely seems to favor its "good old boys" culture. Until Niki Tsongas barely eked out a victory over a weak, no-name, penniless Republican challenger in MA-05 last year, we had 10 male Congressmen since 1983. We've never had a female Senator, and we rejected the gubernatorial bids of Kerry Healey (R) in 2006 and Shannon O'Brien (D) in 2002 (winner was Mitt).

I'm not saying Hillary can't win here, but I certainly wouldn't yet put it in her column.

by Jon 2008-01-23 08:22PM | 0 recs
i don't know

surveyusa shows hillary with a big lead, http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtPopup.aspx?g=a7773a66-a2c4-45b7-bbc3-2 2fa600a7d52&q=44162

and more importantly, mass is a rank and file dem state.  kerry and patrick would either have to really pull out the stops, or obama would have to improve his standing amongst traditional democrats.  now all polling seems rather suspect lately, but surveyusa has been pretty good so far this season.

by Doug Tuttle 2008-01-23 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: i don't know

Kerry and Patrick don't have any stops to pull. Neither are connected to the Democratic power base in the state which revolves around the City of Boston (Mayor "Mumbles" Memino) and the statehouse.

Mayor "Mumbles" sent 250 ward bosses up to New Hampshire to get out the vote for Hillary using god-knows-what methods they have perfected in South Boston over the generations.

Here's the shocker in the Survey USA survey. Obama LOSES to McCain in Massachusetts. Hillary beats McCain.

by hwc 2008-01-23 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: i don't know

Oh wow - hadn't seen that poll. I agree - SUSA is pretty reliable on this. Shut my mouth, Hillary's got MA.

by Jon 2008-01-24 06:52AM | 0 recs
MA

I live in MA. Patrick has been floundering lately. I don't see his endorsement as a big plus. Unless there is a big change in the dynamic, Clinton should carry the state.

by Coral 2008-01-24 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Obama has a lot of big name endorsements in Georgia including two congressmen and Mayor Shirley Franklin...

by ctnewbie18 2008-01-23 09:52PM | 0 recs
What is a black woman?

Maybe this is a silly question, but in demographic divisions like this one, where does a black woman or  a Latina fit?

Is she a woman or is she black? And what if she's a black woman who is 70 years old? Is she a woman or is she black or is she 65+?

I'm seriously wondering how these things work. Does anyone know?

Anyone?

Bueller?

by carrieboberry 2008-01-24 01:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking into Feb

Jerome is way way to overconfident about Clinton taking 15+ states on the super Tuesday

California is a huge assumption -- everyone seems to be assuming that Hillary wins in a blow out there -- but Obama is going to make it a lot closer than people think, and quite possibly even pull off a win there -- however it turns out, the delegate mouth out of Cal will be rather close

And there are a bunch of other states that there is reason to think are going to be much more competitive:

Massachusetts -- don't you think Kerry, Patrick and the youthful electorate give Obama a fighting chance of taking it?

Minnesota is a caucus state with lots of political dynamics well-suited to an Obama candidacy -- either one of them could win there

It isn't SD that day, it is ND (SD has a primary at the end of the season)-- but Obama has the support of Kent Conrad and the Clintons have never been very popular there -- I suspect Obama will win that

So Hillary definitely wins NY, NJ, CT and Ark... although in each state Obama picks up 1/3rd+ of the delegates -- maybe more depending on how the votes are spread out by congressional districts. CT and NJ will be closer than people expect, although Clinton should definitely win then

NM should be a Clinton win --- but not overwhelmingly -- the hispanic vote there is very different than the immigrant vote in Nev, Cal etc (I grew up there, I'm Latino, for the record) -- and the place is also full of lots of green voters, white collar, high tech newcomers who play a big role in the state Democratic electorate

I understand that Obama has very active campaigns in Alaska, Idaho, Utah and Kansas. (And the rumor is that Sebilius is about to endorse Obama, which should help a lot in Kansas -- where the state Democratic party has been filling up with moderate Republican refugees/converts from the rightwing take-over of the Kansas Republican party)

Not sure about Arizona -- but the Governor endorsing Obama certainly should help make it a competitive race.

So what if your assumed 15 or more states for Clinton to 7 or less more Obama results turns into something much more muddled? Suppose Obama actually wins 11-14 states and Hillary is down to 8-11 states? Suppose the math of delegates actually comes out with a much more even split that you project.

Certainly that would give Obama great deal of momentum -- Feb 12 is very favorable to him (DC, VA, MD) and then would could see a state by state fight for wins and delegates through the end of the primary season.

But hey, I'm happy if the Clinton supporters keep building high expectations for her on the 5th and get overconfident about their chances... it will make Obama's wins so much more enjoyable.

by lifelongdem 2008-01-24 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Women vs. race

Here is something I noticed over the past year. I saw it first in the Imus incident. The press completely did the race angle however when the Rutgers women were interviewed the first thing they said was that the word 'ho's hurt them After being asked about the nappy part they agreed that hurt too but the first thing was the part relating to being a woman.

Another anecdote is that when I first heard the comment it literally shocked me. The 'ho's' is what I reacted to then the press got into it and it became race.

Oddly enough that interview with the women was after the press had been playing up the race part and they still reacted to the part relating to women.

Don't know what this means except that maybe the sisterhood of women is stronger that people think it is.

by del 2008-01-24 08:48AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads