Marc Ambinder (March 04, 2008)

There are signs that Clinton could get much more delegates than expected out of the primary in Texas. She is getting some huge margins in Southern Texas, above 70% (even 80%) in many of the counties there. And they aren't small counties either: In Hidalgo County, for example, gives Clinton 50,000 votes to Obama's 17,000... with only 49% reporting.

Why is this especially important? This is an area with 4 delegate districts which the candidates were supposed to split 2-2. If Clinton is able to open up a 3-1 delegate district in a few districts here, it could allow her to get an unexpected delegate lead in places we were expected to see a tie.

Posted by Daniel/CampaignDiaries | March 5, 2008 12:13 AM

Final, final thought: did Austan Goolsbee's apparent NAFTA freelancing seep into the electorate more than the Obama campaign thought?

Oh, lets give credit to where credit's due - to the interfering in foreign affairs Canadian Conservative government

Posted by Tweedle | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM

All the whining about media coverage and purported gender bias from the Clinton campaign created a highly negative media environment and backlash that benefited Clinton.

The media helped created this environment by eagerly jumping on what the Clinton camp provided, but the Obama campaign has to be more effective in dealing with this sort of thing.

Hope you'll keep discussing the reality of the delegate count.

Posted by Suze | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM

Obama will win, superdelegates will not overturn the pledged delegates. Its just going to take longer. The question is, How much damage is Hilary willing to inflict upon the Democratic Party? I don't want to believe the worst about her, but is it possible she knows she can't win, but doesnt' want Obama to win? She can run in 4 years, but probably not in 8.

Posted by Jay | March 5, 2008 12:18 AM

20% of Ohio voters went against Barack Obama because he is a Black Man. This is the new legacy of the Clintons.

Race and Gender Both Helped Clinton
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/04/race-and-gender-both-helped-clinton.aspx

Hillary will have to do quite a lot of apologizing to the black voter base she no longer has to be on any kind of ticket with Barack. A campaign based on racist fears is not the way this was headed. It seems to be all she knows how to do now.

And for our next act, ladies and gentlemen...

Unless she's lying about doing it, Hillary's tax returns will be out on April 15. Which means out before April 22. Fact Checkers...start your engines!

This is a relief. Most of Hillary's votes in Ohio didn't actually come from people who intend to vote for her as president. So maybe that 20% racist vote are all republicans after all. She does realize how many racists supported her in OH and TX, right?

GOP voters crossing over in large numbers
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/03/gop_voters_crossing_over_in_la.html

Posted by kravitz | March 5, 2008 12:19 AM

It does seem that the NAFTA flap -- which involves my country, and specifically the Conservative government of my country actively trying to undermine Obama -- may have proved to be a more significant factor than the Obama campaign might have expected. And maybe it played especially well in Ohio. But it was just one of many factors working collectively against Obama this past week or so. The media, seeking a new narrative, a new sensation, has begun to knock him down. And of course there was the "phone call" ad, along with the "Obama-is-a-Muslim" story that just won't go away.

Further thoughts:

http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2008/03/live-blogging-super-tuesday-ii.html

Posted by Michael Stickings | March 5, 2008 12:21 AM

I doubt anyone who hasn't earned a college degree has ever heard of Goolsbee.

The reason Obama lost white men is clear: he's a scary Muslim.

The media race-baited and played up a false ambiguity about his religion and it paid off. The race continues.

The question is whether they will continue to act as Wolfson's stenographers as they have for the last two weeks.

Posted by Klaus | March 5, 2008 12:23 AM

How much damage is Clinton willing to inflict upon the Democratic party? That's so incredibly arrogant.
The Democrats of Ohio just rejected your candidate. The voters of Texas may very well do the same. The voters of Rhode Island already have as well. That's not cause to say "the math, the math! the race is over... we can all go home!" It's cause to take a deep breath and as Senator Clinton said "continue the dialogue" of this campaign.

Why are Obama supporters to afraid of this new scrutiny your candidate is finally receiving?

Presidential politics is rough and tumble, so get used to it.

So far the attitude of Obama supporters don't make me want Clinton to throw in the towel prematurely.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 12:23 AM

It all took a toll more than Obama thought. Just as Kerry in 2004 didn't react to the Swiftboating effectively. Perhaps, Obama can effectively address the damage - but as I'm not so sure he has the stomach for it. All it takes is sowing a few seeds of doubt about someone's Patriotism and courage and it's hard for them to regain the lost ground.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 5, 2008 12:24 AM

An interesting argument that the Clintons have made is that Obama wins red states that don't matter. But the other interesting thing is that Clinton wins red AREAS of states. Look at the Ohio map. It's like 2004 again, only Obama is winning the Kerry areas and Clinton is winning the Bush areas. Why did so many rubes (I can say that - I'm a rube who lives in rural Ohio) vote in the Democratic election? Yes, partially out of racial prejudice. But there is a TON of talk in these parts of Republicans bragging about the fact that they voted for Clinton to deliberately get Hillary back in the race. I've always been wary to think that those people had much influence, but it does seem like there are a lot of people around here boasting about switching sides to sabotage the Dems. Any way this gets fleshed out in exit polls? Or is this forever one of those, "we may never know," kind of things?

Posted by Craig | March 5, 2008 12:35 AM

Simply put Obama needs to go on the offensive. The past week or so his campaign has all been about defending himself against some allegation or reacting to the other campaigns. That's not the way to win a campaign, especially against the Clintons.

Posted by dcdude | March 5, 2008 12:35 AM

Tim K,

"Scrutiny" isn't pushing racist smears to rally up the good ole' boys in Ohio. Sorry. The exit polls show about 20% of Clinton's vote was motivated by Senator Obama's race. If that's the company your side wants to keep (and actively cultivate), it only makes the importance of this campaign all the more evident.

Posted by Klaus | March 5, 2008 12:36 AM

C.B. Todd is right. But I do not think it has anything to do with stomach . . . I think it has everything to do with realizing that this trivial sh*t seems to matter, that you have to actually defend your patriotism and repeatedly defend yourself from smears that you are a Muslim.

The first sign of trouble was Mrs. Obama's proud comment, and it went down hill from there. They need to learn to get in front of this stuff and realize that though it is completely absurd from there perspective in the intense but ridiculously rudimental environment of a presidential campaign nuance doesn't fly.

Posted by JP | March 5, 2008 12:38 AM

The NAFTA controversy mattered. The ambiguous Muslim smear mattered. But most of all the fact that Obama an above the fray wussy who didn't look like he was "a man" with a ounce of "fight" in him mattered.

I'm increasingly convinced that he needs to get muddy and hit Hillary Clinton HARD. Why? Because, frankly and in a very non-pc way, at this point he needs to prove his political manhood.

Obama's basically said to voters "join me and together we will change the world." That's a good message for a lot of more sophisticated people. But he's losing all those voters who want a candidate to say "vote for me and I will FIGHT for you."

Those voters aren't looking for a cause to join, they're looking for someone who will deliver help for them. And the measure they use is this: who will FIGHT FOR ME. Obama's "join me" message goes right over their heads.

Posted by Callimaco | March 5, 2008 12:39 AM

Goolsbee? No. I don't think that's a point resonating with uneducated whites. Obama was too black and too seemingly Islamic.

Posted by John D. | March 5, 2008 12:41 AM

The interesting thing about Clinton going negative is that while it may have worked against Obama in the latest contests, this will almost certainly drive up her already high negatives.

Posted by Ben | March 5, 2008 12:43 AM

What racist smears were thrown against Senator Obama in Ohio? It's unfortunate that you would insult the hard working Democrats of Ohio to imply they are not allowed to vote against Senator Obama based on his record, his positions, his tactics or his character... it must be his race. That's insulting. A 14% win doesn't happen because of a few racists. And even if it did it wasn't Clinton's fault or anyone else's.

Now, if Obama is fortunate enough to become the party's nominee a great strategy by his supporters would not be to accuse the working class Democrats of Ohio - a must-win state - of racism. That's not a winning strategy.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 12:44 AM

If Hillary does net 5-10 pledged delegates today, that gain won't last more than one week, with Wyoming and Mississippi. By next week, the pledged gap will be just as big as it was after the Patomac primary, with much, much less opportunity to catch up.

In a sports metaphor, the two teams will be trading field goals in the first part of the 4th quarter. That 10 point lead is looking even better.

Posted by Marc in Asia | March 5, 2008 12:48 AM

I think the NAFTA incident really hurt Obama. The obvious damage was with dumb union voters, but the greater damage was to Obama's reputation of sincerity. All of a sudden one of his biggest advantages over Clinton - that he's not a power-hungry machine politics panderer - is diminished, perhaps irrevocably.

Posted by CTD | March 5, 2008 12:51 AM

Wow Tim K, never heard of Louis Farrakhan? Did you miss the media's festival over the African garb photo? The breathless coverage of Cunningham's racist rant against Obama?

And no, I don't think the white trash contingent in Ohio were looking at records and positions. I think the exit polls are quite clear. While Clinton has a strong base of support on the basis of gender solidarity, the good ole' boys came out to send a message. Congrats.

Posted by Klaus | March 5, 2008 12:55 AM

Tim K. -- Many of those decent salt of the earth people said race mattered to them, and voted against Obama. If you've spent any time in the region, you wouldn't be surprised there are a good number of racist types. Don't be such an irrational troll.

Posted by John D. | March 5, 2008 12:55 AM

Some of Clinton's support in rural Texas may have come from Rush Limbaugh Republicans. Rumors of the concerted effort to get out the Rush Limbaugh Republican vote for Clinton even made the rounds of the our local coffee klatch in rural Haines, Alaska, today.

Alaska went 74% for Obama in the Democratic primary here. Over 50% in our rural Alaska precinct were new voters and new Democratic voters. 77% for Obama.

Obama has been good for Alaska. He will be good for Texas too.

Hoping for a good night there in Texas.

Regards, Kathleen (a rural Alaskan delegate for Obama)

Posted by Kathleen Menke | March 5, 2008 12:58 AM

And no, I won't hesitate to point out the obvious.

This is a blog. This is a place where people come to read up on the issues to get informed.

I doubt the white trash good ole' boys of Ohio are going to be reading anything anytime soon.

Posted by Klaus | March 5, 2008 12:58 AM

John D:

So what are you going to do about it? Guilt people into voting for Barack Obama to prove they aren't racist? Like it or not, people can vote on any basis they want.... issues, character, likability, religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, thoughtfulness, ignorance or a panoply of all of these. Blaming an electoral defeat on racism based on an survey is an overreaction, especially considering Obama has proven he can win a great number of white votes in states of all types... as many of you have been very fond of reminding us.

The fact going forward is that neither candidate can win enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination. That's just the fact. And there is no rule that says the race is decided based only on who leads in the pledged delegates. Especially when a lot of those pledged delegates have been chosen in the dubious caucus system. This now becomes an argument about electability.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 1:02 AM

Significant win by Hillary tonight in OH. I give credit where credit is due.
However, I do want to address this question about Obama being too soft to stomach negatives in the general election. I want to know why his campaign or his supporters don't explain that this IS the change he talks about. He doesn't go to a base demographic and "shock and awe" them with hypothetical 3 a.m. attacks. He takes a policy issue (health care) and points out a short coming in it (mandates). No policy is without short comings, otherwise the problems the government tackles would be fixed already. Isn't this what politics should be about? That said, I can't wait to see some honest foreign policy debate before the general.
Additionally, I'm all for weeding out corruption, if there is some truth in the Rezko "scandal" then Obama should take a hit and rightfully so. But if there is, why doesn't one MSM journalist (it only takes one!) do the leg work to discover the direct links so that we can all understand what exact evil was done.
Rant over. Now for some illogical emotional reaction: I will never root for the Buckeyes in their college championship again. Not that this has gotten me anywhere in the recent past.

Posted by colleeniem | March 5, 2008 1:06 AM

colleeniem:

Do you realize how patronizing that sounded? Why doesn't he "explain" that that is the "change" he is seeking? Hate to break it to you, but we understand his message. But some of us don't necessarily believe it. Some of us have a healthy skepticism that we are in fact on the cusp of some historic era of bipartisan politics and unified governance. That's not cynicism, that's just common sense. That's just not allowing platitudes and slogans get in the way of what we judge to be true about the world. I prefer a clear-eyed view of politics, rather than some kind of mirage of hope. Despite what Obama says, there is such a thing as false hope.

No Virginia, there is no Santa Claus.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 1:12 AM

The racism explaination does give me some concern about Obama in the general election. I am pretty convinced HRC will lose to McCain. But I am also concerned about Obama's ability to compete in Ohio, Michigan, etc. bc of the race issue. He needs these white, uneducated voters in a general election. My sense is McCain beats either Demcratic candidate.

Posted by John D. | March 5, 2008 1:14 AM

John D:

My honest opinion is that Clinton beats McCain by 1-2%... Obama may win bigger, or lose.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 1:16 AM

Agreed on all of the "Obama needs to show that he's a fighter" sentiments. Maybe he could wield the "Whitewater...Filegate...Travelgate...Hubbell...Ken Starr...are you, the loyal Democrat, up for four more years of it --because the Republicans in Congress will be" card. And she can't win the general anyway, but it's not like he can run ads saying, "Ladies --your husbands, boyfriends, sons, brothers and fathers are going to elect John McCain the next president unless I'm the nominee."

He also needs to be a bit more nimble on things like the Goolsbee flap. Answer with greater care, leave yourself an out, and clear things up after the fact with grace and firmness if necessary. And he needs a ready narrative for dealing with the ongoing Rezko drama, which really isn't anything, but it sounds sleazy --and he'll be asked about it plenty.

All the whining about media coverage and purported gender bias from the Clinton campaign created a highly negative media environment and backlash that benefited Clinton.

You got it.

The more they avail themselves of the resources of the media to whine about "media bias," the better they do, in particular among women old enough to remember when what we call "discrimination" and "sexual harassment" was more commonly known as "just another day at the office." And because they're g-dforsaken shiftless Ohioans, they don't retire to Florida or Arizona and instead just stay there for the rest of their miserable lives. Bleurgh.

Oh, and...

It's unfortunate that you would insult the hard working Democrats of Ohio to imply they are not allowed to vote against Senator Obama based on his record, his positions, his tactics or his character... it must be his race. That's insulting. A 14% win doesn't happen because of a few racists.

Immediately followed by...

And even if it did it wasn't Clinton's fault or anyone else's.

So what this means is that racism doesn't explain it, unless of course it does --and in any case racism, to the extent that it exists, is nobody's fault.

Sounds like the "logic" of an Ohioan.

Posted by Face the fact: delegates count | March 5, 2008 1:27 AM

Tim K. -- I was responding to your contention that the good hardworking people of Ohio were above racism. You now apparently concede that this is not the case.

As for your pledged delegate argument. I find it inconceivable that supers overrule the pledged delegates. There's too much of a political price in overruling public will and strength of support, which pledge delegates reflect. At this point, HRC is a dog in the manger.

Posted by John D. | March 5, 2008 1:27 AM

You know what... bring up White Water... bring up Travel Gate.... bring up Lewinsky.... bring up Vince Foster... be my guest. Allow Hillary Clinton to make the case that she is once again the victim of scurrilous charges and a smear campaign. Allow her campaign to brand Obama a merchant of mud, of a purveyor of false rumors and lies. Allow her and her campaign to openly compare Obama his campaign to the Arkansas project and the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

Please, open that door and see where it takes you.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 1:34 AM

I've heard lots of anecdotal evidence that the Goolsbee thing made Ohio not trust Obama. Not that they trust Clinton either, but at least she's a known quantity who you don't trust.

Posted by MNPundit | March 5, 2008 1:35 AM

Tim K,
I'm sorry that you feel I'm patronizing. Thanks for ruining my Christmas, too. How the #$&^ am I going to get any toys? I mean, without paying for them. In weakening U.S. dollars.
However, I will say that this "false" hope has resulted at least one hard reality I can point to-a nation-wide organization of volunteers, the scope of which hasn't been seen for a long while. A galvanized group such as that should not be made to feel marginalized, and it would behoove Clinton to recognize that. I'm not saying, I'm just sayin'.

Posted by colleeniem | March 5, 2008 1:37 AM

John D... but what happens if Hillary has the popular vote, or the popular vote once Florida and Michigan are included? Or if she campaigns against the odious caucus system. Do you have any doubt the Clinton campaign can paint the caucuses as anti-democratic? I bet they'll try, and I bet they have at least an even chance of succeeding. Trust me, they have a case to make yet.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 1:38 AM

colleeniem:

I recognize the power Obama has shown to inspire and the skill he and his campaign has shown to organize a nation-wide organization of volunteers, including a lot of enthusiastic young people. I'm certain the Clinton campaign recognizes it, having been totally out -organized in most of the caucus states. I completely recognize that, Obama has been very impressive. But that alone is necessarily proof he would make the best nominee or the best president.

By the way, George McGovern also had a nation-wide network of committed and enthusiastic volunteers. The name of one of them was a 24 year old young women named Hillary Rodham. Was 1972 a great success? Maybe that's why she realizes that hope and enthusiasm just aren't enough.

Posted by Tim K | March 5, 2008 1:49 AM

1. The politics of hate were effective...the msm and progressive press gave hrc a free ride on her powerful smear campaign....very disappointing that this vile garbage still works...they even go the press to give it a sexy name=the kitchen sink...come on where I come from its politcs of hate at its wordt.

2. The hate politics are not enough to change the math...thanks harold...Jonathon Alter has a great piece on this....

3. John Mccain isnt going to run a nice little red phone ad against hillary...it will be the twin towers collapsing and then questioning what bill was busy with when he neglected to protect the country and take out osama....thus backing into the family values and lewinsky and impeachment all at the same time....

Posted by jim miller | March 5, 2008 2:37 AM

Tim K,
Absolutely, you are correct. Hope and enthusiasm in and of themselves are not enough. I won't go into the importance of political will, because that IS patronizing. I argue that is not all Obama has but because the policy issues between him and Clinton are slight, this is a major difference he can put up to the electorate. Not to belabor the point... we shall always disagree on that score.
On a separate note, I so look forward for a more civil discourse in any form at the highest level that any candidate which represents such a change has my backing. Simple, and easy. If it is not enough to win the democratic nomination, I haven't compromised my principles. Plus it gives me something to write about at 0300.

Posted by colleeniem | March 5, 2008 2:48 AM

I really don't like Hillary, but couldn't they have voted against Obama for non-racist reasons? If 20% voted on race and Hillary won that group by 14% that means you get 2.8% preferring a white person. However I believe she won Ohio by more than that.

Maybe they believed the idea that the media was pro-Obama and voted to spite them. Or maybe some Democrats do believe she'd be tougher on terrorism and more of a fighter.

Perhaps more outlandishly I think it's possible for a person without a college degree be something other than a moron. I've known some very smart people who have no more than a high school education. They might actually be motivated to prefer Hillary for reasons unrelated to racism and Islam. Likewise that old white people are also not universally racist and worth ignoring. Maybe they just are more concerned about security or gender or are just more skeptical of promises of change.

I'm just putting this out there. I'm not a Democrat and I'll be happy if Hillary loses. I'm just getting a bit uncomfortable with a vibe that "old white people" are automatically less enlightened and that's why they won't support Obama. I've known many old people and many young white college kids. Old people say more racist stuff, but the young white kids were more racist than I expected. Go to college campuses in many states Obama won and you'll see plenty of white students who don't care for black students. (And vice versa)

Posted by Thomas R | March 5, 2008 5:26 AM

Hillary, and her rabid supporters, need to stop knocking the caucus system just because they haven't been successful in winning them. You can bet that if the case were the opposite, she'd be touting them as the epitome of democracy.

It's also too bad the people from Ohio couldn't manage to do the minimum research to see through the "35 years of experience" lie, or that Hillary cares about anyone but Hillary.

Posted by Jim K | March 5, 2008 9:02 AM

I'm from Ohio, and there were a lot of factors that enabled Hillary to win the primary: 1. She went into this election months ago as the strong favorite. Her job was only to stop the hemorrhagging of votes to Obama. 2. Huge Hillary support by the very popular governor Ted Strickland. Most of his stronghold (where he was a congressman in a district that spanned 200 miles) went for Hillary with 70-80% of the vote. Those were largely votes based on Ted's support (and partly for Bill Clinton, who also is still fairly popular among Democrats here). 3. She maintained much of her union support, and that is still a big factor in Ohio in Democratic Party. Apparently her unions actually got out the vote for her. 4. Hillary had other key Ohio endorsements, especially people like John Glenn. 5. Obama was splitting his time between Texas and Ohio, and just did not do enough quality campaigning here. 6. Hate to say it, but the negative stuff against Obama worked in Ohio. 7. The weather was horrible, and the somewhat lower turnout (even though it was still much higher than normal) hurt Obama. 8. Republicans, lots of Republicans, voting in Democratic primary for Hillary. 9. Ohioans are probably ready, or at least not freaked out, by the idea of a woman as President--I cannot say the same thing about a black man as President. We have already had a woman governor (well, she was appointed, but nevertheless, it happened). The only black man who ran for governor, Ken Blackwell, got only 36% of the vote, and that was only 2 years ago. 10. The college/university enthusium was not as great for Obama here as in other states.

Posted by JeffWasHere | March 5, 2008 10:29 AM

A Final Thought

Comments (40)

Search

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives