I hate to attempt to boil down a defeat to one thing, and with Obama's loss in Texas, I think it's hard to make this case. But really, the 10-point loss in Ohio has to be related to the NAFTA-flap, no?
Why on Earth would a Canadian official say that Obama told him that his anti-NAFTA position was just "rhetoric?" How can that possibly benefit anyone?
Again, I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but this is a "qui bono" situation. Who could possibly benefit from that sort of thing coming out of Canada? Ohio Democrats take their opposition to NAFTA seriously. Hillary Clinton and the Republicans benefit from Obama's big loss in Ohio. He might have lost either way, but I can't imagine that he would have lost by 10 points.
Still, in the end, Obama has the upper-hand. Intrade likes Obama at 73/27 or so, which is quite high. He's way ahead in pledged delegates, 1,366 to 1,222. He's ahead in the national popular vote, by about 300K votes, even with Florida in the count and some of his caucus state votes excluded (Iowa, Nevada, Washington have not released specific popular numbers). PA's got a lot of colleges and he's got a lot of time to campaign there; Rendell's influence should not be overstated; endorsements just don't matter all that much (though I think that he's Hillary's VP if she wins the nomination, which pretty much requires her winning Pennsylvania).
Obama also could (and will) squelch Clinton's momentum soon. He will win Wyoming (caucus), and he will win Mississippi (large black population). Then it's a month and a half to win Pennsylvania. As a current PA resident, I might get to see both candidates. I would see either, if they came down Rt. 15.
The real significance of Super Twos-day? It's pretty obvious. Clinton can continue. Obama is the rightful frontrunner, but Clinton absolutely has a base of support and can win the nomination.
One other thing: the Clinton campaign, in some ways, adopted the Rudy strategy: they waited for Ohio, a state in which they knew they would be strong, and punted a lot of other contests. It wasn't quite the same, but they were looking to Ohio right after Super Tuesday, really. It worked for them.
There's a matrix you could draw about strategies and success:
| Optimal | Sub-Optimal | |
| Successful | ||
| Unsuccessful |
I think both campaigns played their cards correctly, for the most part. It worked for Clinton. It didn't work for Giuliani.
This type of table is a useful thing to think about in these situations. The best strategy doesn't always work, and a bad strategy sometimes does work.
No comments:
Post a Comment