If Obama Wins Mississippi Tomorrow, Has He Stopped Hillary’s Momentum?

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Hillary, Mississippi, Partisan Hacks, Polls

Did anybody hear the latest Penn Spinâ„¢? You know, the memes from Clinton spinmeister Mark Penn that are so obviously intellectually dishonest you actually get dizzy from listening to them?

Well, here’s the latest gem about Hillary’s wins last Tuesday…

“We broke his momentum completely.”

Oh…losing my equilibrium…need to hold onto something…wait, there’s the truth…if I can just grab a hold…got it!

This is obviously BS, but let’s just say it’s true (for once) and now Hillary has the big Mo. I think it’s fair to hear Penn’s answer to the question posed in the title. Because after Obama routed Hill in the Wyoming caucuses and is set to do the same in the Mississippi primaries, will her momentum be broken…completely?

Or were those unimportant states too?

Looking at the numbers, American Research Group shows him leading 54% to 38% in Mississippi. She has made up some ground in the past week in that poll, but not enough to get above 40%. Rasmussen shows a similar spread, 53% to 39%.

It’ll be interesting to see what the Penn Spinâ„¢ is come Wednesday morning.

I can hardly wait!


This entry was posted on Monday, March 10th, 2008 and is filed under Barack, Hillary, Mississippi, Partisan Hacks, Polls. 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.

3 Responses to “If Obama Wins Mississippi Tomorrow, Has He Stopped Hillary’s Momentum?”

  1. mw Says:

    Justin,
    It is not that they are unimportant. It is that the loss has no impact on the Clinton’s ability to win the nomination. As you and others have pointed out, Obama has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates and # of states if you put any validity in the Caucus process. Because It is because of that fact that Mississsippi and Wyoming don’t mean much.

    Clinton has one path. Keep a plausible story intact to convince the superdelegates. That plausible story is that Clinton wins all the big states. If she wins Pennsylvania, that case remains intact. It is possible that she will also have a plurality in popular votes after Pennsylvania. She is leading in National polls. That is a pretty darn good case to present to the superdelegates that she is the best candidate, particularly if Obama takes the VP. So just like I said about Wisconsin – “Before Wisconsin – it was all about OH and TX. After Wisconsin it was all about OH and TX.” – Before Wy and Miss it was all about PA. After Wy and Miss – it is still all about PA. He cannot knock her out without winning a big state.

    And to other commenters – Please spare me the nonsense that pledged delegates represent the “will of the people”. They don’t. Texas finally put a stake through the heart of that meme. Clinton won the popular vote in the primary – yet Obama got more delegates out of the caucus process in direct contravention to the “will of the people”. Only primary generated peldged delegates have any claim on the “will of the people”. The ability forthe candidates to secure both caucus pledged delegates and superdelegates tell us something about the campaigns, but neither has any claim on the “will of the people”.

    Clinton has a good strong case for the Superdelegates to go with her. That case gets stronger if she wins PA. Losing Miss does not affect her case materially. Simple reality.

    BTW – whatever happened to those “mysto” 50 superdelegates that were poised to jump to Obama after Texas and Ohio? I have not heard anything about them lately.

  2. kritter Says:

    When Obama wins Mississippi, it will leave the win patterns for both candidates intact.

    MW, it’s probably better for us all to agree to disagree that having a running argument about whose view is nonsense. Caucuses represent voting, too, under a different format. So the exact totals in Texas remains unclear.

    I and many others here remain quite persuaded that the tally of the regular delegates is the best available proxy for the will of the people, and that even if its inexact, it’s a better representation than the opinions of handpicked party insiders, especially given that the DNC was for some time a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton LLC and likely remains similarly allied now. You feel differently, and that’s fine, but it’d be nice if you could leave off calling our views “nonsense.” I’ve summarized a very plausible argument above, and you ought to acknowledge it.

    That Obama has managed so far to stay close among ID’d superdelegates is a pretty good indication of his strength given that Hillary fully expected to have most of these folks in her hip pocket.

    Pennslyvania? Because regular delates areapportioned and not awarded winner-take-all, it appears quite clear that Obama can not knock out Hillary regardless of the outcome in PA. So it’s not “all about PA.” It’s about the summary outcome in all the remaining primaries and caucuses, and how that effects the views of the undecided and waffling superdelegates.

    Clinton has a good strong case for the Superdelegates to go with her.

    Do you imagine that the SD are going to vote as a block or landslide in one way, or split along some sort of percent line like 60-40 or 55-45? The latter seems more likely to me.

    So I did some math yesterday, making a few most likely case assumptions that the enduring patterns would hold. Obama is ahead by around 140-150 delegates right now. If Hillary wins PA by 5 or 10 percent, she’ll pick up a few SD, but that will probably only equal what Obama gains in the smaller states he carries. BO and HC will likely split the other remaining big delegate states, IN and I think NC.

    So IMO, unless HC loses PA, it’s all about what happens regarding FL and MI. If they both get together some sort of half-asses do-over, the best guess is that Hillary can pick up good ground in Fl and slightly lesser ground in MI. With about 360 delegates at stake in those states, Hillary could pick up 50-80 delegates if she wins by a margin like 55-45.

    Why is that important? Because she needs that sort of margin to get her deficit down to the mid to high double digits. If she can get it that low, THEN she can win at the convention with a similar 55-45 split among SD. If Obama can stay 100+ delegates ahead, then Hillary starts to need 60%+ of the superdelegates. Which will be an uphill climb.

  3. mw Says:

    Kritter,

    A good analysis, as I have come to expect from you.

    Howver, I insist you lecture Justin on calling the views I share with Mark Penn “Obvious BS”.

    That said, point taken.

    All readers of this thread – please redact the word “nonsense” in my comment above, and replace with “ignorant and uninformed view” . Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: