The Politicker

This Weekend: Obama's Advantages, Hillary's Big Chance in Maine

Getty Images

Four states will hold Democratic nominating contests this weekend. Overall, Barack Obama has the clear advantage in most of them, but Hillary Clinton’s campaign would dearly like to avoid a sweep—and has been working overtime to pull out a face-saving win in one state in particular.

Here’s what it looks like:

Saturday

Louisiana primary:

Even after Katrina, which may have reduced the overall influence of black voters in this state, Barack Obama is in a strong position here.

In the 2004 primary, which was held a week after John Edwards bowed out and John Kerry became the presumptive nominee, blacks and whites turned out in even numbers (although statewide turnout was just 10 percent, due to the paltry stakes). If that pattern holds on Saturday, Obama—who now regularly wins more than 80 percent of the black vote in every primary—will win in a rout. And even if black turnout is substantially reduced, he should still have the advantage, since he also regularly claims at least 40 percent of the white vote.

The last two meaningful Louisiana primaries came in 1992, when it was part of Bill Clinton’s landslide sweep of the South, and 1988, when it was one of five Southern states to side with Jesse Jackson on Super Tuesday (by a 35-28 percent margin over Al Gore).

Nebraska caucuses:

Considering the overpowering victories Obama posted on Tuesday in North Dakota and Kansas, it’s hard to imagine a substantially different result in Nebraska, where Obama held a rally on Thursday. Like Kansas and North Dakota, Nebraska is also a caucus state, and with the exception of Nevada, he is undefeated in caucuses.

Nebraska’s most prominent elected Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson, endorsed Obama a while back. Bob Kerrey, the popular former governor and two-term senator who now lives in New York but who nearly returned to the state to run for the Senate this year, is with Hillary Clinton.

It’s been a long time since Nebraska has mattered at all in the nominating process. Traditionally, the state held a May primary, making it relevant from 1976 to 1984, when three straight Democratic primary fights stretched all the way to June. The state helped launch Frank Church’s last-minute (and fleetingly successful) challenge to Jimmy Carter’s inevitability in '76, sided with Carter over Ted Kennedy in '80, and favored Gary Hart over Walter Mondale in '84.

Washington caucuses:

Washington, which tends to favor candidates from the reform wing of the Democratic Party, should be fertile ground for Obama, who also picked up the endorsement of the state’s Democratic governor, Christine Gregoire, on Friday. Like Nebraska, the fact that this is a caucus state also plays to Obama’s advantage.

In 1992, Paul Tsongas won the caucuses here, a victory that he hoped would help demonstrate the national appeal of his candidacy. Four years before that, Michael Dukakis tried to same trick, making Washington part of his “four corners” Super Tuesday strategy, in which he used victories in all four regions of the country to demonstrate that he was the lone national candidate. Dukakis’ tactic worked much better than Tsongas’. The state was also targeted by Bill Bradley in 2000, but after his losses in Iowa and New Hampshire, it was too late.

There is one confusing and notable quirk about Washington: The state also holds a non-binding preference primary, for which ballots were mailed out weeks ago (Washington has some of the most lax mail-in voting procedures in the country). It is the caucuses that will award the actual convention delegates, but how many voters will skip them, believing they’ve already participated with their mail-in ballots?

Sunday

Maine: Here is where the Clintons believe they can make their stand. All three of them—Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea—have made trips to the state in the last few days or are scheduled to do so before Sunday’s caucuses. And the state’s Democratic governor, John Baldacci, is on board. In the wake of Super Tuesday, the Clinton campaign has put out word to the media that they don’t think they will win a single contest before March 4, when Texas and Ohio vote. Part of the reason for that spin: So that a win in Maine will look that much more significant.

But Obama can not be counted out here. He should run well around Portland (the largest city in the state, with about 65,000 residents) and in the more affluent and educated coastal communities in the southern part of the state. He should also make a score in the Orono area (near inland Bangor), where the state university is. Hillary should run much stronger in the lower-income northern and inland areas of the state, including the cities of Bangor, Lewiston and Auburn.

The Clintons actually made a play in Maine the last time the state mattered, back in 1992, hoping to demonstrate post-New Hampshire momentum (the caucuses were held the Sunday after New Hampshire) with a win in rival Paul Tsongas’ backyard. The plan backfired and Bill Clinton finished in third place. But Tsongas didn’t benefit either because the surprise winner was Jerry Brown, who had finished in a distant fifth in New Hampshire.

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • Stumble Upon
  • Netvibes
  • Windows Live

Comments
Post a comment

lydia (not verified) says:

Obama should do ok in both Louisianna and Nebraska. Obama exhibits leadership and unity that a president should. A president being either party should be fairly neutral to reunite the country. Of course their particular party matters. What I don't like are the delegate numbers. They are bias and skewed for which ever candidate that site is routing for. What I don't understand is if Obama wins a state why he gets less votes than Clinton? That shouldn't be right. I don't believe Obama is getting his fair chance. It seems as though these delegates are not conducting this election properly. Obama said the people of the country should know what is going on. This is what he's talking about. Who regulates this process? Are they trustworthy and how would we know? I don't trust our system. So what Hillary lived in the WH with her husband. She is a senator now for the same reason. If she was never with Bill we would not know who she was. Obama's lack of experience is a way to get him out of the election. It was ok when we elected JFK and he was young. We are not taking a chance by electing him, we are taking a chance by letting him go. He brings out the public's political side and gets people involved. He really cares. I guess these delegates and superdelegates don't want the general public to have a say so or know whats going on behind the scenes. Obama is the best thing for this country. When he speaks he connects with the people. Look what experience got us from Bush, a broken economy and a pointless war with casualties felt across the nation. America needs to come together like Obama said. Hillary will keep us separated. Vote Obama!!!

renatam (not verified) says:

We also get a curiously cheerful and disconnected, constantly vacationing George W. Bush and Dick Cheney - despite the devastation of the quality of life of the American people. Now, they can both commoditize the Presidency in the next phase (they hope) w/the Clintons back in The White House, just like they did w/the Bush dynasty turning a blind eye to undisclosed, questionable foreign deals. For shame. Turn the page. Put BOTH the Bushes and Clintons out to pasture and invest your vote in the AMERICAN PEOPLE who have been exploited and compromised enough by these two families over 30 years. Where do you think NAFTA and deregulation of our financial and media industries came from??? SC proved the Clintons were desperate to WIN at any cost. Why? Whose special interests are waiting in the wings NOW? What foreign potentate already DONATED TO THE CLINTON LIBRARY (undisclosed, of course -- and unchallenged by the Bush Justice Dept., of course) and is waiting for their payoff, at the expense of the American people? Turn the page! Yes we can!

Zach (not verified) says:

Winning the 2008 election, reducing the Republican power base, and being able to govern after the election are top objectives.

With the above objectives clearly in focus, it's very possible Hillary falls just a little short. Who knows? I'm having a difficult time because my heart is telling me one thing, and my mind is telling me quite another.
Heart-wise, I'm for Hillary, but mind-wise I'm leaning only slighly to Obama.

renatam (not verified) says:

How one MANAGES their Campaign is a key indicator. Messy Campaign. Messy staff changes. Tears. Scandals (the Clinton DONOR RECORDS shoe hasn't yet dropped)? Barack has RUN and MANAGED a superior Campaign operation -- and WON against the CLINTON MACHINE. Next up, REPUBLICAN MACHINE! Turn the page.

Post a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br> <p> <i> <b> <embed> <img> <blockquote> <span> <strikethrough> <u>
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By checking this box you are giving permission for Observer staff to contact you to obtain contact information and permissions required for publication.