home

Texas Will Be The Test

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:37:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

The Obama blogs are now confident that Texas is Obama's to lose:

No question it's a tight tight race with two weeks to go. Given how much ground he seems to have gained recently (remember that this is the second poll released in 24 hours showing an even or nearly even race), and his history of rapidly moving from being well behind in polls to winning primaries, it's starting to look like Texas might go to Obama.

This comes on the heels of SUSA's Texas poll that has Obama within 5 of Clinton in Texas.

This is a terrific development. A real test now for Obama's ability to win the POPULAR VOTE in big contested states. No need for spinning. Just a need for WINNING THE POPULAR VOTE. Maybe now we can get this "will of the voters" thing right. BTW, I guess Ohio is not going to be a battleground after all.

< TPM Wins Prestigious Polk Journalism Award | Supreme Court Refuses Review of NSA Wiretapping Case >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Texas Will Be The Test | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What about the latest CNN poll? (none / 0) (#1)
    by ctrenta on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:41:28 AM EST

    BTD, you catch CNN's latest poll on the Texas primary? Whadda you think?
    More of the same (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:45:32 AM EST
    Obama needs to win the popular vote in Texas to put Clinton away.

    Myself I have been clear.

    I said Obama needs to win one of Texas, Ohio and PA to put Clinton away.

    Now the Obama blogs expect Obama to win Texas. The popular vote I mean.

    This is terrific. Now we ALL agree that Texas is a true test.

    Parent

    An Obama win in TX (none / 0) (#13)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:55:01 AM EST
    all comes down the the Hispanic vote.  Since Clinton has a 2:1 edge there, their turnout is crucial.  Along with women of course.


    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:57:25 AM EST
    But I really want some clear definition of this race.

    One that respects the will of the voters.

    The POPULAR VOTE in Texas is one such test and indeed, one big opportunity for Obama to finish Clinton.

    Parent

    In the GE, (none / 0) (#87)
    by sancho on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:24:19 AM EST
    Texas is as blue as Utah. Not a telltale state. People will treat it as such, though. Since Sam Houston, it has always been a one party state. When Lloyd Bensten's father moved to Texas from WI about a hundred years ago, he went to visit the chair of the Republican party (his party in WI), told him he was new, and wanted to know what he could do to help. The Chair of the Texas Republican Party told him, "Son, if you want to help Texas,you better go join the Texas Democrats. We aim to keep our seniority in the U. S. Senate." It took LBJ to change that. This was the tradition of "uniting" in Texas that gave us G. Bush. Excuse the anecdote, but the point is winning the dem primary in Texas means nothing. You can't extrapolate from a state that has always been a one-party state and will be again in the GE.  

    Parent
    I hate to burst the bubble (none / 0) (#88)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:24:20 AM EST
    but as we have seen again and again, the rules change depending on how Obama does.  Popular vote win = win.  Delegate win = win.  "Did Better Then We Expected" = win.

    Not so much for Clinton.

    Parent

    I'd assume that Ohio's status... (none / 0) (#3)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:46:40 AM EST
    ...as a battleground probably depends on how well Obama does in Wisconsin tonight, since there are some demographic similarities between the two states.  If Obama wins handily, I'd expect the ground game there to ramp up, along with the ads and rallies, and I'd expect to see at least a narrowing of the Clinton lead there.  
    An Obama win in Texas would put Clinton in a tough spot, no doubt.  Winning Ohio and Rhode Island, then waiting 7 weeks for another opportunity to win is probably a recipe for disappointment.  Voters like to "validate" or "support" a competitive candidate, not "save" them.  
    I still think Ohio is winnable for Obama.

    Even better (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:49:40 AM EST
    Talk to the Obama blogs and have them also agree that Obama is in Ohio to win it.

    Win the POPULAR VOTE I mean.

    Then we can have two true tests.

    I am fixated on having some clear tests on March 4 so we can all decide where the race is.

    WE need to fix this situation, what with the Florida and Michigan fiascos.

    Obama popular vote wins in Ohio and Texas will rightly end this race with a clear winner of the will of the people.

    Parent

    hedging my bets a tad... (none / 0) (#17)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:00:08 AM EST
    ...I will wait to see if there's any poll movement in Ohio before fully committing to the "Ohio is winnable" thing. ;)

    But I think only one of these two candidates can "wrap things up" sooner rather than later, and that candidate happens to be Obama.  Clinton would probably need to not only win the big 3 but also have a good run in the remaining states.  It's always possible Obama could falter, but he has run an excellent campaign so far, in my opinion.

    Parent

    Of course only Obama can wrap it uo early (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:11:47 AM EST
    Clinton needs to win Ohio and Texas on March 4, PA on April 22, some assorted contests in between and Puerto Rico on June 7.

    BTW, anyone ever wonder how Puerto Rico got 55 delegates? I know. Does anyone else?

    Parent

    I'll bite (none / 0) (#62)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:40:33 AM EST
    That's a lot of delegates. How did Puerto Rico get that many?

    Parent
    Money (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:54:19 AM EST
    Fundraising in Puerto Rico.

    Parent
    Nope...dunno. (none / 0) (#69)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:52:05 AM EST
    Anything to do with statehooders and their battles within and without the party?

    Parent
    Dollars (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:53:55 AM EST
    Big fundraising in Puerto Rico.

    Parent
    Party dollars you mean. (none / 0) (#92)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:37:20 PM EST
    Obama only raised $200,000 there...initially, anyway.

    Works for me.  Let's buy this goddamn election.

    Parent

    Speaking of Puerto Rico, (none / 0) (#93)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:14:32 PM EST
    what do you make of 'the rules' re PR's winner-take-all delegation preference vs. the party's requirement that delegates be apportioned and representative of the popular vote?

    In a close contest, by running last, PR would love to be kingmaker.

    Will this be another opportunity for a huge screwup/blowup?

    Parent

    if Obama wins TX (none / 0) (#10)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:53:33 AM EST
    That's it. Both by BTD standards and I think by real electoral math, an Obama win in Texas would seal the nomination.

    I'm almost hoping for that, just so we don't have to go through another month (or more) of party infighting while McCain prepares for the GE.

    Parent
    Texas, Ohio and PA (none / 0) (#4)
    by SpindleCityDem on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:48:55 AM EST
    won't matter because the Clintons will attempt to steal Obama's pledged delegates.

    Yes, those "Clintons" (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by herb the verb on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:53:40 AM EST
    Why they are liable to do anything so nothing matters, we are all doomed. Molly hide the children oh, my.

    Parent
    When people use "the Clintons" (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:12:49 AM EST
    It's a certain symptom of Clinton Derangement Syndrome in full progress. "The Clintons" are evil people who will do anything to win. That is the One True Fact that the world revolves around for people with CDS. Anything can be explained to match that basic truth.

    In this case, it's some anonymous source expecting mayhem at the convention from all sides.

    So, it's an anonymous source. They're not even talking about the Clinton campaign having any plans to do this.

    But, with CDS, this turns into "The Clintons are going to steal the elections!"

    I'm so tired of that.


    Parent

    Sometimes (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:14:17 AM EST
    I often refer to them as The Clintons, but I like Bill immensely so I like to think of it as something good.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:15:35 AM EST
    did you see who used it to take a chance to compare  Clinton to Bush?

    Parent
    I didn't.. (none / 0) (#46)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:25:27 AM EST
    If it's over at DailyKos, well, I haven't been there in a while, and have lost respect for a lot of people there, unfortunately.


    Parent
    DHinMi (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:31:32 AM EST
    By the way Clinton Will Not Lobby Pledged Delegates:

    We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.

    Doubt THAt will find its way into his post.

    Parent

    I really noticed (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:01:01 AM EST
    a couple of days ago that Obama supporters (and most of the Obama supporting press, i.e. see Chris Matthews) tend to refer to Hillary Clinton as "the Clintons."

    It finally dawned on me that this is a sexist attempt to denigrate HRC and belittle her candidacy by making her a bit player in her own campaign.

    If you want to refer to HRC's campaign, why not just refer to it as the Clinton campaign?

    As to the rest of your comment, it's ridiculous.

    Parent

    unsurprising (none / 0) (#48)
    by jibeaux on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:25:55 AM EST
    ...that people who see sexism in "periodically" and "pantsuit" should also find sexism in "the Clintons".  It's not exactly a secret that Bill Clinton is an active part of her campaign.

    Parent
    Unsurprising (none / 0) (#52)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:33:54 AM EST
    that people who see racism in a comment about LBJ and MLK and who regularly use the term "Billary" to mock their opponent refuse to honestly appraise their own attempts to denigrate their competition.

    Frankly, you are Exhibit A for why I find Obama's supporters to be so offensive.

    Parent

    it's mutual (none / 0) (#71)
    by jibeaux on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:52:36 AM EST
    I don't see racism in that, and I never said I did. Tone-deaf, and probably not exactly the right note you'd want to sound to court black voters, but not racist.  The "kid" comment isn't racist either.  I've commented on that before, but it's been deleted.
    Thanks for the generalization, though.  And I realize I generalized for this blog as well, but I have never seen the likes of the wolf crying sexism that I have here.  I'm a woman over 30, it had to be explained to me what in the world was allegedly sexist about that "periodically" clip.  I had no clue whatsoever.  I cannot help but roll my eyes out of my head and down the street and onto a Greyhound bus when I hear it now on the same blog.

    Parent
    Also, have never used Billary (none / 0) (#72)
    by jibeaux on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:52:56 AM EST
    That's just stupid.

    Parent
    Well it's good (none / 0) (#82)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:04:59 AM EST
    to hear an Obama supporter actually decry the use of "Billary." Now if you could only convince your counterparts in the Obamasphere that they don't do Obama any favors with their "Billary" comments and their excuses for Obama's gaffes (sexist or otherwise), there could be perhaps some rapprochement between the camps.

    And we'll just have to disagree on the allusions to sexism implicit in the "periodically" statement. Anyway, you could be right. It was either a super obnoxious comment that made Obama look bad or it was sexist. So it could be either...

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:51:16 AM EST
    I saw the Obama blog outrage on that.

    Kind of silly don't you think?

    Some offhand remark from some fool in the Clinton campaign used to gin up new Clinton outrage and a an excuse to compare Clinton to George Bush.

    A disgraceful post from a poster I have little respect for.

    Parent

    was it just an offhand remark? (none / 0) (#23)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:08:03 AM EST
    I don't know much about the source, but I know that Politico is reporting it, as is NPR, New Republic, etc.  See, e.g., here

    Parent
    It must be (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:10:14 AM EST
    Because it is not a thought out comment.

    It is a ridiculous idea. Who are you going to convince? No one. How absurd.

    And the poster who used this to compare Clinton to bush is despicable.

    Parent

    just trying to clarify (none / 0) (#45)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:24:24 AM EST
    You wrote: "And the poster who used this to compare Clinton to bush is despicable."

    So, is calling somebody dispicable OK here?

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:32:55 AM EST
    NOT calling EACH OTHER who are here despicable is the problem.

    And no trashing EITHER candidate.

    Let me give you an example - Bush is despicable.

    Understand now? I bet you did before.

    Parent

    I thought I did understand.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:34:37 AM EST
    but you said "the poster....despicable."

    Parent
    The poster is not on this site (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:38:09 AM EST


    Parent
    Not unlike Obama's (none / 0) (#79)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:56:33 AM EST
    "Bush-Cheney lite" remark...for which he apologized later, of course.

    Revealing though...

    Parent

    Of course it's being reported. (none / 0) (#31)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:14:29 AM EST
    The media suffer from CDS, and the Obama campaign will try to exploit it. So it's being reported.


    Parent
    And the Obama blogs (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:16:07 AM EST
    Clinton = Bush now.

    Parent
    buried in that article (none / 0) (#39)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:18:31 AM EST
    Is a even stupider quote:
    On Sunday, Doug Wilder, the mayor of Richmond and a former governor of Virginia, went even further, predicting riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates.
    I vaguely recall a similar statement by Bill O'Reilly, predicting riots if Obama lost. He was quite rightly called out for not-so-subtle racism then. If Mayor Wilder is an Obama supporter, he's not helping.

    Parent
    Doug Wilder has looked rather foolish (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:20:24 AM EST
    in this campaign.

    With
    Jesse Jackson Jr, I doubt we will see hide nor hair of either in an Obama GE campaign.

    Parent

    Don't count on it. (none / 0) (#94)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:20:39 PM EST
    If Obama is the nominee and there's a mic or a camera within a mile, every AA in the country will want their 15 minutes of fame.  And the candidate will not be able to control them.

    Should make for riveting television...and soundbites ad nauseam.

    Parent

    Wilder (none / 0) (#43)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:22:45 AM EST
    He was still pushing "Bill Clinton's fairytale comment was about Obama personally" thing last week. Of course, that comment has long been explained as being about Obama's Iraq war actions, and the media coverage thereof. Wilder surely knows this, but he was still pushing this.

    He seems to be one of the more fanatical Obama supporters who are willing to go just a little further.

    Parent

    Blatant lies and vicious (none / 0) (#38)
    by kenosharick on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:18:27 AM EST
    personal attacks like this from the "obamo-maniacs" have really turned me off of his canidacy. They chased me off my favorite blog and make me want to sit out the GE.

    Parent
    Amen (none / 0) (#47)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:25:53 AM EST
    I sometimes look at the rabid Obama supporters and cringe at the thought that I'm going to have to be on the same side as them during the ge.

    Also, having now discovered this sexist strain in the Democratic party (or at least a tolerance for sexism in the Democratic party by a significant segment of the Obama supporters), I feel totally betrayed by the Democrats as a whole. I've spent years supporting my Democratic candidates and Democratic issues, and now I find that they don't support me.

    And all of that's wrapped up with Barack Obama. It's utterly disappointing.

    Parent

    blatant lies? (none / 0) (#55)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:36:27 AM EST
    You said "blatant lies ... like this."

    Can you clarify which comment here is a blatant lie?

    Parent

    The comment was a blatant lie (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:37:22 AM EST


    Parent
    ok, now I get it (none / 0) (#61)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:39:44 AM EST
    Seriously.  I wasn't trying to score points, or be deliberately obtuse, etc.  I was genuinely surprised to read your comment.

    Your comment actually does accuse the poster of being descipable -- I now see that you didn't write it clearly.

    Viz., you wrote, "the poster who xyz is despicable"

    Apparently, you meant to write, "the poster says xyz, which is despicable."

    Let's all be careful!

    Parent

    ok, look (none / 0) (#66)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:44:32 AM EST
    for someone who might not follow this 60/24/7, you have to excuse somone who might have thought that they were going after pledged delegates.  After all, Roger Simon is not a nobody, and he wrote in Politico that "This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday."  (And, as I said, reported all over the media.  Yes, yes, I know the media is biased, but that's what many people heard on NPR this morning).

    As of this morning, I hadn't heard anyone on the Clinton campaign deny it, so for a poster here to repeat the above statement is not a deliberate lie on the part of the poster.

    I'm thrilled to here that Clinton's campaign is denying it.

    And, like you, I hope that Texas/Ohio settles this thing early, so we can get on to the important business of defeating McCain.

    Parent

    Roger Simon is worse than a nobody (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:52:32 AM EST
    He is an utterly unreliable reporter.

    As someone who follow this closely, I know not to trust Roger Simon.

    Parent

    I didn't know that (none / 0) (#77)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:55:26 AM EST
    ... it's possible others didn't know that, either.

    Parent
    I believe that my comment (none / 0) (#96)
    by kenosharick on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:10:00 AM EST
    was in reply to the report that Clinton was "stealing" delegates from Obama- which is a nasty lie.

    Parent
    that is a false statement (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    Don't spread misinformation from other places here. The Clinton campaign has flat out denied that.

    Parent
    I wouldn't be so sure (none / 0) (#5)
    by larryharriet on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:49:30 AM EST
    I really wouldn't be so sure. With the huge momentum coming towards Obama and Hillary lagging, I wouldn't be suprised if he pulls a New Hampshire on us. I have told my democratic friends that if they want to win in November, they should nominate Obama. Hillary has too high of negatives and in the head to head match up polls, it gets really tight... and in most she is even losing to McCain. Whereas with Obama, he is beating McCain. JMO.

    www.thecrimewar.blogspot.com

    I do not understand your NH reference (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:52:49 AM EST
    The expectation is that Obama is going to take Texas in the post I quote.

    Clinton was down in every poll by a substantial margin in NH.

    Your comparison makes no sense to me.

    If Clinton wins Wisconsin tongiht by keeping it within say 3, that would be like NH.


    Parent

    Within 3 is a win for Hillary? (none / 0) (#35)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:16:14 AM EST
    But Obama must win TX outright?

    Parent
    In Wisconsin? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:19:09 AM EST
    In the expectations game? Absolutely.

    Do you doubt it? I am not saying that is fair, but Obama is the frontrunner now.

    Parent

    An average of recent polls has him up by 4.3% (none / 0) (#67)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:49:04 AM EST
    I think she may win by 3%.  But I don't see a 3% Obama win as a big comeback for Hillary.  

    "She surged up to capture an additional 1.3%!"

    Parent

    urls must be html format or they (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:06:33 AM EST
    skew the site. Your blog name is in your user information, no need to repeat it at the end of your comment. Thanks.

    Parent
    Why do you keep setting (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:52:02 AM EST
    these artificial goals for Obama?  He doesn't need to win any particular state he needs to be significantly ahead in pledged delegates.

    Yes a Texas win would do a lot as far as rapping this up goes, but the idea that the guy ahead has "must wins" is just silly.

    If he wants a clear victory (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:54:42 AM EST
    and if he wants to finish Clinton for good, a win in Texas will do that.

    Indeed, a Clinton supporter could argue why am I giving Obama an artificial opportunity to finish Clinton?

    Obama does NOT have to win Texas to win. but if he wins Texas he DOES win. But you still complain. Weird.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#59)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:39:06 AM EST
    the objection is to your attempt to pin this on Obama's supporters based on a blog post saying "it's starting to look like Texas might go to Obama."  It looks like playing the expectations game.  Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but that seems to be the complaint.

    Parent
    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:57:55 AM EST
    It is a pretty good test imo. If he wins Texas (popular vote) he will remove probably the last hurdle and tilt the race. If he doesn't (as has been pointed out over and over) and Sen Clinton also takes Ohio and PA then we are back in the same mess. Each side will claim different reasons why they "won."

    Remember Sen Obama may be ahead right now, but that doesn't mean he will be in the above scenario (no matter how unlikely it may seem right now). And yes, I am NOT talking just about pledged delegates.

    Parent

    This is why (none / 0) (#16)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:59:54 AM EST
    Texas Republicans are licking their lips.  They smell blood in the water and want to close the book on the Clintons in American history.

    That is interesting (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:01:22 AM EST
    I hope Obama supporters do not hope to win Texas on the backs of  Republicans voters voting against Clinton who will then vote for McCain in November.

    Parent
    If the exit polls for Texas (none / 0) (#22)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:06:52 AM EST
    show more than a handful voting for Obama, that's what we'll get.  They aren't going to be voting D in November.


    Parent
    The total matters (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:08:42 AM EST
    Obviously, Obama has appealed to Republicans in this race, to his discredit imo.

    He will win 2/3 of them for sure.

    But if they comprise a major portion of the electorate, it will certainly taint an Obama win.

    Let's hope it does not happen.

    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#32)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:15:33 AM EST


    Parent
    SUSA projects Republicans as 8% (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:18:12 AM EST
    of the electorate. Not an alarming amount.

    Of course it provides Obama a 3 point edge overall.

    Among NON-Republicans, according to SUSA, Clinton leads by 8. Among DEMOCRATS, Clinton leads by 13 according to SUSA.

    Parent

    Just saw McCain (none / 0) (#54)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:35:16 AM EST
    speech asking Repubs to get out and vote for him in the primaries. He is pushing Repubs to vote because of the Huck factor.

    Maybe the Repubs will stay on their site of the voting.

    Parent

    In Texas (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:36:56 AM EST
    Huck is an issue.

    Parent
    Ahh..."the will of the people." (none / 0) (#64)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:44:12 AM EST


    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#20)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:05:55 AM EST
    however some republicans secretly want to face Clinton in a GE because they'd like her to get as close as possible to the Whitehouse again before pulling the rug out from under her.

    Common sense tells me and other repubs that Obama will take ind/moderate votes from McCain while Hillary will make republicans go to the polls.

    However I think the smell of blood is too tempting and they'd rather end her campaign now.

    Should be interesting.

    Parent

    I'm here in OH (none / 0) (#27)
    by hvs on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:12:01 AM EST
    watching the OH race develop and as things stand right now there's no sign of Barack closing this gap. The question is, will the media call it "an astonishing comeback" or "closing the gap in delegates"?

    Heh (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:13:15 AM EST
    No sign of closing the gap will be called a big win for Clinton. Not sure what you mean.

    Parent
    I'm sort (none / 0) (#37)
    by hvs on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:18:26 AM EST
    of referring to Carville's CNN set up of a victory in OH and TX as, and this is a direct quote, "the biggest comeback in political history." He seemed to be laying the tracks for a "comeback kid" narrative.

    By the way, the Politico "we'll go after pledged delegates" story was a total nightmare. I don't support Hillary, but the thought of her campaign floating that line was too unreal to believe; it would be just mind-boggling. The campaign now officially refutes it without reservation.

    What kind of shenanigan was this?

    Parent

    Well that is silly (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:21:49 AM EST
    The ACTUAL Clinton spin will be what I think is true and wrote LONG BEFORE it became spin - that Obama can not win big contested states.

    Parent
    Probably (none / 0) (#44)
    by hvs on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:24:11 AM EST
    both lines.

    Parent
    I'm still trying to figure out (none / 0) (#68)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:51:45 AM EST
    whether "contested big states" is supposed to have some significance beyond votes and delegates.  Contested I can see, but "big" -- particularly when defined as including the 7th and 11th largest states but not the 9th or 12th -- seems quite irrelevant apart from the votes and delegates it entails.

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#76)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:55:08 AM EST
    I meant 7th and 10th.

    Parent
    Clinton failed to file full slate... (none / 0) (#60)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:39:27 AM EST
    ...of delegates in PA.  Anyone else heard about this?  Apparently, even with Gov. Rendell giving extra time due to inclement weather, the Clinton campaign failed to file a full slate of delegates in Pennsylvania, falling about 10 short?

    Does this have any impact at all, if the race goes on to 4/22?

    I do not fully understand the story (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:43:45 AM EST
    but if so, this is inexcusable and another reason to think poorly of the Clinton campaign and Ed Rendell.

    Parent
    It's in the Philly papers (none / 0) (#74)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:54:11 AM EST
    There's a story in the Philly News here on it.

    Three items of note:

    1.  "It appears Clinton came up 10 or 11 candidates short across a number of congressional districts, including two in Philadelphia.  That's close to 10 percent of the 103 delegates to be decided by voters."

    2.  Clinton was 20-21 candidates short at the deadline, but then the Gov extended it a few days, which benefited Clinton greatly

    3.  This one's the most curious one of all:  The article says: " But Clinton's faux pas is more of an image problem than a practical one. Under Democratic Party rules (and does any organization on the planet have more rules or more complex rules?) a presidential candidate winning in a congressional district gets delegates from that district (assigned at a later date) whether he or she files slates delegates or not."

    #3 is really weird.

    Parent
    It appears that (none / 0) (#78)
    by hvs on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:55:32 AM EST
    in PA, you don't vote for a presidential nominee, you vote for a delegate (with the name of the nominee to whom they're pledged printed underneath their name). So, it appears that if they haven't offered a full slate of delegates, the HRC campaign literally has made it impossible for some folks to vote for her.

    ...This campaign season keeps getting weirder and weirder.

    Parent

    PA delegates (none / 0) (#81)
    by wasabi on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:00:26 AM EST
    I think I read somewhere that to be an official delegate to the convention you had to have 250 signatures and pay $50.  (To send money to the Party?) If Clinton wins a precinct a delegate will be chosen for her.
    "Under Democratic Party rules a presidential candidate winning in a congressional district gets delegates from that district (assigned at a later date) whether he or she files slates delegates or not."

    Parent
    Oh my good Lord (none / 0) (#85)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:21:21 AM EST

    this is getting more and more convoluted with each state!  States should just have a uniform system for elections, jeez!

    Parent
    Relates to this Texas post.... (none / 0) (#83)
    by herb the verb on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:09:06 AM EST
    How?

    it didn't and I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:11:29 AM EST


    Parent
    Where is the infamous "Clinton machine"? (none / 0) (#86)
    by ivs814 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:21:43 AM EST
    I have to say that sitting here in Texas it is just incredible that the Clinton machine is not primed and ready to go.  I have to say that from my perspective, it simply doesn't exist.  She has a loyal following in the Rio Grande Valley.  This is where she came for her first presidential fund-raiser yet other than that, she is always playing catch up.  As a Clinton supporter I have to say that I am utterly dispirited by the campaign they have waged.  They are always on the ropes and just don't seem to be aggressive enough.  If they can't take out an upstart like Obama, how in the world are they gonna take on the Republicans?

    get over it and get active (none / 0) (#89)
    by nycvoter on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:51:25 AM EST
    make calls organize your friends

    Parent
    SUSA poll for WHIO TV, taken 2/17-2/18... (none / 0) (#90)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:55:43 AM EST
    ...shows the gap has narrowed to 9 points, from 16 (52-43, if I remember correctly).  SUSA hasn't published this on their site yet, though.

    If another poll confirms this movement, I will firm up my contention on the winnability of Ohio for Obama. :)

    Obama win in Texas? (none / 0) (#91)
    by jcsf on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:05:08 PM EST
    By popular vote, would be surprising.

    The "Obama blogs" would love to have it of course, but to say it's an "expectation", rather than a hope, is doubtful.

    Texas Will Be The Test | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment