To me, the most interesting, and largely unreported, observation from Texas’ vote yesterday is that Clinton was able to make up such a large early vote deficit. I don’t have the hard numbers, but the early returns last night (ie, when 0% of the precincts had reported but several hundred thousand votes were showing up) gave Obama a strong lead – like 15 points strong. What do we take from this? She really stuck it to him on Election Day. She must have. In Harris County – Houston – for example, the early vote totals showed him up by something like 65-35, but once the Election Day numbers were factored in, he won the county by 13 points. And we’re not talking about a small number of hard-core enthusiasts – about a third of voters in Texas vote early. That’s sure what fooled me.
That’s what we call “momentum.”
So where does that leave us? Well, the math that I’ve outlined in previous posts still holds. There is essentially no chance that she will catch him among pledged delegates. The questions remain the same: How willing are the superdelegates to give the nomination to the loser of the pledged delegate race? How small does Obama’s pledged delegate lead have to be for Clinton to successfully call it a tie, and throw the nomination open?
If Clinton can build her momentum through the rest of the primary calendar, she could go to a brokered convention where she is the one party leaders think has the oomph, but he has more pledged delegates. Every time we’ve thought one or the other candidate was about to break away, this race has come back toward center. There aren’t many ways to get to a brokered convention, but last night sure was a step in that direction.
Next, we’ll see how Mississippi and Wyoming change the landscape. Isn’t it amazing: thousands of people and pundits can and do speculate on what is about to happen each time any state goes to the polls, but you really have to watch it unfold to write the correct narrative. I’m getting tired of it, but that doesn’t make this contest any less fascinating.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
From the dangerous world of eavesdropping, I have been hearing about a plan by McCain supporters to vote for Hillary, assuming she is less likely to beat McCain than Obama.
Would the Pickle like to make a stand about this creative voting scheme? It seems like it undermines the Democratic process to me. And I'm not a hypocrite. Were it proposed to me, I would frown upon it and say that voters are obligated to vote for who they want, and not- vote simply to sabotoge another candidate.
Am I being naive?
I think people are certainly free to vote for whomever they choose, for whatever reason they choose. Be careful what you wish for, though, McCain people - it's tough to aim for two targets at the same time...
Post a Comment