Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
ON TO THE NEXT STATE--TEXAS!
As if one needed any further indication of the abdication of February by Hillary Clinton's campaign, tonight, as two states and the District of Columbia finish tallying their votes, and with Wisconsin and Hawaii and Mississippi on the near horizon, to where is Sen. Clinton jetting off for three events today? Texas.
When Mark Penn said, back before the Iowa caucuses, that Latinos were going to be Clinton’s firewall demographic, he may have been thinking about Arizona, California and New Mexico, but he wasn’t joking.
UPDATE: The Clinton campaign just gave word that they will be releasing a new television ad in Ohio and Texas. No word on whether it is geared specifically to those two states and/or whether it will also be run in WI or HI. But it basically looks like they are conceding WI and HI at this point?
--Tom Schaller
*Sorry, forgot MS is before PA, but after WI and HI.
COMMENTS (12)
MS is a week after TX, so I'm not sure how it fits your pattern.
Posted by: Aaron S. Veenstra | February 12, 2008 9:03 AM
I'm amazed they're giving up on Wisconsin. It's basically Missouri. I guess they're assuming that even if they were to stump there, there's an outside chance they'd get blown out anyway, and that would be worse than an even bigger blow out with no effort to win it.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | February 12, 2008 9:19 AM
The firewall state strategy seems misguided to me (which has been borne out by Rudy in Florida). The Clinton campaign strategy seems to be claiming they aren't trying to win some states so those results don't matter (by which logic Florida and Michigan shouldn't matter, but whatever). But by far the more prevalent storyline is "Obama blows out Clinton", not "Clinton wasn't trying."
This is compounded by the fact that this year, people are actually paying attention to the delegate count. Obama will clearly have the lead in pledged delegates going into March 4, but if Clinton kept some of these contests close the media might portray it more of a dead heat than an Obama lead. The two contests with the most delegates, Wisconsin and Virginia, are also the ones most favorable to her in the Feb 5-Mar 4 interval. Just making a strong effort in those states, even if they lose in the end, is worthwhile because conceding them also concedes a lot of delegates to Obama.
Furthermore, in this specific case, Obama will still have two weeks to focus on Texas and Ohio. So basically Texans and Ohioans will be seeing a lot of both candidates for two straight weeks. Will anyone remember that Clinton was there an extra week before that?
Posted by: ibid | February 12, 2008 10:05 AM
Wisconsin is more like Iowa than it is like Missouri. My sense is that Eau Claire is not very much like Cape Girardeau. A lot fewer southern baptists than Missouri, notably. It has more black people than Iowa, though.
Posted by: John | February 12, 2008 10:22 AM
John, I'd agree with your assessment, but I think it's important that WI is a primary, while Iowa (and Minnesota) are caucuses.
I think Obama has a good chance of winning WI (I'm writing this from Madison), but I don't think the margin will be as big as it was in either MN or IA if he does.
By the way, Chelsea has been in Wisconsin the past few days, so the Clintons aren't completely giving up here.
Posted by: Rob | February 12, 2008 10:29 AM
Rob - it's true, the primary is a distinct factor. How much of one is as yet unclear.
Posted by: John | February 12, 2008 11:18 AM
I agree - with McCain pretty much finishing his nomination up and the primary here an open one, it will be interesting to see how it goes. Before Iowa, I would have thought that caucuses would favor the Clinton campaign, so I don't trust any of my predictions anyway...
Posted by: Rob | February 12, 2008 11:33 AM
Since it has been clear for some time the nomination is going to come down to OH,TX, and PA, the Clinton strategy (even if forced on them) makes perfect sense. If Hillary takes those three, all Obama's other wins won't matter. If she doesn't, she's toast.
Posted by: tdraicer | February 12, 2008 11:34 AM
tdraicer, since i was going to say the same thing, let me just say "second."
let me also note that while the nytimes headline says that "clinton bid hinges on texas and ohio," it could just as easily substitute the name "obama."
Posted by: howard | February 12, 2008 11:54 AM
I am surprised, too, that Hillary would give up on Wisconsin. You'd think she could do well among white voters in places like Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha.
If Obama does well today in the Potomac states, and next week in Wisconsin, he's going to look more attractive to voters in Texas and, especially, in Ohio. Surely Mark Penn knows this?
If Hillary's strategy requires her to win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the odds against her are at least 4-1.
Maybe she really is out of money, and just can't afford to compete in Wisconsin. Hard cheese, I say.
Posted by: Hal | February 12, 2008 1:19 PM
"If Hillary takes those three, all Obama's other wins won't matter."
Assuming Obama has a 100 or so pledged delegate lead apart from those three states, she can't just win all three of them. She has to win BIG in at least two. Even her big win in NY (bigger than OH and PA) only netted her 45 or so delegates. The only way she wins is if she can win two states by 40+ delegates (meaning a 65-35 win) and then win the third by a healthy 10 point margin.
Posted by: Joe | February 12, 2008 1:46 PM
"If Hillary takes those three, all Obama's other wins won't matter."
Assuming Obama has a 100 or so pledged delegate lead apart from those three states, she can't just win all three of them. She has to win BIG in at least two. Even her big win in NY (bigger than OH and PA) only netted her 45 or so delegates. The only way she wins is if she can win two states by 40+ delegates (meaning a 65-35 win) and then win the third by a healthy 10 point margin.
Posted by: Joe | February 12, 2008 2:44 PM