How much of a firewall does Ohio and Texas have to be????

This spreadsheet of the Obama campaign that was leaked out has given me endless hours of entertainment.  It’s great to know what they reasonably expect to get from each state and how the entire race might play out.  

At this moment of time, they expected to have a 53 delegate advantage over the Clinton campaign.  Over this past weekend all we have heard from the Clinton campaign is how they expected Obama to win Washington, Nebraska, and Lousiana.  They added Maine to that list because it is a caucus, has a large African American population, and most people there have at least 3 PhD’s.  

According to the Obama spreadsheet, he is outperforming his expectations by picking up 24!!! more delegates than they expected to, leading by 77 delegates right now.  As someone else said, Barack is doing a good job of setting the expectations quite high, and then exceeding them.  That is amazing.  But that is not the reason I am writing this diary.

All this time I heard from the Clinton campaign about how Obama is supposed to win these states and Clinton is going to make a comeback on March 4th with Texas and Ohio.  It really reminded me of 9u11iani on Meet the Press when he kept asking Tim Russert for the Florida polls (he was quite scary)

These states are supposed to be the firewall states.  But I have to wonder, how tall does that wall have to be???  Does she need a 5 point victory???  10????  15???

Obama’s expectation spreadsheet has given me the ability to figure that out.  I think that if Hilary is within, for the sake of argument, 60 pledged delegates after March 4th it could be considered a toss up.  I think I am being generous because there are not many states that favor her after that, with the big exception of Pennsylvania.

Lets say the Pontomac primary goes with 14 point victories for Obama for Virginia and Maryland and a 20 point victory for DC (which I would think would be a good day for Hillary the way things are going) Barack would have a 103 delegate lead.  If Hawaii goes 65 to 35 for him and Wisconson splits 50-50, it is now 109.  Assuming Rhode Island and Vermont goes as Obama thinks it would, he would have a 105 pledged delegate lead.  

So Hillary would have to make up 45 delegates to effectively stay in the race by my benchmark.  She was able to do that in California when 271 delegates were up for grabs, which is almost as much as Ohio and Texas have. (334 total)  

Plugging the numbers into the spreadsheet, she needs and average of 13.5 point victory in Texas and Ohio to make up the delegates.  That is much higher than the 10% advantage she got in California.  

Now, I am still going to do everything in my power to Obama elected, but if I was a Superdelegate I would look at these numbers and jump on the bandwagon fast.

•  Tip Jar

  I don't know why people post's this as the initial comment, but I figured I might as well.  This has been a great way to pass the time on the night shift in a hospital.

  by jalby on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:59:57 AM PDT

  •  Its mojo, baby, yeah

    It gives us a place to give you recommends, which gives you superpowers.  Or something.  Trusted User status, and all the rights and privileges accorded thereto, blah blah blah

    by spotDawa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:02:47 AM PDT

•  fuck me,

  msnbc trots out pat buchanan first thing today and warns people that obama faces trouble when oh/tx come around and suggests people read Bob Novak's column..

  by soros on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:08:11 AM PDT

  •  Novak:

    Howard Dean, who was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee after the 2004 elections in a rare manifestation of internal party democracy, let it be known he would be happy to mediate with the two candidates and pick a nominee in March or April. It was occasion for laughter in both the Clinton and Obama camps.

    I must admit I laughed, too.

    by bugscuffle on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:21:00 AM PDT

    •  Ah Novak

      Mr. "With-it" himself.  He'd never acknowledge that Dean has to make such an offer as DNC Chair.

      by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:31:50 AM PDT

  •  I think they get their lead lines from network

    underlings who read them here at dKos.

    by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:29:30 AM PDT

  •  Hey

    They're the liberal cable news channel, don't ya know.

    by mikedallas23 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:51:44 AM PDT

•  Obama is going to have a month

  nearly to campaign in both states, and  he usually does a lot better when he can focus in on them.

  I get the feeling that Clinton is off to a late start organizationally...Obama knew long ago that this contest would be ongoing into these states, while Clinton seemed to think that she'd have locked it up on Feb 5th.

  by mihan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:19:39 AM PDT

  •  I dunno.

    I think they've been playing week-by-week.  Both candidates.  Texas is going to see unpreecedented primary activity.  We haven't seen much yet.

    by bugscuffle on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:23:06 AM PDT

    •  I'd expect Obama to tour through

      he may even visit some towns that not only never see candidates, but especially never see Democrats. He might do swings through places like Denton, Odessa, Abilene, El Paso, Midland, in addition to Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin. Kind of a mini-Iowa retail politics scenario. Certainly the type of campaign that would allow Obama to close the gap, even if he doesn't win outright.

      by mihan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:37:09 AM PDT

      •  This proportional business

        guarantees that he can't do poorly. : )

        by bugscuffle on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:39:41 AM PDT

        •  unless he adopts the Hillary strategy

          of just banking on the high population areas...funny how she has that strategy in both the national AND state levels...its kind of the traditional Dem general election strategy; as Mark Warner once put it, win the coasts and hope for a triple bank shot in Ohio or Florida.

          by mihan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:47:33 AM PDT

          •  What campaign

            of just banking on the high population areas...funny how she has that strategy in both the national AND state levels...

            Haven't you seen her Senate campaigns? She spent time in every podunk cowtown in western New York for over a year before running and keeps going back to them. She went out to the places where Democrats have the weakest base and worked them like no other candidate in the state. Her campaign was never all about cities.

            Obama's not having rallies in the middle of nowhere. He's going to the big cities and the big college towns and hoping for turnout there.

            Look at the map of Missouri, he won like four counties. Now, those are the counties with the largest population, and it was a big win for him. However, it's exactly contrary to the negative stuff you're projecting onto his campaign.

            Obama is going to write off as many states as Clinton if he gets the nomination. He underpolls her bigtime in Ohio and the South, not that we're going to win much in the South anyway.

            by brittain33 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:52:38 AM PDT

            •  wishful thinking

              gotta try and look for a silver lining somewhere, even if its in old polls or just wild speculation on your part.

              I'll put Obama's ability to do some real retail campaigning in opposition to anyone right now, especially Hillary. The last thing Hillary's campaign is excited about is seeing Obama with nearly a month to organize and campaign in Texas and Ohio.

              by mihan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:04:32 AM PDT

              •  Huh

                If you're going to call me out for "wild speculation," please say where I did so. That's all factual.

                by brittain33 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:06:19 AM PDT

                •  sure thing

                  Obama is going to write off as many states as Clinton if he gets the nomination. He underpolls her bigtime in Ohio and the South, not that we're going to win much in the South anyway.

                  Aside from you working off on old playbook (1992 version maybe) you're making a lot of gross assumptions and instantly conceding a number of states to the Republicans, ironically the same way Hillary conceded a number of states to Obama.

                  by mihan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:11:25 AM PDT

                  •  No assumptions.

                    Just restating poll results from Survey USA, among others.

                    I don't do wishful thinking.

                    by brittain33 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM PDT

            •  Which polls are you citing?

              How old are those polls?  I'm not aware of anything coming out of those two states since Super Tuesday.  You should post a diary about new polls when you see them.

              When you are talking about Missouri, and how Obama won only four counties, you mean it was contrary to the positive stuff we're projecting onto his campaign, right?  Like how he competes in every state in the country.

              I don't know why you think Obama will write off as many states as Clinton.  Don't you see we are dealing with two different political creatures here.  Clinton knows how to campaign based on the 1990s method... 50+1 strategy.  Obama is campaigning based on the relatively new (yet so obvious) 50-state strategy and so he is organized everywhere.  I don't see how what he's done so far in the nominating contest leads you to believe he won't compete everywhere in November.  In contrast, Clinton has shown me that she will compete in only the places where we would win anyway.

              I think it's quite obvious that the Clinton campaign wasn't expecting this nominating contest to go past Super Tuesday, which explains why they were running low on funds (having spent it all on inevitability), why their campaign manager has decided the nominating contest was taking so long that she just couldn't go on, and why they are now struggling to quickly organize ground operations in Ohio and Texas.

              And I'll ask you one thing... I am assuming that you believe the idea that Obama does much better in caucus states because his supporters are much more excited.  Given that, which campaign do you think has the better chance to organize ground operations in Ohio and Texas?

              by BasharH on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:50:23 AM PDT

      •  Personal campaigning in Texas

        is what can get him the nomination.  Texas is one really movable state, perhaps the only really movable state left on the calendar.  But it requires exhausting personal campaigning across a large state.  We'll see if they do it

        by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:35:49 AM PDT

  •  True that.

    We haven't yet seen what a week of focused attention from Obama on a single state can do. Demographics is not destiny. Obama is the better writer, the better speaker, the better fundraiser and just a more compelling figure.

    Crystal-balling the 2/5 primaries made some sense because in the time after SC, each candidate had a matter of a few hours per state to change the game. As far as imagining what TX and OH are going to look like in a month? In a month, Hillary could be left winning only Hispanic women over the age of 65. In fact, unless  there is a sea change in the effectiveness of the two campaigns, I would predict as much.

    by Robert Farrell on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:58:57 AM PDT

•  An Edwards Endorsement Would Help Obama In Ohio

  Just the think to help Obama win more of those working class/lower income voters.

  by AussieforObama on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:29:30 AM PDT

  •  Edwards's delegates are more important, actually

    They would wipe out MI/FL.

    Michigan is +18 Clinton (73 Clinton/55 Uncommitted)
    Florida is +32 Clinton (95 Clinton/63 Obama)

    However, Edwards has 27 delegates in Florida and 26 delegates elsewhere, which completely wipes out Hillary's "lead" in MI/FL

    by Fro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:25:43 AM PDT

•  Breaking!

  Oily Clinton spinmeister Lanny Davis now on MSNBC!

  by bugscuffle on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:35:11 AM PDT

  •  Says Solis-Doyle is

    the cat's ass.  Maggie Williams EVEN BETTER!

    by bugscuffle on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:37:05 AM PDT

    •  I e-mailed morning Joe

      They have the mail right on their site

      To counteract Pat's lie about Obama not getting more than 24% white vote in primaries I gave exit poll white vote info from
      Well this:

      California
      45% white including:
      42% white Democrats
      60% white independents
      63% white youth vote
      55% white men

      Missouri
      39% white including:
      59% white independents
      57% white youth vote

      New York
      37% white including:
      56% white independents
      63% white youth vote
      43% white men

      I countered Lanny Davis's "Maine had 4,000 total votes"

      And the lie about what Obama said in 2004 about how he would have voted

      I sent this
      http://mediamatters.org/...

      From interview:

      But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''.''

      ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,''
      You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators. I know that, as somebody who was thinking about a U.S. Senate race, I think it was a mistake, and I think I would have voted no.

      With a brief plea to fact check some things and not let lies spread at this important time

      Hoping Axelrod covers more and I bet he doesn't lie (I'm sure he'll soin but honestly)

      by joynow on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:19:47 AM PDT

  •  Do you believe what comes out of his mouth?

    How come MSNBC put to the most hateful propagandist against Obama at the same time with out anyone to counter balance what they are saying?

    by King T on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:43:43 AM PDT

    •  of couse not.

      But he's hard-wired into Clintoncorp.  He's interesting in that respect.  What do they WANT us to think?  What is their best case?

      by bugscuffle on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:46:41 AM PDT

  •  Lenny Davis

    is a fucking scumbag.  That piece of shit was criticizing John Kerry a while back for supporting Obama despite the support the Clintons gave him in 04.

    This is the same piece of shit who gave Democratic primary voters in CT the collective finger when he went and shilled for the loser of the primary in August 06 who then ran as an independent for senator.

    The only loyalty he knows about is to himself and his peeps.

    by DisNoir36 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:26:27 AM PDT

•  I am a Texan

  To tell you the truth, I don't think she will carry the state. Texas has changed so much in the last 20 years. He will definitely carry all the big cities, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Austin (by a huge margin), San Antonio, and may be El Paso. And, if he shows up in one of the East Texas churches on one Sunday, that will be his territory. She will carry the valley because of the Hispanic population, but not by a big margin. Those are the only democratic districts in the state. One thing people don't know about Texas Hispanics is that the average age is around 24.5 years. It is much different than what the Hispanic population composition is in California. Ron Kirk, an African American, became the first mayor of the city of Dallas by carrying the Hispanic vote by more than 70% and Hispanics are the Majority in the city, not even a minority group.

  by King T on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:41:28 AM PDT

  •  You should post

    A diary on this topic.  I've been looking for a comparison between states.  Also, has mayor Kirk endorsed anyone?

    by BasharH on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:52:31 AM PDT

    •  Yes He did

      He is actually working very hard for Obama. He is the one who took care of the business of putting Obama on the ballot.

      by King T on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:22:05 AM PDT

•  she has to win TX and OH convincingly

  If she does, then her primaries vs caucuses argument holds up, and that will become the media narrative.

  If she loses those both, its over.

  If she loses one and wins one, its almost over, but a big win in PA could put her back in the game.

  by chick ghandil on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:13:56 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    I think she has to win one of these states (and not by a slim margin...if it is slim, it'll be a slow death rather than a quick one if she loses one or both) or she's done. I get the sense that a lot of people were voting for Hillary because she was the front-runner, things were pretty good under Bill as Pres and she is smart and qualified. Also, I don't think people early on knew enough about Obama and/or thought he couldn't win. I think Clinton has lost the momentum, people now want change and that is Obama's message.

    by hopeful on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:22:10 AM PDT

  •  That's it exactly

    If there's a even a semi-convincing win for either candidate then that's the ball game as that will be the final momentum decider which will lead people to final decisions and the appearance of being the winner.  These states are for the Chinese "Mandate of Heaven" legitimacy.

    by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:47:24 AM PDT

  •  Texas is both

    a primary and a caucus! 2/3 of the delegates chosen in the primary and 1/3 in the caucus, which starts at 7pm  when the polls close. This could definitely make a difference.

    by roycej on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:13:54 AM PDT

    •  7:15, actually

      by DrJK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:37:18 AM PDT

•  How about R10,000,000

  "Feel the warmth!"

  by semiot on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:23:34 AM PDT

•  HRC Sounds Like Giuliani Trying To Make TX

  & OH Her Firewalls.

  Lets hope she gets the same results ;p

  by DFutureIsNow on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:42:04 AM PDT

  •  It's up to the Obama campaign

    They have to make the decision to do real retail campaigning rather than a media campaign with selected speech stops.

    by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:49:14 AM PDT

    •  If It Aint Broke Dont Fix It. Hillary Looks Like

      The one struggling, Baracks doing swell.

      by DFutureIsNow on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:08:48 AM PDT

      •  Won't work in Texas

        They have to be asked up close and personal. It didn't work in California.  

        by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:13:29 AM PDT

•  Assuming a good Feburary

  for Barack, and OH or TX would be the real beginning of the end.  She wants both of those states bad, and Barack is going to fight tooth and nail for 'em.  If Edwards endorses Barack, then it should be enough to offset MI/FL (delegates) help Barack in OH.  However, we are a long way from done, with much work to do.

  by TheStormofWar on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:36:37 AM PDT

•  TX Welcome Party for Obama Staff

  Monday (2/11): TX Welcome Party at Victory Grill
  by: Calendar
  Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 22:17:52 PM CST

  It's official.  Texas is the next big battleground state.  The campaign is bringing some of their most talented field staffers from across the country to Texas.  They're opening up offices in every reigon of the state, and this will be the biggest Texas grassroots operation in recent memory.  

  Yes, Clinton currently has the lead in Texas, and their campaign views our state as their "firewall" to stop our momentum.  But we're a people-powered campaign, and we'll give it our best effort to make the Lone Star state competitive.  

  Just this weekend, we had over 150 Austin volunteers making over 2,000 outreach phone calls...and we're just getting started.  Click here to watch the Fox 7 news story about our local grasssroots efforts.

  These Obama campaign staffers have been working hard all year long, so let's show them a big Texas welcome!

  What:
  Texas Welcome Party
  for Obama Staffers and Volunteers

  When:
  6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
  Monday, February 11

  Where:
  Victory Grill
  1104 East 11th Street
  Austin, TX 78702

  by DrJK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:41:47 AM PDT

•  Please stop with

  the stupid Rudy comparisons.He won 0 states and had a total of 1 delegate.

  by kayfromsouth on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:59:04 AM PDT

  •  The comparison is made

    With respect to the firewall strategy, without actually thinking that Clinton is anything like Giuliani, in failures or successes (he's failed in every respect while she's won a good number of states).

    The way I read the posting, it just says that putting all your eggs into Ohio and Texas may backfire as it did for Rudy.  And it did backfire for him.  We have three weeks to see if it will backfire on Clinton.

    by BasharH on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:34:15 AM PDT

•  Superdelegate endorsements lagging in

  state that Obama has won.

  In states that Clinton has won, 53% of the SDs have endorsed, but in states that Obama has won, nearly 60% of the SDs are still holding back.

  So, (not counting MI and FL) Obama leads in Pledged by about 50, Clinton leads in SDs by about 100 giving her an overall lead of about 50.  If Obama can win Tuesday with a 60-40 split (his average winning margin, BTW) he would gain about 30 Pledged.  At that point, the SDs that have been holding back in the previously won states may decide to get off the dime, which could net Obama another 20, bringing the race to a literal tie.

  Then, besides OH and TX, MI and FL become a really serious bone of contention since, if their delegates are allowed to be seated based on current results, it would vault Clinton past Obama again by at least 100 overall delegates.  

  If MI and FL are allowed to be seated with their results as they stand today (IOW, no "do-overs"), Obama would need to win everything remaining in Feb and everything in March (and then some) by at least 60/40 in order to get back to even.

  by sxwarren on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:08:32 AM PDT

  •  A suggestion I heard on Meet The Press

    Yesterday was to seat both the Michigan and Florida delegates but have them vote such that they vote in a percentage that reflects the national voting average, thereby not changing the nominating contest at all, i.e., if Obama has a 55% lead in the popular vote and Clinton has 45%, then the two state delegations will get votes in proportion to those percentages, so Obama would get 55% of the delegates in either state, which wouldn't change the bottom line after Puerto Rico votes in June.

    Of course, Clinton will fight to have the delegates seated as is, but I think a comment above also shows the importance of an Edwards endorsement at this time.  It not only brings the party closer together, but it potentially resolves the thorny issues of Florida and Michigan.

    by BasharH on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:38:28 AM PDT

•  Maine has a large AA population. LOL n/t

  by elender on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:12:45 AM PDT