Clinton's Firewall Scenario

I am from Ohio. Specifically Northwest Ohio, which should be fertile Hillary country. It is split.

I think March 4th, because of Texas, not Ohio, is why Obama will win that day. I think he owns her in Texas, without much campaigning. He will spend the bulk of his time in Ohio which only helps his chances.

Obama doesn't need anything but time to introduce himself to the electorate. Everywhere he does that, he catches and surpasses Hillary.

http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by Brian | February 2, 2008 3:13 PM

I believe that Obama will be the nominee. He has been closing 20 point gaps in less than 3 weeks and has the clear momentum. Hillary might hang on Super Tuesday by the skin of her teeth.

Posted by Ni | February 2, 2008 3:20 PM

Very interesting. Marc, perhaps you (or anybody) could explain why March favours Hillary?

Marbury

http://marbury.typepad.com

Posted by marbury | February 2, 2008 3:21 PM

But I still don't understand how Obama can make an "electability" argument if he doesn't acutally win the majority of elections on Feb. 5th, and in fact loses most of them (as appears likely). I know that he gets delegates, but it still doesn't look very good for him at all, especially on the "electability" front. My understanding is that Jessie Jackson actaully won anywhere from 8-13 primaries in 1988, but still did not become the party's nominee. I also don't think that the Dem party is going to want months and months of back and forth infighting, especially when the Republicans will (mostly) coalesce around McCain after Feb. 5th.

Posted by Lisa | February 2, 2008 3:25 PM

Virginia and Maryland are diverse states with large African-American populations, but they also have a very large amount of union works (especially AFSCME members). Wisconsin, outside of Madison is not nearly as (demographically) pro-Obama. I haven't seen much polling in the post-Super-Tuesday states, so this is as much a guess as anything, but I don't think February is as close to a slam-dunk for Obama as Kim thinks it is...

Posted by Eli | February 2, 2008 3:25 PM

The post-Feb. 5 scenario is a fairly standard one that has been elucidated in several other places. I agree with it, BUT...

It all depends on exactly what the delegate margin is, and how the Democratic Party elite interpret it. Not the media. At least not first. The media will scramble to get clues from the establishment Dems.

The super delegates will see anything up to a Clinton +100 margin as very close. Some will begin to break for both candidates, but most will probably hold off. Since the calendar IS favorable to Obama, they will see it as unfair to try to kneecap him by moving in droves to Clinton. They will let it play out.

But if Clinton's margin is closer to 150 or more, we may see significant consolidation behind her. Remember, it may sound like a small number, but the only way you begin to MAKE UP a delegate deficit is by beating your opponent in every other state by at least 55%-45%.

If Clinton's margin is 200 or more, we will see very vocal calls for consolidation behind her for the nomination.

Posted by along | February 2, 2008 3:32 PM

Unless you have some MAJOR endorsements waiting in the wings...

Yes. We. Can

http://www.dipdive.com/

Posted by Ezzy | February 2, 2008 3:34 PM

I agree with most of the post, except for the part that March favors Hillary.

First, if Obama has a great February (after Feb. 5th), he'll be the one going into March with the Big MO, and he will have the TIME to campaign (retail campaigning) in ALL the Feb and Mar states. When voters get the chance to see him up close and personal, he does very well and closes the gap on Hillary fast.

Second, the TX primary is on the same day as OH, and TX has a lot more delegates. From what I hear and have read, TX is coming on strong for Barack.

Third, there is nothing about the other March states that points to a Hillary advantage. If Obama has a good February, all the March states are in play.

Posted by sue | February 2, 2008 3:40 PM

I agree with most of the post, except for the part that March favors Hillary.

First, if Obama has a great February (after Feb. 5th), he'll be the one going into March with the Big MO, and he will have the TIME to campaign (retail campaigning) in ALL the Feb and Mar states. When voters get the chance to see him up close and personal, he does very well and closes the gap on Hillary fast.

Second, the TX primary is on the same day as OH, and TX has a lot more delegates. From what I hear and have read, TX is coming on strong for Barack.

Third, there is nothing about the other March states that points to a Hillary advantage. If Obama has a good February, all the March states are in play.

Posted by sue | February 2, 2008 3:40 PM

What Ezzy said. If Obama can play it close and tie expectations on Tuesday (even if HRC wins), he should get 2 of the big 3 remaining endorsements: Edwards, Richardson, and Gore. And the media will pile on.

Hillary's March strategy resembles that of another famous NY politician on the GOP side: Rudy.

Procrastination is not a strategy. Firewalls do not exist.

Posted by lampwick | February 2, 2008 3:53 PM

I strongly urge Independents & Democrats to vote for OBAMA - he has the best chance to win the general election. Please don't just support Hillary just because you want to see a woman in th WH. Hillary will have a very hard time against the GOP and all the buzz and excitement for change will fade if Obama doesn't win the Dem nom. PLEASE SUPPORT THE STRONGEST CANDIDATE we have had in decades.

OBAMA can and will win the general election - if you have courage and VOTE for him in the primaries.

Posted by Shawn | February 2, 2008 3:56 PM

With early voting and continuing though narrowing leads in most Feb 5 states, Clinton should get the majority of the 1681 delegates on Super Tuesday. If she wins more than 950, it is a favorable outcome for her, less than 900 and Obama will be in good shape given the upcoming primary schedule.

Posted by Ben Brackley | February 2, 2008 3:57 PM

Feb 5 also exhausts Obama's last big "money in the bank" state of Illinois. He could roll up big delegate margins there, and could eat into Hillary's margin in NY. He'll need to do both.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | February 2, 2008 4:18 PM

let's not forget Nebraska on February 9th - a red state where he has an endorsement from Ben Nelson and could do just fine as well.

Posted by Glen Thomas | February 2, 2008 4:25 PM

I also object to the assertion that March would favor Hillary. Obama has had several rallies here in Texas with thousands of participants. He has been here throughout 2007. Hillary's ventures have been mostly (if not all) private high-dollar affairs with small numbers of donors.

Texas is a red state. Anecdotally speaking, all of my Republican family members, friends and neighbors emphatically do NOT like Hillary. They are not excited about their own choices, and many are considering Obama.

With our primaries, you go to the polling place and request either a Democratic or Republican ballot. I'm pretty optimistic about Obama's chances here in Texas. I would note that this is the first time I (45 years old) have been actively involved in a campaign.

Posted by texasdem | February 2, 2008 5:00 PM

Agree with RonK. Hillary needs 900 on Tuesday. No idea whether that's going to happen.

Posted by awrbb | February 2, 2008 5:07 PM

Taking a step back to marvel at the whole primary season unfold, this extended campaign where every state's vote seems to be counting in the end is GREAT for the Democratic party. Democrats are going to be juiced up, politically aware, and ready to go.

The best ticket to take advantage of all this excitement, it seems to me, is still Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama, though obviously there are other good tickets that people would get behind with the primary season winner on top.

Posted by DemUnity08 | February 2, 2008 5:16 PM

Your correspondent has forgotten one other small state, Maine, which is all alone on Feb 10.

The Obama campaign has been actively organized up here for awhile and with paid staff for at least two weeks. In other words, a full month before our little caucus they've been working their butts off. No sign of the Clinton people anywhere.

The Obama people think that because Maine is a caucus state and is all alone on that date, and sandwiched between several other friendly states, it will help build the momentum. The Clinton people seem not to be doing anything to rebut that interpretation.

Posted by boffo | February 2, 2008 7:03 PM

I would say Obama is decidedly competitive in TX. My parents, who have never voted in a primary and who have never voted for a Democrat for president, are both excited by Obama. Conversely, you couldn't pay my father a million dollars to vote for HRC. Irrational to be sure, but there would be no convincing him to vote for HRC, which has a lot to do with Bill Clinton. While it is anecdotal evidence, Dallas County did go Democratic last national election. Austin, demographically and politically, is in Obama's wheelhouse. I'd also imagine that Obama's message would strike a chord in West Texas.

Posted by LL | February 2, 2008 7:44 PM

If obama is behind at all Feb 6th after the 20+ states (Plus the earlier contests) then it is not a situation where momentum will favor him and his supporters. If Hillary wins a lot of states on tuesday and more delegates than obama generally then the first woman president will look increasing possible to 50+ percent of the population and finally some real pride will take hold.

If one of these candidates wins more than half the pot or half the delegates tuesday the tide will turn for both candidates. Its stupid to think Obama can lose 15 states tueday and retain some insurgent momentum that carries him through two more months of a delegate fight.

Once someone starts to look like the winner the other campaign starts to look like Quixote;
it falls apart in a day, people.
Like Dean, like edwards, a campaign suddenly stops being viable and its a dead man walking scene. People walk away. and for either Hillary or Barack that could be as soon as next weekend.

Posted by Michael C. | February 2, 2008 8:38 PM

Michael C. - I think that's why Obama is focusing on so many of the smaller states, in addition to the big, delegate rich ones.

I read that HRC is only campaigning in about 12 of the Feb. 5th states, while Obama is advertising in 20 states, and plans to personally visit two thirds of them by Monday. Delegates are important, but in addition to keeping the delegate count close, he wants to make sure that he wins as many states as possible, so that when the networks put up the chart that shows the states won for each candidate, he’ll be close to Clinton (or better). Given the states in play, I think that’s very likely, especially if he nabs several of the caucus states, where he’s duplicated his team and winning strategy from Iowa (Hillary has a smaller presence in those states).

Of course, this is all conjecture. This is a nail biter for sure.

Posted by sue | February 2, 2008 9:11 PM

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama weren't asked at last night's Los Angeles debate about the National Journal ratings that came out yesterday which concluded that Obama was the Senate's most liberal member in 2007 and that Clinton was the sixteenth most liberal.

Nevertheless, calling a Democrat a tax-and-spend liberal and saying he or she is the most liberal member of the Senate are two entirely different things, especially in a Senate containing Sen. Edward Kennedy, who earlier this week endorsed Obama.

If Obama eventually wins the nomination, it's easy to imagine that comparison being made in Republican ads by some narrator with a baritone voice striking an ominous tone. "Did you know that an important, non-partisan news publication said Obama was more liberal than Ted Kennedy?"

Endorsed by Moveon

Liberal has become such an epithet in American politics that Republicans will be place it in heavy rotation. It is so radioactive that the candidates last night didn't apply the word liberal to themselves and between them only uttered the word once when Clinton used it in an aside.

The risk for Obama is significant, especially if Sen. John McCain turns out to be the Republican nominee.

McCain still appeals to many independents and some Democrats because he's not viewed as a doctrinaire conservative. He has shown a willingness to break with his party, on immigration and on campaign-finance reform, for instance.

While McCain didn't vote enough in 2007 to be scored by National Journal, his 2006 score was 56.8. His lifetime conservative score is more like 71.8.

This suggests it would be theoretically easier for him to move to the center because he would have viewer votes to disown than it would be Obama whose 2007 liberal score was 95.5.

Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton's 2007 liberal score was 82.8 which would seem to make it easier for her than Obama to move to the middle.

HILLARY IS MORE ELECTABLE

Posted by Amy Dugan | February 2, 2008 9:58 PM

Another question we haven't asked enough:

We know Obama has the money to fight on into PA, OH, TX.

How much $ is Hillary raising per month, what's her burn rate. Does she have the same resources as Obama in March?

Posted by Chris R | February 3, 2008 1:09 AM

To Chris R: That's a question I'd like to have answered as well. I know she has maxed out a lot of her donor base while Obama has a huge number of small donors. If he stays close I think he builds on that money advantage in a big way. His big fundraising in January came right after losing New Hampshire so imagine how the "small money" responds if at the very least he can keep it close on Feb 5.

To the person who said Hillary would get some momentum out of convincing people a woman president was a possibility: I don't buy it! Conventional wisdom says she's been inevitable since Kerry conceded in 2004. So if she hasn't become the unstoppable force by now she never will. She either grinds this out for a win or succumbs to the wave.

Posted by John SFL | February 3, 2008 4:00 AM

Records of these two candidates should be scrutinized in order to make an informed decision.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law,
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law,
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law,
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to several of you.
He's not just a talker.
He's a doer.

Links:
"Obama big winner in Washington caucus" by Neil Modie, P-I Reporter (Seattle Post- Intelligencer)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/350752_caucuses09.html

You can go to the comment thread Sound Off
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=350752
********************************

Posted by OBAMA ALL THE WAY | February 10, 2008 11:42 PM

Records of these two candidates should be scrutinized in order to make an informed decision.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law,
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law,
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law,
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to several of you.
He's not just a talker.
He's a doer.

Links:
"Obama big winner in Washington caucus" by Neil Modie, P-I Reporter (Seattle Post- Intelligencer)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/350752_caucuses09.html

You can go to the comment thread Sound Off
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=350752
********************************

Posted by OBAMA ALL THE WAY | February 10, 2008 11:43 PM

Very interesting posts. I decided to look back in time and see what people had thought, and it seems there are a lot of accurate view points here. Amazing how the main stream media is really so monolithic in their views, as opposed to the many viewpoints an intelligent researcher can find on the net. I believe polls and other items are not as valuable in this day and age, so anything still can happen, however, I say it goes to PA and that we have to decide in PA.

Posted by Nate Bomberger | February 29, 2008 9:15 PM

Clinton's Firewall Scenario

Comments (27)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives