« Hillary Clinton’s “Pyrrhic Victory?”
Open Letter to Hillary »



Obama Wins Mississippi Primary

March 11th, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief

Print Print

Democratic Senator Barack Obama has defeated Senator Hillary Clinton in the Mississippi primary — and although this is already being billed as giving Obama “Big Mo” once again, polls showed he has been almost universally favored to win that state for months:

Democrat Barack Obama easily beat rival Hillary Clinton in Mississippi on Tuesday, giving him new momentum in their heated presidential fight as they head to the next showdown in Pennsylvania in six weeks.

Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, rode a wave of heavy black support to victory and extended his lead over Clinton in pledged delegates to the August nominating convention. The Illinois senator also won on Saturday in Wyoming.

Clinton revived her hopes in the Democratic race last week by beating Obama in primaries in Ohio and Texas, prolonging their bitter Democratic fight for the right to face Republican John McCain in November’s presidential election.

“What we have tried to do is steadily make sure that in each state we are making the case about the need for change in this country, and obviously the people of Mississippi responded,” Obama said in an interview on CNN.


The Boston Globe had a different take on it:

Senator Barack Obama notched another victory over Senator Hillary Clinton in today’s Mississippi Democratic primary, further demonstrating his appeal in the Deep South but adding fuel to Clinton’s argument that his success in the nomination race is built tenuously on states where Democrats face dim prospects in November.

Obama, in one of the most racially polarized contests yet, was handily defeating Clinton 55 percent to 43 percent with about a third of precincts reporting tonight, picking up most of the 33 delegates at stake and expanding his overall delegate lead of more than 100. Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, campaigned vigorously in Mississippi, but Obama’s win was widely expected.

Tellingly, neither candidate was anywhere near Mississippi while voters went to the polls. Both were campaigning in Pennsylvania, whose April 22 primary is the next big prize in their protracted and increasingly bitter battle and where recent polls have shown Clinton leading by between four to 19 percentage points.

Obama’s win in Mississippi, together with his 24-percentage-point victory in Wyoming’s caucuses on Saturday, are his latest triumphs in smaller states that, if history is any guide, will be irrelevant to Democrats in the general election: Mississippi has not voted for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976; Lyndon Johnson, in 1964, was the last Democrat to win Wyoming.

So Obama gets some more delegates. And even though he was expected to win this one, in what clearly turned out to be voting along racial lines, the bottom line is that with the additional delegates and media coverage, it does enhance Obama’s image as the frontrunner.

The next REALLY big prize: Pennsylvania in April.



This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 11th, 2008 at 6:40 pm and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Primaries, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 Elections, Democrats, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 12 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    The not-so-subtle suggestion in the "Obama isn't winning big Democratic states" message is that since he wins big in Wyoming and Mississippi but didn't win New York, California, and other solidly Democratic states that he's not going to win the big Democratic states in the general election. The reality is that the devil will be skiing on the day that John McCain wins California. Obama's appeal is aimed squarely at the less-partisan elements of his party, which means he has to work a bit harder to win the hardcore Democrats but brings along a larger swath of moderate voters.

    There may be a valid argument to be made that Hillary is winning more traditional Democrats than Obama and is thus more "deserving" of being the Democratic nominee, but there is an equally valid argument to be made that Obama is creating a new generation of Democrats by attracting moderates. This election is thus about what it means to be a Democrat, and whether the party consolidates the base at the expense of attracting new members, or risks losing some members while attracting new faces and new ideas.
    • ^
    • v
    Ryan: what this all means is Hillary is eking out wins in her base, while Obama is winning legions of new potential Democrats. Which is a better fall position?
    • ^
    • v
    For a moment, it looked like party leaders were marching toward a Florida revote. But Obama's campaign signaled today that the mechanics would be an obstacle, and Florida's congressional delegation just took a hard line against a re-vote in a joint statement:

    Washington, DC – The Members of Florida’s Democratic Delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives issued the following statement regarding the seating of Florida’s delegates at the DNC National Convention this August.

    “We are committed to working with the DNC, the Florida State Democratic party, our Democratic leaders in Florida, and our two candidates to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated.

    “Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind.”


    h/t Politico

    As I recall that one gave Clinton a 40+ net delegate win
    • ^
    • v
    CO: But that's because neither O nor Edwards campaigned there. had they it likely would have resulted in less than a handful of delegates one way or the other. That's why there needs to be a revote. If one side plays by the rules and the other cheats, you cannot count the results as fairly won.
    • ^
    • v
    And while Dean has been a lackluster party head, he's 100% right on this one- Florida screwed themselves, and they have to pay for a redo.
    • ^
    • v
    cosmo: I suspect the answer to the question of whether it is better to strengthen the base or increase the party size while alienating some members of the base is one that people will answer differently depending on whether or not they are a member of that base. A lifelong Democrat who vehemently disagrees with Obama is a reliable party-line voter; a new "Obamacan" could potentially be a one-election voter who may not vote "D" for candidates other than Obama. My sympathies lie with the longer-term strategy, but it's understandable that risking the "automatic" voter makes some people nervous.
    • ^
    • v
    'A lifelong Democrat who vehemently disagrees with Obama is a reliable party-line voter; a new "Obamacan" could potentially be a one-election voter who may not vote "D" for candidates other than Obama. My sympathies lie with the longer-term strategy, but it's understandable that risking the "automatic" voter makes some people nervous.'

    You posit a false dichotomy. The war and economy pretty much ensure all but a few Feminazi Hill Shillers will vote Obama, just as most Obamaheads will vote Clinton, even if she screws him.

    But, Hillary has no pull with Indies or Reps, O does. That's why she has a far greater chance of losing to Big Mac than he does.
    • ^
    • v
    cosmo: I'm not sure if I fall under the heading of "Obamahead", but I'm not sure who I would support between Clinton and McCain. Four years ago I would have said McCain with no question, but the fact that he has completely caved on the issue of torture, supports a very militaristic approach to Iraq, and spent much of 2007 pandering to the religious right makes it a tougher choice.

    There seem to be a fair number of people like myself who have not signed on to either party in the past but are trending "D" just because we're attracted to Obama's message of making government less about politics and more about running the country. If Clinton is the nominee it pushes me back into the middle, but at the same time people like Holly in Cincinnati (and she claims there are many like her) say they will leave the Democrats if Obama gets the nomination.
    • ^
    • v
    'If Clinton is the nominee it pushes me back into the middle, but at the same time people like Holly in Cincinnati (and she claims there are many like her) say they will leave the Democrats if Obama gets the nomination.'

    Show me a single post or link Holly has put up where she shows a single bit of rational thought.

    Her posts are either silly: http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/...
    or her comments sillier: 'If Obama wins I will leave the Democrats.'

    There is no data to support such, and it's just a case of the loser's side whining. Here is an example of her 'analysis':

    http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blo...

    Holly: Sen. Obama is neither qualified nor electable. My Democratic Party will kill itself AND lose in November if it nominates Sen. Obama.

    My reply:

    My analysis:

    1) O has a delegate lead
    2) O has about a 6-799k popular vote lead
    3) there is no way Hillary will be able to make either deficit up
    4) she will end up, at best, down 120 or so delegates, and down 500k+ votes
    5) that's at best
    6) the Dems will not commit hari-kiri by pulling a Bush 2000 and selecting Hillary
    7 because the Obamaheads wd walk, and Big Mac would kill Hill the Chill
    8) because O will not take a VP slot when he shd be the #1 guy
    9) black people would pull a Rodney King if the first black Prez candidate w a real shot at winning is screwed
    10) Obama is more electable because he can win in states Hillary cannot
    11) because Hillary is eking out wins in the traditional Dem strongholds
    12) but O is blowing her out in Red states
    13) therefore, Hill's campaign against Mac wd be a defensive one cuz no red state will go blue for her
    14) because she has no appeal to Indies
    15) while O does appeal to Indies more than Mac
    16) and O draws Rep voters, while Hill does not
    17) therefore a Mac-O matchup would put Mac on the defensive and O on the offensive
    18) because O can win Red states
    19) and he's done this all by actually living up to his promise not to fight dirty
    20) where Hill only has dirt left and will lose fairly.

    Any questions?

    I ask you, which is the more well reasoned and supported argument?
    • ^