Well, there it is

So, Hillary's "firewall" holds. It looks like she'll win by a large margin in Ohio, and a narrow one in the Texas primary.

Given the delegate math, it remains very, very difficult to see how she can win the nomination, barring a major Obama collapse that causes both voters and superdelegates to have some serious buyer's remorse (and fast). Moreover, in the big picture, she's clearly in far worse shape than she hoped to be by this point, even as of Super Tuesday's immediate aftermath. (Various Clinton surrogates are on record as saying in mid-February that they expected to be ahead, or nearly tied, in the delegate count after Texas and Ohio. Instead they're still down by triple digits.)

But certainly, this means she'll fight on, at least to Pennsylvania on April 22. That's a long seven weeks away, and as one commentator on Fox pointed out, she really has nowhere to take her newfound "momentum." She'll lose Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi on Tuesday, and then run into an empty calendar (well, except for those low-profile delegate-selection events) with no opportunities to convert momentum into delegates.

Ultimately, her success will depend not really on winning primaries (which, barring a game-changing event, she can't realistically do consistently and convincingly enough to turn the pledged-delegate tide), nor on swaying large numbers of superdelegates (which she can't realistically do without first turning the pledged-delegate tide), but rather on shaping the campaign narrative in such a way that an Obama collapse -- i.e., a game-changing event, or series of events -- can occur. It's all about the news cycles now.

P.S. A less obvious ramification of Hillary's success on Ye Olde Super Tuesday is that it severely complicates the transition from obsessive political blogging to obsessive college-basketball blogging here on the Irish Trojan's Blog. :)

P.P.S. Speaking of the blog, I'm going to un-mark the open thread, so it can return to its natural place in the post chronology. If you want to view all of my posts from yesterday, click here.

Comments

[jalypso]

yes!yes!yeah!HeEEEEEEEEEEEEEha!!!!

[Peter Evans]

At least she's not Margaret Thatcher. *Shudders*

[anonamom]

I awake to a nightmare---she's still in.

Does this show the power of SNL? If so, bring back the writer's strike! Or set people---strike, please.

She is unelectable in a national election. She doesn't have the support of the educated citizens. What does that say about her supporters?
Hopeful, or clueless??

[gahrie]

She doesn't have to win the nomination..she just has to keep Obama from winning.

If they reach the convention with no clear winner, all bets are off.

[gahrie]

Oh and by the way, Margret Thatcher was a greater Prime Minister than anyone who has followed her, and most of the Prime Ministers who proceeded her.

[Brendan Loy]

Gahrie, in a two-way race, I'm not sure I understand the difference between "win[ning] the nomination" and "keep[ing] [one's opponent] from winning." One of them has to win. If she keeps him from winning, then by definition, she wins. It's not like there's a plausible scenario where the leading candidate finishes with a plurality, but not a majority, because of a third candidate diverting a few hundred delegates. (I somehow don't think Edwards's 12 pledged delegates are going to be kingmakers.)

I suppose you mean "keep him from wrapping it up before the convention." But all the pledged delegates will be picked by the end of the first week of June. After that, it's just a matter of what the superdelegates decide to do. Why would they choose to wait until late August to settle on a winner, giving John McCain an extra 2 1/2 months while the Dems squabble amongst themselves? (Note, I'm not sure I agree with the CW that such a scenario necessarily hurts the Dems and helps McCain, but it's ironclad CW nonetheless and most superdelegates will treat it as such.)

I guess it depends on your definition of "clear winner." By June 7, someone is going to emerge with a majority of the pledged delegates. To be more specific, that "somebody" will be Obama. And barring an Obama-like winning streak for Clinton from here on out, his edge will be quite sizeable (triple digits, I'd say). The question then becomes whether the superdelegates will choose to remain undecided throughout June, July, and August, thus dragging the race out to the convention. You talk about what happens "if they reach the convention with no clear winner," but if Obama wins, say, a 120-pledged-delegate majority, Clinton will need a pretty strong argument to prevent the superdelegates from coalescing around him, thus preventing us from "reach[ing] the convention with no clear winner."

[Sean Sullivan]

If Clinton stays in the race to the end, we're basically guaranteed that the nomination will be mathematically decided by the superdelegates. Given Obama's pledged delegate lead, and the trend with superdelegates, the only realistic way for Clinton to win is an Obama collapse.

Therefore, the nomination depends on something (the possibility of an Obama collapse) that is entirely independent of the election calendar. Even if a collapse happened between the last primary/caucus event and the convention, so it is not reflected in the votes or pledged delegate tally, she could win by convincing superdelegates that the will of the country had shifted.

This leads to two predictions.

1) Clinton's strategy will be based on being in position to capitalize on an Obama collapse, even as late as the convention. If polls in August show Clinton with a significant lead "if the Democratic primary election were held today", and show Clinton doing much better than Obama "if the general election were held today", she has a narrative to sway superdelegates en masse. The size of Obama's delegate lead really doesn't matter for the rest of the race.

2) To stay in position for that victory strategy, Clinton needs to continue collecting pledged delegates, so the superdelegates will have the ability to swing the nomination based on late information. She can't afford to have Obama collecting all the pledged delegates from late states and territories, because that would suddenly create an enormous gap. Therefore, she needs to stay in the race through the last primaries and caucuses in June, regardless of what happens in the remaining elections.

From this point, the elections are basically a formality before the main event. They have some importance, both for determining how many superdelegates are needed in an en masse conversion, and for public perception of Clinton's acceptability as a substitute candidate if Obama collapses. But the key now is whether Obama is perceived as a viable candidate in August.

As mentioned above, if there are signs of an Obama collapse, I think this may lead to August polls about Democratic primary preference. I expect that nothing like this has ever happened before. I wonder if this will be the first election effectively decided by opinion polls?

[Jack]

I think what Gahrie means is that Hillary hopes to fight a war of attrition of a sort. She may be looking to pick up some momentum of her own, and to continually stay competitive in the race for the possibility of future gains and the nomination. Things do look favorable for Obama for now, but judging from the rise of Huckabee (compared to where he was before the primaries) and McCain, her motto right now is probably "It ain't over, till its over." And her wins in Ohio and Texas is a signal that it isn't over yet.

[4-7]

ahhhhh, and the conservatives breathe a happy sigh as the strife continues. No dreem tikket pls. k thx.

[gahrie]

I'm hoping for a statistical tie at the beginning of the Democratic convention leading to mayhem, and an attempt for a brokered convention. The prospect of no clear winner after four or five ballots, and then Al Gore graciously volunteering to be a compromise candidate has me salivating.

More seriously, Clinton doesn't need to win, just keep Obama from winning before the convention. Once the backroom deals start, she has the clear advantage, the Clintons know where all of the metaphorical bodies are buried.

[yea]

obama collapse? are you all kidding? obama was down over 20 points in texas a few weeks ago and barely lost the state. ohio was also a state he trailed over 25 points in and a state few thought he had a chance to win until some recent polls.

this is similar to new hampshire. obama was trailing by a large amount there, then gets momentum and the polls overestimate said momentum and he loses by a small amount and somehow hillary claims a comeback. lets go back to a few weeks ago where we all said hillary needs huge wins yesterday. she perhaps got one in ohio, but obama's showing in texas was remarkable and pretty much sealed the deal on this primary.

hillary's only hope to be the nominee is to rip the party apart which will ensure she gets crushed by mccain in the general and lead to an obama '12 run. luckily, i think the dem higher ups see this and will likely rally behind obama before or shortly after the penn primary. the primary going on for a few months doesn't hurt the dems, it allows them to develop strong infrastructure in swing state penn (the infrastructure already built in swing state ohio and possible swing state texas should help in the general). the real problem occurs if there is a long fight over supers after the primaries are over.

[4-7]

metaphorical ?

[B. Minich]

yea,

No, we are not kidding about an Obama collapse. As unlikely as you may think such an event is, it is a possibility. He could do something that turns public opinion against him. This is not likely, but Clinton is going to stick around, just in case.

Brendan, I'm not that this is going to sew up nicely if Clinton wins some of the upcoming primaries. All she has to do is keep enough superdelegates on the fence or supporting her to keep Obama from getting the magic number. Plus, the superdelegates are committed to no one. They are in play until the convention, where they will either vote according to plan, or totally decide to change things up. I wouldn't believe them, even if they say they are voting for a candidate, because their votes aren't counted until the convention, where they could decide to vote for who they committed to, or totally change things up.

[Sean Sullivan]

There were some questions about whether I was serious about the concept of an Obama collapse, almost as if I was predicting such an event, or wanted it to happen. To be clear, I am not suggesting that an Obama collapse is probable, likely or desirable.

I am suggesting that (a) without such an event, there is virtually no chance of Clinton getting the nomination; (b) if Clinton does not concede, such an event at any time before the convention would give her the nomination; (c) therefore a rational strategy for Clinton is to stay in the race until the convention, for the possibility that an Obama collapse happens at some time.

An interesting part of this theory is that Clinton's strategy may not be affected by superdelegates pledging to Obama. Because a winning outcome for Clinton depends on some sea change in public opinion against Obama, and in that scenario, pledges from uncommitted delegates may not mean much.

There is no reason to think that an Obama collapse will happen. Such an event would come from new information of some type - possibly a gaffe, more realistically a media expose of some scandal. All votes and superdelegate pledges to date have been made on the basis of current information; the interesting insight is that new information could affect the Democratic nomination (if Clinton stays in the race), a situation that would be basically implausible in a normal nomination process where a candidate goes over the top with formally pledged delegates.

[Sandy Underpants]

I can't wait for the debate and Obama to be called the most liberal voting Democrat in the senate. His response: "John McCain voted the same way I did 9/10 of the times".

Also McCain voted against all of Bush's tax cuts and was against the war to begin with. The only political difference between Obama and McCain is that Obama hasn't changed his opinions since he started running for President.

[USC 2L]

I thought it was interesting to compare the words of Mark Penn today to his words on Feb. 13 (both letters titled "Path to the Nomination").

Feb 13:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/the_path_to_the_nomination.html

March 4:
http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/03/05/162040

Some highlights:

Feb 13
- This race is about delegates
- This race is not about perceived "momentum"
- 'delegate' appears 12 times in 628 words

March 4
- Hillary has momentum!
- 'delegate' appears 3 times in 1,457 words

[USC 2L]

Edit: The latest article is actually from today (not March 4) and is Path to the PRESIDENCY.