MotherJones Blog: Some Early Thoughts on Indiana and North Carolina and Their Impact on the Race

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Some Early Thoughts on Indiana and North Carolina and Their Impact on the Race

The next battlegrounds in the Democratic primary race are Indiana and North Carolina, where there are 72 and 115 pledged delegates up for grabs, respectively. Combined, the two states are worth more than vaunted Pennsylvania, and they have the ability to end the race or change its direction, depending on the results.

North Carolina favors Obama demographically. It is 22 percent black, and has a number of large colleges (UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, to name a few). It also has a number of white-collar professionals in the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area known as the Research Triangle, where the information technology and biotech industries are thriving. It has a hefty 115 pledged delegates on offer because it is a top ten population state, with over nine million residents.

Current polling in North Carolina usually shows Obama up by nine to 15 points.

Indiana, on the other hand, favors Clinton demographically. A solid red state in general elections, Indiana is 90 percent white and has an economy heavily reliant on manufacturing. (Despite those Clinton-friendly facts, it is also home to John Mellencamp, who recently performed on Obama's behalf.) It has 72 pledged delegates as the fifteenth largest state in the country, by population.

Current polling in Indiana shows Obama up one to three points. Many political observers are surprised that Indiana's numbers don't more closely resemble those from Ohio and Pennsylvania, two states directly to Indiana's east. In those states, Clinton was up 15 to 20 two weeks out from election day, and eventually won both by roughly 10.

The reason why IN and NC have the ability to end the race is this. Every time Obama wins a state demographically favorable to him, the victory is written off by the pundits, the superdelegates, and the Clinton campaign. When Clinton wins a state demographically favorable to her, the victory isn't necessarily written off, because Obama usually does a fairly good job of making every state competitive, but it isn't seen as a resounding victory. With this pair of states, Obama has the opportunity to win both a state that favors him and one that favors his opponent. That may be enough of a knockout blow — especially if the Clinton camp expends all their cash in IN and NC, as they did in Pennsylvania — for the superdelegates to step in and hand the race to him.

Clinton also has an opportunity. If she wins both a state that favors her and one that favors him, it legitimizes completely her campaign's new rhetoric that the "tide is turning." It will be hard for the Obama to argue that Democratic voters haven't lost faith in him in the second half of this campaign if he loses a state like North Carolina.

If they split the two states — NC for Obama and IN for Clinton — then we will likely have to wait until June, when all the primaries are over, for the superdelegates to finally step in and decide this thing.

So stay tuned. Pennsylvania didn't change all that much in the presidential race; the primaries on May 6 just might.

Comments

There's some interesting polling data in Indiana that suggests not only is Obama competitive in the Primary, but in the General as well:

From http://www.wthr.com/global/Story.asp?s=8224749

Margin of Error: ± 4.4 percentage points for statewide; ± 4.2 percentage points for likely primary voters

1. Democratic Presidential Race

Barack Obama 41%
Hillary Clinton 38%
Not sure 21%

5. If the general election were held today and the candidates for president were John McCain for the Republicans and Hillary Clinton for the Democrats, for whom would you vote?

John McCain 46%
Hillary Clinton 46%
Not sure 8%

6. If the general election were held today and the candidates for president were John McCain for the Republicans and Barack Obama for the Democrats, for whom would you vote?

John McCain 41%
Barack Obama 49%
Not sure 10%

Posted by: Kate on 04/25/08 at 10:34 AM Respond

So what if Clinton wins a state with a small margin? She needed to win Pennsylvania by the 20% she once led by. 10% gave her a few more delegates when she needed a lot. Now she has to win by at least 30% in each state to catch Obama in pledged delegates. Every time she doesn't, it gets worse for her. 10% wins do her no good. All she can hope for is either a meteor lands on Obama or the superdelegates overturn the results of the caucuses and primaries. If they do that, they'll so divide the party that there's no hope in the general election. The best thing Clinton can do for the party's chances is suspend her campaign. That way, she is still technically a candidate just in case there is a meteor, but she can't be blamed for dividing Democrats against each other.

Posted by: Eric Ferguson on 04/25/08 at 10:36 AM Respond

The North Carolina figures pre-date Clinton's PA win. There's only one of the figures which corresponds to a post-PA-primary period. That figure has Obama sinking to a one-point margin.

A lot of black women are beginning to realize that they are in a majority - women- and they're going to go with Clinton.

And it's about time. Here in France I watched the guy who won their election by 53% on television. He has sunk below 30% now and I guess he felt it was time for another speech. He invited the newsman to a very fancy ballroom in the Elysées Palace. There he was. Like Obama, he was wearing an exquisite suit. His mouth was full of well-phrased sentences. He was trying to snow the public again!

This morning the losing female candidate who had done her homework before during and after the presidential campaign got on the radio and picked apart the French president's whole speech, giving SPECIFIC MEASURES, one after the other, of what has to be done.

Why not elect the effective executive leader in the first place? I think that's what Americans are going to do.

Posted by: Kathy Giannini on 04/25/08 at 2:10 PM Respond

Kathy G-
Clinton is a wonk but she says she is a fighter--We all would like to know what she has fought for and WON? Her 'specifics' on issues are 90% the same as Obama's.
Now he does not speak in soundbites and she does.
He does not lie to enhance his image and she needs to because her experience is 'borrowed'.
Lastly, this is not France and she is not the Lady the French candidate was.

AND SHE IS STILL LOSING TO A UNKNOWN AS OF TWO YEARS AGO After setting this up for 16 years.

Posted by: Docb on 04/25/08 at 4:09 PM Respond

with these numbers we might want to follow the LA trial of Peter Paul v clintons;

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/06/hillary-clinton-and-largest-election.html

Posted by: Binkis1 on 04/25/08 at 4:17 PM Respond

Having witnessed Kathy Giannini's support of Hillary for months now, I have concluded that I am seeing another example of blind loyalty and reverse bigotry. I would love to see the right person in the White House - regardless of gender. But it is obvious to me that Kathy and people who think like her want to see a female in the White House - regardless of whether they are right for the job. The supposition that women should vote for Hillary out of solidarity is preposterous. This makes women dependant on group think instead of making individual decisions. Amazing.

Posted by: Paul Miller on 04/29/08 at 6:18 AM Respond