Obama expects delegate draw, losses in Ohio, Texas, PA

Bloomberg News Service has an interesting storythat quotes from an internal Obama campaign strategy document about how they see the rest of the campaign unfolding.

The document envisions the primary season ending in almost a tie with Clinton and lays out which states they expect to win and lose.

One scenario prepared for the Illinois senator's campaign and released inadvertently yesterday with another document projects Obama will end up in June with 1,806 of the delegates who select the party's nominee to 1,789 for New York Senator Hillary Clinton. That is short of the number needed to win the nomination.

That, of course, would set up a huge fight over whether to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations and another big fight for the votes of the super delegates.

The Obama forecast doesn't include Florida and Michigan, which were stripped of delegates by the Democratic National Committee for holding early primaries. Clinton won both uncontested and is vowing to fight for those delegates -- which were slated to be a total of 366 -- to be seated when the nominating convention opens on Aug. 25.

Just as interesting are the projections for who will win upcoming state contests.

Obama expects to clean up over the next few weeks and then get clobbered in the big states.

The analysis envisions an Obama winning streak over the next 12 days. It projects victories in the Louisiana primary and caucuses in Nebraska and Washington state on Feb. 9 and a narrow loss to Clinton on Feb. 10 in Maine. Obama is looking to sweep the Feb. 12 primaries in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., and get victories in Hawaii and Wisconsin a week later.

Just as Clinton won some of the most populous states on Super Tuesday, Obama's campaign scenario forecasts she will win the contests in Ohio and Texas on March 4 and Pennsylvania on April 22. Still, Democratic Party rules will give her only a few more delegates than Obama if he can keep her margin of victory narrow.

...

For the remainder of the race, the projection anticipates a tight battle, with Obama, 46, winning most of the states, including Republican strongholds such as Mississippi, Indiana and Wyoming. It forecasts Clinton, 60, winning in West Virginia and Kentucky.

I'm not so sure Obama will win Wisconsin or Virginia or that Clinton will win Maine.

But the rest of it seems pretty sound.

•  Tip jar

  I searched to see if this has been diaried and came up blank, so don't shoot me if I missed one.

  by quaoar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:54:42 PM PDT

  •  He may win Maine caucuses Sunday

    There are some good signs for Obama in Maine, where the caucuses are Sunday.  He's been here before and will be holding a rally in Bangor on Saturday.  I've been called by the Obama folks, but not the Clinton folks.

    This memo suggests that they expect to lose Maine narrowly.  He might pull one out here.

    by twcollier on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:30:38 PM PDT

    •  SIGN THE PETITION TO DNC

      This is why we can't let them have an unfair nomination process because every delegate will count.

      please sign the petition- over 1,100 so far!
      And pass on to everyone you know.

      http://www.thepetitionsite.com/...

      by newyorknewyork on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:01:51 PM PDT

  •  I heard somewhere this morning

    that there was a rumor floating that the DNC might call for a caucus in Fla. and Mich. to decide the delegates, and then allow them to be seated.

    by cackyp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:21:22 PM PDT

•  Previously diaried

  by OH 09 Dem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:54:46 PM PDT

•  Finally learning the expectations game

  GOOD.

  by Wanderer on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:54:49 PM PDT

  •  Learning schmearning.

    This is completely reasonable, and is what I expect as well.  Unless Howard Dean has buttons to push that I don't believe he has, it's going to be a damn exciting convention, and a moderately ugly summer.

    by Pegasus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:57:26 PM PDT

    •  Obama will win texas

      It's part caucas and the extreme gerrymandering plays right into his hands

      He could really clean up in delegates even while losing the popular vote

      by Capt Morgan on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:59:57 PM PDT

      •  Delegates.

        If he wins in delegates but loses the popular vote I think he should give it to Clinton and visa versa.

        I really honestly think the Super D's should "pick" this thing based on who wins the popular vote.

        by Tetris on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:03:49 PM PDT

        •  That would disenfranchise anyone who caucused

          Because they don't keep track of vote numbers.

          by greatn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:15:22 PM PDT

          •  Ouch. There goes my grand plan.

            by Tetris on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:39 PM PDT

      •  Little more explanation?

        Part caucuses?  Hm?

        by brillo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:04:54 PM PDT

        •  it's really wierd

          this explains it

          by Irishkorean on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:13:12 PM PDT

      •  Even so, that doesn't change the delegate count

        by much.  It would take a blowout by one of them to get the (pledged) delegates they need to clinch before the convention.

        Now, if Obama goes on a two-week tear (as expected) and superdelegates start lining up en masse, that changes things.  But I don't expect them to move significantly before the big states go.  Unless, of course, Dean starts pulling levers.

        by Pegasus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:05:47 PM PDT

•  Meanwhile

  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...

  Time says

  Clinton 44
  McCain 44

  Obama 46
  McCain 39

  Push leaners and it's

  Clinton 46
  McCain 46

  Obama 48
  McCain 41

  by Daaaaave on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:56:09 PM PDT

  •  This don't mean shit.

    It's not any more useful at this time when we have a contested primary and they don't than any Zogby poll (which has now been submitted to Webster's as a synonym of 'crap').

    by khyber900 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:21:37 PM PDT

    •  The polls are clear that Obama is more electable

      by jfern on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:32:06 PM PDT

      •  Not if you go state by state and check out

        the south and other battlegrounds.  Not if you look at actual election results from Feb. 5 and notice that Hillary won all the counties that Dems typically lose in general elections and Obama won the counties that always vote blue no matter if the candidate is a ham sandwich.

        by khyber900 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:11:03 PM PDT

        •  Primary not general election

          If you want to argue that Obama will get 79% in the general election in Idaho, go ahead.

          by jfern on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:16:29 PM PDT

  •  It's not exactly a big lead

    for either. That's kind of disturbing.

    by Batfish on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:22:08 PM PDT

    •  McCain loses by 7% = Electoral College Landslide

      George H.W. Bush beat Dukakis by about 7%.

      A 7% loss for McCain would mean 6 or 7 new Democratic Senators and 20 to 25 new Democratic House members.

      by JohnnyAppleseed on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:32:29 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, but at the time

        Dukakis became the nominee, he was ahead by 17 points. So if you are ahead by only 7 points at this stage of the game, that aint a good sign.

        by Batfish on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:59:25 PM PDT

  •  Matchups

    My belief is that any potential matchup polls are bunk, and that you have to go on the theory that McCain v. either candidate will be a darned tight race.  COnsider each a dead heat unless there is some major movement or event.  Especially because it is about the electoral college, not a national poll.

    by bakerkm45 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:13 PM PDT

•  Interesting diary

  The number 1789 was, incidentally, also the year of the French Revolution. What a fitting number for the most preeminant wife in politics.

  by Nulwee on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:56:44 PM PDT

  •  In fairness to 1789

    It was also the year the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

    by DelRPCV on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:58:21 PM PDT

    •  Some of us

      think the French Revolution was a good thing?

      by Nulwee on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:59:39 PM PDT

•  What BS!! Bad diary!

  by cmpnwtr on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:57:05 PM PDT

  •  You can tell that

    after taking all of two minutes to consider it?

    You must have amazing powers of reading comprehension.

    by quaoar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:58:10 PM PDT

  •  Why?

    This is in line with what I've been expecting since Tuesday night, absent polling numbers from OH and TX (which I'm sure the Obama campaign has internally).

    by Pegasus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:58:36 PM PDT

  •  Not at all

    Perfectly reasonable to me that, absent something really momentum-changing on the money front or gaffe-wise, Obama would charge through all the February states and then run into something of a wall in Ohio (blue-collar whites, machine politics). Texas is the question mark, depending, I'd think, on whether he can step up his Latino outreach and maybe get some endorsements from within that community.

    by Crisitunity on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:16:52 PM PDT

•  Interesting they would leak this

  I'm not surprised by any of it.  It's exactly what I would predict as well.

  by DelRPCV on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:57:05 PM PDT

  •  I'd be surprised if they leaked it

    I don't see the advnatage to Obama to leak something like this.

    by quaoar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:59:38 PM PDT

    •  Are you kidding?

      They've finally learned the expectations game

      Now if they can just win one state (and I think he will win Texas... it's much more favorable to him than most here realize)... then it will be "the big upset" and HRC will be under heavy pressure to drop out

      by Capt Morgan on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:01:28 PM PDT

      •  So, you think

        this is an Obama attempt to lower expectations?

        Perhaps.

        But it seems to me it would just hurt the morale of your operation in a given state if a document is leaked saying you expect to lose there.

        by quaoar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:02:58 PM PDT

        •  HAHAHAHA

          Dude.. Obama's supporters work even harder if they think they aren't going to win.

          They just don't get demoralized

          by Capt Morgan on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:24:53 PM PDT

    •  Expectations

      The advantage to Obama is the expectations game.  They want everyone to expect this scenario so when they beat it, even slightly, it's a huge story.

      Notice that the spreadsheet is labeled "Scenario 1."  We don't see Scenarios 2 through infinity, and we don't know which one the campaign actually expects.

      This is brilliant playing of the expectations game, for the first time.

      by gobo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:05:22 PM PDT

      •  Leak

        Yeah, but there are better (and easier) ways of leaking things.

        by bakerkm45 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:54:44 PM PDT

•  I'd like to think

  that they're lowering expectations -- but I find myself unable to disagree with any of the state predictions.  His best hope is to work his ass off in Texas (and elsewhere) and try to narrow the potential delegate deficit.  Our hybrid primary/caucus system may work a bit more to his advantage than most people realize.

  by cardinal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:00:09 PM PDT

  •  Again

    Look at how blacks have been gerrymandered in Texas

    He could win some CDs by overwhelming margins

    by Capt Morgan on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:02:10 PM PDT

•  What's interesting with Clinton is she is

  doing very well in typical democratic machine politics states.  PA & OH should fall her way.  WI is a different story and I'd think VA could be a tossup.

  by demkat620 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:00:53 PM PDT

  •  But Obama won Illinois

    Shocking, I know.

    by jfern on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:33:26 PM PDT

•  this is the expectations game folks--

  the Obama campaign is getting better at it

  by historyrocks on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:02:09 PM PDT

•  So O Only Needs a Big Win in OH,TX, or PA

  In da Bag !

  by reformdem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:03:03 PM PDT

  •  I would say

    that if Obama wins any of those three that it's over.

    by quaoar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:04:11 PM PDT

  •  I agree..

    OBAMA wins anyone of those 3 states by +3% pts,. Game. Set. Match

    by WerdisLife on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:33:05 PM PDT

•  Don't believe anything until the votes

  are COUNTED.  Including any memos.

  by icebergslim on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:04:51 PM PDT

•  Tied

  According to NBC News, if Obama were to win 58% of the delegates in the next seven states, he would still be only tied with Senator Clinton (once you take into account Superdelegate support).

  It's all now a function of math. Given the arcane proportionality rules, it's impossible for either campaign to win with just the remaining pledged delegates.

  by Rimjob on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:07:05 PM PDT

  •  That's pretty depressing

    This thing needs to be settled one way or the other or it's going to get real ugly.

    by quaoar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:08:39 PM PDT

  •  I really think people need to ignore

    the superdelegate number.

    The candidate who goes to the convention with more pledged delegates will win the nomination.

    They have to.  Otherwise the party will be ripped apart and all hell will break loose.  

    by bawbie on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:09:43 PM PDT

    •  yup, unpledged supers are basically the same

      as Polling data... this is who they expect to support - not who they have already voted for.  

      by Yoshi En Son on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:29:58 PM PDT

    •  SUPERDELEGATES Mean Nothing...

      As stated above, If Obama goes into the DNC convention w/ more elected delegates he's IN. He's currently ahead by 20+ in elected delegates and is expected to widen the margin to 60+ by the end of FEB.. This is a NICE Buffer to work w/ heading into the Mar 4 states..

      by WerdisLife on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:35:16 PM PDT

  •  Shouldn't count SuperDelegates yet

    It's waaay too early in the game to consider the Supers, especially since some may change (possibly endorsing from unendorsed) and they are not bound.

    If Obama is building a pledged delegate lead, the Supers will fall in line or there will be a party insurrection.

    by drhgl19 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:10:53 PM PDT

  •  well, he'll win more than that

    because he'll get just about all of Nebraska, DC, and Maryland, which will offset close battles in Maine, Washington, Louisiana, and Virgiinia.

    The narrative of winning states is important too.  If Obama can take all three on Saturday--and then perhaps make a surprise in Maine in a format that favors him--he'll have a good narrative heading into next Tuesday.

    My blog. Come visit.

    by hekebolos on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:29:08 PM PDT

•  If The Tracking Polls Voted...

  Hillary Clinton would already be the Dem nominee.

  But those polls don't vote, and those polls seem to have "likely voter" models that are off.

  Obama is doing weird stuff.  I mean.. a 65-32 win in Colorado?  Did the polling predict that?  HELL NO.

  Obama and his supporters need to take it a state at a time, and focus in winning one race at a time.  If we can do that, our position should continue to improve.

  And that's what's important right now.  And remember, we need LOTS OF TURKEE.  Give again, and then do it again later!!

  http://barackobama.com

  by bincbom on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:11:41 PM PDT

  •  Those tracking polls are no good

    half the country has already voted.  The State polls are all that matters now.

    by demkat620 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:18:06 PM PDT

•  Why'd they put the age in there at the end?

  That really doesn't seem like it would matter.

  by greatn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:14:12 PM PDT

•  So if you can't win any big states

  other than your home state, how exactly are you more electable than the other candidate?

  by khyber900 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:20:08 PM PDT

  •  Because most of the primaries are closed?

    Seems pretty straightforward to me.  It's a completely different game in the general election.

    by mad clamor on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:36:54 PM PDT

    •  And caucuses are a good measure of electability?

      Wherever there was high turnout in a primary, Hillary won the clear majority of those races.  The idea that Obama is more electable and is bringing in more new voters or unlikely voters than Hillary is a myth....I might go so far as to say that it's a fairy tale, but we know what happens when you say that.......

      by khyber900 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:16:20 PM PDT

  •  What do big States have to do with anything

    Because in actuality - and unfairly I might add - a vote in Wyoming is worth more Electorally College speaking than a vote in New York.

    A preferred metric would be which candidate won in the swing States.

    by JohnnyAppleseed on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:37:33 PM PDT

    •  I might add - that if the Democrats were smart...

      the swing States would take the place of Iowa and New Hampshire.

      by JohnnyAppleseed on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:39:41 PM PDT

•  Its a delegates game baby!

  The Rudy Guiliani big state strategy got him nowhere.. You have to have a 50 state strategy in this day and age...

  by WerdisLife on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:37:49 PM PDT

•  Jerry Brown won Maine in 1992

  It was buried in the news because it happened just a few days after New Hampshire. Obama, IIRC, won the portion of New Hampshire that borders Maine, so maybe he will do well.

  Word of caution: Never trust a "leaked" memo.

  by RandySF on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:47:58 PM PDT

•  I will find it impossible

  to vote for Clinton if she wins by seating bogus delegates, and I'm a Floridian.  How can you trust her to enforce all the laws of the land (which would be her job as president) if you can't trust her to play by the rules of a private organization -- rules that don't even put lives at risk?

  It's ridiculous.  I won't vote for anyone who doesn't get in by the previously agreed-upon rules, even if it's Obama.  I've had quite enough of the Chief Executive of the land ignoring the law. Tendencies like these can tumble into corruption and outright treason, as we've seen.  Do you want to risk handing the most powerful job in the world to a person with like that?

  by Arculi on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:48:33 PM PDT

•  Obama could easily win both TX and OH

  As this diarist pointed out, both states have open primaries (Texas a hybrid caucus system), a decided advantage for Obama.  With McCain now the de-facto nominee, independents no longer have to choose between McCain and Obama, and don't be surprised if some conservatives (out of detest for McCain) find their way into the Obama column as well.

  Texas could very well come down to the Hispanic vote.  I would contend as long as keeps things close in the key states of Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania (although he's fully capable of winning all three), he will have a healthy delegate lead before Howard Dean wants to try to pull the plug.

  by RaisingPaine on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:10:38 PM PDT

•  Pennsylvania.

      That is the only state in the way of Obama on his path to the nomination.  Obama was only ten behind in Texas before super Tuesday.  The primary/caucus are ridiculously favorable to Obama.  Ohio is tough to call.  But it is an open primary.  
      Pennsylvania, my state, will be very difficult for Obama.  It is a closed primary.  It has the second largest number of old voters in the nation.  Billary is incredibly popular here.  It was Bill Clinton alone who dragged the Philly suburbs into the Democratic coalition.  Bill Clinton campaigned very, very hard for my freshman congressman Joe Sestak.  Sestak endorsed Hillary in February...of 2007.  Pennsylvania is not easily swept up by movements.  This is Hillaryland.

  by redrelic17 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:31:24 PM PDT

  •  typo.

      The primary/caucus RULES in Texas are favorable to Obama.

    by redrelic17 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:34:45 PM PDT