Texas: The Ground Rules

As I described in the live discussion group last week, Texas has a quirky set of delegate selection events on the Democratic side. [You can find the rundown of how the delegates are selected at The Green Papers. [I'll repeat them here shortly and then go a bit more in depth as to their potential impact.] The news has been slow to pick up on the intricacies of the Texas system, but as the Democratic primary/caucus approaches on March 4, scrutiny of the Lone Star state's contest increases. The Washington Post had a great article up this morning detailing the ins and outs of the upcoming primary/caucus (the real gem was the inclusion of the Texas Democratic party's delegate selection plan) and Will Lutz at the Dallas Blog seeks to set the record straight with a how-to from a Texan.

Here's the question though: How will these rules affect the race? First the primary. Of the 228 delegates at stake in Texas on the Democratic side, 126 will be allocated in the primary. As both the Post and The Green Papers describe, each of Texas' 31 state senate districts (Here's the map of those districts and here's the Senate's seating chart with partisan breakdown--20R to 11D.) have anywhere from 2 to 7 delegates each based on the number of votes the district provided the Democratic candidate for governor in 2006 and president in 2004 (4 delegates is the mode.). More support equals more delegates. On the upper end, the 13th district is an urban Houston district that is the lone district to receive 7 delegates. The 14th, which encompasses Austin gets 6 delegates as does the Dallas area's 23rd. As we've discussed, Obama tends to do well in population centers (and college towns), so these high end districts seem to be his territory.

The four districts with 5 delegates each is where things get interesting. Now we begin to introduce areas with high populations of Latinos like the 20th and 21st districts in south Texas. The other two 5 delegate districts, the 10th and the 26th represent urban areas; Dallas and San Antonio respectively. Clinton has won the states with the highest Hispanic populations (Arizona, California, Nevada and New Mexico) thus far, so to surmise that she'd do well in those south Texas districts isn't too much of a stretch (She did campaign there last week immediately following the Potomac primaries.). However, with Obama recently securing the endorsements of the SEIU and UFCW, unions with a large number of Hispanic members, he may see increased support among that demographic group. A couple of questions emerge from that:
1) How often do union members fall in line with the endorsements their unions make? Anecdotally, it seems that the timing of the endorsement has an effect (from The Caucus):

"The service employees’ chapters in Nevada and California endorsed Mr. Obama shortly before contests in those states. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton won both those states, with the union’s leaders saying that if they had made that endorsement several weeks, rather than several days, before those contests, that might have given them time to mount a campaign that made a big difference."

And that notion is backed up in the political science literature. Dark (1996) finds that the earlier the group endorsement and mobilization efforts are begun, the more successful those groups are in getting their rank and file members to coalesce behind the group's choice. Earlier, Rapoport, Stone and Abramowitz (1991) found that labor endorsements in particular had a significant effect upon union members' vote choices in three of the 1984 Democratic caucuses.

2) Are we beginning to see any differences between different generations of Hispanic voters? What I mean is, are there any differences between those Hispanic who are recently new to the US and those who represent the second or third generation of their family in the country (The difference could also be cast as one between those who are foreign born and those born in the US.)? As Barreto (2005) points out, the literature is rife with examinations of these differences. Further, he notes that those foreign born Hispanic are also poorer and less likely to turnout anyway. This question is a tough one to get at because there are so many cross-cutting issues that are involved in this race. Are these folks more likely to turnout since turnout has set records across the nation during these contests? Do young Latinos lean more towards Obama as they do in other racial groups? Do the US born Hispanics behave as the rest of Democratic voters have (evenly split between the two candidates)?

Back to the primary: The real battle here will be waged in the 17 districts that have four delegates apiece. The potential is there for Obama to again do well in population centers while Clinton does better in the more rural areas (or I suppose less populous areas).

Now what about the caucus? Texas has had this primary/caucus system in place since 1980 when the state held a non-binding primary in conjunction with the customary caucus. Typically Texas has not been in the spotlight (read consequential to the nomination), so the vote more often than not reflects the choice the previous contests had made. In 1988 however, there was a split between these two contests with Dukakis winning the primary and Jesse Jackson taking the caucus (*Note: I need to get a scan of the CQ map that shows this result. I also need to check to see if Jackson just won the first step of the caucus because it seems unlikely that when the Texas state convention was held later--after the nomination had been decided--that it would have gone against Dukakis.). Of course Dukakis got all the press coming out of the primary on that Super Tuesday.

What however, are the rules that govern this contest that is held virtually immediately following the close of polls in the state? The article from the Washington Post linked above is again instructive:

"The caucuses have also given rise to a separate concern, according to several top Texas Democrats interviewed last week. Because the state's Democratic Party has been out of power for years, leaders have struggled to find precinct chairs to oversee all of the 8,000 locations where caucuses will be held.

If it is time for the caucus and there is no precinct chair, party officials decided, the task of overseeing the vote will fall to the first person who collects the packet of materials used to run the caucus.

'The first person in the door picks it up and controls it,' said state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, a Clinton supporter who represents the El Paso area. "So the rules are designed to create a race to the packet. You can imagine what that might look like."

Party officials said most of the duties involved in running the events are routine and are clearly spelled out in the rules provided. But there are instances in which the person chairing the event can influence the outcome, party officials said. For instance, the rules say that only people who vote March 4 can attend that evening's caucus events. If a caucusgoer says he voted but does not show up on the rolls, the organizer has the authority to include or dismiss him."

Obama's supporters have shown time and again this cycle that they are extremely disciplined caucus participants. Does that give him and his supporters in the Lone Star state the advantage? Yes and no. One would assume that that caucus success would continue, but on the other hand, the Clinton camp appears to be aware of the rules. As these things tend to do, it will come down to money and organization. Who the 67 delegates from these caucuses are won't be completely settled until the state convention on June 6-7 (by which time there may be another battle in Texas).

[UPDATE: See post on the implications of a Voting Rights Act-based challenges to the Texas delegate selection system.]

The Weekend Wrap Up--The Presidents' Day Edition

Well, this post won't break any new ground, but is simply a selfish attempt to catalog the events of the last several days for my own personal use (Hey, someone else may want to look at it too!). So what has happened to change the landscape? Let's look at the events for each party:

Republicans
--Romney endorses McCain: This move doesn't affect McCain as much as it affects Huckabee. McCain will get the nod (eventually), but Huckabee's time in the race is dependent upon the time it takes McCain to get to the 1191 delegates necessary to secure the GOP nomination. CNN is giving all of Romney's delegates in this story; getting McCain to within 78 delegates of the threshold. There must have been some movement in the unpledged delegate area because those numbers don't jibe well with the cable network's current delegate tally. By the current count (and remember, these things vary) McCain would be within 75 delegates of 1191. Handing all those Romney delegates over though is misguided. Their release is dependent upon the rules in each of the states in which Romney was able to capture delegates. That's seventeen states:

State	Delegates	Contest	Bound?
CA	6	P	B (2nd ballot)
UT	36	P	B (1st ballot)
IL	2	P	NB
AR	1	P	B (1st ballot)
MA	22	P	B (2nd ballot)
TN	8	P	B (2nd ballot)
MI	24	P	B (1st ballot)
NH	4	P	B
MN	38	C	NB
AK	12	C	NB
ND	8	C	B (1st ballot)
MT	25	C	NB
CO	43	C	B (1st ballot)
ME	18	C	NB
NV	18	C	NB
WY	9	C	NB
IA	12	C	NB
Total	286
Key:	P	Primary
	C	Caucus
	B	Bound
	NB	Not Bound

But how many of those delegates can be released to McCain within the rules in each of these states? This may be a less than scientific approach, but applying the rules of the 2004 GOP delegate selection (concerning which states' delegates were bound), 133 of those 286 Romney delegates are not bound. Returning to CNN's delegate count, that would move McCain up to 963, but would keep him 228 away from the mark that would knock Huckabee out. [One thing I should note is that only Utah's delegate binding rules are known of the 17 states above. The language in the bylaws of the other state parties was less than forthcoming.]

UPDATE: The first President Bush has endorsed McCain now. Now if the McCain folks could figure out how to use the current President Bush in their campaign. They face a similar quandary to the one faced by Al Gore during the 2000 election. That balance will go a long way toward determining how successful McCain will be in the general election.

--Huckabee takes a vacation: Here's all you need to know (from The Caucus this morning):

"Meanwhile, as the Democrats were dealing with the snowstorm, Mike Huckabee’s greatest immediate problem was perhaps his reddened face, scorched by the intense Cayman Islands sun, writes Katharine Q. Seelye of The Times. Mr. Huckabee, the G.O.P. candidate, spent the weekend on the resort island while he addressed a crowd and collected a speaker’s fee.

Mr. Huckabee turned the occasion into an opportunity to point out that his chief rival for the Republican presidential nomination, John McCain of Arizona, and the two Democrats seeking their party’s nomination are senators and that unlike them, he did not receive a taxpayer-financed salary while campaigning.

'No taxpayers pay for me to have health insurance, to pay my mortgage, to pay my bills,” Mr. Huckabee said. “And so to me, it’s not just absurd, it’s beyond absurd — it’s insulting — to think that there’s something nefarious about my being here when nobody has raised the question about sitting U.S. senators taking their full paycheck and enjoying all the magnificent perks they get from the U.S. taxpayers.'"

I liked this story and especially Huckabee's response to questions of his means of acquiring necessary campaign funds. One of his marks on this race will not only be how his performance questioned McCain's standing among the very conservative within the party, but his campaign's wit. He's been consistently good at delivering clever one-liners for a while now.


Democrats
--Clinton wins New Mexico: Since this decision came to light after the Super Tuesday vote, some have speculated that this win breaks Obama's streak of recent victories. Possibly. However, what it does do is give the Clinton campaign a break in the slew of negative stories that have hit her campaign of late (personal loan to campaign, losing campaign and deputy campaign managers, losing eight contests in a row). The polls continue to look favorable in Wisconsin and good in both Ohio and Texas.

--SEIU endorses Obama: On the heels of the endorsement of the United Food and Commercial Workers, the SEIU endorsement further bolsters Obama's support among the unions. As the UFCW link on The Caucus points out, there are many Hispanics among the ranks of both unions and that could help Obama in Texas on March 4.

--Wisconsin turns "ugly": It really remains to be seen whether this will help or hurt Clinton in Wisconsin. One thing's for sure, we'll be able to start putting together an answer to that question when tomorrow's results start coming in. Obama has been up to the task thus far though; dispatching Wisconsin governor, Jim Doyle, to counter Clinton's claims. The Obama camp has been very disciplined in responding to attacks.

--The Lewis flip-flop: This has already been discussed in the comments section, but like the Romney delegates' release, it has real ramifications during this cycle.

Political Science Academia and the Nomination Races

Far be it from me to introduce political science into all the fun we've been having here at FHQ since the nomination races commenced, but a couple of blog posts have popped up over the last couple of weeks that have caught my attention...and are rooted in professional political science in one way or another.

The first link comes from poblano, a contributor over at the Daily Kos. Sure, sure that liberal bastion. However, he's put together a rather nice regression analysis of the contest on the Democratic side; isolating a handful of variables that he(?) hypothesizes affect the two candidate vote share between Clinton and Obama. With the ten or so variables included, 95% of the variation in that two candidate vote share has been explained in the contests up to (not through) last weekend's contests in Washington, Nebraska and Louisiana. Check out the link above for the particulars. The interesting part (And you knew we'd get there, right?) is that the results are then taken and used to predict the finishes in the upcoming contests. I like the analogy that Ohio is simply a replay of Missouri with fewer Southern Baptists. I don't know that Ohio will play out like that (a narrow Obama win), but you can't argue with the demographic similarities between the two states. The sense I gathered from the live discussion group last Wednesday was that Obama's chances were better in Texas than Ohio. So it is interesting to see some evidence to the contrary. The polls continue to show healthy leads in both for Clinton (Ohio and Texas via Real Clear Politics).

And speaking of the live discussion group, one topic that was raised this past week was the differences in campaign tactics on both sides if the parties switched delegate selection rules. The second blog post I happened upon this week doesn't address this directly, but it does examine how the delegate count would differ now if the parties employed the delegate allocation rules of the other. The Monkey Cage (Yes, a political science blog from some faculty at George Washington University.) highlights some of these differences (via Michael Franz at Bowdoin) in their post. Obama's lead increases under Republican delegate rules while doubt would be cast on McCain's inevitability had the GOP nomination been waged under Democratic allocation rules.

Let the discussion begin (...on an otherwise slow weekend). I'll be back later with an update on what's been happening in the news during my blogging absence these last two days.

100 is the Magic Number

Being a child of the 70s, I was always taught--by Schoolhouse Rocks--that three was the magic number (Oh fine, I suppose my exposure to SHR was during the 80s when ABC tried to wedge educational material in between my Looney Toons.).

In the race for the Democratic nomination though, a different calculus is emerging. Both campaigns are beginning to cite 100 delegates as the margin to look for as the primary season draws to a close (Yes, it seems weird to talk about the season coming to an end, especially since that end won't come until June. However, things have really slowed down post-Super Tuesday and there are only 16 contests remaining on the Democratic side. It is interesting that there are also 16 weeks left before South Dakota brings up the rear on June 3. That's an average of one contest per week.). The Obama camp is contending that anything over a 100 delegate margin in his favor will be enough to claim the nomination within the court of public opinion. The Clinton folks are hoping to bring that margin under 100 so they can argue that the nomination is still undecided. Even with something as seemingly minuscule as 100 being the magic number, it will be difficult for Clinton to catch up without decisive victories in the states that comprise this stretch run. 51/49 victories in her favor in those primaries (There are only two caucuses left--in Hawaii on Feb. 19 and Wyoming on March 8.) will not allot her enough of a delegate spread to make up that difference or get it under 100 for that matter.

The one wild card, as we've mentioned countless times, is the superdelegate distribution among the two. Obama was out yesterday after his Potomac sweep talking momentum which was no doubt a claim directed at those superdelegates still on the fence. It is a testament to the strength of Clinton's candidacy that, unlike recent cycles, these superdelegates aren't already coalescing behind Obama at this point. And here's where another calculus enters the discussion; the calculus that each of these undecided superdelegates is going through. They have to not only balance their own personal feelings, but must also consider (at least those holding elective office) the feelings/decisions of their constituents in the primaries and caucuses. Of course those "personal feelings" include considerations of their own upward ambition within the party, their perceptions of general election electability and their relationships with the candidate (if they exist).

So what are the knowns and unknowns within that calculus (and further, how do we weight each)?
Knowns:
1) Electability: Well, the head-to-head general election polls conducted recently give us some indication there: that Obama has the edge over Clinton in hypothetical races against McCain (Real Clear Politics: Obama v. McCain; Clinton v. McCain). Obama has a consistent lead over McCain while Clinton and McCain are within the margin of error of each other. On the electability issue, the scale tips toward Obama.

2) Primaries and Caucuses so far: We also know the decisions of voters in 34 states plus DC. In those 35 contests, Obama leads 22-13. Sure that's as misleading as using a predominantly red electoral college map to demonstrate a close election (Remember those maps from 2000? Looking at them, you'd think a person making that claim was crazy.), but these primary/caucus results carry weight with the elected officials in those states. On the one hand you have evenly divided states like Missouri and New Mexico and on the other caucus states that have given Obama between 2:1 and 3:1 level victories. One could argue that a greater proportion of Democratic elected officials in those latter states would break for Obama than the proportion in the contest. Whereas in those evenly divided states, superdelegates could break either way. The bandwagon effect is clearly a resultant factor in these individuals' calculi. So too though is the idea that this segment of the delegates to the convention will be the decisive one. Going against the constituency is generally considered in a negative regard when this issue is raised.

The rest of these factors are less known than the above and fall into the unknown category:
Unknowns:
1) Personal feelings/relationships with the candidates: Look, public officials are, more often than not, going to go public with incendiary remarks concerning another public official (...unless this is a discussion about Dick Cheney and Patrick Leahy inside the Capitol.). So this one is a tough one to get at. We can probably glean some of these feelings from the relationships we know exist. Both Obama and Clinton have some relationship with Democratic senators. Some of those folks have weighed in, others haven't (Here's the full list.). Further, you'd imagine that Obama has some relationship with the Democratic members of the Illinois Senate as well. But for those still undecided, good luck attempting to ascertain these factors.

2) Upward ambition: Well, everyone of these elected officials could be considered upwardly mobile to some extent. But that's the catch, we don't know the extent to which these folks are upwardly ambitious. One thing we do know, is that, on the whole, these folks want to keep the spots they've got if not move up. We also know that all the members of the House, some members of the Senate and some members of state legislatures are up for re-election this fall. And choosing incorrectly in this fight wouldn't necessarily help. Politicians, like elephants (Oops, wrong party. I don't have a sense about how strong donkey memories are.), have long memories and won't soon forget someone who chose incorrectly.

This is where the strength of Clinton's candidacy is most likely to figure in. For starters, she has nearly half of the delegates allocated thus far. Without that and under the circumstances of the typical nomination campaign of the last ten years or so, Obama would have this thing wrapped up. But if 2008 has proven anything, it is that it is not a typical cycle. In other words, until Clinton is out, you can't count her out. Those on the fence then are more likely to remain there if Clinton's bid is still perceived to be legitimate.

This is a lot for these undecided folks to weigh and underscores the potential for division within the Democratic party as it heads toward the Denver convention in August. Both the candidates and these superdelegates are treading a very fine line on this and it is still very much up in the air as to how this whole thing will play out. With all the usual indicators pointing toward a Democratic win this fall, squandering the opportunity would be a real defeat for the Democrats. And I suppose that is another factor to consider.

The State of the Race--Post-Potomac Primary Edition

What did we learn from last night's results in the DC, Maryland and Virginia primaries?

1) Better than expected was not really part of the equation. Clinton was overwhelmed in all three contests and Huckabee, while drawing close to McCain during the vote tally, faded at the end to a near double digit deficit. And it has to hurt that McCain got all 63 delegates. It is difficult to win, much less prevent someone from passing the 1191 delegate threshold if you get nothing out of a 40+% showing.

2) Obama is starting to bring in more groups of people. Last night women broke for him. Population centers are going heavily for Obama too. And if you think back to those general election maps, the ones that break down support by the precinct level, those are areas where Democrats do well. The Missouri map from last week comes to mind. Obama won in Kansas City, St. Louis and Columbia (home to the University of Missouri) while the rest of the state (all but two counties) sided with Clinton. Virginia was like that last night, with the eastern (more urban) half going for Obama. The votes are there, so if Obama continues to out pace Clinton by large margins in urban centers, it will be to his advantage.

3) Good vs. Bad. On the Democratic side, I've had a tally of new stories from the last week or so floating around in my head.

Good: Obama raises $32 million in January.
Bad: Clinton loans her campaign $5 million.
Afterthought: Clinton raises $12 million since Super Tuesday.

Good: Obama sweeps the weekend contests following Super Tuesday.
Bad: Clinton shakes up her internal campaign; bringing in a new campaign manager.

Good: Obama sweeps through the Potomac Primaries.
Bad: Clinton's deputy campaign manager steps down.

This isn't really a good balance for the Clinton folks. And it certainly isn't hurting Obama's ability to begin indirectly using the M word. But all is not lost. Hawaii and Wisconsin are up next. Hawaii is a caucus state and one where Obama lived for a period of his life. Wisconsin however may offer an opening for Clinton. The most recent poll there (via Real Clear Politics) gives Obama only a four point edge. Yes, it is only one poll (the others are outdated--from 2007--and show Clinton in the lead), but it is something. While Clinton may be able to take advantage of the more rural areas of the Dairy State, Obama will surely do well in an open primary that allows independents to participate. The Fix has a checklist of things via a cadre of Democratic strategists that the Clinton campaign can shoot for if they want to regain the delegate lead and the upper hand in the nomination fight.

4) One thing not included on that list is the upcoming series of debates. Those may be key to Clinton shifting the underlying message and course of the campaign. And those will come after next week's contests during that two week lull until Texas-Ohio-Vermont-Rhode Island on March 4. That'll be a good time to attempt to that, but will the media be pushing the Obama momentum story during that time instead?

5) McCain still has some issues to iron out with those voters considering themselves highly conservative. But it doesn't hurt to have one of the Bush team's best fund-raisers on your side. That's a good signal that the party continues to unite behind his candidacy.

6) And what of Texas and Ohio? The first series of polls are up at Real Clear Politics. Again, like the Wisconsin poll above, there is only one recent poll to base things on. However, the first Ohio poll has Clinton up 17 points. Nothing yet has surfaced from Texas. Clinton was there last night and is there today by the looks of the candidate tracker on Slate.com.

Remember the Alamo...uh, Nevada

As we are apt to do when the nomination season rolls around, we tend to shift the focus to what is next in the process instead of casting an eye toward what has been (and why). It is not unlike the classic one-night-stand scenario though Super Tuesday in that context is a bit overwhelming...but I digress. Political scientists are always haunted by these "what has been" and "why" questions (or they should be if they want to make it in the discipline). When something new like the Nevada caucus comes along, it presents a natural opportunity for unique research. So instead of moving on to Wisconsin and Hawaii, why not look back at Nevada for a moment. Occasional commenter and all-the-time Nevada area political scientist, Dave Damore, has a great post-postmortem (I already used postmortem to describe it in an earlier post.) of the January 19 Nevada caucuses up on politickernv.com. Good stuff.

While you're there, be sure to check out (and I'm not trying to divert attention away from Dave's post) the sister sites in other states--in the middle column. Both some of the states that have gone and some that have yet to go are represented. All should have good insight on the contests in those states.

The Potomac Primary Results Show

Polls close in Virginia in the next couple of minutes and in DC and Maryland at 8pm. How will it play out tonight? We'll use a top down update approach tonight.

9:52pm: Back tomorrow with more on the impact of the race heading forward and impressions of what transpired.

9:50pm: Here are the results via NYT's Election Guide (ooh, with the maps):

Virginia
DC
Maryland

9:48pm: CNN and the other networks are now calling DC for Obama and McCain. No real shock there. Well, the shock is that it took so long for any results to surface.

9:30pm: Again, that didn't take long. The networks (here's CNN) have chalked Maryland up for Obama and McCain already. Not really a surprise on either side, but such an early call is bad news for Clinton and Huckabee.

9:29pm: Well, DC won't post anything until 10:30 according to the Board of Elections there (via The Caucus--9:25pm post).

9:17pm: Suh-low. Things have slowed way down. Well, polls are only a few more minutes away from closing in Maryland.

8:54pm: Well, the 8 o'clock hour was a bit strange. Maryland got pushed back and DC disappeared. The New York Times has replaced the 8pm poll closing time with 0% reporting for DC, so the numbers should begin trickling (apparently) in soon.

8:41pm: Now all the rest of the networks are following suit on the McCain call in Virginia. Does Huckabee's showing attain better than expected status? The margin will be less than ten points. In the end, I think it continues to indicate that McCain has issues with conservatives, but that story is going to get old fast if McCain keeps winning.

8:35pm: CNN is calling Virginia for McCain. This thing is still very close (from the NYT Election Guide--48% reporting).
McCain 46.4%
Huckabee 45.2

8:18pm: Ouch! The shake ups continue in the Clinton campaign. Now her deputy campaign manager, Mike Henry, has resigned (via The Fix). This just won't look good beside headlines like the one immediately below.

8:16pm: CNN is running the headline, "Obama Wins 6th in a Row." Truthfully, does that smack of momentum or not?

8:01pm: Or not. Polls in Maryland will be open until 9:30pm because of inclement weather across the state.

7:53pm: We are now seven minutes away from DC and Maryland closing up shop for the night. How quickly will those races be called and how much longer will the GOP race in Virginia play out?

7:50pm: Is it me or is this Clinton-Texas-Ohio firewall strategy not at least somewhat reminiscent of Giuliani's holing up in Florida for the entire month of January? Now, I'm sure she'll make some appearances in Wisconsin, but Obama is there now celebrating his Virginia win (see 7:41 post on The Caucus live blog). I don't know, that parallel just popped into my head.

7:45pm: Just looking at the map on the Times Election Guide for Virginia, western Virginia looks like Arkansas east. Clinton and Huckabee did their best in the rural, mountain part of the state. Look for the college areas (also in the mountain region of Virginia) in Blackburg and Charlottesville to go for Obama and McCain though.

7:41pm: I don't know what hurts McCain worse: that Virginia is close or that Virginia has an open primary and it is still a close race with independents (Well, the ones who didn't decide to cast their vote for Obama. I thought that was supposed to be the New Hampshire outcome.).

7:33pm: Now the numbers that we expected to see begin to emerge (3% reporting). The better than expected scenario looks better for Huckabee than it does for Clinton right now.

Democrats:
Obama 62.1%
Clinton 36.9

Republicans:
McCain 44.3%
Huckabee 48.2

7:21pm: Here come the Virginia numbers (from the New York Times Election Guide--0% reporting):

Democrats:
Obama 50.6%
Clinton 48.1

Republicans:
McCain 38%
Huckabee 54.9

What does that tell us? Not much. If anything, if the numbers were flip-flopped between parties it would probably end up being more accurate. Now's the time to remind everyone that it is the Times that has those great county by county maps.

7:15pm: Despite the exit polling, let's not forget that Virginia holds an open primary and that Maryland is closed. That may give Clinton something of an advantage in Maryland until you factor in the reports of very high turnout among African Americans there (see caption below picture). One thing to note also from that story is that white men went with Obama over Clinton in Virginia. Virginia women backed Obama as well (see 7:09 post on The Caucus' live blog).

7:08pm: Notice that no one is calling the Virginia race on the Republican side. Can that be good news for McCain?

7:03pm: Now the New York Times is reporting that the major networks (Here's ABC's.) and the AP have projected Obama the winner in Virginia. That was fast.

7:00pm: The Drudge Report is indicating that exit polls show Obama ahead 2:1 in Virginia and Maryland and 3:1 in DC. If that comes to pass that will out pace even the rosiest of polls favoring Obama in those locales recently. *As always, these are exit polls, not actually results.

New Mexico and Washington...Still Up in the Air

Let's start off in New Mexico. Voting in the Land of Enchantment ended last Tuesday (Super Tuesday) and the result of the Democratic caucuses is still undecided. In fact, Clinton and Obama, just like in the broader contest, are virtually tied. The vote totals from the New York Times Election Guide count favors Clinton by about 1100 votes or .8 percentage points. Fine, it was a close election. Clinton won. What's the big deal? Well, at issue are 15,100 provisional ballots. According to the New Mexico Democratic Party, a first run through those ballots netted almost 5500 ballots cast by registered Democrats; or enough to potentially swing the election (That's 3.7% of the vote.). A second check of those ballots will be made against a "more extensive database" and could yield more registered Democrats who cast ballots.

What do we make of this? Well, no matter what the outcome is (and it will be a close margin for either candidate), there will be a nearly equivalent number of delegates allocated to each candidate. It is an important outcome for either though and here's why. The Latino vote and the implications that has for Texas on March 4. Clinton has done well in southwestern states with large proportions of Latino voters. She has wins in California, Nevada and Arizona. If she wins New Mexico, that is a bridge from California all the way to Texas bolstered by that demographic group. That is a nice argument to be able to make in a state as seemingly vital to her campaign as Texas. On the other hand, if Obama were to come out victorious in New Mexico, he could argue that he can hold his own in heavily Latino states, whether he carries that group or not. He got one more delegate out of Nevada than Clinton despite placing second and that coupled with a New Mexico win would create a good Obama talking point for Texas Democrats. In other words, New Mexico may make its way in to the discussions once the focus shifts to Texas based on demographics.

While we're on the subject of Texas, it should be noted that the state continues to have a hybrid primary/caucus system of delegate allocation on the Democratic side. That system has been in place since 1980 when a non-binding primary was added. The primary gained significance when it became binding in 1988 for the bigger iteration of the Southern Super Tuesday. Michael Dukakis won the primary (and the attention) while Jesse Jackson managed a win in the caucuses. It, no doubt, is easy to see a similar "split decision" scenario playing out this year in Texas. 228 total delegates are up for grabs in Texas. 126 are at stake in the primary while 67 are on the line in the caucus portion. There are 35 additional superdelegates as well. That dynamic is certainly worth keeping an eye on as the Texas delegate selection event approaches on March 4.

In Washington, the controversy is on the GOP side. The past weekend's caucus in the Evergreen State caused a stir over when the race was "called." Luke Esser, the state GOP chair, guesstimated that McCain was the narrow winner over Huckabee with only 87% of the precincts reporting. And really, how is that any different than what the networks do any time we have one of these contests. Mike Huckabee thought otherwise, drawing parallels between the state party's electoral actions and those of the former Soviet Union. Esser has disputed those claims with an open letter posted on the party's web page. And the results to this point seem to back him up. But it is all very convenient since the letter was posted today and the latest results were up as of late last night. Huckabee will lose this fight. He would be better served focusing on Virginia and Texas.

Here are those Washington GOP results.

Setting the Stage for a "Better than Expected" Moment?

I prefer the moniker Potomac Primary to the alternate Chesapeake Primary, so I'll go with the former as I discuss the delegate selection events in Maryland, DC and Virginia over the next few days. As we've learned during the course of the delegate phase of these nomination contests, nothing can be taken for granted. A quick glance at the Real Clear Politics average of polls in Virginia (Dems/GOP) and Maryland (Dems/GOP) on both sides paints a seemingly clear picture: McCain and Obama should do well today.

However, that opens the door to the inevitable discussion of expectations. Bill Clinton was expected to finish back in the pack in New Hampshire in 1992. His better than expected second place showing though bolstered support for him as the next series of contests approached; helping to catapult him to the lead in the race for the nomination that year. That is probably the most famous (or oft-cited) example of the phenomenon, but gives pause to the idea of handing today's contests to either McCain or Obama. It never is completely about winning. The margins matter. This fits the Democratic contest better than the Republican race, where Huckabee can hope that evangelical conservatives can keep him competitive in Virginia and that's pretty much it (*The two recent Survey USA polls cited on RCP (see above links) show the gap closing in Maryland but is still double digits for McCain.). For the Democrats though, all is doom and gloom for the Clinton camp...if you read the media accounts of the race. The New York Times has her shifting the focus to Ohio and Texas; drawing a line in the sand on March 4. One superdelegate supporting Clinton was quoted in the article as saying:

“'She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out. The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.' Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view."

On the flip side, Obama is garnering headlines like: Obama Hopes to Rout Clinton in Primaries. I don't know, but titles like that seem to build the perception that today's events are over before they start; potentially laying the groundwork for a better than expected showing for Clinton. POTENTIALLY. There is a precedent this cycle to back me up on this. Anyone remember New Hampshire?

The Washington Post pens a slightly rosier story in answering a series of eight questions about the potential impact of region's contests today (The Post also has a nice rundown of what the candidates were up to on the last day of campaigning in the region.).

There are good reasons to avoid slapping [the frontrunner] label on Obama. One is that his margin in delegates will be far smaller than the number of superdelegates still undecided, and it is still assumed that the Clinton camp will be ferocious in its pursuit of those still undeclared. Another reason is Obama himself, who is likely to prefer to continue running as an outsider and an underdog.

Despite the naysayers, Clinton could still do better than expected today and ward off the momentum talk in relation to Obama's post-Super Tuesday performances. Winning one contest would be ideal (if unlikely), but keeping things in the single digits would go a long way toward shaping perceptions coming out of the today's elections (if only to keep the delegate allocations even). I should go ahead and caution everyone that these are completely arbitrary thresholds. The alternate take from the media could be that, no matter what the margins are, an Obama sweep is the story of the night. Further, we could begin to see some discussion of the "big mo'" with Obama-favorable contests in Wisconsin and Hawaii next week. One last thing that could bode well for the Clinton campaign is that all the contests today are primaries and not caucuses. Does that insure success for her? No, but the fact that these are not caucuses has not escaped anyone and it can't hurt.

I'll be back later in the day with a post updating the vote counting situations in Washington and New Mexico and with a results post tonight. In the meantime, the comments section awaits.

Better Late than Never: Maine Results and A New Clinton Campaign Manager

Dissertations sometimes get in the way (and if I want a job in this field it better). Yesterday was one of those days. However, that didn't prevent there from being any fewer interesting stories from the campaign trail.

Obama make it a clean sweep of the weekend contests with a surprising victory in the Maine caucuses yesterday. Yes, surprising. Given the Illinois senator's caucus prowess thus far, surprising may not be an apt description of events on the ground. However, Clinton was expected to do well in a state that fit her better demographically and in which she had secured a number of top endorsements. It wasn't the two to one victory margin of Washington or Nebraska, but a twenty point win is a twenty point win.

Sure you can argue that it was just a caucus, but that argument seems less valid in this contest in this cycle. Most of the Democratic primaries have been evenly divided with a fairly even distribution of delegates emerging for both candidates. Obama though gives himself a cushion with these decisive caucus victories. Instead of a one or two delegates difference between the candidates in some of these primaries, we larger delegates margins in the recent (February 5 and on) caucus states. That's a nice counter to the superdelegate lead that Clinton has built.

Is that enough to put him over the top? Well, that is the question. And one that is difficult to answer since the majority of these caucuses are the first of two or three steps in allocating delegates (the last of which will do the delegate allocating). Iowa, for example, has its Democratic county conventions on March 15 and that is followed by district conventions on April 26 and then a state convention on June 14. That is when the delegates to the national convention are actually allocated. Will Obama lose delegates in the coming caucus steps? Probably not since he has proven to have the superior grassroots organizations in the caucus states. I made the comment earlier that Obama's established grassroots efforts would trump Clinton's on-the-fly grassroots efforts. If that is the direction the Clinton camp is taking with a new campaign manager (more on that in a moment), then these second and third caucus steps could potentially be the place to reverse the Obama caucus trend through grassroots means. Is that far-fetched? Perhaps, but let us not forget all the bartering and side-switching that went on during Iowa caucus night.

In other news over the weekend, Clinton and her campaign manager, Patricia Solis Doyle, parted ways. The Fix and The Caucus chose to call it "stepping down" while Fox News opted for the slightly more negative "replaces" to describe what had transpired. Either way you slice it, this coming on the heels of the personal loan to her campaign last week, does not make for a positive combination of stories...especially after to failing to break through in any of the weekend contests. So it remains to be seen how much impact this campaign shake up (Doyle for Maggie Williams) will have. Howard Dean dropped Joe Trippi either just before or just after Super Tuesday and John Kerry had some internal staff shifts in 2004 as did Al Gore in 2000. In case this fact slipped anyone's mind, none of those men became president. An omen for Clinton? Perhaps. One thing is for sure, something needs to be done to stem the Obama tide in these next few contests or we could be dusting off the "big mo'" before too long. Dare I say momentum? In this race? I won't yet, but that moment could be coming.