Judgement Day Take Two

Paul Gronke

Judgment Day.  Super Tuesday Take Two.  Texas Two Step.  Young Latinos. It's NAFTA we're after.  Cuyahoga meltdown.  Are RI and VT holding primaries? 

Enough silly metaphors, time for the pundits to sit up and be counted.

Sorry I don't know how to make a poll or anything like that, so can I just list some options?  What's your call?

  1. Clinton wins OH and TX by more than 5%
  2. Clinton wins OH by more than 5% and TX by less than 5%
  3. Clinton wins OH and TX by less than 5%
  4. Clinton wins OH (name percent) and Obama wins TX by less than 5%
  5. Obama wins OH and TX by less than 5%
  6. Obama wins OH and TX by more than 5%
  7. And the complex outcome, Clinton wins OH and TX by small margins but Obama wins the Texas Two step.
  8. I don't really care, I'll be watching dance with the stars
  • (Show?)

    Obama wins Vermont, squeaks out RI in a surprise, gets beat in TX by less than 5% of the vote but wins more delegates thanks to the Texas two-step, and gets beat by more than 5% in Ohio.

    Oh, and "judgment" is spelled with one "e." (

  • Bill R. (unverified)

    Obama wins Tx by double digits in primary and gets another win in the caucus. ( So says Kos) Hillary wins OH by single digits. Obama wins Vt. by 30 plus. Obama squeaks a surprise win in RI.

  • (Show?)

    Damn you Jeff. You stole my guess.

    Suppose I have to differentiate myself ...

    Clinton wins OH by 4% Obama wins Texas by 1% but wins the two step. Obama wins VT and loses RI.

    And judgment allows alternative spellings.

  • genop (unverified)

    Clinton will win Texas due to cross over by Rethugs who prefer McCain's odds against Hillary. Apparently, only in Texas, one can be a life long Rethug and show up for the Democratic primary and vote Dem as well as caucus later. The Rethugs seem to be masters at gaming the system.

  • (Show?)

    Wish you hadn't Paul. In differentiating yourself from Jeff, you pretty much nailed my prediction.

    Clinton by 4% in OH. Obama by 6% in TX. Obama by 30% in VT. Clinton by 8% in RI.

    I hope I'm wrong about OH. I'd love to see this thing come to a close.

  • (Show?)

    I'm with Nate. Another issue that deserves our thought -- how long will Hillary stay in? How long SHOULD she stay in?

  • (Show?)

    popular vote shouldn't be how we judge. The question is, after today does Hillary eat into Obama's lead or fall further behind?

    I choose B. Even if he loses TX, he will finish with more delegates. Her only chance is a blowout in OH, which ain't happening.

  • helys (unverified)

    Latest (yesterday) Zogby, Reuters, Houston Chronicle poll puts Clinton ahead by two points in Texas, Clinton and Obama dead even in Ohio. Damn SNL and the Daily show. She has been campaigning morning noon and night and has some sympathy vote now she is officially the underdog. This will be close. I don't count her out.

  • Fair and Balanced (unverified)

    I did a quick-and-dirty analysis of the Texas Senate districts, based on the BurntOrangeReport.com demographic data, and as best I can make it, there are about 9 delegates in play if the margin is 50 plus or minus five percent. I was surprised to see that Clinton has the advantage because of the large number of small odd-numbered districts with more Hispanics than blacks. I give Obama 56-65 delegates and Clinton 61-70, depending on who "wins" the popular vote.

    I gather we won't have any estimates on the second stage for some time ... anybody know how long?

    My guess: Clinton wins Ohio and RI by 6%, Obama wins Texas by 4% and Vermont by 25%.

  • (Show?)

    Hillary wins Ohio by less than 5%. Obama wins Texas by more than 5%.

    Vermont - Obama.

    Rhode Island - Clinton.

  • (Show?)

    F&B-- I recall from BOR that the Latino-heavy districts are 5-delegates, but the heavy AA districts in Dallas and Houston are 7-delegates. Which to me suggests there is more opp for Obama to hold even or take the most.

  • (Show?)

    And judgment allows alternative spellings.

    And you take full advantage of the leeway, spelling it differently above and below (consistency, little minds, etc.). I believe the Brits keep the e, you sometime anglophile, you.

    As to our picks, since we're all sort of leaning the same direction, does this mean a) something really bizarre is about to transpire, or b) things are becoming more predictable?

    Time will tell.

  • (Show?)

    Clinton will take OH by less than 5%. Obama will take TX by less than 5%. It will be a blowout for Obama in VT, and Clinton will win RI by 6%. Chances of me watching Dancing with the Stars? 0%

  • Dale Thompson (unverified)

    Obama wins three (pick 'em) and Clinton wins one. Clinton's history!

  • (Show?)

    Chances of me watching Dancing with the Stars? 0%

    ROFL - ditto!

  • (Show?)

    Charlie Cook with an ouchie for Hillary...

    NBC political analyst Charlie Cook writes in his CongressDaily column, "[W]inning by slight percentages in Texas and Ohio aren’t real wins for Clinton. A ‘win’ would be anything that significantly closes the gap in delegates. Symbolic victories mean nothing at this point, other than encouraging her to plow ahead in this campaign, amassing a greater campaign debt than already exists and delaying her ability to get on with the next phase of her life."...

    OK, so I like it because it says what I said. :)

  • (Show?)

    A follow up on TJ from Jon Chait:

    For Clinton to pull ahead, she will need to win 57% of the remaining pledged delegates. To keep that number from rising even higher, they of course need to win 57% of the delegates on Tuesday, which would mean getting at least 213 delegates to Obama's 161 -- a 52 delegate advantage. If they net anything below 52 delegates, they fall even further behind. And, of course, even netting 52 delegates is hardly a big win. The Clinton campaign picked Texas and Ohio as its battleground because those states are particularly Clinton-friendly. The remaining primary states include several -- like Mississippi, Oregon, and North Carolina -- where Obama is likely to rack up major wins. That means that Clinton needs to gain well over 57% of the delegates in the states that are better for her.
  • (Show?)

    A majority of Democrats want Hillary to continue to seek the White House as long as she wins at least one of the big states today, according to a Washington Post / ABC News poll.

    I'm one of those Democrats. I think Hillary's an amazing woman and a great leader in the party. Her experience and competence should not be brushed aside by one campaign's impatience for power, nor should we as a party allow a media halo or blogospheric misanthropy (including its tailored-to-Hillary shape, misogyny) to dictate our choice of candidate.

    Of the three serious contenders (Clinton, Obama, McCain) I still see the best possible President in 2009 in Hillary Clinton. It's heartening to know how many Democrats out there feel the same.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)

    My mind says that I think Nate and Kevin are pretty close to the mark.

    My heart says, "GO OBAMA" Let's sweep this!!

  • Garlynn -- undergroundscience.blogspot.com (unverified)

    Just to be way off-

    Obama wins all four. RI by not very much, Vermont by a landslide, Texas by a little bit, Ohio by more than 5%.

    And, I don't own a T.V., so no dancing with the stars for me.

  • (Show?)

    I'm an Obama supporter, but there will be some good in a Hillary win tonight, particularly for Oregon. If Hillary stays in the race until Oregon, that means that there will be HUGE numbers of voters going to the polls. In turn, that means that the many public service levies on the ballot across the state that require passage by a double majority have a much better chance. So, my heart says Go Obama, but my pro-public service sector head says Keep it Up, Hillary (just so Obama wins in the end).

  • Fair & Balanced (unverified)

    F&B-- I recall from BOR that the Latino-heavy districts are 5-delegates, but the heavy AA districts in Dallas and Houston are 7-delegates. Which to me suggests there is more opp for Obama to hold even or take the most.

    TJ: Yes... but! The thing to remember in these district-type elections is how you get extra delegates. In a very close contest, almost all the districts with even numbers will be split evenly, so the delegates "in play" are almost all in districts with 3, 5 or 7 delegates allotted. In Texas there are NINE districts with 3 delegates and Hispanic pluralities over blacks, so I have to give Clinton a good chance to take most of those 2-1. There are three districts with 5 or 7, which may be advantageous to Obama given where they are. So, given a 50-50 split in total, I think Clinton would tend to win the first delegate round by about 6. Since the caucus round works differently, Obama would probably recoup at least that number, but only after the district and state conventions later on.

  • (Show?)

    Jeff, it means great minds think alike!

  • Miles (unverified)

    Okay, TJ and Jeff, let me play devil's advocate. Yes, Clinton will have to win very large margins to close the gap in delegates before the convention. But if Obama loses Ohio or Texas, what does that say about his overall strength? Put another way, after a dozen straight victories, tons of momentum, and two straight weeks of uninterrupted focused campaigning, why is he not able to put Clinton away?

    I'm an Obama supporter. I want to see him win. But two weeks ago I told my friends that I thought he'd win Texas and Ohio because the momentum was clearly with him. No way Clinton could stop the tidal wave. And he may still do it (and already has won Vermont -- yay!). But if he doesn't, it's okay to ask: What happened? Throw the delegate counts out the window, Obama needs to run strong in large coastal states (NY, CA) and large blue collar states (OH, TX). If he can't, Clinton is justified in pushing this nominating contest to the limit.

  • (Show?)


    I think you are confusing general election viability the nomination viability.

    CA and NY are Democratic locks, no matter if Clinton or Obama is on the ticket. TX is a GOP lock.

    In fact, if you really want to know how the general will play out, you need to look at 6-10 states (FL, NM, CO, OH, WV, AR, TN are at least seven).

    The reason he can't put Clinton away is the same reason that Jackson hung in in 1988, the same reason Hart hung in in 1984: the proportional nature of the Democratic nomination system. And Clinton was always a much stronger challenger than any of the not-presumptive-nominees for the past 20 years.

    The most comparable contest, seems to me, is Ford/Reagan

    As long as the not-presumptive-nominee doesn't run out of money, he or she will hang in there and win delegates.

  • (Show?)

    CNN reporting Obama ahead 438k to 305k in Texas ... with 1% reporting.

    That's quite a turnout.

  • (Show?)

    And to add to Paul's analysis, Obama's still substantially ahead in the popular vote, less so if you include FL and MI (and you can't since Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI), but he still has a lead. Unless the bizarre happens (and it may, given our unanimity here!), he should still hold a lead in total votes cast.

  • (Show?)

    RE: Texas...

    One thing to remember is that in Texas, African Americans turn out in much higher numbers than Hispanics. This trend seemed to be continuing since areas with high Hispanic numbers weren't seeing as high of turnout as areas with large African American populations. In some of these areas, turnout was 10 times higher - compared to about 4 times higher for areas with a large number of Hispanics. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues.

  • Jack Murray (unverified)
    Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Mar 4, 2008 5:27:48 PM CNN reporting Obama ahead 438k to 305k in Texas ... with 1% reporting. That's quite a turnout.

    Apparently that has to do with early voting results.

    And your earlier bold prediction was wrong--Clinton wins RI.

  • (Show?)

    Yeah, I got optimistic at the last second. ON my own blog I didn't. But everything else is coming to pass...

  • (Show?)
    But if Obama loses Ohio or Texas, what does that say about his overall strength? Put another way, after a dozen straight victories, tons of momentum, and two straight weeks of uninterrupted focused campaigning, why is he not able to put Clinton away?

    Because it required popular vote math he was uphill against all the way. And yet that's not what they're organizing for; they're organizing for delegates. Which it looks like they will win handily in Texas. In a week or so, when Obama's won another couple of "meaningless" states and people starting checking the math again, they'll discover that--remember back when?--for Clinton to have a chance she'd need to skunk Obama in both states where she already had solid leads. She failed to do it in either. Todd predicted a single digit delegate win in Ohio, with Obama in single digits in TX primary, with an expected win in the caucus to bring him even on the night at worst, up in delegates at best.

    There is not enough pie left, no matter how long she goes. Obama did what he needed to do to win, although Clinton did what she needed to justify to herself and her supporters that she should continue. And it's great for Dem party building in every state they go to, so why not? As long as Clinton shapes up and cleans herself of the slime, it's best on balance for the party--and may well be even with the slime.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)

    hey Mr. Paul,

    When the Super delegates vote, will that be in a public or private ballot? In other words, will we know how each super delegate voted?


connect with blueoregon