Hillary Clinton's campaign is counting on the March 4 primaries in two big states--Texas and Ohio--to form a "firewall" to stop Obama's recent string of victories, including anticipated wins in Hawaii and Wisconsin next Tuesday.
Obama is sure to carry his birthstate of Hawaii; Wisconsin is a closer matter, but he does lead in polls there.
We wonder about the "firewall" strategy. The last time we heard someone using that strategy, it was Rudy Giuliani, in Florida. We all know how well that worked out: after spending $65 million and leading in national polls by as much as 20 points, Rudy G. managed all of one delegate to the GOP convention.
There is a difference between Hillary's firewall and Rudy's. Giuliani's was a dumb strategy all along, doomed to failure--he couldn't just drop out of the media spotlight for six weeks at the beginning of the formal voting season and just pop back up in Florida as if nothing had happened in the interim. In contrast, Hillary is locked into a tight battle with Obama, and, far from being invisible, she is actively campaigning in the key states. Also, for the Dems, it's a two-candidate race now, not the multi-man scrum Giuliani was facing, and with the GOP race essentially over, the entire spotlight is now on Hillary and Obama.
Still, when you announce that certain states are "must win"--which the firewall strategy essentially does--you set yourself up for a fall (and you don't get much credit when you do win). So what of Ohio and Texas?
We think Clinton will do well in Ohio--she has a large lead in polls there (roughly 20 points), and that's notwithstanding Obama's recent string of victories. Ohio has plenty of blue collar Democrats and that's where Hillary's core strength is. Hillary's lead in Ohio won't change much if Obama also wins Hawaii and Wisconsin since the Mainstream Media is already projecting those as Obama victories anyway. To be sure, Ohio will tighten, in part because Obama will start campaigning there and his rallies are truly impressive.
Texas could be a different story. Three Texas polls came out in the last day or so, with two showing Hillary up by just a few points and one giving her a 16 point advantage. We think Texas Democrats, like Democrats in many other "red" states (like our Commonwealth of Virginny here) are tired of losing in presidential elections and want a winner--in their state--and see Obama as having that potential. In any event, Hillary's lead with Hispanic voters has been shrinking. We think Obama can close the gap in Texas. And really, since Clinton has said she has to win there, all Obama has to do is make it close.
Suppose Hillary does win Ohio--handily--and Texas in a squeaker? Well, there are other contests on March 4--Rhode Island and Vermont--where Obama may do well (we're not so sure about Rhode Island after what happened in Massachusetts), so he probably won't be shut out that day. And right after March 4 are the Wyoming caucuses and Mississippi primary, where Obama will be heavily favored.
At most, Hillary could get enough delegates out of Ohio and Texas to close the growing gap with Obama. By the same token, even if Obama wins Texas and makes Ohio close, he'll still be far from victory in delegates, although it might be a strong enough psychological blow to knock Clinton out of the race, or to destroy her fundraising base.
And we wouldn't rule out Obama sweeping on March 4, or coming close: many Democratic voters have to be wondering now how this is all going to end. Right now, Obama is leading in delegates and popular votes. Are some of those voters going to say to themselves, "look, all things being equal, I'd prefer Hillary; but we just can't have a deadlock and let the Republicans walk away with this; Obama is acceptable--I'm going to vote for him." If Obama can figure out a way to pitch that subtly, he could carry the day.
Having said all of the foregoing, we agree with a Clinton strategist with whom we spoke in the past few days about the firewall strategy: what other choice does Hillary have?
No comments:
Post a Comment