More on a Hillary Comback [Michael Barone does the delegate math]

[Person Man]

I wonder if Hillary will pick Ed Rendell to be her veep after a long primary and him delivering it. He will be able to shore support in the rust belt. He's popular enough and Ohio/Pennsylvania matter. His influence could work through out the midwest. The problem would be that McCain could win Oregon but with Ohio and Iowa, who needs Oregon?

I don't think Hillary should get too excited about Indiana either, the state is almost the same as Missouri demographically except whites are more Republican, meaning blacks take up a higher percentage of the Democratic electorate. Obama probably can't win it, but Hillary's edge in delegates won't be higher than single digits.

Uh...  I agree about the Texas stuff, but this makes no sense.

Indiana's whites are more Republican - that's news to me, bucko.  Truthfully, Indiana is a lot more like Ohio than Missouri.  There's always been a strong industrial/manufacturing base - Missouri has little of that.  True, the suburbs around Indianapolis are quite Republican - but the rest of the state - no.
Another important number:  Missouri - 11.2% black, Indiana 8.3% black.

Then again, it balences out with more whites being goppers. Therefore, there will be fewer white as well, meaning blacks will probably represent at the same levels....and I don't know how there can be anything more GOPPER than rural Indiana.

Uh...  The St. Louis suburbs are not that greatly different from the Indianapolis suburbs in terms of voting habits - and actually in terms of overall votes, the Indianapolis suburbs are simply less overall votes.

If you think rural Indiana is GOP heartland, I'd advise you to start rethinking.

LOL

Just look at the 2004 map!



Maybe around the Ohio River where Bush was kept under 60...but in many places he surged past 70!

Hey, idiot, just because people vote Republican doesn't mean that they're registered Republican. This occurs all over the place, some people haven't updated their voter registration since the 1950s. It's the same reason very Republican counties in northern Florida went for Edwards, old rascist Dixiecrats who now vote Republican going to the voting booth and finding out that they're registered Democrats.

If you stop with the petty insults, you will see that they may take a dim view for voting for a woman as well. They may just stay home and why would they vote in the primary if they are going to vote in GOP in GE? That's absurd.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A major problem I see for Obama in Pennsylvania is that it is a closed Democratic Primary -- no independents allowed.  That cuts off an important part of his coalition.  Hillary is stronger among self-identified Democrats.  Given that the demographics of the state favor her and the Gov. Rendell will be running his machine for her she has to feel good about her chances.  Whatever happens with the state delegate count, a strong victory in a key state like Pennsylvania will definitely be noticed the Super Delegates.

I would basically see Obama taking three 3 CD at best, probably 2.  I could actually see Hillary winning some of hers in Central PA by greater than 60%.

A basic slight edge for Obama in WI, TX reasonably strong for Clinton, and a large victory in OH.  PA could be a Clinton blowout.  On April 23, 2008, I expect Clinton will have be leading in elected delegates (possibly even elected delegates excluding FL/MI).

If Clinton wins Texas by 8 points (like current polls), that's just not going to happen, due to the malapportionment of Hispanic areas and the caucus. I actually think the most likely scenario is Clinton winning Texas but Obama winning the majority of delegates.

But Clinton needs more than a victory in Texas to catch up, she needs a huge victory in terms of delegates, like 60% or so, which would require winning the Texas primary 2:1 and also winning the caucus. Very unlikely.

[Sam Spade]

Well obviously Indiana is a far more Republican state than Missouri, just look at the 2004 numbers. So whites must be more Republican.

Analyzing a place's voting habits through the Presidential vote is at its most fool-hardy in a state like Indiana, BRTD. 

For example, look at IN-08, IN-09 (60-40 Presidential, swing district locally, always has been, actually IN-09 is historically Democratic).  Or IN-03, a historically Republican CD that moves Democratic during bad times.  Or IN-02, historically Democratic lower-income industrial district that normally votes Republican presidentially...  I can continue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Blacks are 18% of the population.  Hispanics are 10%.  There are some Chicago suburbs, but historically and presently this is a steel-producing white working-class *Democratic* area (and still is).  In other words, the lower-income whites (and whites in general) will be voting in the Democratic primary.  Breaking even is about the best Obama can do, and I wouldn't be surprised if he lost here (58.5% might be tough)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Black population is 8% here.  Notre Dame is located there too.  Obama will get killed elsewhere here (to put it mildly).  Probably not enough to reach 70% however.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can Hillary reach 62.5% here?  In this CD, I'd give her a pretty good shot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It'll probably end up 2-2, but for different reasons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I always thought of Muncie as being an industrial town, but what do I know.  I don't think Hillary can reach 70%, however.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

29% black.  Considering the racial problems here and the Republicanness of the Indianapolis suburbs, I agree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can Hillary reach 70%?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See IN-8.

I'm counting +3 minimum, but Hillary has the better chance of pushing that number up.

[Person Man]

We also got to look beyond Indy. What about Kentucky, Wva, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and North Carolina? It could be that Hillary will have to pull ahead Pennsylvania amongst regular delegates to be nominated.  How could Indiana and Ohio be more for Hilldawg than Tennessee or how could Texas be more for HillDawg than Arizona or New Mexico?

[Mr. Morden]

We also got to look beyond Indy. What about Kentucky, Wva, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and North Carolina? It could be that Hillary will have to pull ahead Pennsylvania amongst regular delegates to be nominated.

No, I think the May/June primaries are, on balance, more favorable to her than him.  Pulling ahead in pledged delegates (sans MI/FL) by the end of April seems nearly impossible for Clinton.  If she's going to (eventually) catch up in pledged delegates, she'll need the May/June primaries to do it.

[Person Man]

We also got to look beyond Indy. What about Kentucky, Wva, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and North Carolina? It could be that Hillary will have to pull ahead Pennsylvania amongst regular delegates to be nominated.

No, I think the May/June primaries are, on balance, more favorable to her than him.  Pulling ahead in pledged delegates (sans MI/FL) by the end of April seems nearly impossible for Clinton.  If she's going to (eventually) catch up in pledged delegates, she'll need the May/June primaries to do it.

I don't see that. Kentucky and West Virginia are strong Clinton, but Montana, South Dakota and North Carolina are strong Obama.

[Mr. Morden]

MT & SD have very few delegates between them.  Obama could win them, but it probably would (at best) be just enough to offset a loss in WV.

The five biggest May/June primaries are IN, NC, KY, OR, and Puerto Rico.  Obama probably has the advantage in NC & OR, but probably not by enough to offset the other 3.

Anyway, my point is just that I Clinton certainly has a good shot at gaining ground in May/June (even if you don't believe it's a sure thing).  She will *have to* gain ground in May/June if she wants to catch up in pledged delegates, because catching all the way up before that is virtually impossible.

[Person Man]

MT & SD have very few delegates between them.  Obama could win them, but it probably would (at best) be just enough to offset a loss in WV.

The five biggest May/June primaries are IN, NC, KY, OR, and Puerto Rico.  Obama probably has the advantage in NC & OR, but probably not by enough to offset the other 3.

Anyway, my point is just that I Clinton certainly has a good shot at gaining ground in May/June (even if you don't believe it's a sure thing).  She will *have to* gain ground in May/June if she wants to catch up in pledged delegates, because catching all the way up before that is virtually impossible.

Reasonable. Where do you put her chances of doing it before, during and after PA?

[Mr. Morden]

Reasonable. Where do you put her chances of doing it before, during and after PA?

She is not going to catch up in pledged delegates any earlier than May or June.  I just can't see it happening.  I suppose catching up in pledged delegates by the end of the primary season in June *could* happen, but the odds are against her.  (But I'm not smart enough to give you a number on the exact probability.)  Her best bet is to try to keep the pledged delegates close, win the overall "popular vote", and then try to win the spin war on FL/MI, so as to convince as many supers as possible.

[Sam Spade]

How could Indiana and Ohio be more for Hilldawg than Tennessee

Both Indiana and Ohio have less blacks, in the case of Indiana it's about half.  Both states contain bad combinations of rural white Democrats and industrial white Democrats.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, first off - there are virtually no blacks in AZ and NM, whereas Texas has a decent amount in the Houston/Dallas/Austin area (and they exist in San Antonio too - but there are very few).

Moreover, there really is no comparison to the border area of Texas in any other part of the states we've seen.  Most of the Hispanics in these areas have congregated around the various border crossing towns of the Rio Grande and are often interrelated within their Mexican counterparts towns on the other side.  Maybe Las Cruces has a little bit of this feel, but it's very small.  It causes a different type of population than the older-line Hispanics you see in NM, or the strong border Hispanic types in Arizona.

[opebo]

I don't think Hillary should get too excited about Indiana either, the state is almost the same as Missouri demographically except whites are more Republican, meaning blacks take up a higher percentage of the Democratic electorate. Obama probably can't win it, but Hillary's edge in delegates won't be higher than single digits.

Uh...  I agree about the Texas stuff, but this makes no sense.

Indiana's whites are more Republican - that's news to me, bucko.  Truthfully, Indiana is a lot more like Ohio than Missouri.  There's always been a strong industrial/manufacturing base - Missouri has little of that.  True, the suburbs around Indianapolis are quite Republican - but the rest of the state - no.
Another important number:  Missouri - 11.2% black, Indiana 8.3% black.

Then again, it balences out with more whites being goppers. Therefore, there will be fewer white as well, meaning blacks will probably represent at the same levels....and I don't know how there can be anything more GOPPER than rural Indiana.

Uh...  The St. Louis suburbs are not that greatly different from the Indianapolis suburbs in terms of voting habits - and actually in terms of overall votes, the Indianapolis suburbs are simply less overall votes.

If you think rural Indiana is GOP heartland, I'd advise you to start rethinking.

Nah, St. Louis suburbs are definitely more balanced, even Democrat leaning (assuming you are including St Louis County), than those of Indianapolis.  Also as you pointed out they are a bigger percentage of the vote in the state - another reason that Missouri, and particularly Missouri whites, are less GOP leaning than Indiana and its whites.

But it is certainly true that there are fewer blacks left in Indiana, so I agree that Clinton will do slightly better there than in Missouri.  Just a couple of points though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Blacks are 18% of the population.  Hispanics are 10%.  There are some Chicago suburbs, but historically and presently this is a steel-producing white working-class *Democratic* area (and still is).  In other words, the lower-income whites (and whites in general) will be voting in the Democratic primary.  Breaking even is about the best Obama can do, and I wouldn't be surprised if he lost here (58.5% might be tough)

George Wallace did well here in '68.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I'm sad enough to think of it as being forever Middletown

[Ogre Mage]

In Texas, I think a key question will be to what degree can Obama use the caucuses to cut into Clinton's likely strong victory in the primary.  He has been very successful in the past.  But he will be attempting to do so in very difficult terrain -- the demographics of the state run against him and Clinton has deep roots in Texas, ranging back to 1972 when she helped organize George McGovern's Presidential campaign in the state.  For Clinton, the challenge will be trying to get all those Latinos and rural whites who will likely vote for her in the primary to show up at the caucus that evening. 

While it is extremely unlikely that Obama can win in the popular vote here, it is quite possible that he may be to deny Clinton a significant delegate pickup.  If the delegates awarded are out of whack with the popular vote due to Texas's bizarre system, it is hard to say how the Super Delegates would view the contest.