T.A., who ever said that Clinton had a big win in Texas? The only thing really "big" about it was the big amount the Obama campaign spent compared to her. And of course the big turnout, which is good for all Democrats.

Hillary's big win was in Ohio, where she won by 12 points and won among moderates who are supposed to be Obama's firewall.

If Obama can't beat Clinton in Ohio there's no way he'll beat a Republican there; it's too close a swing state and he obviously does not have the appeal to rank-and-file Democrats there, or to the moderates. I foresee PA being similar.

But let's talk other states. Add Florida to the list of states Obama will never, ever win: he ticked off voters by refusing to stand up for their delegates and a majority of FL Democrats now say they'll vote for McCain if Obama's the nominee.

So Obama can't win Florida or Ohio, and might lose PA. OK, maybe he'll win Virginia which Kerry didn't win, though there's no guarantee that state won't return to McCain before it's done. But here's a great one: he could easily lose New Jersey where McCain now polls ahead of him by a considerable margin (but where Hillary comfortably beats McCain). And even with Kennedy and Kerry he's tied with McCain in Massachusetts while Hillary leads there by 9 points. And she's competitive against McCain in Ohio and at least within striking distance in Florida.

Now I know that nationally Obama polls better against McCain, but those who have followed Obama's campaign closely should be the first to point out that national margins can evaporate in state-by-state battles.

None of this is meant to imply that Obama will never be President. But it isn't going to happen in 2008 as I see the states and the trends. He does not have time to heal the rift with Florida, or to acquire the working-class grit or commander-in-chief gravitas necessary to win the general in places like Ohio and possibly even New Jersey. If you want to call Obama's Texas loss a small one, fine, but I'd rather have him barely lose the nomination now than lose big to McCain in Novemeber.

As for me, I'm doing all I can to put a Democrat in the White House in 2009, and it's the woman who barely won Texas yesterday.

This is a good example of a turgid and stupid post.

Incidentally, you should read up on statistics, there is no "margin of error" in an actual vote count. The 95,000 vote lead of Clinton is her actual lead. It is not a "margin of error".

Incidentally, you apparently did not see the actual 60 Minutes piece where you claim Clinton said that Obama was not a muslim "as far as I know". Don't repeat idiotic things, sir.

Here's the actual transcript:

“You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?” Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

“Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that,” she replied.

“You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…,” Kroft said.

“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said.

“It's just scurrilous…?” Kroft inquired.

“Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors, that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time,” Clinton said.

Since Hillary has won all the major states, the Superdelegates should give her the Democratic nomination. Obama has won more states, but most of those red states will vote for McCain in November. In other words, he won in states that won't vote for him in November.

Obama will get creamed in a general election. He will lose "Archie Bunker" types in Ohio, he will lose hispanics in Florida, Nevada, New Mexico... in other words, he will lose. You can't easily put together a winning strategy without Florida and Ohio. We know PT Barnum here will vote for him, but the rest of America... not so much.

Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. The writing is on the wall. Bloggers just don't see it yet.

Any facts to support your claim Peter or have we regressed into pure supposition now?

goldenstate,

Great point, you are only a real democrat if you live in a blue state. If you are a democrat in a red state your vote should only only count if you are voting the exact same way as the blue states.

You that that logic is a great why for our party to end up with 259 electoral votes.

Mostly pure speculation.

OK, just checking.

Why are you people even citing general election polls at this point? Dukakis, Kerry and even Ross Perot all have two things in common: 1. They all won general election polls at some point in their election years 2. They all ultimately lost. Its far too early to put so much stock in these polls. My opinion: whoever has the most pledged delegates should win. Easy and democratic.

I am not an Obama supporter, but it seems the arguments I am reading from Clinton supporters are pretty weak. Is that the best the Clinton campaign can generate?

The news media certainly did play up Clinton's win in Texas, even though it seems she picked up little or nothing in delegate votes. She earned momentum in the world of buzz, but not in the votes that determine nomination.

"But I bet Dean will work for it; he doesn't want to go down as the guy who disenfranchised two states and forced them both into the Republican column in the general."

Wouldn't it be smarter for the states to submit a proposal to Dean in a way the rules specify? Florida's Republican government made the primary early--that was Dean's fault?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87928836 was a great interview, which made me proud Howard Dean is the chair.

But then, as someone who once was involved in the process of re-writing delegate selection rules, I am glad someone talks about what would be within the rules and what wouldn't.

Otherwise, let's tell the folks who run for president in 2012 that there can be no rules by the parties--it will all be decided by the states and candidates.

It is long past time that the whole Superdelegate system and all the other rules be debated openly. Maybe the Denver convention (or something like the Fairness Comm. after 1984 or the Hunt Comm. which created Superdelegates after the convention) can do that. But it needs to be a serious, fair, and neutral effort, not one done to benefit a certain candidate. That way lies the problems which created the process to rewrite delegate selection rules regularly.

Mr. Civaletti:

You may be right. Perhaps Obama is up in the "votes that determine nomination". Presumably you mean the pledged delegates. Because, after all, Clinton is ahead in the POPULAR vote (via abcnews.com and nbc)... but we all know that that doesn't count for anything now don't we?

Peter

The Obama campaign reminds me of the Howard Dean campaign and operation. Come midterms, things get a bit thin. Not to mention, if Obama has the strongest Dem campaign "ever", how is that Clinton is beating him in the popular vote?

The fact of the matter is that we will probably have another 2000 on our hands. Clinton will assuredly win the popular vote, especially when Florida and Michigan are included. Obama probably will win the delegate count, but not by enough to win. And so superdelegates will come into play, and they will probably side with Clinton. Despite defections and the supposed 50 in the wing, most have gone for Clinton so far, and most undecideds will break her way.

...and now that the DNC has been exposed as having no bite, who's with me in pushing Oregon's primary up into December?

I find it rather stunning to see the ease with which the Clinton supporters would like to effectively disenfranchise the black people of Mississippi. Their votes, in the minds of Clinton supporters, should count less than those of the white "Reagan Democrats" of Ohio and Pennsylvania.

How "Democratic." How disgusting!

Hard to imagine the discussion here would be so nasty if there weren't effectively a TIE. For example, the popular vote tabulations I have seen are inconsistent. One person above links to a site showing Clinton slightly ahead, but this one shows the opposite. (I think Clinton's nominal lead is tied up with the Michigan vote.)

Hillary Clinton will win and will be the next president.

Thank you God

So, Chris...He does not have time to...acquire the working-class grit...Would that be like Hillary's "working-class grit" that she acquired while working on Walmart's board or maybe by working for a conservative senator who opposed civil rights?...or commander-in-chief gravitas necessary to win the general in places like Ohio and possibly even New Jersey....Would that be like the "gravitas" that Hillary displayed when she mocked a message of hope and unity? Or maybe the Bush version of "gravitas" she showed when playing up a message of fear?

Sorry, but Obama has both grit and gravitas. He worked in the streets of Chicago to make things better for the people who lived there and turned down cushy corporate jobs so he could teach constitutional law. He has conducted himself throughout his campaign with dignity, graciousness, and a positive attitude. He is the one candidate encouraging us to think, to hope, to get involved and believe that we can individually make a difference. That's why he's getting my vote.

What I find really ODD about the whole Texas discussion, is that we have swept under the carpet the whole Republican vote for Hillary that Rush Limbaugh advocated.

From what I have seen in the TV media, it appears that over 200,000 Republicans voted in the Democratic primary (which really should become a discussion point about open primaries). It appears that over half of these were motivated by the Rush Limbaugh call to vote for Hillary to extend the Democratic Primary season. Hillary won the popular vote by less than 100,000. E.g. the manipulation of the open primary by a Republican operative tipped the election from a virtual tie or possible win by Obama to a win for Hillary.

Ah, Democracy at its best! Manipulation, lies, and misdirection.

The Texas caucus vote will result in plus 7 for Obama. The combined will be a plus 5 for Obama. So it's a win for Obama in Texas in actual delegates. That partially cancels the delegate gain for Clinton in Ohio and RI. The result for Mar. 4, a gain of 4 delegates net for Clinton. A landslide!

The Mar. 4 election did little to change the reality of the delegate race. It meant that Hillary has even less chance now of winning legitimately because she got a net four delegates. She has no pathway to the nomination. So her only pathway is to leverage the supers. And they must realize by now that Obama and supporters will walk if the nomination is rigged. Reportedly Obama will trot out in the next weeks a number of supers in order to neutralize that threat in the coming days and weeks.

What Mar. 4 proved is what we all know, it's easier to damage your opponent than it is to make your own case. So with the 60 million Obama has in the bank and the encouragement of his supporters he can now open up all the closets of the Clintons and pull out the skeletons that are there, and we know they are in abundance, and skewer them. That may help his case, and will destroy the already damaged Clinton reputation, but does it help make the case against McCain? Is this what elections are about? The Clintons have let loose the dogs of war, and are determined to rig the nomination, so what we have is war. This forum is ample evidence of that. The sooner the threat of the rigged nomination is put to rest,the better.

I came into the primary season having a good deal of respect for Hillary Clinton and being undecided as to whether I would prefer her or Obama. The underhanded tactics she's used, especially in the last month, have caused me to lose all respect for her. The worst thing, to me, is her campaign's contention that the FL and MI delegates should be given to her without holding new elections. The people of those states had been told that the election wouldn't count, and voted (or didn't vote) with that knowledge, and Hillary's suggestion that the results should be counted goes against every principle of ethics and fairness that we Democrats are supposed to stand for. The Clinton supporters here that keep referring to the FL and MI results are also being disingenuous.

I also think that emphasizing her experience vs. Obama will work against her in the long run. If she somehow were to get the nomination as the "experienced" candidate, how would she fare against McCain on that score?

What it really comes down to, though, is that there's no way she'll be ahead of Obama in committed delegates at the time of the convention. The math doesn't add up. So by staying in the race, what she's saying to me is that she expects the superdelegates to subvert the will of the voters. That would be disastrous.

Check out the Slate Delegate Calculator to see what kind of results would be required to achieve the minimum number of delegates.

Spin vs. Pledged Delegates

Despite the spin Obama moved closer to the nomination on Tues. Clinton's opportunity to increase her delegate count was effectively removed with relatively small victories in Ohio and a virtual tie in Tx in the primary and a loss in the caucuses. Her strategy of writing off the small states,of not having grass roots bottom up organization spelled her defeat. She has come away now with a mere four delegates from Tues. That will be more than trumped with big victories in Wy and Miss this week by Obama. The clock is running out and she would have to have 65% victories in every remaining state to win the majority of pledged delegates. Any attempt by party insiders to rig the election for her would result in the destruction of the party. I'm beginning to realize that will not happen fortunately. They realize what a catastrophe that would be for the entire party. Obama is holding the cards, despite all the media spin.

The delegate math. On Tuesday, Barack Obama cut the number of delegates he needs to win a majority of pledged delegates from 425 to 272. He needs just 1672 pledged delegates to have a majority and claim to the nomination. The pattern of delegate wins is inexorable and the money keeps rolling in, and the grass roots organization keeps doing its work.

The Clintonites can keep spinning and spinning but it doesn't change the math. Chuck Todd did explain it fairly well on election night on MSNBC about the fact that Clinton has no pathway of legitimacy to the nomination, even though Todd didn't yet realize how paltry the delegate haul would be for Clinton on that night.

Its pretty disingenuous to include Michigan, a state where obama wasn't even on the ballot, in Hillary's popular vote total. Mark, is that you?

It's also cherry-picking to only include states where primaries were held, and ignore states where caucuses were held. We do have a measure that includes both, though - the delegate total.

Except that Obama got more delegates in TX. It's like losing a baseball game 6-4, and claiming you won because you got 13 hits to your opponents' 11. That's not the column they pay off on.

Peter,

Actually, popular vote does not count for much under our presidential electoral system, both primary and general. And the primary count is less important if it includes meaningless primaries like Florida and Michigan, and fails to factor in the many stastes that hold caucuses.

Chris,

I flipped through cable news channels on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, and the talking heads were indeed playing up the Texas win. They are all B-grade pundits as far a I am concerned [with the possible exception of Olbermann].

As to weak arguments, how about these:

"Obama will get creamed in a general election. He will lose "Archie Bunker" types in Ohio, he will lose hispanics in Florida, Nevada, New Mexico... in other words, he will lose. You can't easily put together a winning strategy without Florida and Ohio. We know PT Barnum here will vote for him, but the rest of America... not so much."

"Tom, yes John Edwards apologized after he ran for Vice-President and before he announced to run for President again. It's a distinction without a difference."

"Moreover, why is "an explanation of [Obama's] loss" even a useful concept? It's not as though any candidate is owed anyone's vote. And people make choices for all sorts of reasons, so of which would seem nonsensical to you or me."

"Obama will get creamed in the general election. While he may be winning in pledged delegates, he is either up slightly, or down, depending on which source you use, in the popular vote. In other words, his support, even among Democrats, is thin."

And this last one from you:

"I'll read this afternoon, but a brief conjecture: I don't think McCain will make any issue of her vote on the authorization, that's illogical since he voted for it as well. He objected to the Rumsfeld conduct of the war (too few troops in McCain's opinion), not the authorization vote. In fact Hillary's vote disarms to an extent his argument that she would not protect American interests or support the military."

The problem is not that Clinton's pro-war vote disadvantages her versus McCain, it is that it disadvantages her as a national leader. It was wrong morally. It was wrong strategically. She refuses to admit it was wrong.

The Michigan and Florida situation will be interesting. I understand Carville is saying there should be primaries so it includes the greatest number of people and Obama is saying whatever the DNC decides. Maybe there have been other remarks which I haven't heard.

And Steve, one thing I heard was that people who showed up to vote in the Dem. presidential primary were given a straight Dem. ballot, so if they'd had a Republican primary they felt strongly about down ballot (Congress, etc.) tough luck--and the Rush voters apparently hadn't realized that.

That Slate delegate calculator is pretty swift. Entering my predictions, it shows Obama with about a 200 delegate lead at the end of the primaries. That includes wins for Clinton in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, some dead heats, but, based on previous primary and caucus results, larger margins of victory for Obama in Mississippi, North Carolina and most of the so-called red states. (I have him winning 54-46 in Oregon). Thus he needs a little over 300 of the super delegates for the nomination.

The Clinton argument that she has won the big Democratic states seems to turn reality on its head. Clinton has won all the states and are so blue they won't be in play in the general election. Can you imagine New York or California going for McCain? With the exception of Ohio, Obama has won swing states such as Virginia and Wisconsin.

Didn't Obama do a big TV ad push just before the Florida primary? And weren't all the names on the ballot?

Mr. Barnhart:

To call Clinton's "attacks" Rovian or Atwaterian, as you do, is a serious disservice to Mssrs. Rove and Atwater! If you somehow equate Clinton's "red phone" ad as on par with, say, the Willie Horton ad then you are revealing a serious lack of perspective.

Perhaps you care to explain?

Ugh, I can't stand the spin from either side. But as an Obama supporter I'm going to ask my fellow supporters to be honest about what's going on. Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas were BIG, because they gave her legitimacy to continue the race. It has nothing to do with how much she won by (although Ohio was pretty big) or even delegate count. It means that Clinton was the preferred Democrat in those two states, and that cannot be minimized.

T.A. says, correctly: Simply keeping even, as Hillary did on Tuesday, means the leader is still the leader: Barack Obama.

Yes, Obama is still likely to get the nomination (although I disagree with those who say Clinton CAN'T get the nomination, because the absurd Democratic party reliance on superdelegates puts it within her reach). But you're failing to ask the important questions: Why couldn't Obama close the deal in Ohio and Texas? The poll numbers from a few months or weeks ago are totally irrelevant to the race we've had since February 5th. Obama racked up an incredible streak of wins, got great press coverage, and showed off his campaign's organization prowess. For two weeks the focus was solely on Ohio and Texas, but in the end more Democrats in those states preferred Clinton over Obama.

That poses a serious legitimacy problem for Obama. Why isn't his message resonating with working class Democrats? With middle-aged women? With hispanics? What does he need to do to convince them that he is the best candidate for President?

Miles: That poses a serious legitimacy problem for Obama. Why isn't his message resonating with working class Democrats? With middle-aged women? With hispanics? What does he need to do to convince them that he is the best candidate for President?

Legitimacy flows from winning in a democratic process. And as you well know, the political social reality is not uniform from state to state. Sadly we are in a country that is wedded to identity politics. The Hispanics in Texas are not the Hispanics elsewhere. Obama has won the Hispanic vote elsewhere. Women are likely to vote for Hillary because she's a woman and so on... Putting together consistent majorities in a majority number of states against a well known dynastic incumbent is tough road but Obama has managed it. In the remaining states he will continue to do that. He may not win Penn. but he will be close. He pulled from 20 pt deficits to being nearly even in Texas and ten pts in Ohio. Not bad... and would have done better if not for the NAFTA flap at the last minute. Point is.. he's done the process, run a 50 state campaign and won the most delegates. That's legitimacy, not the occasional win here and there or spinning in the media.

Miles said: Yes, Obama is still likely to get the nomination (although I disagree with those who say Clinton CAN'T get the nomination, because the absurd Democratic party reliance on superdelegates puts it within her reach)

Politically and numerically it's impossible for Clinton to win honestly. The Obama campaign is not going to collapse and Clinton is not going to get 65% of every remaining primary or caucus. I think the party would be well warned not to push that agenda. Don't think for a moment that Obama and supporters will support a Clinton candidacy if the nomination is stolen. It would be the end of the party.

Electability?

There are lots of uninformed opinions thrown out here about electability, and how Obama, because he's black, somehow isn't electable. It just doesn't match up. Well, Survey USA has done a 50 state matchup. They are pretty good, and at this stage who knows really? One notable point of interest, in the survey Obama wins Oregon over McCain, Hillary loses Oregon. Otherwise it's pretty close and both win the electoral college. Something here for both sides.

Obama wins over McCain 280-260 Clinton wins over McCain 276-262

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/surveyusa_hillary_and_obama_wi.php

Jenni -

I recall seeing on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning that MSNBC exit polls showed apparent self identification by voters as being 9% Republican voters in the Democratic primary. With about 5 million votes, that is a large number!

LT -

Again, from the TV media and radio (I have had little contact with print media this week), Rush Limbaugh's clones were reported to be calling into Texas conservative talk shows and discussing on conservative blogs how upset they were that once they got past their votes for Hillary, they couldn't vote down the ticket for any Republicans! (Yikes, here I am the better part of 2,000 miles from Texas, and I understand their voting system better than the Limbaugh clones. What a sad statement about civic's education!)

-- Somewhere, sometime, someone should look at under voting indicators for the Republican primary and figure out if in fact what I think happened (Republicans manipulated the election) or not.

Legitimacy flows from winning in a democratic process.

Bush won in 2000 in a democratic process (yes, the judiciary is part of our democracy), but I wouldn't call it legitimate. Obama supporters are arguing that his loss of the popular vote in Texas doesn't matter because he got more delegates, which is similar to Bush's win in 2000 and doesn't convey the aura of legitimacy that I want Obama to have.

Politically and numerically it's impossible for Clinton to win honestly.

I'm a strong opponent of the superdelegate system, but I wouldn't call it "dishonest". It's the system we have, and the rules that everyone plays by. Obama cannot win the nomination without using superdelegates either. You and I agree that the candidate with the most pledged delegates should be the winner, and we would also agree that doing anything else will rip the party apart, but I think there's a 20-30% chance of that happening.

Assume Clinton wins PA, and Obama wins the rest. But Clinton also wins the revotes in Fl and MI. Clinton will enter the convention with something like 100 fewer delegates than Obama which she may be able to make up in supers. It's not numerically impossible -- after all, about 241 supers are standing with her right now, despite her shortfall in pledged delegates.

Nobody is in doubt about my dislike of Hillary. Ok, that is based on specific and real issues and I am not shy nor soft spoken on them. I'd suggest Peter and Chris and some others, including Obama types use facts and clearly reasoned critiques. You simply wind up looking stupid, ignorant and recklessly partisan by using junk. If you've got nothing more than BS maybe you need to re-think your commitment.

A Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket is a dream team for the Democrats. Each has the possibility of winning the general election and as individuals they get voters from different segments of the Democratic Party. Together they compliment each other based on voter appeal and on opposing Senator John McCain.

How can one of them save face and agree to be vice president? Who could negotiate such a union? How do you persuade one of these two historic candidates, with obviously huge egos, to give up when they believe they will win?

actually, Miles, it's not so certain more Dems did prefer Clinton.

Even if that argument can be made for Texas, it cannot be made for Ohio. Obama lost, big time. Republican crossovers cannot account for the 12-point defeat. And I also think blaming it on Republicans is a real insult to the hundreds of thousands of true blue Democrats who voted for Clinton.

i don't know why you're discounting what happened, and what the polls were

We said the same thing on Super Tuesday about NY, NJ, and CA: "Well, he made up a huge amount in the polls." Now we're saying it again four weeks later. So why can't he put Clinton away? I think it's important to understand why Obama isn't appealing to certain large segments of the Democratic party. Yes, they'll probably come home in the general, but it sure would be easier if we could reach out to them now.

Obama has one more chance to knock Clinton out in PA. If he fails there, this is going to the convention with all of the chaos and division that brings. What happened in TX and OH is not a cause for celebration among Obama supporters.

She'll be about 150 delegates behind (or more, odds are)

Are you counting her probable wins in the June MI and FL primaries? I think that puts her closer to 100 behind, maybe less. If she wins PA, then MI and FL going into the convention, that gives her some serious momentum. And as I've posted elsewhere, Obama's inability to put Clinton away will raise questions about his overall strength.

I agree with you that Obama is the probable candidate, but Clinton is not out of this.

Air America today, Randi Rhodes Show...the "Nafta" scandal was actually a Clinton attempt to smear Senator Obama. Proof positive it was her people contacting the Canadians. I can only imagine the final count without that "dirty trick". Also out, the "taxes". Why does she refuse to release them? Is it the $10,000,000 donation to the Clinton library from the Saudies? Oh yeah, you have to be a US citizen to donate to a presidential campaign...unless someones husband has a nice little legal loop-hole. How Clinton of them. She's dirty, dirty, dirty! Great to see you're up to your good work t.a. Take care. Regina

<hr/>