More on a Hillary Comeback

US News ^ | Feb. 19, 2008 | by Michael Barone

[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:

• Rhode Island primary, March 4. Clinton has done well with downscale Catholic voters, which accounts for most of the Rhode Island electorate. More like Massachusetts, which she carried, than Connecticut, which she lost.

• Vermont primary, March 4. Obama all the way.

• Wyoming county caucuses, March 8. If it's anything like Idaho, Obama.

• Mississippi primary, March 11. Mississippi has the highest black percentage of any state, which suggests Obama will win. But if, as in Alabama and Louisiana, a fairly large number of whites choose to participate, then Clinton could make it competitive.

• Democrats Abroad caucuses, March 15. I have to think Obama carries these worldly types.

• Pennsylvania primary, April 22. The Pennsylvania numbers look a lot like the Ohio numbers.

• Guam territorial convention, May 3 (tentative date). No clue.

• Indiana primary, May 6. 9 percent black, 4 percent Hispanic. The Democratic primary electorate looks a lot like Ohio's. Could be favorable to Clinton.

• North Carolina primary, May 6. 22 percent black, 5 percent Hispanic. The Democratic primary electorate is liable to be 30-35 percent black, possibly more, which is favorable to Obama. So is the fact that some of the Democratic primary electorate (especially in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill triangle, less so in Clinton) is upscale and culturally liberal. So half the electorate is tilted his way. This looks like Virginia with a considerably smaller Northern Virginia: Obama country, but by a considerably lesser margin.

• West Virginia primary, May 13. Downscale, elderly, and overwhelmingly white, the primary electorate here presumably favors Clinton.

• Kentucky primary, May 20. The Democratic primary electorate here is not as downscale, elderly, and overwhelmingly white as West Virginia's, but it comes fairly close. Favorable to Clinton.

• Oregon primary, May 20. Obama won't likely win here by as much as he did in the Washington caucuses, but he's likely to win.

• Montana primary, June 3. An interesting question. Obama won't be as strong here as in Western state caucuses.

• South Dakota primary, June 3. Former Senator Tom Daschle is actively supporting Obama, but the state demographically looks more pro-Clinton.

• Puerto Rico caucuses, June 7. I have written on these elsewhere. An interesting continuing tale.

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.

[Ancesthntr]

My bottom line take: The turf looks fairly favorable to Clinton, provided she wins Ohio and Texas March 4

----------------------

IMHO, at this point, the only way Hillary wins is if enough Repubs cross over and get her the victory. I know of numerous friends and relatives in Texas who intend to do just that.

Hillary, IMHO, is an easier win in November than Obama...but that's just my opinion.

I'm in Texas, and I'm considering voting for Her Beastness for just that reason - I think that Obama could win, and that he's also far, far more dangerous.

But the thought of pulling the lever for Monica's ex-boyfriend's wife just makes me want to heave.

[Red in Blue PA]

He has shown absolutely nothing to point to the fact that he would silence critics if he would win.

She has. Time and time again.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“Hillary, IMHO, is an easier win in November than Obama...but that’s just my opinion.”

The Clintons are markedly more dangerous in power than Obama would be. The Bush administration is still dealing with the seeds planted by the Clinton administration. They are like a widely metastatic cancer. When you have the chance to cut it out before it spreads that is always the best chance of survival. Betting on the possibility that you can contain it is highly risky.

[palmer]

Understanding McCain is your first choice, you would really rather have Hillary than Obama?

[John D]

If your logic is wrong (and I believe it is) and she wins the GE, please think of the possible ramifications for the next 4 years. Number 1- FR may be shut down. (And no that is not an exaggeration)

McCrazy is every bit as much against freedom of the press and freedom of speech as B.J. junior is. What makes you think he would do anything different?

[GOPJ]

Hillary’s got the downscale lunchbox-racist vote. She must be veeeery proud.

[Red in Blue PA]

Re: The Clintons are markedly more dangerous in power than Obama would be

This bears repeating, over and over and.........

[Jeff Head]

McCain is a distant 4th choice for me for the GOP. Let’s make that clear. He is a ugly stain. It is simply that either Hillary or Obama would be far, far worse.

[bill1952]

Obama is the only dem that McCain CAN beat.

Hillary is unbeatable. If she takes the nomination she will take 30 -34 states in November.

Obama is a flash much like Dean, but with a different electoral and constituent equation.
Due to several intrinsic factors, not the least of which is the fact that he is taking traditional dem voters that are on the plantation away from hillary, but will not alter the general election with them as they always vote democrat anyway, he will be very vulnerable to several different election strategies.

Hillary will sweep us aside.

[Clemenza]

Rhode Island primary, March 4. Clinton has done well with downscale Catholic voters, which accounts for most of the Rhode Island electorate.

"Of cawse 'ill vote for Hil-LAH-ry over O-baw-ma! Wadda ya think we AHH, ReTAHHHHded?" (Bristol townie goes back to his Linguica and clams).

[Ancesthntr]

On every issue we have huge problems with McCain (ie. campaign finance, immigration, enviro issue, etc), we would lose the same ground and more with either Hillary or Obama.

With McCain, we at least have a chance to hold some ground in the WOT, on abortion, on the SCOTUS, and with taxes. We know we would lose big time on all of those with Obama or Hillary too.

That bears repeating. I'm no fan of McStain, never have been. In fact, the more time passes by, the more I dislike him. But the alternative is worse, far worse.

How sad our duty is - to pick the candidate you hate or fear the most, and vote for the other one, no matter the other one's qualities or record. But it IS (IMHO) our duty.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I think Mrs. Clinton’s “comeback” begins tonight in Wisconsin.

[LadyNavyVet]

“The Clintons are markedly more dangerous in power than Obama would be.”

I agree. Obama has no executive experience whatsoever. None. It would take him a year or so just to gear up. Hillary would hit the ground running and could do a whole lot more damage in four years than Obama. Why anyone voting in an open primary would vote to keep Hillary alive at this point is beyond me. “Take her out and remove all doubt.”

[Jeff Head]

I believe that in order to win, even with cross over help, that Hillary will alienate the black and far left vote so badly (and is already doing so) that many of them are likely to stay home and offset the many who will stay home because of McCain.

As bad as McCain is, as many issues as he has betrayed conservatives on, McCain would still not be as dangerous or as bad as either Hillary or Obama.

I believe Hillary will alienate the left and split that vote...I do not believe Obama will. Therefore I believe Hillary the much easier candidate to beat in November.

Only time will tell and God bless and preserve us because of ALL the bad choices we have left in this election.

[Danz Family]

I think my breakfast just came back:

[Antoninus]

The Clintons are markedly more dangerous in power than Obama would be.

Agreed. They'd be able to "hit the ground running" and do tremendous damage in the first year.

Hussein would still be learning the ropes by the time the mid-terms came around.

[palmer]

You need to read what people are telling you in this thread. For Hillary it’s all about power and the media will support her out of fear. With Obama, he will be more lefty and the media won’t be as supportive.

[DM1]

i agree hill should give us a better shot at winning than Obama
then again the “Bradley Effect” could come into play with Obama
hard to tell this far out

[Red in Blue PA]

Re: Therefore I believe Hillary the much easier candidate to beat in November.

But, if you are wrong, that could do severe damage to the Republic. Not a chance I would be comfortable with.

It’s not like we cannot envision what she would try to do.

[Ancesthntr]

Hillary will sweep us aside.

I don't underestimate the Clintons - not after 1992.

But.

If this primary season has shown anything, it has shown her vulnerabilities. No, I don't think that this has been scripted - that's too much power to ascribe to anyone. Also, if she wins it'll be because of some dirty tricks against and/or nasty comments about Obama, thereby alienating LOTS of blacks. If that happens, I don't see a high black turnout, leading not only to a Hillary loss, but also to losses in close Senate and House races...plus, of course, higher turnout by "angry white males" against Monica's ex-boyfriend's wife.

Anyhow, we need to do everything possible to avoid being lectured to and screamed at by that creature married to Hussein Obama - that creature makes Hillary look like Margaret Anderson from "Father Knows Best."