Puerto Rico Moves

Puerto Rico has become a primary and has scheduled itself for June 1.

This means that Montana (anti-war agita, populist Dem energy) and South Dakota (Daschle), two states holding their contests on June 3, will close the calendar.

The best of all possible news for Obama, right? Two states he's almost certain to win?

Well, a senior Clinton official says that the campaign has targeted South Dakota for victory.

I asked Steve Hildebrand, the Obama campaign deputy manager and native of Sioux Falls, whether he thinks that Clinton has a shot.

He was... skeptical. Very skeptical.

Comments

This is outstanding. You couldn't make this stuff up.

To sum up, South Dakota is now the be-all, end-all, final countdown, last chance, no-holds-barred firewall to end all firewalls.

Welcome to the pantheon of states that count, South Dakota. Now don't fuck it up.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 7, 2008 4:40 PM

I presume in much the same way they targeted Maine, Washington, Wisconsin, Virginia, and so on for victory.

Posted by DTM | March 7, 2008 4:43 PM

I'm ecstatic to see my state (for election purposes let's call it that) move away from the undemocratic caucuses that threatened to loom over the final important primary before the convention. We've had far too many of these sham elections so far. However, I have to admit that just from a selfish standpoint I'm perturbed we won't end up having the final say in this process as I had predicted last week.

Nevertheless, I think we will end up being only second to Pennsylvania in importance moving forward, and I still think it will be winner take all, despite what officials say. As the great senator McClintock points out, in previous elections its been as good as winner take all because Gore and Kerry had the nominations wrapped up - and as I'm sure most of you know my stance by now, I believe Hillary will have this thing wrapped up by June.

Marc, I'd like to know which "senior clinton official" you're talking about as I'm shocked the campaign would even joke about trying to compete in South Dakota of all places.

Posted by Fred Agbot | March 7, 2008 4:44 PM

Was he skeptical like a Monster, or skeptical like Kennn Starr?

Posted by Joe Justice | March 7, 2008 4:52 PM

Now, considering that South Dakota's favorite son - Tom Daschle - has been one of Obama's closest mentors, what in their delusional minds makes the Clintons think SD will go their way?

Posted by Judy | March 7, 2008 4:58 PM

Inside the Clinton Campaign Video Lab

Technician: We have that new attack ad you asked about, Mr. Penn.

Penn (rubbing hands): Let's see it.

(Technician plays video)

Penn: Hussein's face isn't dark enough.

Technician (surprised): We got that shot of Obama right from the MSNBC feed, sir.

Penn: It isn't black enough.

Technician: Sir?

Penn: Make it blacker, as black as you can get away with. We want people to think "darkie" when they see this ad.

Technician (fiddling): Like this?

Penn: Go even darker. And make his shirt and teeth whiter.

Technician (diligently): How's this?

Penn (smiles): Perfect. (Pausing) Can you widen his face, so the nose looks flatter?

Technician: I guess so. (Moving computer mouse) Like this?

Penn: That’s fine. Just fine. And the funny thing (chuckles), the funny thing is no one will even notice.

Technician: Are you sure?

Penn: Sure I'm sure. It's all subconscious. This will play on the racists who watch it -- play with their minds. It’ll also play on people who don't know any black people.

Technician: But, isn't that, you know . . . isn’t that race-baiting?

Penn (bristling): I don't think I just heard you.

Technician (nervously): I said . . . I said, what should we call the ad?

Penn (majestically): Call it . . . call it “True.”

Posted by Trilby | March 7, 2008 5:09 PM

Yeah, uh... even discounting Daschle (and Tim Johnson and Stephanie Herseth) entirely, considering the strength Obama has shown in this region so far, I'm really kinda skeptical Clinton can win here.

While it's true that they've mostly been voting through caucuses so far, it's hard to deny that there's real enthusiasm and support behind his candidacy in the midwest/Great Plains region.

Posted by jbryan | March 7, 2008 5:19 PM

Not to challenge the Great Hildebrand, but here's why she could have a shot:

• Native Americans - I'm not convinced that Obama has proven his appeal among that constituency (neither has Clinton, but it means they are up for grabs), and with such a large Native population, they could be decisive
• Health Care - South Dakota has a very old population and Obama could find himself on the defensive.
• It's a primary, not caucuses - if SD held caucuses, I would say that Obama already has it locked up; given its a primary, Clinton's beer track strength might be able to surface better.

Posted by dry_fish | March 7, 2008 5:28 PM

I've been under the impression that Obama was quite popular among Native Americans.

Here's one article discussing Obamania among First Americans: http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=4522817d4da4721f47cfbe6b0fa7fd7f

And the Native American Times endorsed him as well. He's also got a Native American section on his web site .

Posted by Klaus | March 7, 2008 6:00 PM

Hildebrand has run two senate camapaigns in South Dakota and Daschle is firmly in Obama's corner. The native american vote takes a lot of time and money to organize. And Obama has been fairly strong in plains states and the rocky mountain west. If you're Clinton I guess the argument is there are a lot of downscale voters and old people. I won't dismiss it but honestly that really seems like a long shot.

Posted by Ben | March 7, 2008 6:04 PM

Marc,

I love your blog but i wanted to give you the heads up that the journalist site you source for the pr story is owned and operated by the clinton campaign...why would they leak this thru one of their sites?

thanks for your insights!

Posted by jim miller | March 7, 2008 7:30 PM

With all the factors dry_fish mentioned, she may well get it as close as Wisconsin.

Posted by DTM | March 7, 2008 7:32 PM

fred, can you please explain why you think caucuses are undemocratic?

Posted by eska | March 7, 2008 8:14 PM

The primary-prognosticating spreadsheet that was "inadvertantly released" by the Obama camp shortly after Super Tuesday has predicted correctly all of the subsequent contests other than Maine, posting that one as H-51, O-49.

But, even more strange (cue Twilight Zone music), the spreadsheet has Puerto Rico listed as a "P" for Primary rather than a "C" for Caucus.

I would think that clairvoyance is an admirable quality in a president.

Posted by converse | March 8, 2008 11:49 AM

Both Arizona and New Mexico have large enough Native American populations that we ought to have some sense of how well Obama does with that group.

Clinton won the "other" vote in Arizona 53-45. Presumably that is mostly Native Americans.

New Mexico's exit poll didn't record enough "Other" votes to give a result. But Arizona suggests Obama is at no particular disadvantage among Native Americans - he lost them by about the same margin he lost the state as a whole.

Posted by John | March 8, 2008 1:34 PM

Judy (and others): "Now, considering that South Dakota's favorite son - Tom Daschle - has been one of Obama's closest mentors, what in their delusional minds makes the Clintons think SD will go their way?"

This is classic political junkie mentality. Endorsements! (Second only to crowd size in irrelevant markers that journalists take seriously.) But if this election hasn't taught you to completely discount the impact of politician endorsements, I don't know what will. The Daschle, Herseth and Johnson endorsements will collectively bring Obama three votes in SD.

Popularity is just not transferable in politics. See Kennedy, Ted. Or Kerry, John. Or Patrick, Deval. I could go on....

Posted by Peter Feld | March 8, 2008 1:59 PM

Peter Field, are you from South Dakota?

I am, born and raised. I know the state inside and out. And Daschle (and to a somewhat lesser degree, Johnson) are beloved by state dems. You should not underestimate the influence Tom Daschle has in the hearts and collective subconscious of the Democrats in South Dakota. It's a totally different ballgame. Massachusetts is used to having major players on the national scale, so its native sons don't have quite the impact on the minds of the voters that Daschle will.

But that's fairly immaterial, because it's not Clinton friendly territory anyway. Obama will need to speak to native American issues, true, but there is a rampant distrust of the Clinton dynasty in the state from my perspective. Clinton's ties to Monsanto and other ag giants won't play well with small farmers and ranchers in the east, I think...and the western part of the state has a different dynamic altogether and will be very Obama friendly, IMO.

As much as I wish this had been wrapped up earlier, I have to admit I'm thrilled that SD might finally get some play on the national stage. Clinton says SD is a dyed red state that will never go blue, but she underestimates the long-dormant progressive vibe in certain sectors. Throw some attention their way--they're just itching to matter on the national stage.

Posted by HHM | March 8, 2008 3:06 PM

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/2/6/puerto-rican-poll-power.html

(WOW!!! --> U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT article about PR PRIMARY on June 3, 2008 at the U.S. Colony of Puerto Rico in the Caribbean Sea)

Will Puerto Rico really be able to decide everything as suggested by U.S. News and World Report's Michael Barone ?????

Are the 55 delegates going to be chosen on an all-or-nothing basis thus making Puerto Rians the biggest swing voter population in the United States ?

Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report aparently suggest these are all strong possibilities, right?

GOOGLE: BARONE PUERTO RICO

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/2/6/puerto-rican-poll-power.html

Posted by WILL PUERTO RICO DECIDE PRIMARY ? | March 8, 2008 6:35 PM

Hey, a bit off topic, but does anyone have a copy of the leaked Obama campaign prediction spreadsheet

Posted by Lloyd Webber | March 8, 2008 7:03 PM

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/2/6/puerto-rican-poll-power.html

(U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT article about PR PRIMARY on June 3, 2008 at the U.S. Colony of Puerto Rico in the Caribbean Sea)

Will Puerto Rico really be able to decide everything as suggested by U.S. News and World Report's Michael Barone ?????

Are the 55 delegates going to be chosen on an all-or-nothing basis thus making Puerto Rians the biggest swing voter population in the United States ?

Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report aparently suggest these are all strong possibilities, right?

GOOGLE: BARONE PUERTO RICO

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/2/6/puerto-rican-poll-power.html

Posted by WILL PUERTO RICO DECIDE PRIMARY ? | March 8, 2008 7:09 PM

Popularity is just not transferable in politics. See Kennedy, Ted. Or Kerry, John. Or Patrick, Deval. I could go on....

Oh, no kidding. I think the most striking example of this is Hillary. She can't win more than a handful of states, and she's married to a damned good president and the greatest campaigner of all time.

If she can't win with that guy in her corner, well, who could?

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 8, 2008 9:22 PM

HHM, I've never been to SD but I guess Daschle, Hersheth, McGovern and the entire political establishment, not to mention the entire press corps and punditry that anointed Obama were entirely disregarded by the South Dakota electorate. And Judy, I guess you were the delusional one on this. Obama may have the nomination but it still remains true:
ENDORSEMENTS
DO
NOT
MATTER

Posted by Peter Feld | June 4, 2008 12:25 AM