MoJo Blog: Can Clinton Wait Until Texas and Ohio?

[flpoljunkie]

February 11, 2008

Can Clinton Wait Until Texas and Ohio?

The Clinton campaign has made it clear that it is looking ahead to the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas. Even before it lost Louisiana, Washington, and Nebraska on Saturday, campaign officials were telling the press that they are effectively conceding everything between Super Tuesday and March 4.

This is a smart move in at least one respect: expectations. The press has a bad habit of not making much of victories unless they are unexpected — if Obama wins by 20 points in three states he was "supposed" to win, there's little talk of momentum even a day and a half later. So Clinton won't be hurt if she loses all of the remaining states before March 4--Maryland, Virginia, D.C., Hawaii, and Wisconsin--but she will receive a lot of positive press if she somehow wins one of them. (She lost the Maine caucus on Sunday.)

As a side note, it's worth pointing out that the Obama campaign doesn't really play this game. It doesn't try to manage expectations in the way the Clinton campaign does, which means that Obama is often in a disadvantageous position in the media narrative (a situation mitigated by the fact that the media seems to like him more than it likes Clinton). But to the Obama campaign's credit, it seemed to have realized that expectations don't really matter to everyday voters. With the exception of New Hampshire, where voters grew tired of the media's attempts to bury the Clintons and the Clinton era, voters don't seem to care what happened in the states before them and how that fits into some grand story being told by Tim Russert and Chris Matthews. They just want a chance to evaluate the candidates and make their own decisions.

Back on point. Is the Clinton strategy of waiting until Texas and Ohio a smart one? I doubt it. It too closely mirrors Rudy Giuliani's Florida strategy. Giuliani could shake as many hands as he wanted in Florida, but the media coverage about the campaign had him losing state after state after state. He was like a boxer who took blows to the head for four rounds and expected to score a knockout in the fifth. It didn't happen. If Obama sweeps everything between Feb 5 and March 4, he'll have won LA, NE, WA, ME, MD, VA, DC, HI, and WI. Doesn't that reduce Clinton to Rudy 2.0?

[WYObama]

1. Of course,

I'm biased for the Phenom from IL, but I honestly don't think she can afford to wait. If Barack sweeps the rest of February, that would give him enough momentum, that even if she STILL won, he'd keep it close, and like Nevada, the delegates would be about evenly split.

[Perky]

2. I agree. Obama should win the rest fot the month with the Clinton's not

seriousl contesting it. Now that taked him to a significant pledged delegate lead but while Clinton could come back with wins in Texas and Ohio. I am not sure that will be enough for a couple of reasons.


First she needs to win big in both... and that neans she has to spend a lot of time and money in both.I think she might be able to win both. But I think it is going top be harder than people think. To the extent that Texas thinks like the south and their is a smaller Affican american population and larger Hispanic population (percentage wise)is advantaged.But she has a problem with white voters in the SOuther both make and female.

White males are voting for Obama 60/40 in southern states.


And she is only splitting the female vote

She is going to have to change those biases pretty convincingly in order to play catchup.

WHile she will probably do better in Uuion households in Ohio again she had to do really well among men.


Sha can't get a drar in either state. she has to have Obama size wins. I don't see that happening unless she goes negative and that is a very risky strategy given what comes later on ion the reamining primaries.

Given tghe challenges in the later primaries...shere ally has the mop the floor in Ohio and Teax

[WYObama]

3. Absolutely well said.

So here's a question - is Barack INDEED the frontrunner now (like Bill C tried to spin it a few days ago)? I would say yes with an * - the superdelegates are the big 'if.'

[bornskeptic]

22. Wishful thinking does not create statistics.

Your Claim:White males are voting for Obama 60/40 in southern states.

From the exit polls, how white males voted:
AL:
Clinton 70
Obama 27
Edwards 2

AR:
Clinton 71
Obama 24
Edwards 2

FL:
Clinton 45
Obama 27
Edwards 25

GA:
Clinton 46
Obama 48
Edwards 6

LA:
Clinton 51
Obama 31

SC:
Clinton 28
Obama 27
Edwards 45

TN:
Clinton 58
Obama 32
Edwards 9

Only in Georgia did Obama beat Clinton among white males, and then only by two points. It's true he has done better with white males in the North, but not in the South.

[bornskeptic]

23. dupe

[suston96]

4. It's out of her hands. Hope and inspiration trumps experience...that's what people want...nt

[suston96]

5. It's out of her hands. Hope and inspiration trumps experience...that's what people want...nt

self-delete. DP

[WYObama]

7. I agree to an extent.

When we nominate candidates with Hope as their central message (1932-1948, 1960, 1992) we win. When we go with experience or a person's resume (1980, 1984, 1988, 2004) we don't.

[SteppingRazor]

11. But you conveniently left out the times when a "hope" candidate got crushed...

1972 springs immediately to mind.

[WYObama]

13. Sorry...

I should said Hope coupled with Charisma. The candidate needs charisma. Like Barack has, and Clinton doesn't. Also, now McGovern can be left out.

[SteppingRazor]

15. That's a good point. I think a lot of it comes down to charisma, though...

look at the candidates you cited as winners -- FDR, JFK and Bill Clinton. Talk about charisma! Now look at the losers you cited -- Carter, Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry. Kind of a stodgy bunch, no? I think there may be something to the whole "hope trumps experience" argument, but I also think that a candidate that has that certain "it factor" is more-often the one with the huge advantage.

[SteppingRazor]

12. But you conveniently left out the times when a "hope" candidate got crushed...

1972 springs immediately to mind.

[Meshuga]

6. I wish it did but it doesn't

"Doesn't that reduce Clinton to Rudy 2.0?"

I wish it did but it doesn't.

She can even lose close contests in Texas and Ohio (which I think she will win) and still be in it. This is going to the convention and it is for the super delegates to decide the outcome. This is not over until someone accepts the nomination at the end of August in Colorado.

[thevoiceofreason]

8. It's the Double Rudy

Twice the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the Giuliani strategy (I hope).

[UALRBSofL]

9. Even if she loses the Potomac

and she's able to keep it somewhat close, she can still keep her campaign going through PA, TX, and Oh. I don't see why Obama supporters want her to throw the towel in just for there best interests.

[NJSecularist]

21. Because if she loses Ohio and Texas

She will be in a delegate and momentum deficit that she will not be able to recover from.

[SteppingRazor]

10. I don't think the Rudy-Clinton comparison is apt.

Yes, Clinton concedes a ton of momentum here, and I think Obama will not only sweep the so-called Chesapeake primary, but also the two Feb. 19 primaries in WI and HI. But Rudy's position heading into Florida is not Clinton's position heading into Texas.

Rudy had won nothing going into Florida. But by the time we reach Texas, Obama will be barely ahead in total delegates, probably by around 60-70 delegates, a number that can easily be surpassed with the 444 total delegates up for grabs March 4.

[bigtree]

14. that make no sense Guliani? did he have as many delegates? was he as close?

no, he wasn't.

But, thanks for the concern.

[Bad Thoughts]

16. Concede will become her middle name

Clinton's defeatism will play poorly in November. It will be seen as the sign of a divisive figure who will make half hearted attempts in the face of criticism. At least for the sake of being a good GE candidate, she needs to make nominal contests against Obama rather than concede.

[Thrill]

17. Why does she feel, she is entitled to wins in TX and OH??

I think she is going to be surprised much like Rudy

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. She doesn'ty feel "entitled" to wins

Don't be a skootch. She thinks she will win those states. She's probably right.

[SteppingRazor]

20. Clinton supports were asking the same thing of Obama supporters last week...

regarding this past weekend's primaries and the upcoming ones on Tuesday. And, of course, the answer from Obama supporters was obvious -- Obama has done well in the South and in caucuses, no reason that trend shouldn't continue.

It's not a question of "entitlement," it's a question of where the candidate has been strong in previous primaries. Clinton has had a strong turnout in large states and among Latino voters, which should give her an advantage in Texas.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Clinton will win Puerto Rico big, and a shitload of delegates along with it

That might be the one bright spot between now and March 4. I also think she will pull out Wisconsin, though it will look like NM and Missouri.