Landscape for Obama is more favorable from here on

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I expect that Clinton would win TX and OH, but if Obama has a cash and momentum advantage, he should keep them close. By March 4, it's really a fight for delegates, no one votes for a while after then, and there aren't so many more states.

[Tender Branson]

Could this be the final map ?

[WalterMitty]

virginia isnt an automatic win for obama.

[Gustaf]

I agree with Porce. Louisiana is very hard to predict. It neighbours Arkansas, it liked Bill, we don't know how many blacks are still there.

I think March 4th looks very unfavourable to Obama. Texas looks like a state tailor-made to hate him and Ohio also looks bad. Looking at the Northeast so far it's not been good for him and if couldn't win MA he won't win RI. However, February looks very good, though I'd give caveats for Maine, Virginia and, as mentioned, Louisiana. The question for Obama is whether he can build enough momentum throughout February to take on Clinton in March.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Saturday:
Louisiana - blacks

Maybe. Probably. Who knows.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but note how badly Obama did with French Canadians in NH.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sub-20 actually, though only just. Which is not good for Obama. Still, white Democrats in Virginia are much less likely to be working class than white Democrats in the rest of the South. That might be enough to save him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Milwaukee blacks + Madison liberals = a small % of the state's population. Wisconsin is less well educated than average and its black population is much smaller than the national average. There are reasons for Obama to be optimistic though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually has a smaller black population than average...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...then there is no reason to expect him to take Rhode Island. Especially when the parts of CT that are like RI actually voted for Clinton. To say nothing of how the Fall River/New Bedford area in MA voted...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"All these minorities don't add up to a majority"

EDIT: I think, though I'll have to check in some cases, that I elsewhys agree with you.

[Jake]

Virginia - blacks

Not such a slam dunk here. Depends on how strong the DC suburbs are for him, as Hillary will win rural whites and he'll win blacks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rhode Island is a much different beast than Connecticut. Much less wealthy suburbanites and much more blue collar working class folks. Seems likely Hillary to me.

Texas will be a lot like California, except less competitive for Obama. Clinton will take a lot of Hispanics and a lot of rural votes while Obama will be left with the blacks and small urban white population. Blacks make up 12% of the state; Hispanics make up 36% of the state. That's almost an insurmountable advantage.

[Sam Spade]

Texas will be a lot like California, except less competitive for Obama. Clinton will take a lot of Hispanics and a lot of rural votes while Obama will be left with the blacks and small urban white population. Blacks make up 12% of the state; Hispanics make up 36% of the state. That's almost an insurmountable advantage.

The only advantage Obama will have is the open party registration in Texas, and the likely lack of a Republican Presidential primary.  Of course, all state primary elections will be held that Tuesday, so we'll see how far that goes.

The black population is more sizable in Texas than California, but the generic white Democratic population is likely more averse to voting for him than there.  So, the question once again is:  How many Indys/GOPers can he get to cross over.  Especially moderates in the big cities.

[Tender Branson]

Even if Obama wins everything in the coming month, he needs to win at least 1 of the big 2 states on March 4 or stay within 3% of Clinton in each state, which is tough - looking at the states demographics and polls. Texas will probably end up like California and I don´t see Obama getting within 5% in OH. If he loses TX and OH by 5+, PA will follow suit to vote for Clinton.

[J. J.]

Louisiana, Ohio, Rhode Island & Texas will be trouble.

Why would Louisiana be trouble? It's probably a majority black electorate.

Like I said in Ohio, he could hammer on NAFTA.

And a lot of them have moved out since them.  I would question if LA has a majority Black electorate.

[หมูเด้ง]

Remember, because Blacks are democratic, they will compose about triple of their demographic numbers.

[Sam Spade]

Remember, because Blacks are democratic, they will compose about triple of their demographic numbers.

Depends on the state.  And I doubt it's more than double in any state, anyways - see GA.

[AndrewTX]

I heard his landscape was very nice. Big front and back lawn, potted plants.. even a big oak tree in the back yard that the whole family find shelter from the summer sun.

 Very nice indeed.

[Verily]

Even if Obama wins everything in the coming month, he needs to win at least 1 of the big 2 states on March 4 or stay within 3% of Clinton in each state, which is tough - looking at the states demographics and polls. Texas will probably end up like California and I don´t see Obama getting within 5% in OH. If he loses TX and OH by 5+, PA will follow suit to vote for Clinton.

I'm not sure why Ohio is considered so bad for Obama. It doesn't strike me as a strong area for Obama, certainly, but not a weak area, either.

[Verily]

Louisiana, Ohio, Rhode Island & Texas will be trouble.

Why would Louisiana be trouble? It's probably a majority black electorate.

Like I said in Ohio, he could hammer on NAFTA.

And a lot of them have moved out since them.  I would question if LA has a majority Black electorate.

Doesn't need a majority black electorate; South Carolina was only 45% black in the exit polls, and he doesn't need a SC-sized victory. While the Louisiana black population has certainly declined somewhat from its pre-Katrina 2005 size of 35%, I doubt it is below that of Alabama, 29%, which Obama won handily.

[Sam Spade]

Even if Obama wins everything in the coming month, he needs to win at least 1 of the big 2 states on March 4 or stay within 3% of Clinton in each state, which is tough - looking at the states demographics and polls. Texas will probably end up like California and I don´t see Obama getting within 5% in OH. If he loses TX and OH by 5+, PA will follow suit to vote for Clinton.

I'm not sure why Ohio is considered so bad for Obama. It doesn't strike me as a strong area for Obama, certainly, but not a weak area, either.

Not enough blacks - lots of working-class whites - the state Dem party is in the tank for Hillary...  It could be worse, certainly, but she retains the clear advantage, as in PA.

[Verily]

Even if Obama wins everything in the coming month, he needs to win at least 1 of the big 2 states on March 4 or stay within 3% of Clinton in each state, which is tough - looking at the states demographics and polls. Texas will probably end up like California and I don´t see Obama getting within 5% in OH. If he loses TX and OH by 5+, PA will follow suit to vote for Clinton.

I'm not sure why Ohio is considered so bad for Obama. It doesn't strike me as a strong area for Obama, certainly, but not a weak area, either.

Not enough blacks - lots of working-class whites - the state Dem party is in the tank for Hillary...  It could be worse, certainly, but she retains the clear advantage, as in PA.

The working class white population does not seem to me the same sort opposed to Obama in parts of the Northeast; these are Protestants, not Catholics, Germans, not Italians and Irish, and generally a less insular population. They bear more in common with those who voted for him in Iowa than those who voted against him in Massachusetts.

Plus, Obama should do very well in most of the cities (maybe not Toledo), which should be sufficient in a Democratic primary.

The institution is worth pointing out, of course.

Most importantly, however, Obama will have the wind at his back going into March 4; I don't think anyone really disputes this. The Feb 9-19 states will mostly be Obama victories, which means he'll have a clear fundraising advantage and continue closing the superdelegate gap.

[Platypus]

It's because Ohio always votes with one purpose: to depress progressives. Whoever the progressives choose in any state-wide Ohio or national race, if the progs get enthusiastic about them, they lose that state. It's like the opposite of Connecticut-whoever the evangelicals really, really like, CT doesn't, whatever the issue.

[Sam Spade]

Louisiana, Ohio, Rhode Island & Texas will be trouble.

Why would Louisiana be trouble? It's probably a majority black electorate.

Like I said in Ohio, he could hammer on NAFTA.

And a lot of them have moved out since them.  I would question if LA has a majority Black electorate.

Doesn't need a majority black electorate; South Carolina was only 45% black in the exit polls, and he doesn't need a SC-sized victory. While the Louisiana black population has certainly declined somewhat from its pre-Katrina 2005 size of 35%, I doubt it is below that of Alabama, 29%, which Obama won handily.

Just FYI - Alabama was 51% black in the exit polls; Georgia was 52% in the exit polls; South Carolina was 54% in the exit polls.

It's not impossible at all to win with a lower black population, it just becomes tougher.  We have no clue how many blacks are in Louisiana, though.  He does seem to be pulling them out in large numbers, however, especially the women.

[Verily]

Louisiana, Ohio, Rhode Island & Texas will be trouble.

Why would Louisiana be trouble? It's probably a majority black electorate.

Like I said in Ohio, he could hammer on NAFTA.

And a lot of them have moved out since them.  I would question if LA has a majority Black electorate.

Doesn't need a majority black electorate; South Carolina was only 45% black in the exit polls, and he doesn't need a SC-sized victory. While the Louisiana black population has certainly declined somewhat from its pre-Katrina 2005 size of 35%, I doubt it is below that of Alabama, 29%, which Obama won handily.

Just FYI - Alabama was 51% black in the exit polls; Georgia was 52% in the exit polls; South Carolina was 54% in the exit polls.

It's not impossible at all to win with a lower black population, it just becomes tougher.  We have no clue how many blacks are in Louisiana, though.  He does seem to be pulling them out in large numbers, however, especially the women.

I guess I was misremembering. Still, as I said, while we "don't know", I think we can be pretty much certain that it is not lower than Alabama (which would be a drop of 6%, or 17% of the black population). The black exodus was not that immense.

[Sam Spade]

Even if Obama wins everything in the coming month, he needs to win at least 1 of the big 2 states on March 4 or stay within 3% of Clinton in each state, which is tough - looking at the states demographics and polls. Texas will probably end up like California and I don´t see Obama getting within 5% in OH. If he loses TX and OH by 5+, PA will follow suit to vote for Clinton.

I'm not sure why Ohio is considered so bad for Obama. It doesn't strike me as a strong area for Obama, certainly, but not a weak area, either.

Not enough blacks - lots of working-class whites - the state Dem party is in the tank for Hillary...  It could be worse, certainly, but she retains the clear advantage, as in PA.

The working class white population does not seem to me the same sort opposed to Obama in parts of the Northeast; these are Protestants, not Catholics, Germans, not Italians and Irish, and generally a less insular population. They bear more in common with those who voted for him in Iowa than those who voted against him in Massachusetts.

Plus, Obama should do very well in most of the cities (maybe not Toledo), which should be sufficient in a Democratic primary.

Southern Ohio compares favorably to Kentucky and West Virginia, not Iowa.  I suspect I know where they'll go.  The Northern Rust Belt hasn't really voted in any contest this year, but I suspect how they'll vote, if history is any indication. 

Simply put, Obama will have to make up with the black population in Cincinnati and Cleveland and Columbus (to a lesser extent) to counteract what he's going to lose in nearly all other areas in order to win.  And also do well among the higher-income whites (think Cleveland).  Tough road - not impossible, but tough.

[Sbane]

Those of you who think a lot of blacks have left LA are only thinking about new orleans. I will bet rural LA is just as black as rural alabama,georgia, south carolina etc...

[Verily]

Even if Obama wins everything in the coming month, he needs to win at least 1 of the big 2 states on March 4 or stay within 3% of Clinton in each state, which is tough - looking at the states demographics and polls. Texas will probably end up like California and I don´t see Obama getting within 5% in OH. If he loses TX and OH by 5+, PA will follow suit to vote for Clinton.

I'm not sure why Ohio is considered so bad for Obama. It doesn't strike me as a strong area for Obama, certainly, but not a weak area, either.

Not enough blacks - lots of working-class whites - the state Dem party is in the tank for Hillary...  It could be worse, certainly, but she retains the clear advantage, as in PA.

The working class white population does not seem to me the same sort opposed to Obama in parts of the Northeast; these are Protestants, not Catholics, Germans, not Italians and Irish, and generally a less insular population. They bear more in common with those who voted for him in Iowa than those who voted against him in Massachusetts.

Plus, Obama should do very well in most of the cities (maybe not Toledo), which should be sufficient in a Democratic primary.

Southern Ohio compares favorably to Kentucky and West Virginia, not Iowa.  I suspect I know where they'll go.  The Northern Rust Belt hasn't really voted in any contest this year, but I suspect how they'll vote, if history is any indication.

Southern Ohio is also pretty much irrelevant in a Democratic primary except for the Cincinnati area (where there are quite a few wealthy whites to vote for Obama as well as a substantial black population) and Athens County (which should favor Obama strongly).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the end, it's relatively comparable to Missouri, except with a slightly higher black population and a slightly friendlier white population. Which, given Obama's narrow victory in Missouri, portends a maybe 3-5 point Obama victory in Ohio.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well Obama racked up huge margins in st louis county(suburbs) but i dont see where in ohio outside the cities he gets that kind of support. Ohio doesnt seem to have a liberal suburban area unlike mo( st ouis county) and va(nova). For a democrat winning blue collar places like mahoning county is the key to victory in Ohio and Obama will have a hard time there.

[Flying Dog]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well Obama racked up huge margins in st louis county(suburbs) but i dont see where in ohio outside the cities he gets that kind of support. Ohio doesnt seem to have a liberal suburban area unlike mo( st ouis county) and va(nova). For a democrat winning blue collar places like mahoning county is the key to victory in Ohio and Obama will have a hard time there.

That's why we are glad to have the rest of February here beforehand. If Obama carries the large majority of them it will build up that inevidibility feeling.

[Lief 🗽]

Something to keep in mind about Texas:

We hold a primary during the day, and then a caucus starting at 7. So, we have 193 pledged delegates. 67 of those will be proportionally allocated by the statewide (ie, primary) vote. The other 126 will be allocated on the district-wide (ie, caucus) vote.