What does Obama need on Tuesday?

Although Barack Obama is almost even with Hillary Clinton nationally, the latest polls from Super Tuesday states suggest that he's within striking distance almost everywhere, but leading almost nowhere (well, at least among the states were there are polls). And he's running out of time to "strike." With the Super Bowl on Sunday, people are pretty much going to tune out politics until Monday, and that's already Pooper Scooper Eve.

Democratic delegate selection rules are such that nobody is going to have a commanding victory in the delegate count on Tuesday; even in her best-case scenario, Hillary won't come anywhere close to "wrapping up" the nomination, mathematically speaking. But with 22 states (plus American Samoa and the Democrats Abroad) going to the polls, it's imperative for Obama to rack up some "wins" -- even though the concept of "winning" individual states is almost meaningless in terms of delegates -- in order to create a favorable (or at least not unfavorable) media storyline. If Hillary, for example, wins everywhere except Illinois and Georgia, that would be utterly devastating for Barack's momentum; people would start to write him off, and Hillary would become "inevitable" again. That would be true even if most of the races are very close and Hillary only edges him by, say, 150 delegates.

My question is, what does Obama need to do? How many states must he win? Marc Ambinder wrote on Wednesday that, based on the polls and his conversations with party insiders, he believes Obama "has an edge in Idaho, Minnesota, Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Dakota and Illinois." I've also read that Alaska is supposed to be Obama-friendly. Would those eight states -- to Hillary's fourteen -- be enough? Can he get away with less than that (say, 5 or 6)? Or, on the contrary, does he need 9 or 10 wins? Does he need his list of victories, however long it is, to include at least one or two non-tiny, non-Southern states that aren't Illinois? (Connecticut and Colorado, maybe?)

By the way, I'm working on a Super Tuesday Prediction Contest, so stay tuned for that. I'll probably post the entry form later tonight or tomorrow.

Comments

[Derek]

Isn't Connecticut awfully tiny?

Also, if Clinton wins the "sexy" states (e.g., CA, NY, and NJ), it might be enough of a media victory for her.

[Brendan Loy]

I meant tiny in terms of population. Connecticut is, I believe, 25th out of 50 states in that record -- certainly well ahead of North Dakota, Alaska, Kansas, etc.

[Brendan Loy]

As for the "sexy" states, I think the expectations game comes into play there. Hillary is expected to win all three, so if she does, it's not a huge deal, particularly if her margin is narrow. (Certainly, she shouldn't get any extra credit for winning New York, unless we're going to jump up and down about Obama thrashing her in Illinois.) Anyway I don't certainly think the media will write off Obama just because he lost New York, New Jersey and California by single digits, if he wins, like, ten other states. For one thing, that would be dumb, and for another thing, the media really likes Obama. And they also like news. They want to see this race extended.

[Brendan Loy]

Upon further review, Connecticut has fallen to 29th in population. I believe it was 25th in the 1990 census. Anyway, it's the 14th most populace of the 22 states voting on Super Tuesday -- ahead of Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota and Alaska, four of the eight listed Obama states.

What does Obama need on Tuesday?

For Hillary to be hit by a meteor.

[Condor]

Last night's debate probably lost Obama the nomination, I'm afraid. He's behind, yet he decided to play it friendly with Hillary rather than taking it to her.

[Ken]

Interesting that Clinton is now trying to counter the Caroline Kennedy comment that Obama is like Her father with an ad in which RFK Jr. says that Clinton is like His father...also an ad with the grandson of Cesar Chavez.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

What does he need? California. If Obama can't take California, his campaign is done. All these little Midwestern and Southern states will do him no good.

[Andrew]

What does Obama need? More Super Obama Girl videos.

[Wobbly H]

Look, this might be blasphemy. But my biggest fear of Obama is that he WILL be like John F. Kennedy--not in the transcendent and charismatic politician way, which is what we all desire for presidential leadership, but in the foreign policy realm. I can imagine Obama helping to get us into "Vietnam" and "the Bay of Pigs" because of his inexperience. Thus, anytime they compare the two, I cringe.

[Brendan Loy]

And I can imagine Hillary, for all her experience, being unable to make any more progress on foreign policy than the extremely experienced president who followed JFK and who Hillary has held up as an example of the importance of experience: LBJ.

Experience is important, but it is not a guarantee of success, nor is inexperience is a guarantee of failure. Ideally, we'd have a candidate with Obama's leadership and political skill and Clinton's (or better yet, Biden's or Richardson's) experience. But we don't. And given a choice between a more experienced candidate who lacks leadership and judgment, and a less experienced candidate who shows the potential to be a truly transformational leader, I'll take the latter.

[Brendan Loy]

(That said, before I would vote for Obama in the general election over McCain, I would want to know a lot more about his foreign policy agenda and, ideally, a sense of who are going to be his top foreign policy advisors. He'll need to convince voters, myself included, that he'll surround himself with competent, intelligent people with reasonable philosophies who will, on the one hand, not be yes-men, but will, on the other hand, not run the show themselves. In other words, he needs to demonstrate that he'll have the guidance he needs but will ultimately be the one to make the judgments.)

[mculator]

So I'm recently talking with some coffeeshop regulars here in Nashville... just guys... and then out it comes: thank god Obama's going to win, now we don't have to worry about who Hillary will bomb once a month. I snapped, spouted off at the mouth. At the beginning, of the four of us, 3 were for Obama and I was assumed to be as well. At the end (and thanks to my college logic teacher Ron Bombardy), we were three for Clinton and one whose argument had been reduced to basically "I like him more". You reap what you sew.

So here is the deal: If you're a Clinton supporter, especially in an age group or demographic currently 'herding' toward the TV lights which unfortunately all spell out OBAMA, then You, like I, need to get more vocal. Obama supporters have garnered the momentum out of necessity or survival due to Hillary's obvious advantages, and conversely, we have had the luxury of being more lazy and less motivated--probably due to the inevitability word the media (probably intentionally) used so much!! I'm calling all my friends who have "switched" to Obama because of a Pespi-like money campaign designed to be "cooler" than hers. I want action. Oh, The Iraq war, you say? Too bad Obama wasn't there to vote against it. He said he didn't know if he would have-- come on, you know he damn well would have: anyone who knows anything knows that our positions at the UN only carry water if the resolutions are firmly backed by the SENATE. Read her comments about what the Vote was NOT FOR or perphaps John Edwards' comments and you'll see that the war issue is no trump card for Barack.

Let's not trash Obama. As a nationally competing chess player, I think that I have the credentials to say that it's a bad strategy and one of the only blunders that could lose this fight. I'd rather make the argument that "I like the guy, but let's be honest" and continue with an example of how the smartest thing he could do as president would be to call Hillary and ask her "who would you have appointed to be Secretary of State?". I honestly believe she already knows (and how could he dwell on such issues when he's losing nationally?). Maybe I'd end my argument by adding up all the money we'd save on the phone bill and/or job training she would be the best prepared to provide to him anyway?
My point: until Obama started surging with people in my age group (late 20's), I was lazy. This is a wake up call. Tell your friends, because otherwise this could end up being one big con. He is half black, but she is all Woman. Sorry for my late arrival, Hillary supporters. Let's get a "moveon" of our own

[Persuaded]

Gee mculator, I sure am glad you told me about your logic professor and the fact that you're a competitive chess player -- otherwise I might have thought your "argument" was ridiculous and meritless. Thanks for helping me to avoid that otherwise-obvious conclusion.

[Joe Mama]

before I would vote for Obama in the general election over McCain, I would want to know a lot more about his foreign policy agenda and, ideally, a sense of who are going to be his top foreign policy advisors.

The early signs aren't encouraging.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

I love people bashing JFK's foreign policy experience:

1. Bay of Pigs - The Bay of Pigs was planned under the Eisenhower Administration. JFK was briefed on it. JFK told the CIA in no uncertain terms that the US would not provide direct military support if the ex-pat Cubans couldn't get the job done. When the ex-pats got into trouble, they tried calling for US air support, which Kennedy had never intention of providing. If anyone is to blame, it is the CIA handlers, not JFK.

2. Vietnam - Eisenhower established the policy of sending US military advisers and LBJ pushed through the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. JFK merely continued Eisenhower's policy and really did nothing to escalate US involvement, especially when compared to what JFK did.

3. Cuban Missile Crisis - JFK handled the situation masterfully. If Nixon had been President, he would have stormed the island. Castro has since said that he and the Soviets were fully prepared to launch on Florida if such a direct attack had occurred.

JFK was by no means a perfect President and you disagree with his decisions regarding Bay of Pigs. However, many Presidents would have made some of the same decisions he did.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Sorry, "what LBJ did" on point 2.

[Mike]

In the interests of long-running trends of picking on each others' linguistic abilities...

"Anyway, it's the 14th most populace [sic] of the 22 states voting on Super Tuesday -- ahead of Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota and Alaska, four of the eight listed Obama states."

...the word Brendan is searching for is populous.

[Joe Mama]

JFK merely continued Eisenhower's policy and really did nothing to escalate US involvement [in Vietnam]...

Actually, it was during JFK’s presidency that the US committed to Vietnam by sending in 18,000 military advisors (there were less than 1000 military adivsors there when Eisenhower left office) and authorizing the use of napalm, defoliants, free fire zones, and air power. By the summer of 1963, Buddhist priests had begun to set themselves on fire to protest corruption in the South Vietnamese govt, to which JFK responded by being complicit in the overthrow of President Diem, who was murdered just a few weeks before JFK. To pretend that JFK "did nothing to escalate US involvement" is just wrong.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

As I said, JFK really did nothing to escalate US involvement, especially compared to LBJ.

JFK - 12,000 advisors

LBJ - Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and 500,000 troops.

I could have been more precise in my language. But history sees Vietnam as a debacle promoted by LBJ, not Kennedy.

[Joe Mama]

And as I said, JFK most certainly did escalate US involvement in Vietnam. The fact that LBJ then escalated it more by comparison doesn't change the fact that JFK himself escalated US involvement significantly -- especially compared to the Eisenhower administration (since comparison to other administrations appears to be Max's standard). And perhaps the reason "history sees Vietnam as a debacle promoted by LBJ, not Kennedy" is simply because -- to state the obvious -- JFK was assassinated and didn't have the opportunity to "promote" it. For example, the trend line at the time of JFK's assassination clearly pointed to more US involvement in Vietnam, not less.

[Joe Mama]

Moreover, LBJ's advisors were the same people advising Kennedy (except for RFK) on Vietnam, which further cuts against speculation that Vietnam would've turned out different under a second Kennedy term as opposed to LBJ.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Joe Mama-

Considering JFK's unwillingness to commit US forces to the Bay of Pigs, I think one could easily speculate he wouldn't have committed US troops to Vietnam.

[Alasdair]

Joe Mama - you seem to have forgotten you are trying to be logical in a discussion with Mad Max ...

Of course, as long as you are enjoying it, feel free to continue ... (grin) ...