Will Split Decision Shift Texas to Obama?
“Most of the country will go on thinking that Senator Clinton collected a delegate bonanza in Texas (and elsewhere) this week. So even if she didn't, and even if she did not quite meet her own goal of winning both big states, she got her momentum back for the first time in a month. And at this point in the campaign, momentum is as important as message and money. ”
Hillary Clinton has called her primary victories this week "stunning," but their contribution to her delegate total continues to dwindle.
Senator Clinton won the Ohio primary with a healthy margin and squeaked past 50 percent in the Texas primary. She went on TV as the shiny new star of the 2008 campaign, the belle of the ball once again. All the glitter seemed legit at the time. She had cleared a high bar set by no less an authority than Bill Clinton himself, who said she had to win both of the big states on March 4 or it was lights out.
But even as the confetti fell in Columbus there were flaws with the Comeback Kid scenario. The delegate dividends from the states she won were surprisingly poor. She picked up just four delegates net in the Texas primary, one fewer than her net gain of five in tiny Rhode Island. Even her big win in Ohio gave her just 74 delegates to Obama's 65.
Subtract from this total the three delegates Barack Obama netted in tiny Vermont and Senator Clinton had gained just 15 delegates in the March 4 primaries. Given that she trailed by 152 pledged delegates as the day began, this shift did not seem nearly as impressive as the victory celebration and headlines implied.
And now it appears that even her net gain of 15 on the day may be cut nearly in half.
Because in Texas, one-third of the 193 delegates at stake this week were not awarded by the primary but by the caucuses held after the polls were closed. A record 4 million voters showed up for the primary, and a record 1.1 million also stayed for the caucuses at more than 8,000 sites around the Lone Star state. And in these caucuses, Obama won handily.
They call this hybrid the "Texas Two-Step," and it's had its fans and critics since invented in 1988. But this year it's really going to cause some howling.
The Texas Democratic Party says Obama's wider caucus margin will probably give him a 37-30 break in the delegates allocated from the caucuses. The primary had almost twice that many delegates at stake, but Clinton's primary margin there was much narrower. So when the two steps are all done, the projection is for Obama to emerge with 98 delegates to Clinton's 95.
So who won Texas?
The Clinton camp will point to the larger turnout in the primary to support their claim of victory. The Obama camp will say both events were valid and rules are rules.
But what's the bottom line if more Texans go to the convention in Denver pledged to vote for Obama than for Clinton?
Is it possible that instead of winning two big states, Senator Clinton won one-and-a-half?
Truth is, the Clinton campaign had anticipated exactly this kind of split decision in Texas. That's why efforts had been made to discredit the caucuses in advance. Her campaign complained that the caucuses were too small to be representative and too random in administration to be fair.
On caucus night, her campaign held a stormy conference call with reporters to say Obama forces were attempting to hijack the proceedings at specific sites. Similar complaints had been lodged against caucuses in other states in January and February, as the Obama campaign racked up consistent wins in delegate counts.
The Clinton campaign had much to fear in Texas. The state had once stood for her dominance in the presidential race, but after her 17-point drubbing in Wisconsin it began to symbolize her campaign's decline. Up by 20 in opinion polls, Senator Clinton saw the lead disappear. She sent in her crack operative from California, Averell "Ace" Smith, to reprise the ground organizing that preserved her 9-point victory in that state on Super Tuesday.
On March 4, Ace Smith & Company delivered a record turnout among Hispanics, who cast nearly one-third of the total vote and favored Clinton by about 2-to-1. It was enough for just over 50 percent of the vote, but not enough to make the caucuses ratify the the primary.
So the argument over "who won Texas" begins. And it's far more than just an academic debate.
One suspects the Clinton campaign would have carried on beyond this week even if she had lost the primary in Texas as well as the caucuses. Ohio was going to be all they really needed to claim a turnaround. (Note that she made her "going all the way" victory speech in Ohio before the results from Texas were clear).
More important, she and her retinue clearly believe they have finally found the key to the Obama riddle. After months of frustration, they loosed a flurry of blows and landed just enough of them to stall his momentum and grab some of their own.
Besides, most of the country will go on thinking that Senator Clinton collected a bonanza in Texas (and elsewhere) this week. So even if she didn't, and even if she did not quite meet her own goal of winning both big states, she got her momentum back for the first time in a month.
And at this point in the campaign, momentum is as important as message and money.
4:38 PM ET | 03- 6-2008 | permalink
