Will Indiana be a primary battleground?

My name is Thomas and I write over at the Blue Indiana blog, which up until recently didn't have a whole lot to do with the Democratic presidential primary. We in the Hoosier state pulled for our favorite team, but at the end of the day, our May primary seemed light-years away. Having not mattered in this particular electoral process for decades, we had all resigned ourselves to our collective fate.

But fate has a funny way of not doing exactly what you had planned, and as we cruise toward April it is becoming increasingly clear that Indiana won't just matter -- we'll be a battleground. This morning's Washington Post sets the stage:

Wedged between Illinois, which is Sen. Barack Obama's home state, and Ohio, which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton dominated on March 4, Indiana may be the one state remaining on the primary calendar where both candidates begin with a roughly equal chance of coming out ahead.

That fact alone makes it stand out from states such as Pennsylvania, where the playing field for the April 22 contest offers big advantages to Clinton (N.Y.), or the Oregon race a month later, which clearly tilts toward Obama.

First things first: Who is winning? That's the question of the hour. I'm asking it, politicians are asking it, and I have heard rumors that more than a few national polling outfits are asking it around the state right now. The bottom line is that no one knows, but the early edge seems to be toward Hillary for two main reasons.

The biggest one at face value is that the demographics of the state tend to cater to the areas in which Clinton has enjoyed success in the past. Indiana has been ravaged by job losses in heavy industry, and just today another 900 jobs were lost due to a GE plant closing in the town where I live. Hillary has already made one stop, and Bill has made more than a few, and with ten cities already under their belt, it is clear that the Clinton campaign wants to focus on these moderately rural, predominantly white regions of the state that share much in common with the more economically troubled areas to our east. In fact, the Ohio ground operation that gave Clinton her much-needed victory appears to have been shipped wholesale across the border and into the state.

The second major factor at work here, which really is the more intriguing from a state-focused political perspective, is the wildcard represented by our own Sen. Evan Bayh. Bayh endorsed Clinton very early on in the process, after he had dropped out of the race and before anyone was making even the slightest movement to legitimately challenge Hillary's front-runner status. He's far and away the most popular Democrat in the state, with approval ratings consistently above the mid-sixties, and his centrist attitude and cautious political sense has sustained his place as the standard-bearer in Indiana for over a decade.

When he announced his support -- and according to many astute observers, an unofficial bid for the running mate slot -- a good majority of the state's Democratic leadership did as well, including the Speaker of the Indiana House, the Indiana Democratic Party state chair, and the last Democratic Governor. This has translated into a 5-2 lead in the superdelegate count, with another five up for grabs among the uncommitted congressional delegation. Rumors say that more than a few lean toward Obama, but the popular vote totals will likely determine a lot.

Of course, the Obama campaign is confident that they can take great advantage of areas of the state where they should thrive. We have at least three big college towns, and you will rarely meet someone from the northwest third of the state who doesn't refer to their home as "just outside of Chicago." The Obama campaign announced the opening of ten field offices yesterday, as well as the hiring of a full field staff, and their activity in the Indianapolis area has signaled that they believe the state's largest city will be an asset come election day.

Sen. Obama has only made one trip himself to the state, a general absence that, within the context of the recent Clinton tour, has many wondering if he has already ceded the point, but I have been assured by numerous people related to the campaign that they plan to contest this state with full force, and the only (arguably dubious) poll to be done of the race thus far had Obama up by 15 points.

Where does that leave us? It's anyone's guess, but I'm inclined to agree with the Post that we will see Indiana be one of the last truly up-for-grabs states in the primary schedule. And with 84 delegates at stake, there will likely be a lot of grabbing going on. I'll have more in my next post about why Sen. Evan Bayh has more invested in this race than many realize.



Display:


Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (2.00 / 1)


The real question is, will Obama be the first Democrat in a generation to carry Indiana in the general election?

I think he has a shot at it.


by admiralnaismith on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:45:34 AM EST

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Maybe, but I wouldn't say it is likely at this point.

There was polling done last year with a generic presidential contender, though, and the Democratic contender came out on top. The poll asked if having Bayh as the VP would increase the likelihood of a vote, and the total jumped from a five point margin to a 14% lead.

Those sort of numbers haven't been seen in Indiana in a long, long while.


by BlueIndiana on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:49:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

My brother, who is the chair of the soil and water board in a rural Indiana county, raised the possibility Obama could win Indiana in a strong Dem year.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:42:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Indiana neighborhood (2.00 / 1)

Lessee.

In '06, in Ohio, the Democrats took control of the state offices,  defeated a Repub Senator, picked up a House seat, and came within 1 or 2% of taking two more from incumbents. This year we have a good shot at gaining four or five more House seats, including two where the Repub incumbent bailed out.

In '04, in Kentucky, the Democrats picked up a House seat  in a special election and within 1% of an upset win of a Senate seat. In '06 we took the Louisville seat. In '07 we won the Governor-Lt Gov offices. Now in '08 we are challenging in another House seat where the Repub incumbent is 'cutting and retiring' .

In '08, in Illinois, we have already picked up a House seat in a special election, and have a shot at taking four more, in part because of two Repub retirements.

In '06, in Michigan, Democrats made surprisingly strong showings in a couple of House races running untested activist candidates with little money or outside support. This year we have two candidates running with good experience in winning elections and holding public office, in races targeted by the DCCC.

In '06, in Indiana, the Democrats picked up three (3 !) House seats and made a surprisingly strong showing in another.

In '06 we gained a House seat in Wisconsin, another in Iowa, one in Minnesota, one in Western Pennsylvania, and one in Kansas, (after picking up one in a special election in South Dakota in '04), along with Senate seats in Pennsylvania and Missouri.

The entire Ohio Valley-Midwest region has trended strongly Democratic since '04. The last big Heartland state to not yet be Democratic-leaning or a battleground state is Indiana. This could be the year that Indiana gets to feel like the rest of the neighborhood, with a battle for its Electoral Votes.


by Woody on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:27:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

"Wedged between Illinois, which is Sen. Barack Obama's home state, and Ohio, which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton dominated on March 4, Indiana may be the one state remaining on the primary calendar where both candidates begin with a roughly equal chance of coming out ahead."

I'm sorry. Hillary "dominated" Ohio? She won by 7 points. That's a nice win, but its hardly a domination.


by DamnYankees on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:56:56 AM EST

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (2.00 / 1)

Clinton won by 10 percent, by a margin of over 230K votes, winning 83 of Ohio's 88 counties.

For Ohio political elections, that's domination.


by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:27:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Many, if not most of those districts, are tiny and red. Obama held her share of delegates to a slight majority.

It's interesting how these small red districts are so paramount to Clinton but when Obama wins them in places like Nebraska they're "not important". A delegate is a delegate.


by Shiloh on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:39:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

nonono. that's not true. We're talking about primary here, not a general election from the past 4 years.

past primaries:
88'
dukakis +34
bush +69

92'
clinton +44
bush +64

96'
dole +34

00'
gore +49
bush +21

04'
kerry +18

08'
hillary +10.3
mcCain +29

domination is what we saw in states such as Maryland, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Virginia, Georgia and Illinois. Not a nice-sized victory in Ohio.


!
by alex100 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

All of the others, of course, weren't competitive contests.


by arkansasdemocrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Senator Clinton is, understandably, in denial about the state of the race.  As David Brooks pointed out this morning, the race is really over.  There is just a long slow death march to the finish.

Clinton does have an interest in keeping this going and seeing Obama damaged.  If he loses in November, Clinton has a path to the presidency in 2012.  2016 is too late. And if she is entitled NOW, she will more than entitled in 2012.

But Clinton is not the only one in denial.  Reporters are people too.  With every new You Tube or outrageous remark from one of the two camps (both are guilty), they get something new to write about.  

Without the Democratic Primary, their lives would be much more difficult.

But, alas, Indiana is not a battleground state.  It is important and every vote should count.  But there are no more battleground states.  Its over.


by smoker1 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:45:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Smoker: With your pronouncement (as well as compatriot Brooks) that "it is over," pray tell "Are you a Republican?"  It is over when the magic majority number is reached; neither candidate appears likely to reach that number in the near future--absent scandal or some other unforeseen event.  Since we recently learned of Wright (and the Republicans really seem to like that), we do know that unforeseen circumstances occur.  Stop being a blowhard (or a Republican.) Its over when its over.  As for me, I'm focused on Pennsylvania.


by christinep on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:06:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Smoker needs to have a smoke and watch his dream go up in smoke.

It's never over till you have the golden puff:-)


by Sandeep on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:17:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Calling any state from here on out (2.00 / 1)

a battleground state for the democratic primary is probably a misnomer. The likelihood of Clinton getting the nomination at this point is remote. Insiders from her own campaign estimate her chances at 10% or less. In order for Clinton to cut substantially into Obama's pledged delegate lead, she has to take all remaining states with substantial double-digit margins. That is not going to happen.

Pennsylvania is a battleground only in the sense that if Obama is able to make that race extremely close, or (as is highly unlikely) win the state, that should be a knockout blow to Hillary's campaign. But from here on out the math is inexorable.


by Quarterbackjoe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:57:11 AM EST

Re: Calling any state from here on out (none / 0)

Let's assume she wins Pennsylvania -- I think that if Hillary were to lose Indiana, she would have a hard time making the case that she should go on. It's a state where she enjoys massive institutional support, and a white working-class demographic that should by all accounts put her in a good place.

A loss in a truly competitive state could matter a lot in terms of bringing this thing to a close, or cementing her narrative that the "voice" of the remaining states must be heard.

(Of course, the same has been said after every set of primaries, so what the hell do I know.)


by BlueIndiana on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:10:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If she wins PA and IA (2.00 / 0)

it still won't matter. Unless her margins are substantially into double digits, she won't significantly encroach on Obama's pledged delegate lead.

One other factor she needs is to capture a high percentage of the remaining super delegates. There is no evidence that this is happening or will happen. In fact, one Clinton superdelegate, Maria Cantwell appears to be leaning toward changing her support from Clinton to Obama.

At this point, it's all about when to unplug the life support.


by Quarterbackjoe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:25:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If she wins PA and IA (2.00 / 0)

Obama already won IA.

I'm assuming you mean IN, correct?


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:27:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If she wins PA and IA (2.00 / 1)

Yes. I never remember the unimportant midwestern states' abbreviations.


by Quarterbackjoe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:33:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Damned abbreviations (none / 0)

We were all forced to go to two-letter abbreviations for states by the Post Office, which had proudly bought one of the first computers and high-volume scanners. Well, a whole huge bunch of the first big commercially available models.

But the computational dinosaurs were unable to process real addresses like Tennessee or Connecticut -- far too many letters in them. Even old abbreviations like Tenn. or Conn. or Ind. were declared excessive. So to get our mail delivered, we had to use the mystery code like TN or CT or IN.

Of course, within a few years the postal sorting systems could handle full addresses, no problem. Today if you write your mother in Illinois or Indiana or Idaho or Iowa, you can spell out the full proper name and you letter will get delivered just as fast as one sent to  IL or IN or ID or IA .

Often I enjoy writing an old abbreviation, like Penna., as a sort of retro-subversive act. But as a nation, we seem to be stuck with a "1970s modern" nomenclature of altogether forgettable abbreviations. Is that Progress or what?


by Woody on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:49:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Damned abbreviations (none / 0)

You're surprised? We still conduct the census based on 18th century techniques. That is, counting 1, 2, 3...

Compared to that, 1970s computations are superfuturistic!

(And, it should be noted, actual snailmail letters are outdated 18th century technology too...)


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:10:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Calling any state from here on out (none / 0)

Having lived several years in Bloomington (during college days, when I had the privilege of being a young precinct committeewoman in Monroe County and casting my first vote for Robert Kennedy in the 1968 primary), I remember somewhat the different demographics.  Southern Indiana v. Northern Indiana; rural v. city; town v. gown.  What are the demographics in Marion County now; and, what % whites/blacks in the Region?


by christinep on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:16:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Calling any state from here on out (none / 0)

Marion county is about a quarter black.

Lots of good info here:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/ 18/18097.html


Donate to Obama, Today!
by freedom78 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:26:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Calling any state from here on out (none / 0)

Obama said he was going to take IN by 10 points in his little spreadsheet. So I think you handicapping it for Clinton when the only poll you cite and the other candidate both suggest the state is his to lose seems a little strange.


by hctb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:37:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Calling any state from here on out (none / 0)

Anyone who knows anything about politics cannot possibly take seriously the 10% claim.  It is a claim routinely used in tight races (and pulled out of you-know-where.)  The posturing and pushing accomplishes nothing in this echo chamber.  Think about it; lets relax and wait for Pennsylvania (my original home state) and even Indiana (that state of my Bloomington years.)  We all have a way to go.  Boasting doesn't change that.


by christinep on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:10:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The 10% comes from inside (none / 0)

the Clinton campaign.

Under any reasonable scenario for the remaining primaries there is no way that Clinton can close the gap on pledged delegates. The math is inexorable. I'm sorry, but that is simply a fact.

Unless one candidate ekes out a double-digit win, each state's delegates will be split roughly evenly. In Texas, for example, Clinton won the popular vote 51% to 47%. Yet, she was awarded only four more delegates than Obama -- 65 to 61.  In Ohio, Clinton won 54% to 44% -- a double digit victory -- yet she was awarded only 9 more delegates than Obama -- 74 to 65.

Obama has 1,413 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,242. That's a 171 pledged delegate lead. Let's assume that Clinton wins every remaining primary by 10%. There are 566 pledged delegates left to be awarded. Using the mathematical formula of Ohio, which is close enough to approximate the remaining races, a 10% victory margin equates with an award of 53% of the remaining 566 pledged delegates. Thus, if Clinton wins all remaining states by 10% (an extremely unlikely scenario in any event) she will take 53% of the remaining 566 delegates and Obama will take 47% of them.

Those totals: Clinton 300, Obama 266. Look at where that leaves each candidate in the pledged delegate column: Obama: 1,413 + 266 = 1,679. Clinton: 1,242 + 300 = 1,542.

Thus, even if Clinton runs the table with a 10% margin in each state, she will still be 137 pledged delegates behind Obama.

The point Kos and others are making is that while it is certainly within the rules for superdelegates to ignore this substantial difference, and Clinton supporters can offer numerous arguments why they should, the democrats who support Obama, and who supported him to his substantial pledged delegate lead, would view such an act by the superdelegates as a coup, and rightfully so. By the only significant measure selected by democrats in creating and enforcing the primary races -- delegate totals -- Obama is substantially ahead. The measure of his lead is easily understood by the virtual impossibility Clinton faces in making any substantial dent in his pledged delegate lead.

The Clinton campaign and its supporters are doing all sorts of contortions to make other metrics more relevant than the pledged delegate count. It's popular vote! It's who can win the big states! It's who has momentum! It's who's ahead in public opinion polls! Most of these (with the possible exception of the popular vote) are laughable. Public opinion polls change daily, depending on who's getting piled on today. So what if Clinton won Texas? When was the last time Texas went blue?

There are two questions to ask here. First, will any of this be persuasive to superdelegates? And second, what would make it persuasive to them?

The answer to the second question will answer the first. I contend that the only way superdelegates would find any of these rationales for a wild swing toward Clinton is if the superdelegates were persuaded that rank and file democrats who supported Obama would accept the rationale and not fracture the party, ruining its chances in November both for the White House and downstream races. And, frankly, I can't see the superdelegates being that stupid. When Obama finishes the primary season with something between a 140 and 180 pledged delegate lead, Obama supporters will rightly conclude that he won the race set up by the DNC rules. Giving the nomination to Clinton, after that, would fairly be called a coup.


by Quarterbackjoe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:42:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The 10% comes from inside (none / 0)

an anonymous quote in an article that failed to get anyone on the record about anything.

Apparently quotes are the new numbers--make them up as you go along.


by hctb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Clinton-Bayh!


The Kentucky Democrat
by kydem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:00:57 AM EST

Re: Clinton-Bayh! (none / 0)

its more like Bye Bye Clinton.


by Silence Do Good on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:43:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If loss of factory jobs is a big factor (none / 0)

in the general election, I can't imagine Indiana going republican.  Tax cuts don't mean much to the unemployed.


I trust Senator Obama.
by GFORD on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:04:27 AM EST

Re: If loss of factory jobs is a big factor (none / 0)

But wedge issues and fear tactics do, or at least have in the past.


by BlueIndiana on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:06:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think the Dems are countering (none / 0)

fear tactics and wedge issues better than we did in the past.  We used to sort of dismiss those things as silly but now we take them seriously and react quickly.  (crosses fingers)


I trust Senator Obama.
by GFORD on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:21:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think the Dems are countering (2.00 / 1)

Call me a cynic, but my experience as a life-long Hoosier is that Indiana is really, really susceptible to these ideological games, and while I hope you are right, I can't help but think it's going to be a tough battle to overcome the very effective right-wing noise machine.


by BlueIndiana on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:25:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think the Dems are countering (none / 0)

I'm with Blue. Thinking Indiana is some fait de compli because of their economic situation is hubris.


by hctb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:42:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If loss of factory jobs is a big factor (none / 0)

I agree and I was born there.

If it changes it would be because of Hillary and Bayh  NOT Obama.  


by CarolinaDawn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:07:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You may be right (none / 0)

although NAFTA probably played a part in the jobloss.  I'm surprised Bill's passage of that hasn't hurt her more but I guess she's been able to convince people it had nothing to do with her.  

As for Obama, maybe people who are in dire circumstances are afraid that any change will only be for the worse...they have lost hope.  By November we'll have to convince them otherwise, convince them that the Dems can improve their lives.  


I trust Senator Obama.
by GFORD on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:18:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If loss of factory jobs is a big factor (none / 0)

Much of Indiana is very rural and socially conservative. The Republican message of jingoism and overt religiosity sells well with much of Indiana. The state was a solid "red" in 2004. There's not much reason to think it wouldn't vote republican again. State level republicans are fairly strong so the machinery is in place. Is this to say that there hasn't been a weakening over the last 8 years, no, there certainly has been -- all over they country -- just not enough to flip this state.


by tessellated on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:21:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Social conservatives (none / 0)

such as the evangelical right are really not winnable for Democrats.  If we pander to them, we give up our soul and even then they wouldn't trust us.  You are right, facts don't sway them, more information is dismissed as lies, lies are accepted as truth.  The religious right is being told daily how evil we are by Christian TV and radio and they believe it 100%.

Any change there will have to come from within the evangelical community.  I think there are some movements to bring them back to earth but they are resisting.


I trust Senator Obama.
by GFORD on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:31:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If loss of factory jobs is a big factor (none / 0)

the problem is that Indiana's economy is fairing pretty darn well. It's far and away the healthiest overall Midwest economy.

It should stay Republican unless we really want to put in a centrist type guy/gal (DLCer) who will sell-out progressive ideals.


!
by alex100 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:47:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If loss of factory jobs is a big factor (none / 0)

Disagree.

I hail from the NW corner of Indiana - also family in the Indy area.  It's anecdotal - but every economic discussion starts and stops with taxes.  

The state sales tax is about to jump.

Excise taxes are high (Hell - my license plates in CHICAGO cost just over half as much as IN tags).

The supposedly up-and-coming Dem, former Indy mayor Bart Peterson, recently lost his reelection bid in a shocker that observers say is traceable directly back to property tax issues.

I have no idea why, but "taxes" resonate more in Indiana than they seem to elsewhere...

If you want to win Indiana - promise lower taxes.


by zonk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:21:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If loss of factory jobs is a big factor (none / 0)

I live in the Indy metro area, and I'll be the first to admit that the last year-and-a-half has been all about taxes. The reason for this is due to the massive jump in property taxes for 2007. People were seeing increases of an average of 31% across the state.


by zep93 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If loss of factory jobs is a big factor (none / 0)

The property taxes took a pretty big jump for much of Indy over the last five years, though it doesn't seem too partisanized, just anti-incumbent.


by hctb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:51:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If loss of factory jobs is a big factor (none / 0)

I would definitely agree about the anti-incumbency trend this last year, especially in regards to Mayor Peterson. I don't have much faith in Mayor Ballard. It will be interesting to see how the governership goes.


by zep93 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:01:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If loss of factory jobs is a big factor (none / 0)

For what it's worth, the Indianapolis area took a bigger property tax hit than most of the rest of the state. Poor planning was part of the problem -- the Marion County government didn't seem to do much in the way of taking steps to mitigate the loss of inventory tax revenue.


by mhojo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:01:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Thank you for this.
I just booked BlueI

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:10:21 AM EST

"Wedged between Illinois, which is..." (none / 0)

"Wedged between Illinois, which is Sen. Barack Obama's home state, and Ohio, which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton dominated on March 4,..."

HRC only "dominated" Ohio because of her lies on NAFTA. The TRUTH is out now about HRC's support for NAFTA and those working class men and women in PA will pay her back for duping their neighbors in Ohio in early March.

However, It looks VERY likely now though that after Howard Deans' and Harry Reids' meeting yesterday, that HRC may not even make it to PA, but DEFINITELY not to the convention! =D

http://www.lvrj.com/news/16948521.html

But all in all, HRC need not worry about the non-existent Bosnian snipers as much as ...  as... WATCH OUT FOR THE CHICKENS COMING HOME TO ROOST HRC!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/opinio n/23dowd.html?_r=1&oref=login


*VOTE DEMOCRAT! - HRC or BHO* Obama '08 - Full of reason / Hillary '08 - Full of treason (Gallup Poll, March 26 2008) / McCain '08 - Diaper's full of Bushit.
by VT COnQuest on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:19:34 AM EST

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

I think Penn will begin to Close soon, we are already seeing it nearing the 10% mark... if Obama is within 7, or so, in Penn I think it may be over


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:23:41 AM EST

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Rassmussen's new poll out today supposedly show the gap having closed to 10 points on the nose... I don't have to the trend lines, but fairly sure that Rass was among the pollsters that previously had the spread in the 15-20 pt range.  

Again, going from my probably faulty memory - I think Quinnipiac was the only pollster to have the race at under 15 pts (I believe their poll, now quite out of date, had the race at 12-13 pts).

5 pts is my Obama goal in PA....  I was disappointed that he didn't close OH to within 5 - but I think the campaign decided to plant a flag in TX instead.

Here - it shouldn't be a matter of needing to make a choice, so hopefully Obama can get it done.


by zonk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:25:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

ras had the race at 13 last time. Obama has shaved off 3 points.

realistically though, I'd be happy with Obama keeping PA under 11 points. Hillary needs a 25-30 pt. victory which she shouldn't be able to get under current circumstances.

While Obama has been able to shave off huge chunks to Hillary leads in the past, he's been less able to close the deal on last day voters. I don't see that changing in PA unless his campaign team has found out the formula.


!
by alex100 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:53:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Hmmm...

Well, that's positive movement - but positive movement within the MOE, so could be just noise.

I guess this poll isn't nearly the good news I was thinking it was.

I've always maintained the raw numbers don't mean much - it's the trendlines that matter.

This one's still marginally moving the right way, but it's still a bit flat for my tastes.


by zonk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

i think you were one of the posters trying to solidify the baseline for PA when Todd or Jerome posted a PA poll on the front page. 19pts.

So yeah, the trends are heading in the right direction, if you're an obama supporter.


!
by alex100 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:02:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

I was and I am.

19 pts is still the bar :-)


by zonk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:25:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (2.00 / 2)

You can count my wife and me as two votes Indiana votes for Obama.

But I'd be surprised if this state goes blue come November.  I'd agree that Bayh on the ticket makes it more likely.  But it'd still take a perfect storm.  

Here's what that storm might look like:

1.) Bayh as VP nominee
---seems more likely with Hillary, and not because he supports here.  He makes sense for her from a perspective of geographic balance, he's appeal to rust belt voters (in other words, he might be able to help her out in Ohio...I'm fairly certain she'll carry Pennsylvania, no matter what), and he gives some age balance to the ticket (he's 52; she'll be 61 come election day).  In some ways, he's very similar to Obama, and he reflects that same calmness that Obama has.  And, my dark horse reason...we REALLY want to make up for Dan "Potatoe" Quayle.  

2.) McCain keeps floundering about on the economy
---in between Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan, you can probably get a pretty good idea of what the Indiana economy is like: agriculture and blue collar industrial jobs.  In other words, people who suffer during bad economic times.  A President who isn't "an expert on this stuff" won't appeal to them.  

3.) A nominee with blue collar credibility
---Democrats for President have been getting whooped around here for a while.  Bush carried Indiana with over 55% both times.  BUT!  But, I don't know that Gore or (especially) Kerry were really the types of politicians who can appeal to the people here.  They just "ain't our type of people."  People here want practical policies that'll help them and their families.  

4.) A GOP recession
---It's tough to say how this will affect the Indiana vote.  The last time it happened, the vote was muddied by Perot.  Clinton came within about 6% with nearly 20% going Perot.  How would that 20% have voted, otherwise?  I'm not sure.  I'm sure Clinton would have gotten a decent chunk (after all, there was an incumbent President running, so the case can be made that a vote for Perot was a vote against Bush), but it's tough to say it would have been enough to push him over the top.

5.) Iraq
---Unlike Bush I pulling off a victory here in 1992, Bush II has more going poorly for him than the economy.  While there are a lot of these issues, Iraq tops the list.  While I'm sure the war is probably more popular here than in a lot of other states, I doubt it's popular overall.  

So, I suppose that IF it's going to happen, this year is as good as any.

But, in truth, Indiana isn't crucial to anyone's election plans.  The GOP is counting on it.  If it's truly in play, then it doesn't matter how it goes, because that means they're already lost Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, and Iowa.  If Indian IS in play, McCain is COMPLETELY screwed.


Donate to Obama, Today!
by freedom78 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:24:01 AM EST

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Riffing on item 3...

I commented a bit yesterday on my Easter weekend with family (I've been in Chicago for about 20 years, but most of my extended family still lives in the South Bend/LaPorte/Michigan City area).

One of the things I found most surprising was the strong sense of 'regionalism'.

I personally think it actually DOES go back to Quayle - I think a lot of Hoosiers, even some Democrats, feel that Indiana (and to some extent, Quayle himself) got improperly tarred by what they consider small misstatements.  I'm not defending Quayle - but there is a STRONG animosity towards the "coasts".... at least, as I heard it.

Since we're situated so close to Chicago - it's perhaps not surprising that Obama support in my family was at ~3 to 1 (20-30 voting age adults).   What was surprising is that there's virtually NO McCain support... My family is relatively moderate - I think you could safely call them, for the most part, "Reagan Democrats".... Their perfect sort of Democrat is someone like Tim Roemer.  

That said, I was happily surprised by the strong "midwestern identity" attached to Obama... the idea that he's "one of us" (my family is a lily white, Polish, Catholic family that permeates the area).

While the demographics may favor Clinton, based on my own little ad hoc familial focus group -- I wouldn't be surprised to Obama beat the demographics spread by a wide margin in the NW corner... forget just Gary -- I'm talking all the way over to South Bend and even pulling some surprisingly strong support from wingnut central in to Elkhart, Mishawaka, Granger, and such.


by zonk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:32:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Yes, there's a DEFINITE distrust (right word?) of "the coasts."  Kind of summed up in my point about Kerry not being the kind of guy for most Indiana voters.  

You may be right about the demographics.  A lot of the demographics favored HIllary in Wisconsin, as well, and we saw how that went.  

I don't really know what to expect, because I've lived in Illinois for six years, until last August.  I don't quite have my finger on the political pulse.


Donate to Obama, Today!
by freedom78 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:33:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

I agree with most of what your post says. I've lived in the Indy area for the last 12 years, counting my years at Purdue. Anecdotally, I have "evolved" over the course of the last three years or so from a die-hard repub to volunteering for the Obama campaign. Mostly it was from frequently visiting sites like Dkos to see what people on the other side were saying. Once I saw that those "crazy libruls" were normal, I was able to see the merits of their ideas. All of this being said, I would be more than happy to support a Clinton/Bayh ticket.


by zep93 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Connection to Clinton. I disagree wholeheartedly about your first point-- I think Bayh and Clinton are pretty close both ideologically (they are both DLCers) and personally. Several of his staffers that are not from his time as Governor are former Clinton/Gore folks.  

Experience. Remember that the sweet spot at the DNCC held by Obama in 2004 was held by Bayh in 1996 (that was a long and boring speech--just like Clinton's in 1988). I think that illustrates a larger point-- Bayh has been in government for 20 years--eight of them as a Governor. That is pretty different than Obama.

Now, Bayh is a little too milquetoast for my tastes, but he has been in service of IN for a long while and we tend to like him. I think Bayh on the ticket would probably be the only way to get Indiana to flip blue even in a heavily Democratically trending election. But, they have been talking about him as a VP for 8 years now...  mean, if not now, when? Maybe he likes the Senate and IN will not have to worry about learning about  a Senate candidate until Lugar or Bayh passes away.


by hctb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:14:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (2.00 / 1)

Nice post.  The one thing you might want to add is the incredible dynamic in the Dist. 7 race, and the GOTV effort it will engender.  That could seriously skew the numbers.

Also, Indiana is an open primary state - get to the polling place and pick your ballot. What that really means is that local races could control Democratic turnout.  There are a lot of local communities that are so dominated by Republicans that the primary IS the election, so people would effectively waive their right to pick judges, council members, and other local politicos if they take a Democratic ballot.


by dhonig on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:26:00 AM EST

Ohio (none / 0)

...at least Columbus, didn't see much until about three weeks before the primary. Then it was saturation bombing. And, of course, now three weeks later the Clinton and Obama HQ's are back to For Lease. The overall margin in OH was Clinton 55-45.

One thing about the college town aspect: per capita, OH and IN have about the same level of college enrollment, so any differences in the college vote area would be composition/turnout not relative size.

Maybe Indiana college students go for Obama even more than Ohio students, who knows.


by techfidel on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:28:46 AM EST

Re: Ohio (none / 0)

Of course, this will be one of the first states in which college campuses will be out for summer break. I'm not sure how much of an effect this will have.


by BlueIndiana on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:30:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ohio (none / 0)

Well, those still in state will probably vote anyway, right?


by techfidel on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:33:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ohio (none / 0)

Who knows?  Campuses are great places for a rally...the enthusiasm might die down some without that campus atmosphere.

Finals Week ends on the 2nd and 3rd at Indiana and Purdue Universities.  Perhaps students are in the process of moving back home and don't vote?  I really don't know.  

But I will say that IU is a very liberal university.  That probably favors Obama.  


Donate to Obama, Today!
by freedom78 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:39:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ohio (none / 0)

I go to IU, and this is definitely Obama territory, but the confusion of that week may make a big absentee vote effort key to running up big margins in areas like Bloomington.


by BlueIndiana on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:42:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ohio (none / 0)

Of course, there's also a big out of state student population.  I don't know the numbers, but presumably most will have voted in their home states.


Donate to Obama, Today!
by freedom78 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:44:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ohio (2.00 / 1)

I looked at all the precincts around Ohio State in Columbus. While they went for Obama by a 2:1 margin (4,071 to 2,097), only 6,100 or so votes were cast in these precincts (OSU Columbus touts an enrollment of 52,000). Clearly some students vote further from campus, but I have a feeling that the student vote is greatly exaggerated. The campus polling places were pretty dead all day (although turnout was OK for a primary). BTW, these totals include early voting so even fewer voters were at the campus polling places on election day.


by techfidel on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ohio (none / 0)

I agree, but of course voting in the primaries is low for any group, when compared with the general.

If you subtract international students and out of states students from that 52,000, I'm betting that 6,100 looks a lot more respectable.


Donate to Obama, Today!
by freedom78 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:46:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bayh wants the VP slot under Clinton. (none / 0)

No secret. If she wins, he thinks he's her VP.


by Bob Johnson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:35:50 AM EST

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

No, Indiana won't even be a factor as HRC won't be a factor after (possibly even in) PA. Latest Rasmussen poll puts Obama within 10 points of HRC with a month left to further diminish and eliminate that lead. SO much for the 20 point lead that HRC needed to win PA by to even have a (still VERY unlikely) CHANCE to stay in the race (but still NO chance of winning): Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential Primary - Pennsylvania: Clinton 49% Obama 39% - http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_ democratic_presidential_primary


*VOTE DEMOCRAT! - HRC or BHO* Obama '08 - Full of reason / Hillary '08 - Full of treason (Gallup Poll, March 26 2008) / McCain '08 - Diaper's full of Bushit.
by VT COnQuest on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:37:44 AM EST

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Stop spoiling this for me! :)

I want JUST ONCE to vote in a meaningful Presidential Primary.  I don't care if Hillary drops out TODAY...I'm going to plug my ears and go to the polls like my vote will swing it to Obama.


Donate to Obama, Today!
by freedom78 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:41:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL! Ok then, I'll play along...HRC's camp says: (none / 0)

"Obama down by double digits in PA... likely triple digits by April 22nd."

AND

-----------------------DUCK! -----------------------
----------------SNIPERS EVERYWHERE!!! -----------------


*VOTE DEMOCRAT! - HRC or BHO* Obama '08 - Full of reason / Hillary '08 - Full of treason (Gallup Poll, March 26 2008) / McCain '08 - Diaper's full of Bushit.
by VT COnQuest on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:05:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Latest Rasmussen PA polling (none / 0)

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_ democratic_presidential_primary

Take a look at support of other candidate if mine loses percentages.  Pretty damn depressing.


by mady on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:40:09 AM EST

Re: Latest Rasmussen PA polling (none / 0)

Meaning a joint ticket is the only way to win... but I think those numbers don't play out in the GE... or  those people don't vote.  I can't imagine that many Dems voting for mcCain if Hillary or Obama lose.  Its more just thebitterness of the primary.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:24:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (2.00 / 1)

you forgot to add that Obama's ground game will be spilling across Illinois, into Indiana.

Any ohio ground game that moves into Indiana should work to both candidates advantage. Even if it is true that Clinton's Ohio ground game is larger or better, it should be outbalanced by Obama's Illinois swell.

Northwest Illinois, South Bend (huge Illinois population), Bloomington and Indianapolis should be enough to propel Obama to victory.

in any regard, I see anywhere from a 3 point Hillary win to a 12 point Obama win.


!
by alex100 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:04:29 PM EST

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Thank you for this. It brings up a lot of interesting questions and things to think about.

As much as each candidate would like to take credit for the high democratic turnout in the primaries IMHO it has more to do with the fact that the nominee isn't already decided by Iowa and New Hampshire and EVERY state is in play. When the nominee has already been decided by a few small states voter apathy in the primary is very strong. People who vote in the primaries are more likely to vote in the GE and high voter turnout has always been good for the democratic party and bad for the republican party.

As we have seen in the last two GE one state can be the determining factor in the winner talk all electoral battle so in the GE ALL states are in play.  


by Justwords on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:27:42 PM EST

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Hence why many of us like Obama's plan to run in most if not all 50 states versus hillary's winning 50%+1 plan of swing states that has worked so well the last 8 years.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:21:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Interesting post, thank you.


by cc on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:28:34 PM EST

Um, that's "northwest", BlueIndiana.... (none / 0)

...unless you wanna tick off people in Ft. Wayne.  ;-)


by palamedes on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:30:41 PM EST

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (2.00 / 1)

Thomas is everywhere.

I think Obama does well in The Region (Northwestern Indiana, near Chicago, large black population) and in Marion County.

I think Clinton will do well in what I refer to as the North Central Conference cities -- small Indiana cities, not suburbs of anywhere, that rely heavily on manufacturing - Richmond, Muncie, Anderson, Logansport, Marion, Kokomo, New Castle, Lafayette. (Completely an aside, but 4 of those cities have gyms that are among the nation's 6 largest high school gyms: New Castle #1; Anderson #2; Richmond #5, and Marion #6). Clinton's success in Lafayette and Muncie may be mitigated to some extent by Ball State and Purdue, but, as Thomas pointed out, college will be out for the summer by the time of Indiana's primary.

Southern Indiana is a mystery to me. I have no idea what the hell goes on in places like Evansville, Tell City, Jeffersonville, Bedford, and Jasper.


by mhojo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:35:38 PM EST

Quick assessment... (2.00 / 1)

...that I would love to see verified or debunked by Blue Indiana.

Obama ought to do well in Northwest Indiana, Michiana (at least the portion that includes South Bend), Lafayette, and Bloomington.

I think Clinton will probably take Kokomo, Evansville, Terre Haute.

Indianapolis will be very interesting to watch, as  I think there will be a real battle over the city itself, and between the older suburbs versus Hamilton Township.  It will be interesting anywhere along Route 24 (outside of Lafayette to and including Ft. Wayne), as well as I-65 south (Columbus to New Albany).  I also think the Anderson area will cancel out anything that happens in Muncie.

The thing is, Indiana is like Texas in that there are a lot of "regions" that make up the state, and within each region are small towns, each fiercely willing to defend their turf.  (My parents live in Lebanon these days, and they still fume over the loss a couple years ago of a Blockbuster that apparently is now in nearby Frankfort.)  To that end, Obama having ten field offices in the state may sound excessive, but it's only one or two more than I would recommend, and I'm personally glad they are being more ambitious.

Clinton has a slight edge because Indiana trends towards older voters, and with Bayh's endorsement.  If there is any lasting unease regarding the Wright controversy within the state, it'll show up most clearly in Northwest towns like Hobart, Crown Point, maybe Munster (though that's a more Chicago-oriented town than the other two).

But if Obama looks good in Ft. Wayne, Vincennes, or Columbus, Hillary should worry.  And if Obama can somehow keep it close in places like Terre Haute or Anderson, really worry.

My two bits...


by palamedes on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:57:34 PM EST

Re: Quick assessment... (none / 0)

I see the city of Indianapolis as being very much an Obama stronghold. The suburbs, however, I think will split between both Obama and Clinton. The Hamilton County area is mostly white, high education, high income and conservative. The left-leaning community seems more geared towards Obama than Clinton. The other surrounding counties, i.e., Boon, Hendricks, Morgan, Johnson, Hancock align more closely with Clinton's demographics. Just my opinion, fwiw.


by zep93 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:59:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quick assessment... (none / 0)

recall though that we just banged the pavement for Carson in the special. I am not sure of data about the impact voting in a special has on your likelihood to vote in a primary 6 weeks later--it might increase it or depress it. But we were already whipped into a frenzy to get our lack of support for Carson into tepid support. It was exhausting.  


by hctb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quick assessment... (none / 0)

Agreed about Hamilton Township, but given the demographics, I would think any one that calls themselves a Dem there would be more likely to vote for Obama.

I tend to agree with you for the most part about the surrounding counties, save that if we get voter registration up in time for the primary, it could be closer than anyone might expect.


by palamedes on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:38:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Curious on some Demos...

1) How big is the Northwest (I assume you meant NORTHWEST since Northeast is close to Ohio whereas Northwest Indiana is considered part of the Chicagoland area and gets Chicago-area television) part of the state?

2) Is the major urban area of Indianapolis Obama or Hillary territory?


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:20:32 PM EST

Re: Will Indiana be a primary battleground? (none / 0)

Northwest Indiana, a/k/a "The Region" is a significant chunk of Indiana's politics. According to Wikipedia and the 2000 census, it has a population of 800,000, give or take. That's roughly equal to the population of Marion County/Indianapolis. Indiana's overall population is about 6,000,000.

Counting Indianapolis's ring counties, the population pretty much doubles to 1.6M. The ring counties to the north/northeast tend to be fairly affluent. The ring counties to the south tend to be NASCAR territory (to generalize horribly).

Anyway, if you take the Indy area and The Region, you're talking about more than 1/3 of Indiana's population.


by mhojo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:09:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.