Column: Clinton faces a difficult race

By Asim Thakore
Feb. 29, 2008

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is in deep trouble. Let’s face it. Most polls have shown her once large lead in the Texas primary shift to a statistical dead heat with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. Obama has made up significant ground in Ohio, and is now within the margin of error in most polls. If that wasn’t enough bad news for the Clinton campaign, there’s the fact that Obama is outspending her (as the Clinton camp readily admits) in both Texas and Ohio.

Here’s a rundown of what to expect on March 4 in what’s shaping up to be the real Super Tuesday.

Ohio: If there’s one thing voters in this manufacturing heavy state hate, it’s the North American Free Trade Agreement that President Bill Clinton signed in 1994. Indeed, only 16 percent of likely voters view NAFTA as having a positive impact on the economy. This belief greatly benefits Obama, for 53 percent of that crucial group of likely voters believes Obama was against the deal, whereas Sen. Clinton’s position remains relatively unknown.

Given the importance of the economy to voters and their perception of his anti-NAFTA stance, Obama certainly has the opportunity to win over undecided voters and perhaps pick off some of Sen. Clinton’s peripheral support. It should also be noted that voter turnout in all Democratic primaries has been unexpectedly high, and that polls often miss first-time voters and independents, both key Obama constituencies. The only thing Sen. Clinton really has going in her favor is the fact that most of her supporters are die-hards, and many might have voted early. With the amount of money Obama’s spending in Ohio, coupled with a demographic shift in the electorate, he should be able to make this a toss-up.

Texas: Texas is ridiculous. From its massive size to its amazing diversity, Texas is a conundrum for Clinton. Her dilemma is this: Her two main constituencies are Hispanic voters and rural white voters. Does she concentrate on campaigning in rural areas or focus her energy and dwindling resources in the southwest area of the state, which has a higher percentage of Latino voters than other areas? A key piece of this puzzle is Texas’ odd primary system: Delegates are awarded to districts based upon votes cast for Democrats in the 2004 and 2006 election. Districts that went for Republicans get fewer delegates than Democratic districts. Because there was relatively low turnout in Hispanic areas, and because many rural areas went to the GOP, Clinton also has to win over some of Obama’s voters. The complex delegate system hurts Clinton doubly, because large, urban areas had high turnout in 2004 and 2006, all with significant numbers of Obama’s core constituency (especially Austin, the home of the University of Texas).

Vermont: There is a 34-point Obama lead, and Clinton’s not spending any money or time here. New Ben & Jerry’s flavor: Very Berry Obama?

Rhode Island: Clinton has a 15-point lead here, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a late surge for Obama based on his organizing and national media attention. If you don’t believe me, look at Pennsylvania, where Obama has spent no money on advertising; he’s cut Clinton’s lead from 16 points to six.

Share on Facebook

Column: Clinton faces a difficult race

More Feb. 29, 2008 Outlook Stories

Most recent Outlook Stories