It Couldn’t Be Tighter In Texas And Ohio
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, Ohio, Texas
From Pollster come the trends.
First, Texas…
To me, this shows the “It’s 3 a.m.” ad is working, even though others say it has little effect on undecideds. Personally, I do think the Texas contest favors Obama because of the popular vote/caucus mix, and I think that’s why he’s going to be in Texas tomorrow night.
Now, Ohio…
It’d be a shame if the Canada/NAFTA story hurt Obama in Ohio, but that’s politics. His campaign should have come out sooner with the whole story because the facts were on his side.
But I’ll note again that nobody thought he could win either of these states a few weeks ago, and he’s on the verge of taking Texas. So while it may seem tight, and while it may seem that Hillary can claim a miraculous turnaround tomorrow, don’t buy the spin. There has been no turnaround. She has always been ahead in both states and Obama has closed both gaps in a very short time.
Also, the delegate math isn’t something that will change. Every objective observer who runs the numbers, without exception, says that Hillary has to win big in both Texas and Ohio to start making up ground. Not only that, she’ll have to start winning big in every single state from here on out and even then she STILL won’t be able to catch up. So barring any crazy news about Obama, that doesn’t seem likely to happen.
From all indications, though, it seems like she’s going to stick with this to the bitter end and I honestly don’t see the sense in it. It’s obviously her right to try, but if she’s not going to end up with more delegates than Obama by convention time and instead try to win via the superdelegates, is it worth the effort if the end result is very likely a party split in two?
I welcome your thoughts.
This entry was posted on Monday, March 3rd, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, Ohio, Texas. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I cannot figure out why she is staying in. Unless she wins overwhelmingly all the states she is going to be far behind in delegates.
In the meantime she is going to rip up the party and weaken it beyond repair and hand the presidency to McCain.
Why she would do this is beyond me as I don’t see what she would get out of it. She would only earn the undying hatred of the party and ruin any legacy the Clintons can salvage after this is over.
Actually, outside of the msm, who have gone on pretending that she has a chance, the race is pretty much over now. Obama has the delegates and she cannot catch up. The superdelegates in hoping to salvage the party will pretty much jump over to Obama’s camp after tomorrow.
This was more to humor Hillary more than anything else. Give her one last hurrah and hope she would bow out gracefully afterwards.
Seeing how she has no intention of doing so, no one is going to be nice about it come Wednesday and they will be pushing her to get out.
I personally cannot believe how utterly selfish and self involved she is. But, then, that’s how it’s always been with the clintons. It’s always just about them and nothing else.
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
She is staying in because she can win.
She can win by playing by the rules of the Democratic nomination process, exactly the way it was designed to nominate their candidate.
I just cannot get over how Obama supporters continue to delude themselves that the Democratic Party nomination process is something that it is not. The Democratic Party nomination process is not ademocratic process and it is not based on who wins the most elected delegates. It just isn’t a democratic process and it never has been. It is best descibed as an undemocratic selection process that includes some voter input. Ii has wildly undemocratic elements, like caucuses, which do not reflect will of the voters in their states. It has undemocratic byzantine rules that allocates some voting districts more delegates than others. It undemocratically excludes the voters of two huge important states. And it has undemocratic superdelegates. Sorry you don’t like it, but it is your party and this is how you pick your nominee. An undemocratically selected majority of elected delegates has no more inherent validity than a selection by superdelegates.
Instead of whining about what they think the rules should be, Obama supporters would be better served by competing hard by the rules of the game as they are to win the nomination, exactly like Hillary is doing. That can be done a variety of ways, including piling up enough undemocratically selected elected delegate to make the superdelegates moot. Unfortunately Obama cannot do that any more than Clinton can. As a result, whoever makes the best case to the superdelegates will win, by - for example - winning all the big important states, and winning more with momentum at the end, and winning even if outspent 4 to 1. That is the case Clinton will make. It sounds like a pretty good case to me.
And the party will not be split in two, because Obama will take the VP slot, once the superdelegates decide.
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Good lord, Obama covers ground fast. If he pulls it off, how many states are in play in November? 40?
And Obama will not be the VP. It will be some kind of yes-man. Who would end their career by teaming up with Bill and Hillary?
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Tony,
Taking the VP role now virtually guarantees the party nomination in the next round. After 4 or 8 years as VP, the experience issue is gone. The presidency will be his by acclamation.
He’ll take the VP role. No doubt.
But, he may not need to - all he has to do now is win the popular vote in Texas or Ohio. We will see in the next 24.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
It’d be a shame if the Canada/NAFTA story hurt Obama in Ohio, but that’s politics. His campaign should have come out sooner with the whole story because the facts were on his side.
Which version of the facts are you going with?
v. 1.0 We never talked to the Canadians.
v. 2.0 Oh THOSE Canadians. Yes, we talked to them but were “misquoted”.
v. 2.1 The big bad right wing Canadian Press is out to get us.
Just curious. ;-)
March 4th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I hope Obama wins today.
Unlikely that Hillary will drop out.
The USA and also the Dem Party well being are not concern to Clintons.
Clintons care only for their own powers.
Unfortunately, Pakistani & House of Saud lobbyists want the benefit for them of the continuation of ClintonBush.
It is very sad and ironic that we have the most promising (for betterment of USA and world) Presidential candidate in our lifetimes (Obama), and the Clintons stand in the way.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Best case for the Democrats: Clinton sees that she cannot win, so she stays in the race but stops withthe attack ads. That way, the Democrats keep the focus on themselves until Pennsylvania at least, but don’t do any Republican dirty work.
Too bad there seems to be minimal chance of things working out that way.