TNR BLOGS

September 06, 2008 | 4:31 PM
September 06, 2008 | 3:43 PM
September 05, 2008 | 8:32 PM

September 05, 2008 | 2:53 PM
September 05, 2008 | 3:45 AM
September 05, 2008 | 12:25 AM

September 06, 2008 | 3:14 PM
September 06, 2008 | 3:10 PM
September 05, 2008 | 4:28 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

September 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
September 03, 2008 | 1:01 PM
September 02, 2008 | 6:20 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
11.02.2008
Texas and Ohio Won't Decide the Democratic Race

Floating around coverage of the Democratic primary is this notion that nothing really matters until Texas and Ohio. Or, at least, to the extent that Barack Obama's victories in the primaries that precede Ohio and Texas matter, it's only to help him build momentum for Ohio and Texas, when all the real delegates are at stake. Here's an entirely typical passage from today's Washington Post:

Hillary Clinton, effectively tied with Obama in delegates and facing difficult races the rest of this month, is looking to gain any possible advantage to slow her rival's momentum until March 4, when the campaign reaches what her aides believe will be friendlier territory in the Ohio and Texas primaries.

What you'd never get from reading this coverage is that Ohio and Texas aren't that much more important than other states.The states that Obama won over the weekend had a total of 185 pledged delegates. Tomorrow's primary states have 168. That's a total of 353 delegates. Ohio and Texas, meanwhile, combine for 334 delegates. (That's my back of the envelope calculation from the numbers at wikipedia.)

And Obama won enormous blowout victories over the weekend, and is up by double digits Tuesday. So even if Clinton wins Texas and Ohio, it will be impossible for her to make up just the delegate advantage Obama has won and should win over these few days.

Update: I had a typo in the original post, indicating Ohio and Texas combined for 224 delegates. It has been corrected. Some colleagues were running out to grab lunch and I was hurrying to finish while they waited.

--Jonathan Chait

Posted: Monday, February 11, 2008 12:32 PM with 12 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ejbenjamin said:

I'm going to be pretty happy when you pull out that toast graphic again.

February 11, 2008 1:35 PM

rozenson said:

"I'm going to be pretty happy when you pull out that toast graphic again."

Yes, and hopefully this time it will be a definite outcome.

February 11, 2008 2:04 PM

stgla said:

Is this not a beautiful thing?  EVERY primary matters.  

My fervent wish was that the DC primary might matter just enough to get the candidates here to pander to us and maybe make some commitments to DC democracy (voting rights, if not statehood).  Alas, Obama has it so wrapped up in DC that the pandering is all happening in Virginia.

It's pretty significant that the Dems do not have winner take all primaries.  I wonder if someone could do the calculation on the delegate count had the primaries been structured that way.  Hill would probably dominate with CA, NY, MA, and NJ.

February 11, 2008 2:10 PM

timcrim said:

Texas or Ohio could decide the race if Obama takes one of them. If that happens, Hillary would have to pin her hopes on a huge win in Penn, which is unlikely.

February 11, 2008 2:23 PM

stgla said:

I just looked at the calendar.  Pennsylvania and North Carolina may decide the nomination.

February 11, 2008 2:26 PM

anonevent said:

We're all waiting for Puerto Rico.

February 11, 2008 3:34 PM

psantillana said:

Or Michigan and Florida.

February 11, 2008 4:18 PM

Ghost in the Machine said:

"Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, also said Monday that they were wavering in the face...

February 11, 2008 9:11 PM

roidubouloi said:

"Toast" is right.

February 12, 2008 12:21 AM

myskylark said:

No matter who wins this nomination, the party is so badly split that a sufficient reconciliation seems unlikely.  There was a time I pleaded with fanatic Obama supporters to stop saying they would never vote for Hillary.  I pointed out  the important thing was for a Democrat to win in November.  Those pleas fell on deaf ears.  The Obama crazies not only threatened never to vote for Hillary, but they filled the internet with the most gross, vicious, violent insults against her.  Well, it finally dawned on me that since I couldn't convince these Neanderthals to think of party unity, I decided to join them.  Now I have sworn an oath that I will never vote for Obama in November.  If Hillary loses this nomination, I will stay home on election day and I will change my registration from Democrat to Independent.  I don't want to belong to a party that every four years finds the most direct route to presidential defeat.  I also don't want to belong to a party where too many of its new younger members choose to repeat the lies with which the GOP slime machine attacked Hillary Clinton for 20 years.   It's the Obama supporters, not the Clinton supporters, who have reached a new low.

February 12, 2008 2:47 PM

hrlngrv said:

If you wouldn't vote for Obama if he wins the nomination, why not vote for McCain and really teach your party a lesson?

Is it really all those nasty Obama supporters who have undermined Clinton's campaign? Her own team hasn't done anything wrong? Her husband hasn't screwed up at all, made any unfortunate remarks? Her apparent strategy of dismissing possibly/probably losing all states between 2/5 and 3/4 and pinning her hopes on TX and OH is the hallmark of a real fighter?

Was it not the Clintons who've mentioned that politics is a contact sport? It's hard to be hoisted on one's own petard, ain't it? But I'm sure Clinton's voluminous primary campaign experience will kick in any day now and help her turn her campaign around.

February 12, 2008 11:59 PM

yitzman1818 said:

IMySkyLark,

I know exactly what you are talking about.  Every single poltical site's comment boards, since Iowa, have been filled--thousands of posts-- with invective by Obama supporters towards Hillary, and threats of their voting McCain if Obama lost.  It was so frustrating to see it, and, even though I know I should seperate the candidate from his supporters, it was hard not to associate my feelings about  the anti-Clinton Obamamaniacs, and their hate-filled threats, with the canidate himself.  It will not be easy, as a Clinton supporter from the begining to vote Obama, after suffering the cultist worship of Obama's internet supporters, and their derision of a canidate I found to be thoughtful, kind, and super intelligent.  I can't vote McCain because I am a liberal,  But I carrya visceral anger towards the Obamaniacs and their guru for the way they called Clinton names raging from "witch" to "bitch" and said they'd definitly vote McCain if she was elected . Maybe I just won't vote. Its Too bad the "pure" Obamaniacs, so suffused with "hope" and a "new type of Politics" represented, at least on the comment boards of political blogs and newspapers, the worst of the "old politics," and repeated the talking points of right-wing hate mongers towards a solid democratic canidate with solid positions, Hillary Clinton--all the way from Iowa onwards.  I'll always be a liberal,maybe even a democrat, but with the bitter taste of this internet hate-campaign in my mouth, I'll never be an Obamamaniac.

February 13, 2008 3:46 AM