home

Zogby: Clinton Leads In TX, A Tie In Ohio

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:02:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

I like to laugh at John Zogby and the outfits that cite him as a serious pollster. And this post is no different. So in his final polls Zogby has Clinton up 47-44 in Texas, a 3 point rise for Clinton and a 3 point drop for Obama. In Ohio, Zogby has a tie, which reflects a 3 point drop for Obama. So, according to Zogby, the last minute trend is all Clinton. I would be worried if I was in the Clinton camp.

Talk about anything related to the campaign, not just polls. Today should be an exciting day.

< The Press Wakes Up, Is It Too Late? | GOP Talking Points >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Zogby: Clinton Leads In TX, A Tie In Ohio | 118 comments (118 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Were you (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by rooge04 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:20:17 AM EST
    the same that exclaimed the exact same delegate lead win by Obama on mydd? Sounds awfully familiar.

    Has the wave broken? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by herb the verb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:28:43 AM EST
    After Wisconsin I confess I threw in the towel for Clinton (then went ahead and sent money anyway). But I have been enormously impressed by how much fight she had left in her. Every time you think she won't get back up off the mat she picks herself up, brushes off and keeps coming back for more punishment. It increases my respect everytime she does it; she is extraordinarily tough. I now think the unthinkable: that she actually will win Texas and Ohio today.

    Having said that, after today's wins she should jettison the worthless campaign staff that has has put her in such a bad position to this point. She doesn't need Bill (obviously) and she doesn't need Mark Penn. She also doesn't need Obama to LOSE this either, she needs to win it on the strength of her own conviction and skill.

    With all the recent critical coverage and with (what I hope are) Clinton's three wins in Ohio Texas and Rhode Island, this is going to be a tough time for Obama, the kid gloves have come off for him and we will see what he is made of this week.

    Al is a good man (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:35:53 AM EST
    But if say, Hillary wins the popular vote and loses by 27 delegates in Texas, that would actually be bad for Obama. Think about it.

    Parent
    I'm thinking.... (none / 0) (#40)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:38:36 AM EST
    But, I don't think I understand.  Why would it be a bad thing for Obama?

    Parent
    It would undermine (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:40:34 AM EST
    the legitimacy of the pledged delegate count as representative of the will of the people.

    Parent
    (nodding) (none / 0) (#51)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:44:31 AM EST
    Aww... the fact that it would be so easy to explain using the Texas system....

    Other states had "winners" who didn't get the most delegates (or tied.) But explaining it was nearly impossible.

    With the obvious Primary/Caucus thing in Texas it'd be easy to explain.  And that 2-2-1 delegate distribution might even make some people sit up.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    A Poster state (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:47:21 AM EST
    for the Clinton argument.

    Parent
    Which only becomes an argument (none / 0) (#62)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:50:49 AM EST
    because it is working to their disadvantage in this cycle.  The caucus rewards organisation, and an enthused support.  

    I don't believe Bill Clinton raised any concerns about the format when he contested Texas primaries,  nor did Harold Ickes when he was calling the shots at the DNC in the run up to this election cycle.

    Parent

    I do not care which candidate it helps (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:55:11 AM EST
    The caucus system is a travesty. The TEXAS caucus system is beyond a travesty.

    You are defending voter disenfranchisement.

    But so what? What do you care about that?

    Parent

    Oh please, you've got this total wrong (none / 0) (#72)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:00:22 AM EST
    Its voter empowerment! When Obama wins, we all win THROUGH him! sheesh... :)

    Parent
    You are arguing for changing the rules mid-game (none / 0) (#73)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:01:44 AM EST
    The rules were agreed at the start by the DNC and both camps.  By all means have the argument within the Democratic party about whether Caucuses have a place in the primary process going forward,  but changing the rules mid-flow to advantage your own candidate smacks of Clinton Campaign and Mark Penn like goal post moving.

    Parent
    No I am not (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:04:58 AM EST
    The delegate allocation will happen as planned by this travesty of a system.

    The CLINTON CAMPIGN will credibly argue that SUPER DELEGATES need not be fully guided by the travesty of a pledged delegate system and should look at other factors, especially if they they end up ahead in the national popular vote.

    IT is you who wants to change the system mid-contest by eliminating the will of the Super Delegates.

    I want to too.

    Parent

    I don't think it will come down purely to (none / 0) (#81)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:10:59 AM EST
    the pledged delegate count.  However if Hillary cannot keep it close I really find it very difficult to believe that the Superdelegates will flood to her to overturn a significant 100+ pledged delegate lead.

    I can foresee a scenario where Obama's campaign implodes or due to some kind of scandal get's blown out in the last few primaries,  is tanking in national opinion polls and it becomes the received wisdom that Hillary is the stronger GE candidate,  then I could see Superdelegates tipping the scales for her.  Otherwise she really needs to start winning some states and closing the delegate margin.  Winning 3 states today and coming out even in delegates is not enough in my humble opinion.

    Parent

    That sized PD lead (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:37:25 AM EST
    is predicated on excluding Florida and Michigan.


    Parent
    It gives Hillary and her surrogates (none / 0) (#46)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:41:41 AM EST
    a compelling snapshot that feeds into their narrative that Caucuses are teh evil and undemocratic,  so the super delegates should ignore all the caucus states that voted with Obama and should make her the nominee.

    On the other hand,  if the outcome of March 4th is a wash in terms of delegates it's difficult to see how the superdelegates will swing it for Clinton unless she can narrow the pledged delegate gap some.

    Parent

    First things first (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:43:25 AM EST
    Hillary needs to win the popular votes in Ohio and Texas today. If she does, the pledged delegate count that excludes Florida and Michigan will become a BIG issue.

    Parent
    but Hillary cannot seat the Florida and Michigan (none / 0) (#56)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:47:03 AM EST
    delegations without controlling the credentials committee.  She won't control the committee unless she has a plurality of the pledged and superdelegates.

    If she is winning on those counts then the Florida and Michigan delgations get seated and she wins.  If she doesn't then they won't and Obama wins.  Either that or common sense prevails and there is a new Primary/Caucus in both Michigan and Florida that both candidates compete in and where both have their names on the ballot.

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:48:58 AM EST
    And the Democratic Party will be in the wonderful position of fighting to insure that Florida and Michigan are not represented. Great stuff for Dems.

    I have proposed a brilliant compromise solution to this problem. I posted on it a lot.

    But this will all be moot if Hillary does not win the popular vote in Texas and Ohio today.

    Parent

    What does "teh" mean? (none / 0) (#54)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:46:31 AM EST
    I've looked it up but none of the explanations make sense to me.  Can you tell me what you mean when you use it?

    Parent
    teh = the (none / 0) (#59)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:47:39 AM EST
    Geek speak,  "teh evil".  Sorry!  

    Parent
    actually, yeah i'm with katiebird, (none / 0) (#63)
    by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:52:49 AM EST
    and i still don't get it.

    Parent
    i.e. Caucuses are "teh evil" (none / 0) (#82)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:11:53 AM EST
    or evil.  It's ironic.  

    Parent
    The Clinton campaign seems to have turned (none / 0) (#42)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:39:25 AM EST
    it around in terms of pulling primarily in the same direction and developing a coherent line of attack.  I do think it's too late though for this cycle.

    OTOH I'm not sure why Maggie Williams and Hillary have not managed to jettison Penn yet.  Has anyone seen the unseemly competition between Penn and Ickes to avoid the blame for losing Hillary  the nomination contest even before the thing is over?  Very unprofessional.

    Parent

    Penn is still there... (none / 0) (#80)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:07:50 AM EST
    ...because you don't turn an aircraft carrier on a dime.

    The fact is that Penn is a good 'one day election' strategist, but a really bad "primary process" strategist.   Clinton had three weeks to reorganize her campaign and run credible campaigns in TX and OH after the post-ST week debacle -- she couldn't afford to jettison everyone at that point.

    But look for Penn's role in the campaign to be considerably reduced (he won't be fired, just reduced to the status of "pollster", made answerable to a new "chief strategist",  and forbidden to talk to the media) in the next week.  He's become a serious problem within the campaign organization itself, and has to be taken out of the inner circle.

    Parent

    I think the prize fighter analogy is perfect (none / 0) (#44)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:40:20 AM EST
    Hillary is the knock-out puncher, while Obama is the finesse boxer. He wins by points or stoppage, she wins by landing big punches (expected Super Tuesday, etc) for the knockout...

    If Obama had a knockout blow in his repertoire this would have been over. I don't think he's a closer (at least not in terms of winning over the party), and that may be an issue in the GE...but if he wins, I hope he learns some lessons about how to tweak his campaign.

    Parent

    prize fight... (none / 0) (#106)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:43:12 AM EST
    it is a good analogy, because if neither candidate gets a knockout (i.e. locks in the nomination with pledged delegates), it goes to the judges.

    And the judges will decide it not based on how many punches were thrown, or who danced around the ring the best.  They judge it based on who landed the most solid punches.  

    Parent

    I disagree about her not needing Bill. If she (none / 0) (#87)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:17:16 AM EST
    wins Texas today she will owe that in large part to Bill.  He criss-crossed the state yesterday and has spent an enormous amount of time in the Valley and other strong Hispanic spots.  She does need Bill.  What she doesn't need is the press making hay out of some silly comment and distorting everything he says...

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#90)
    by herb the verb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:21:05 AM EST
    what I meant was she doesn't need Bill's advice or for people to think this will be a Bill Clinton redo. She needs to win this on her own merits.

    Parent
    Not needing Bill? Disagree. (none / 0) (#125)
    by jfung79 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:20:18 PM EST
    I was not a fan of many of Bill Clinton's policies like his caving on welfare reform and the sanctions on Iraq.

    But Bill has been very valuable to his wife's campaign here in Texas.  He has gone to 6 or 7 events a day all over the state talking her up and that has really helped with visibility and local press coverage.  The national media hasn't covered it so much but that's because he's been more on-message about things like universal healthcare and Hillary's experience and ability to be a real change agent.  

    If Hillary wins Texas, and I think it will, it will be in large part thanks to Bill Clinton.

    Parent

    Poor Zogby (none / 0) (#1)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:57:21 AM EST
    If he's wrong on these latest polls, it will go beyond hibernation for him.  Perhaps cryogenics this time...

    Not really. . . (none / 0) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:11:19 AM EST
    if he can establish a record of being 100% wrong then his analysis will be as valuable as that of someone who's 100% right.  It's only if he demonstrates the same odds as flipping a coin -- right half the time, wrong half the time -- that his work is worthless.

    That, incidentally, was the result of a study which looked at the weather forecast every day for a year in New Zealand.  The question was whether the weatherman said it would be wet or dry the following day.

    The weather forecast was correct 52% of the time.

    Parent

    Hemispheric Conspiracy (none / 0) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:58:32 AM EST
    Watch today as the Obama camp, starts to spin Hemispheric political manipulation, the Canadians are manipulating the election cry.  TPM et. al start the rumor machine.  

    Blaming Canada... (none / 0) (#3)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:00:08 AM EST
    doesn't seem to pack much of a punch. meh.

    Parent
    Jokes on you (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:05:15 AM EST
    Read the post.

    BTW, I noticed you as one of the nastiest people in the last thread. Get civil or get gone.

    Consider this a formal warning.

    whew, you missed quite an obnoxious thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:07:57 AM EST
    Bizarre new posters visiting here last night.


    Parent
    sbhdawn has been banned and all (none / 0) (#115)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:15:24 AM EST
    and all 18 comments today deleted. Who else has been abusing the site?

    Parent
    you've got it covered pretty well (none / 0) (#116)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:29:11 AM EST


    Parent
    I am promising you (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:19:07 AM EST
    that you will be gone from this site if you keep up your uncivil behavior.

    So far your record is clear.  I repeat, get civil or get gone.

    Parent

    This'll be deleted (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:33:22 AM EST
    But the legacy thing is of issue to me.

    If the Obama movmement makes me choose between the Clinton legacy and the Democratic Party, I will choose the Clinton legacy on the grounds that one should not ever be forced to make such a decision in the first place.

    That the Obama movement, in order to succeed, had to divide the party along such lines.


    Parent

    What in the world are you talking about? (none / 0) (#32)
    by herb the verb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:33:51 AM EST
    Stop promoting lies on Sen. Obama

    Please give even one example of where BTD is promoting lies about Obama.

    Parent

    One more of these (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:37:09 AM EST
    and you will be suspended.

    Parent
    Moratorium... (none / 0) (#6)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:05:23 AM EST
    How about a complete moratorium on political talk until the polls close in at least one state.... lets talk about the American Idol scandals, Brad Pitt's new haircut, and Paris-Lindsey-Britney-Miley-Hayden.  Oh, and that Zach guy from High School Musical!  

    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:06:25 AM EST
    Good luck with that one.

    Parent
    Mendacity in the news (none / 0) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:11:10 AM EST
    NY times two stories...San Fernando white 30 something writes fake autobiography
    In "Love and Consequences," a critically acclaimed memoir published last week, Margaret B. Jones wrote about her life as a half-white, half-Native American girl growing up in South-Central Los Angeles as a foster child among gang-bangers, running drugs for the Bloods.

     

    Times
    No verification at all by publisher of the story.  
    After rising to culinary stardom preparing impossible meals on his Food Network series, Robert Irvine has met an obstacle his kitchen prowess couldn't overcome -- an embellished resume
    Times

    Parent
    I'm in if..... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:12:11 AM EST
    ...we can talk about the Project Runway finale.

    Parent
    NOooo... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:13:41 AM EST
    I am out of country...cannot see it yet, hoping DVR not full.  

    Parent
    Rami over Chris? (none / 0) (#21)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:20:18 AM EST
    I mean, that was pretty ridiculous, if you ask me.  That one dress of Rami's was a knockout, but all three of Chris' designs were great -- exactly the kind of conceptual things you show on the runway, then adapt for a more commercial market. And lets face it, Rami is gonna go back to draping the first chance he gets.

    (The judges obviously didn't get Chris's use of human hair -- as if Nina and Heidi have never put someone else's hair on their own heads.)

    ****
    obligatory on-topic comment...
    oh, and Zogby sucks

    Parent

    Tell me about it... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:28:11 AM EST
    ...I knew that they were going to pick Rami over Chris when they didn't eliminate him before the finals. Can we call it Rami Rules?

    Rami's blue jacket was hideous and if he thought that was one of his three best pieces, you have to wonder about the rest.

    Parent

    I was rooting for Chris (none / 0) (#35)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:34:43 AM EST
    but I think the judges took the "safe" bet with Rami...after all Rami has presented a collection at fashion week before

    Parent
    fear (none / 0) (#69)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:57:35 AM EST
    I don't think that the judges were afraid of the fashion week show.  Rather, they were afraid that if Christopher and the-woman-whose-name-i-can-never-remember don't come up with something great, they'd have to give Chris the win....

    ... and the judges are scared that, once the constraints of the show are removed from Chris, he'll revert to his old "outrageous drag queen fashion" sensibilities in his next collection, and mae the whole PR thing look ridiculous

    Parent

    Hey BTD? (none / 0) (#8)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:07:44 AM EST
    Did you read Jeralyn's post below yours?  Does it alter your Obamamania, tepid though it may already be?

    Eh (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:18:03 AM EST
    If that is as bad as it gets for Obama, no.

    I watched NBC this morning and it was an Obama love fest.

    Parent

    It's a possibility (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:21:06 AM EST
    The media never fully turns on Obama.  Not even during the GE.

    Not as it's been predicted on this blog.

    Parent

    I tend to agree.... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:31:06 AM EST
    ...I think this is just their attempt to appear "balanced." Something they can point to later to make themselves feel better.

    Parent
    yep. call me a cynic, but i agree. (none / 0) (#28)
    by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:32:44 AM EST


    Parent
    We're discussing the news media. . . (none / 0) (#111)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:03:11 AM EST
    Why bring NBC into it?

    Parent
    Hillary Derangement Syndrome is alive this (none / 0) (#10)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:09:13 AM EST
    morning via a Recommended Diary

    Hillary's ad: debate footage doctored to make Obama blacker

    Oh Lordie. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:13:55 AM EST
    I wish I hadn't clicked on that link. I really feel kind of sad for those folks who actually believe that kind of stuff.

    Parent
    wth? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:18:53 AM EST
    hysteria is already hitting a feverish pitch, i see.  jesus.

    Parent
    this and the letters on the kid's pajamas... (none / 0) (#91)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:21:50 AM EST
    they take the cake.

    Parent
    Spoken (none / 0) (#29)
    by rooge04 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:33:12 AM EST
    like a true Republican.  Please keep your attacks of the last Democratic twice-elected President we've had in recent history in perspective. Lest your blindness lead you to making ridiculous statements like the one above.

    Okay I'll bite.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:33:41 AM EST
    ...you seem to be saying that the purpose of the Obama campaign is to obliterate the Clinton legacy. Doesn't that make him a right wing stealth bomb? No wonder Republicans are voting for him!

    Dramatic much? (none / 0) (#49)
    by rooge04 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:44:12 AM EST
    The end is nigh? LOL.

    Parent
    If you're going to use talking pointa (none / 0) (#50)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:44:29 AM EST
    please explain what exactly this "kitchen sink" that HRC has thrown at Obama consists of?

    This apparently was "thrown" in the last 4 days (judging by the talking points)...so what are the items that are being considered part of the kitchen sink, and which if any are out of line?

    Parent

    Are you saying that African Americans... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:45:37 AM EST
    ...were the only people who liked the Clintons? What does that make my people, chopped liver?

    Seriously, that sounds like another Republican idea. The truth of the matter is that I have respect for Obama supporters who support him because they believe in him (even if I don't agree) but I have not much respect to spare for those who would see a Clinton defeat as the primary good of an Obama victory.

    Parent

    It's a decidedly (none / 0) (#58)
    by rooge04 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:47:36 AM EST
    Republican ideal. To destroy the Clintons. African Americans are voting for the first real candidate that represents them. I see nothing wrong in that. But to claim that the "Clintons have burned themselves with Blacks" is just ridiculous, not to mention untrue.

    Parent
    Tearing down the Clintons was ALWAYS (none / 0) (#70)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:58:26 AM EST
    bad for the Democratic party. I guess people forget that. Its a shame that the people inside the party are gleefully doing it now though, because they believe it is a way to "rebuild" the party.


    Parent
    At least (none / 0) (#76)
    by rooge04 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:05:16 AM EST
     it was to OTHER democrats before!

    Parent
    Fewer delegates? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:34:09 AM EST


    notwithstanding my sympathy for (none / 0) (#37)
    by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:36:41 AM EST
    hapless obama supporters today, i don't know how much more of this obama propaganda i can take.  please tell me it's not going to be like this all day.

    I get a (none / 0) (#41)
    by rooge04 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:38:44 AM EST
    distinct air of desperation with these last few days.  They see momentum moving back to HRC. And they're reacting in a frightened and desperate manner.

    Parent
    No no (none / 0) (#55)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:46:42 AM EST
    it will change close to 10 or 11 pm

    If Obama is up there is a 72% chance of precipitated gloating

    If Hillary is up, expect a 84% chance of whirlwind spinning and an overall conspiracy theory to develop throughout the late hours

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#60)
    by rooge04 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:48:39 AM EST
    understand what they're so afraid of. If the voters of TX,OH,VT,RI agree with them that Obama is the best nominee, they will tell us so. Why all the fear of more states voting? I love it. I love that for the first time in a long time, MOST of Americans are getting a say in this!

    Parent
    as a Pennsylvanian... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:14:21 AM EST
    I really wish the campaign would end tonight.  I don't want my state to become New Hampshire on steroids....and except for a couple of minor contests next week, there is nothing on the primary calendar until Pennsylvania, and nothing of consequence right after it.

    I mean, if this campaign goes on, we're gonna be crawling with crowleys, overrun by russerts, tormented by tuckers and tumulties, and blitzkrieged by blitzers.  

    and it will be just horrible here...

    Parent

    FL and MI revotes (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:22:35 AM EST
    Watch for it if Clinton wins OH and TX tonight.

    Parent
    That would be great.... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:25:57 AM EST
    ...my hope, of course, would be that Hillary could win those again. But even if she doesn't, that would feel like resolution to me.

    Parent
    I can see MI revoting but not FL. They were all (none / 0) (#95)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:29:10 AM EST
    on the ballot in FL and BO even campaigned there, although it was a subtle "press conference" thing as well as national ads that ran.  Everyone was on the ballot and had equal footing in Florida.  No redo in FL.  

    Parent
    Here we go again (none / 0) (#38)
    by herb the verb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:37:04 AM EST
    with the Billary meme.

    Why don't you just come out and say it. Billary, Billary, Billary.

    You know you want to, and it will feel so good when you do.

    Unshackle your inner Clinton hatred and BE FREE!

    This becomes an interesting issue (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:46:29 AM EST
    if Hillary wins the popular vote in Texas and Ohio.

    In some ways, Hillary wants win Texas in the popular vote and lose in the delegate count so that she can attack the legitimacy of the pledged delegate count as representative of the will of the people.

    Moreover, if she wins the popular bote in TX and OH, in addition to the big contested states issue, Hillary will again raise the FL and MI issue and may even call for a revote.

    Of course this all depends on her winning the popular vote in these states.

    I think Hillary will win Ohio by 10 (none / 0) (#66)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:54:01 AM EST
    and probably edge the popular vote for 1-5 points.  If she does that then it continues to Pennsylvania and will get ugly[ier].

    If Obama manages to get the popular vote in Texas which I would put at about 30-40% likelihood then I think Clinton is done as Bill Clinton has acknowledged.  With the Perfect Storm of the last week coming in her favour she needs to win both big states.

    Parent

    OTOH (none / 0) (#64)
    by herb the verb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:53:03 AM EST
    I think in order to "win" you have to actually win. I've never been one of those people who thinks that if they don't lose real bad then they actually won.

    Guess I'm just funny that way.

    So by that criteria do you think delegates (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:55:54 AM EST
    constitute winning?  If Obama dominates the caucus,  loses marginally on the popular vote in the Primary then does that mean if he wins the pledged delegate totals in Texas 55%-45% or 60% to 40% then he wins?

    Parent
    I think winning the popular vote is winning (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by herb the verb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:06:51 AM EST
    The contest is for who the people want as their candidate.

    I'm not saying people like Russert won't spin a delegate win as a win for Obama. I only think that the people are smarter than Russert and they will see that Obama lost three states today.
    Not to say I know that will happen. I just think (and hope) that it will.

    BTD is right, if Obama only wins more delegates in Texas though caucus votes it will be proof positive that caucuses are unfair to Clinton voters and it will taint all of his caucus wins.

    Mathimatically neither will win the Dem nomination without the super delegates and the SDs know there are no caucuses in November. Not being able to polish Clinton off after riding this giant wave of momentum will definitely figure in their calculus, more so than +20 delegates will.


    Parent

    Herb - but the reality is that Obama (none / 0) (#86)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:15:38 AM EST
    will probably win more delegates out of the Primary today,  even if he loses the popular vote in the primary.  This is before even counting the caucuses in the evening.

    This is because areas of the state which have shown a track record of strong turnout in democratic elections in the past (i.e. congressional and gubernatorial) are rewarded with extra delegates.  i.e. Heavily African American areas are doing well out of this and heavily Hispanic areas are doing very badly.  you could argue whether the party should be in the practice of incentivising or rewarding loyal Democratic voters in this way,  but them's the rules.

    Parent

    You could also argue (none / 0) (#100)
    by herb the verb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:32:51 AM EST
    that if he doesn't get more votes than Clinton, that he lost. That seems a pretty fair proposition to me.

    The fact remains: neither will win without the super delegates. There are no "delegates" in November. Only popular votes in states like Ohio.

    Parent

    popular vote (none / 0) (#99)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:32:20 AM EST
    the whole 'popular vote' thing kills me.

    first of all, its changing the rules of the game entirely -- if this was a 'popular vote' contest, the Clinton campaign would have run it differently (for instance, they didn't do much of anything in New York State, and turnout was low (only 1.75 million voters) and her margin was only 306K.  Illinois, which had 1.4 million fewer Kerry voters than New York in 2004 (and 2 million fewer voters overall), had 2.02 primary voters, and gave Obama a popular vote margin of 639K.

    By my calculations, Obama has a 'popular vote' leak of 537K (and yes, that includes estimates of participation in caucus state) out of 23.2 million votes cast so far.  That means its 51% Obama to 49% Clinton in the popular vote -- and given the fact that this hasn't been a race about who gets the most popular votes, the difference is insignificant to say the least.

    Parent

    It's not the Obama camp who make it about Popular (none / 0) (#101)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:33:43 AM EST
    Vote.

    Parent
    That is specious in this sense (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:35:31 AM EST
    The popular vote is the choice of the voters.

    The reason Clinton did not do more in New York was because she did not hae the resources to expend there compared to where she had to go elsewhere.

    No one was doing turnout based on the delegate allocations, no, not even Obama.

    I really disagree with your analysis here.

    Parent

    resource allocation (none / 0) (#107)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:48:27 AM EST
    BT, if this had been about the popular vote, I think that resources would have been diverted to New York -- and she would have leaned more on the State party to help her out.   (You don't ask people to go all out for you if you don't need them to -- and she didn't need them to in New York to achieve what she wanted to achieve on ST).

    Parent
    Makes no sense (none / 0) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:49:23 AM EST
    The bigger her margins in NY, the more delegates she would reap.

    Strong disagree.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#112)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:06:07 AM EST
    Obama competed in New York,  not because he thought he could win the state,  but because he knew it would keep the Delegate tally close in that state.  It also helped his campaign in neighboring states be more competitive.

    He managed to run up huge delegate wins in other states where Clinton also decided not to compete.

    If pledged delegates are not a valid measure,  and neither is the popular vote I'm not sure how P Lukasiak would like to decide this thing.  Maybe Barack and Hillary could thumb wrestle for the nomination?

    Parent

    hindsight... (none / 0) (#113)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:13:33 AM EST
    I think it should be obvious by now that Clinton's Super Tuesday strategy was not to rack up as many delegates (or votes) as possible, but to win in the states that will be key in November, and be recognized as the rightful nominee on that basis.  Obama ran a 'spoiler' campaign, and did so brilliantly, by putting together inexpensive grass roots campaigns in caucus states that Clinton was not competing in, and rolling up nice delegate numbers in the process.

    In hindsight, Clinton obviously should have been more focussed on the delegate race, but in the past the nominee has been decided long before he actually locked in the nomination with pledged delegates, and that was the basis of Clinton's strategy.

    Parent

    Spoiler campaign? (none / 0) (#124)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:12:58 PM EST
    Ok,  so Obama ran a "spoiler campaign",  and Clinton ran an "insult 40 states" strategy to steal Kos's phrasology.

    I'm not sure how running a grassroots 50 state strategy on Obama's part counts as being a Spoiler.   So far it looks like more of a "winning" strategy, versus Hillary's "losing" strategy.

    Parent

    Not to me (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:02:27 AM EST
    HE loses. Because the will of the people is expressed n election, a primary, not in caucuses.

    Parent
    I understand what you are saying in terms of (none / 0) (#77)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:06:18 AM EST
    the narrative.  But in terms of a nomination contest which is for delegates then she loses Texas in that scenario.

    Of course even if she does lose the popular vote,  even marginally,  it won't count because it's a Red State.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:21:57 AM EST
    It is not a narrative. It is a fact.

    Parent
    Well, she would have won the 2/3rds of the (none / 0) (#96)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:30:13 AM EST
    Texas Primary that constitutes the "Primary".  

    Parent
    Nooooo (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:31:37 AM EST
    She would have won the primary.

    The caucus is a travesty of a system, especially Texas'.

    Parent

    I agree. The caucus system is stupid. Why (none / 0) (#89)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:20:13 AM EST
    should we have to vote twice???  Arghhhhhhhh

    Parent
    Ask the Texas Democratic Party (none / 0) (#97)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:31:08 AM EST
    This has been the way they have done it for a long long time.  It's not as if it was a process created by Obama.

    Parent
    Nonsequitor (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:35:59 AM EST


    Parent
    nor has it... (none / 0) (#105)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:38:15 AM EST
    but the Texas system has never been an issue because previous races weren't competitive (for instance, in 1992 Clinton won with (IIRC) 68% of the primary vote -- his nearest competitor (Tsongas) had less than 20%....and by that time, Tsongas had pretty much given up.

    flawed systems don't get 'discovered' until the flaw becomes important -- a bad weld in a water pipe won't get noticed until there is a spike in water pressure, and the plumbing starts to leak.

    Parent

    So change the system. (none / 0) (#110)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:01:44 AM EST


    Parent
    That was a rhetorical question. I live in Texas (none / 0) (#109)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:01:43 AM EST
    and understand the process.  I've been voting for 35 years.  Thanks, though.  

    Parent
    I think we should throw out the pledge delegate (none / 0) (#65)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:53:20 AM EST
    nonsense...thats just not the way it works

    If Obama or Hillary do not reach the magical 2025 (or 2208 when FL and MI count) the nomination is up in the air...100 pledge delegates is nothing...I think it is best to remember that. If you don't clinch it, it goes to the judges, and that can go either way.

    Why throw them out? (none / 0) (#71)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:59:11 AM EST
    The Democratic party chose to measure the will of the Primary voters through delegates,  how do they suddenly become irrelevant because your candidate is losing?

    You can't even really throw it to the popular vote as that means either massively undercounting Obama support in caucus states by ignoring them completely or using raw vote numbers,  or overcounting his support amonst the population at large by projecting his winning margins to the wider Democratic electorate in those states.

    Pledged delegate totals are the best measure and I think saying they should be ignored is probably unrealistic.

    Parent

    I was speaking about the arguement not about (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:14:51 AM EST
    literally throwing them out...

    Throw out the argument that "Pledge delegates are the deciding factor"

    Parent

    And more specifically (none / 0) (#88)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:20:09 AM EST
    they are not THE ONLY factor, which is the argument that is made..."Disregard everything else and only pay attention to who has the pledge delegate TODAY"

    This isn't about my preference for candidates, this is about honest and logical debate.

    Parent

    In fairness the argument is not just about who (none / 0) (#114)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:13:48 AM EST
    has the pledged delegate lead today, or the day after March 4th.  The question is that if they have a pledged delegate lead that makes it virtually impossible for Clinton to overtake him (especially under the current DNC rules excluding Florida and Michigan), then Superdelegates should fulfil their role and make him the presumptive nominee.

    If the roles were reversed I'm sure Penn would be making the same argument,  given that he has managed to come up with some tortured pro Clinton spin at every turn in the process so far.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#118)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:33:06 AM EST
    and Penn would be just as wrong to do so.

    To clinch the nomination, you need over 2025 delegates...if you don't have that # then it goes to the "judges"...any attempt to frame it otherwise is an attempt to work the judges

    This goes for HRC and BO...popular vote or pledge delegate arguments are both wrong...its TOTAL delegates...thats all that matters. Sure pledged delegates help get their, popular vote helps sway the judges, but all that matters is 2025 delegates...doesn't matter what form they are in.

    Parent

    Also, the superdelegates role isn't to (none / 0) (#119)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:37:03 AM EST
    formalize ANYONE as a "presumptive" nominee

    Their role actually can be directly in contrast with that. They are there to use all their party insider knowledge, and all their grand wisdom to make an educated decision on who they think will be the best representative of the party...thats it...each to their own decision. And again, any suggestion otherwise is an attempt to work the ref in one candidate's favor or another's

    Parent

    but if 100-200 superdelegates make endorsements (none / 0) (#121)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:24:35 PM EST
    in the next week and they go 80%-20% for Obama,  you're saying that

    1) They aren't trying to end the context so that the Democratic party could unite behind a presumptive nominee

    and

    2) That Hillary would not see the writing on the wall and concede.

    To win Hillary needs to narrow the pledged delegate gap and win over the Superdelegates.  If it becomes clear that Superdelegates are going overwhelmingly the other way then her path to the nomination disappears.

    Parent

    Thats an "if" statement (none / 0) (#122)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:06:12 PM EST
    1) its hypothetical, and not based on any indicators...so its meaningless and certainly tangential to your and my current discussion

    2)To win, Hillary only has to stay mathematically within reach of a nomination. Its that simple. She could be 160 elected delegates apart, and still win (as of today, she could have over a 350 delegate gap and still mathematically be in the race).

    I don't disagree that there will be some point in the campaign where one or the other candidate is unlikely to win the nomination, but as of right this minute, today...it ain't here yet. And possibly tomorrow won't be the day either. This goes for both candidates, and both sides. We should not try to change the "deciding factors" regardless of who benefits or not. And more specifically we shouldn't place undue importance on one factor over another, or importance that did not exist before one candidate or another benefited from that specific factor (popular vote, pledged delegates, super delegates, small states/big states...list goes on).

    Parent

    I agree with your post. [nt] (none / 0) (#123)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:09:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Zogby has his dart board out (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:07:35 AM EST
    As usual, I don't believe a word he says.

    Winning the popular vote (none / 0) (#83)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:13:09 AM EST
    means more people voted for one candidate over the other, regardless of how the delegates are allocated, and as long as more actual people are voting for Hillary than for Barack, I think that is all the argument she needs to stay in the race.

    What I think is kind of an interesting dynamic is that Hillary is staying competitive even with Obama greatly outspending her.  His appearances in the states in play, as well as his advertising, have helped him close the gap, but it looks to me like maybe the schtick is getting a little tired, people are beginning to ask some questions, and he's having trouble closing the deal.

    As for the charges that she is throwing the kitchen sink at Obama, she wouldn't have to if the media were doing their job.  This little uptick in media due diligence may be like the flu - they'll get over it.

    Hah! (none / 0) (#117)
    by chemoelectric on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:12:46 AM EST
    When Zogby gets that outlier result right, we'll hear all about it for the next five or six years.

    That result's not an outlier though (none / 0) (#120)
    by Shawn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:42:41 AM EST
    Go here. And they left out IVR's latest poll, which also had Clinton ahead by three.

    Now, his Ohio result (Clinton & Obama tied) - that is an outlier.

    Parent

    Zogby: Clinton Leads In TX, A Tie In Ohio | 118 comments (118 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment