Posted on 02/19/2008 7:39:36 AM PST by jdm
With the help of thegreenpapers.com the invaluable Green Papers, I made some calculations in a best-case scenario for Hillary Clinton in the Wisconsin, Ohio, and Texas primaries. I assumed that Clinton won statewide in each case, and that Obama carried only congressional districts (or in Texas, state Senate districts) dominated by upscale white voters and/or black voters. This is an especially optimistic assumption in Wisconsin, where Clinton currently trails Obama by 4 or 5 percent in public polls. The results are as follows: a 44-30 delegate edge in Wisconsin, an 83-58 delegate edge in Ohio, and an 82-41 delegate edge in Texas. Overall this is an 80-delegate advantage, based (again I emphasize) on optimistic assumptions.
This would be enough to erase the current 58-delegate edge Obama has in total delegates according to Real Clear Politics. But not enough to overcome the 137-delegate edge he has among "pledged delegates," that is, those chosen in caucuses and primaries. And it doesn't account for the fact that Texas on March 4 will also have caucuses to select another 67 delegates. The Obama campaign has swamped the Clinton campaign in almost all the caucuses and probably has far more in the way of organization in Texas's 254 counties than the Clinton campaign does.
What about the other post-February contests? Here's my brief take on each:
My bottom line take: The turf looks fairly favorable to Clinton, provided she wins Ohio and Texas March 4. Not favorable enough, perhaps, for her to overtake Obama in "pledged" delegates, but enough to keep the overall delegate count excruciatingly close, unless the superdelegates start cascading to Obama. (Maybe they have: Congressman John Lewis has evidently switched.) But if Clinton loses either Ohio or Texas, that's a sign that the ground thereafter will be less favorable to her. Losing Ohio would suggest she can't carry Pennsylvania or Indiana. Losing Texas suggests she can't carry Mississippi, North Carolina, West Virginia, or Kentucky. Losing either probably means the superdelegate cascade starts in torrents, and she falls well behind in total delegate count. In which case her candidacy is probably effectively over.
And even if she wins Ohio and Texas, she's still not likely, I think (no, I haven't done the delegate arithmetic yet), to accumulate enough "pledged" delegates to win without an edge in superdelegates, and perhaps without getting the Florida and, more problematically, Michigan delegations seated. But I certainly don't see her quitting in these circumstances.
If you live in Texas just remember your voter card does NOT have to be stamped “democrat”. I spoke with a county official this morning. Go ahead a vote Obama!
Please see my post # 60 on why I believe it is a huge mistake to vote for Hillary Clinton in the Texas primaries.
People are getting it the exit polls wrong an you are telling me about a grand strategy for 2012 as if it is a sure thing. We cannot afford Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as a President. Think about our troops and the war on terror.
McCain 2008.
I believe it will take the support of crossovers in both states to keep Hillary close enough for the very fight you envision. I want that fight to be ugly...because IMHO it will alienate large segments of the democratic voting block away from Hillary.
9/11/2001 is the dirtect result of Bill Clinton idiocy and cowardliness. Enough said.
I don’t bet, I look at the facts and tell ‘em as it is. White males, 40% of the electorate, won’t vote for her. Almost 1/2 of this country will not vote for her under any circumstance. I stand by my remarks.
I have no interest in a 2012 strategy. I’m simply saying that even if you DO believe in a 2012 strategy, Hillary is better for that strategy than Obama.
Most people are pushing for Obama because they think he’d be easier to beat in 2012. First, I think he would be a disaster during those 4 years, worse than Hillary, and second, I don’t think he’d be easier to beat in 2012 than Hillary.
I’d much rather win in 2008. Then the 2012 strategy is to get a conservative to replace McCain in 2012 when he steps down.
White males will vote for her in droves.
Big freaking mobs of them will stampede to the polls to usher in a democrat.
I look at the facts and tell em as it is
Hate to tell you this, but someone has to clue you in:
Those are not facts; those are media opinion polls.
I stand by my remarks.
Just don't put your money where your mouth is.
Polls? LOL!!!
Good one, Bill, polls are such accurate barometers. Didn’t opinion polls say Rudy Giuliani would be the next nominee for the Republicans?
Didn’t opinion polls say Barack Obama would not be a threat?
Didn’t exit polls say Kerry won in 2004?
While I am pummeling you some more with FACTS, here are some sweet polls for YOU.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/02/14/white-men-give-hillary-a-lesson-in-realpolitick/
Yeah, I am going to bet you. You sound like the welcher type.
I am not here to play the Lotto or the pools, dude. I am here to tell you that you are full of it. I stand by my remarks. Choke on these essays.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.