« Clinton And McCain Lead In Early California Returns
Hillary Clinton and John McCain Projected To Win California »
The Upshot: Democratic Edition
I don’t think anyone could have foreseen that the Democratic race would remain this close after Super Tuesday. Even with MSNBC calling California for Clinton (with only 15% counted — did we not learn something from Missouri?), it’s difficult to say that anyone truly “won” the day.
Clinton, to be sure, won some big-ticket blue states tonight: New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and probably California, plus Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. But even though it looks like he’ll fall short of the grand prize of the Golden State, Obama appears likely to win the majority of states today: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Utah, and probably Missouri and Alaska as well. Hardly a shabby haul.
For most the race, I argued that no movement was good movement for the front-runner Clinton. So long as the race dynamics didn’t change, she comes out ahead. But tonight, that’s been reversed, and my instinct is that Obama merely needed to keep steady in order to be well positioned down the line. After all, everyone agreed that the winds were changing in Obama’s favor — the only question was whether it was happening fast enough. If the race ended on Super Tuesday, it would end for Clinton. But it didn’t end today, and now we need to look at what’s next on the Democratic schedule these coming days.
Democrats have seven more primaries and caucuses in the immediate future (from February 9th – 12th), in
Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Maryland, D.C., and Virginia. From what we’ve seen today, I would strongly favor Obama in two: Nebraska and D.C.. Obama has thus far been dominant in the upper plains states, and D.C.’s overwhelmingly Black electorate should carry Obama there.
But what should be more disconcerting for Clinton is that none of the upcoming states match the profile of areas where she’s run strongest. Her bread-and-butter tonight was old-school, Northeastern liberal locales (NY, NJ, MA). None of the states coming up meet that profile. Maryland might be the closest, and superficially shares a lot in common with Massachusetts, where Clinton did quite well. But analysts are saying that Clinton won Massachusetts due to a mix of old-fashion machine politics and the support of blue collar factory workers. Neither is a major player in Maryland, which both has a far more influential Black vote and whose White populace tends to be more along the lines of Obama favoring “Latte liberals” than gruff union men. Clinton does have the backing of many of the state’s high profile Democrats — but ask Obama how well that turned out for him in (you guessed it) Massachusetts.
Louisiana I’d favor Clinton in, although Obama’s overall strength in the south gives me pause. But with Katrina still dispersing the state’s African-American population to the four corners of the nation, and the fact that Louisiana seems to have kept more than the usual amount of conservative “bubba” Democrats inside the fold (who would likely favor Clinton), I think she stands a very good chance to win there.
I think Maine favors Obama, though I admit my only grounds for this are that a) it’s a caucus, which Obama seems to do better in, and b) in terms of political outlook, the state seems most akin to Minnesota of the Super Tuesday states (it also bears an obvious resemblance to New Hampshire — but they don’t caucus). That wouldn’t normally be enough for me to render a prediction, except that I think Obama blew everyone in this state away with his crushing victory in Paul Wellstone’s old state. The flip-side of this is Washington state, where I favor Clinton for no stronger reason than Washington seems to be a nothing-special, comfortably blue state, and Clinton seems to do well in those environments where there isn’t some sort of latent movement politics going on.
Which leaves Virginia. Even a few years ago, I’d have put Virginia as Clinton territory in the primaries, no question. A significant chunk of Virginia Democrats seem to be precisely her cup of tea. But Virginia Democrats are energized right now. And they are energized because they can feel their state changing. They’ve won the governor’s mansion, twice in a row. They’re about to take control of both U.S. Senate seats. They’ve done precisely through the type of progressive but cross-over friendly campaign tactics that have exemplified the Obama campaign. In short, Obama reminds Virginians of what they’ve been doing already in their own state. Popular governor Tim Kaine is firmly behind Obama, and he to many is a symbol of the new Democratic energy in Virginia. That could give him the edge.
So, if we are to take my predictions as anything more than what you paid for them (which you shouldn’t), that would give Obama a five to two state edge in the next set of primaries (D.C., Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, and Virginia versus Louisiana and Washington). That would definitely shift the momentum firmly in his favor. And with the wind at his back, Obama may just sail to the nomination.
10 Responses to “The Upshot: Democratic Edition”
Virginia is solid for Obama. Why? Northern Virginia Democrats are wealthy and they love Obama. There are not enough Latinos, elderly voters or working class white Democrats for Hillary to win Virginia.
Louisiana will be closer because even after Katrina the black vote will go heavily for Obama. Hillary might win, but not by as much as TN, OK or AR. The state has not been entirely whitened as a result of Katrina.
Oh, I also disagree about Washington. Non-Hispanic Western states have gone heavily for Obama. Wealthy liberals in Seattle will take that state for Obama easily. Not enough elderly, Latino or working class white women to win it for Hillary.
David, I generally agree with your comments. My first thought on Louisiana was for Obama. But you make some good points and even after reading elrod's comments, I now agree with you and think Louisiana will probably go to Clinton. Thanks for the posting and thoughts.
elrod, I agree with you on WA state. Thanks for the observations.
Even if Clinton wins more of the vote and delegates tonight, I feel that Obama was the real winner. Not to sound racist, but there were white states and black states that voted for Obama. I think this is important because one of the questions around his candidacy is whether people believe he is electable. This shows that he is. It's amazing that he won Idaho. I know that he had four offices there and Clinton had none, so this shows the importance of a grassroots organization.
What strikes me the most is that in many cases when Obama won, he won with high percentages. At the time I'm writing this, Clinton's highest percentage was in Arkansas (69% to 27%). Her second highest was NY (57/40). Obama's highest percentage was Idaho with 80% (17% for Clinton). There are nine states which gave Obama 57% or higher of the vote. It seems that there is a lot of energy out there for Obama.
Because Obama won such a cross-section of America (and Missouri, always seen as a bellweather state), and won a greater number of states will give him great bragging rights. Even if Hill is ahead in delegate count and has perhaps a higher number of votes today. Still can't call it! Oh and one last thought- I got the sense that in some parts of the country Edwards supporters went to Obama, but in other areas his supporters went to HIllary. I really don't have an objective evidence, just something that struck me while watching the coverage. So yeah, Hillary may have come out ahead by pure numbers, but the race is far from over and Obama proved what he needed to (that he could attract a wide range of people).
BTW: I have CNN on TV and it seems that every few minutes (for what seems like forever now) they keep announcing, “This just in, the biggest prize, California, has just been decided. We are now calling it for HIllary Clinton.” I feel like I'm in a time loop. Forget the fact that only 30% of the vote is in….
Enjoy!
[...] The Upshot: Democratic Edition [...]
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
However, stockboysf, the precincts reporting in CA has moved from 15% to 49% as of 12:13 AM Pacific time, while the percentage of votes won by each candidate hasn't budged more than 2%. Unless the half that hasn't reported is overwhelmingly Obama (like 70/30), the projections of Clinton as winner are looking accurate.
I got off a long shift at work. Let me ask here, as I missed the results. It looks like, according to CNN, that there is a 6 delegate difference between H & O, with Hillary ahead by 100 delegates or so due mostly to Superdelegates who can change their mind.
As I see it, superdelegates can blow w the wind, and thus, we are in a virtual delegate tie, with the rest likely to jump ship if Obama can get a head of steam in states he does well in. It looks like the NE sanctum of Hillary is virtually done.
Is this about right?
The fact is, Clinton has regained her own momentum and remains the smart-money candidate. I'd prefer to see Obama win in addition to the obvious desire shared by so many Americans to see Clinton lose (sign on the White House as far as she and her husband are concerned should be clear: “KEEP OUT!”). The contest is now more serious than before and hopefully some of you may view it more realistically now. I hope Obama wins and Clinton loses; if he's elected, I share normal American concerns about his going too far left, but would happily give the guy a chance. And yes, he's much less painful to hear speak than Dubya.
“Wealthy liberals in Seattle will take that state for Obama easily.”
Don't forget the U-Dub and not-wealthy-yet high-tech “Nintendo Democrat” crowd.
The same is true for Portland metro, Corvallis, and Eugene (can toss in Salem as well if you feel optimistic for Mr. O)