Obama sweeps Chesapeake Primary, looks like a frontrunner

Most of the political world expected Barack Obama to have a good day yesterday, when Democrats in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia went to the polls. But it’s fair to say that few expected him to do this well.

With just about all the precincts reporting from all three contests, the final results look like this:

Virginia: Obama 64%, Clinton 35%

Maryland: Obama 59%, Clinton 37%

D.C.: Obama 75%, Clinton 24%

Oddly enough, going into yesterday’s contests, word from the Clinton campaign was that Virginia may surprise people. That turned out to be true — it was a surprise that the margin of Obama’s landslide victory was nearly 30 points.

The closer one looks at the results, the harder they are for Clinton supporters to spin. Obama won a majority of whites, African Americans, and Latinos; and men and women. In Virginia, he carried “every single educational and income category by a hefty margin.” (He did the same in Maryland, except for the very wealthy, who narrowly backed Clinton.) Virginia was so one-sided that Obama had more votes than all of the Republican candidates combined — and had more votes than Clinton and McCain combined. All of the Democratic constituencies that have been backing Clinton over the last six weeks reversed course yesterday and went with Obama.

“Certainly he broadened his coalition,” one Democratic pollster said. “The question is whether that’s a one-state phenomenon or a broader phenomenon, because it definitely changes the landscape.”

Of course, as we all know by now, the race for the nomination isn’t a state-by-state contest; it’s a race for delegates. Unfortunately for Clinton, that’s where the bad news gets worse.

Ben Smith explained:

…Obama’s lead in pledged delegates widened Tuesday night to more than 100, even by conservative estimates, and there’s no indication that it will narrow before March.

There are 573 delegates up for grabs between March 4 and April 22. For Clinton to even things up, she needs to get 345 of those 573 delegates, or 60 percent — the sort of margin she won in her home state of New York.

Obama’s dramatic victories Tuesday also put him ahead in the count of pledged delegates even if Florida, whose delegates have not been recognized by the Democratic National Committee, was permitted to seat a delegation.

And his victories put him ahead even in counts that include superdelegates.

What’s more, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman made a claim, which I have not yet seen verified elsewhere, that was especially surprising: “He said he based his comments on conversations with people in both campaigns. And the gist of it was that both sides agree that it’s highly unlikely that Clinton can end up with more pledged delegates than Barack Obama. And the issue now is how close she can keep the margin.”

So, does this make Obama the frontrunner? It’s been the subject of ample speculation the last few days, and there’s still some difference of opinion on the subject, but it seems increasingly difficult to argue otherwise. He’s won more states, and more delegates. He has more money. If momentum exists in this race, he has more of it than he knows what to do with. He’s won all of the post-Super Tuesday contests, and he’s poised to win a couple more.

Put it this way: if you were going to place a bet on who would win the nomination given the current landscape, who would you bet on? This isn’t to say it’s over — Clinton is too strong a candidate and this race may still take some twists and turns — but Obama has been discouraging talk of him being the frontrunner, preferring to run as the underdog. Given yesterday’s landslides, he’ll probably have to accept the frontrunner label, whether he wants it or not.

When is the last time anyone lost 8 states in a row and came back to win the nomination?

  • But Hillary has all those institutational advantages… 😉

    Which happens to be the same deficits Senator Obama campaigns against.

    Yep, he’s the front runner.

  • I think that explicitly accepting the frontrunner label now would reinforce the truth — that he is riding a stunning and growing wave of popular support — and that would only make him stronger.

    And the Donna Edwards victory in Maryland reinforces the Obama coattail storyline that will help pull more super delegates into his corner.

    I like Hillary a lot, but it seems this will not be her time. I’m sure that is a very very bitter pill to swallow, but she needs to swallow it soon and work to ensure an epic Democratic win in November.

  • Eight in a row! It almost makes me feel sorry for Hillary, as I did at our caucus when I saw her supporters across the room huddled in their tiny group while I stood with the overwhelmingly large Obama one. It took courage, and they had it. Frankly, what I thought of were those little bands suffragettes from the 19th century fighting their lonely fight.

    And in a way it remains an apt thought and concern. We’ve never had a woman president even though many other nations have, some far less “advanced” than ours. If there was ever a qualified candidate, on so many grounds, it’s Hillary.

    And yet her success may prove her Achilles heel. She comes across as plotting, scheming, Machiavellian, triangulating, cold-hearted. And when she’s not that her laugh seems recorded from a laugh album and her tears seem manufactured. It doesn’t help that she’s married to an old adolescent who can still turn on the (apparently genuine) charm when he wants to, which makes her look bad by comparison.

    But as bad as women have had it in our nation’s history, minorities (including female minorities) have had it much worse. And they continue to do so. Apart from his personal gifts (visual, rhetorical, familial) I think that’s what make this increasingly the Obama moment in our history. That is what so many people sense, consciously or otherwise — across so many demographic, political and ideological categories . History can be made this year, not only in the single goal of having a female president (or a black one) but in making all those kinds of distinctions quaint, something which deserves to be left behind historically, transcended, overcome.

  • First the nastiness and the race baiting didn’t work, then the “nice girl” approach didn’t work… what’s Hils to do now?

    I think her last chance is next Tuesday, without a big win she will have to bow out, unless she simply makes the choice with only herself (& Bill) in mind and not for her party.

  • I think that explicitly accepting the frontrunner label now would reinforce the truth — that he is riding a stunning and growing wave of popular support — and that would only make him stronger.

    And the Donna Edwards victory in Maryland reinforces the Obama coattail storyline that will help pull more super delegates into his corner.

    Excellent points, wvng.

    Furthermore, we can’t underestimate the lemming effect these wins will have on the superdelegates, especially the half of them who are elected officials. They’ve got to see that having Obama at the top of the ticket will be good for them personally and, if it’s going to happen anyway, why not hop on the bandwagon now?

    Hawaii and Wisconsin are in the bag for him. The interesting thing will be to see how much Hillary’s lead in the March 4th states gets whittled down in the coming weeks.

  • Put it this way: if you were going to place a bet on who would win the nomination given the current landscape, who would you bet on?

    Funny you should put it that way.

    You CAN bet on it.

    Right now, Obama is about a 71% favorite and Clinton has about a 29% chance of winning.

  • What an incredible campaign season (for both parties) this has been to watch. I personally would be fine with either Hillary or Obama, although I prefer Barack. This is really shaping up to be a epic election for the democrats:

    1. The republicans lost both houses of Congress in 2006, and did NOTHING to chnage ANY of the policies that lost them the election.
    2. Incumbent republicans are retiring in droves (what is it, 29 now?), giving up the incumbency advantage (which, granted will (or should) likely be a liability this round)
    3. Democrats are turning out in record breaking numbers to vote in primaries for cnadidates either would be happy to see in the White House.
    4. Republicans bitterly divided over their presumed nominee, barely turning out to vote. (Ironic that the only republicans still running were polling around 1% 9-10 months ago?)

    Cheers!

  • The way an underdog becomes a winner is by clawing his way to the top and then closing the deal. It’s time for Obama to assume the role of front runner, and if he doesn’t, well that’ll tell us something about him that I wouldn’t find encouraging.

  • My bet would be for Obama. I can claim that I’m neutral. I voted for him because he’s not the DNC candidate.

    I voted for Obama because I’m disgusted with the Democrats almost as much as the Republicans. I think Clinton would be status quo lite. It worked in the 90’s but it won’t work now.

  • beep52 (9.) “It’s time for Obama to assume the role of front runner.”

    What does this mean?

  • I think the “lemming effect” mentioned above is somewhat accurate, but I would chalk it up to having two extremely good candidates. A lot of people have been torn between the two, some of them no doubt felt this way even after they made a nominal choice. So it was inevitable that when either one broke loose, a large number of Dems would go their way, knowing that the race isn’t really between Dems, its between us and the Republicans. I think the candidates themselves have been wishing for some clarity, and that each looks forward to the day when we all turn and face the Republicans, even if they are not the nominee. Each of them wants more than anything to take this country back in the right direction, and the day the Democratic party unites behind their candidate will be awesome.

  • dnA – oh damn, you’re right. They are shaped funny. But my home state, Colorado, is a rectangle, so that win must count. Unless it’s shaped too unfunny.

    More seriously, the Clinton campaign is firing on one cylinder now. They can’t find a storyline that works for them anymore, probably because there isn’t one.

    As someone, somewhere or other, noted yesterday, it must suck to be really good when someone truly great (Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods would be the recent sports analogies) comes along and changes the boundaries of the game.

    As I said above, I hope she decides to proceed in the best interests of America and the party.

  • dNa thanks for that I almost spewed coffee…
    I can only add that they don’t count because they are primaries. Obama is starting to always do well in primaries. They play to his advantage of having more people want to vote for him.

  • The Atlantic: Hillary Clinton chooses loyalty over expertise…who does this remind you of?

    “…because of [Campaign Manager] Solis Doyle’s proximity to Hillary Clinton, because she demonstrated the loyalty and discretion Clinton so prized, and because no one appeared capable of challenging Clinton’s presumed status as the Democratic nominee-in-waiting, nothing was done. “What Patti has that is real power is the unquestioned trust and confidence of the candidate,” Paul Begala, a veteran of Bill Clinton’s campaigns, explained in an on-the-record interview last year. ‘That makes her bulletproof.'”

  • Racer X:

    Yes, the lemming instincts of the superdelegates that I mentioned isn’t inherently tied just to the Obama campaign. Once they saw this was coming down to the wire, the superdelegates had a finger in the wind, ready to move.

    Obama might make for a more appealing top-of-the-ticket name for some of them, but they were bound to get on the winning team no matter who it was.

  • Schwag of Tulsa: I voted for Obama because I’m disgusted with the Democrats almost as much as the Republicans. I think Clinton would be status quo lite. It worked in the 90’s but it won’t work now.

    I think this is the kind of voter that scares the Republicans more than the rest of us progressives put together. And the Democrats better listen to the cries of “Clean up Washington” if they want to keep the wind at their backs.

    Note to Schwag of Tulsa: The progressive wing of the Democratic party is the only viable political entity capable of actually making headway in cleaning up Washington. Not that it will be easy, of course. But your choice is clear: the DLC Dems and ALL of the Republican factions are either a) incapable of doing it b) don’t want to do it, or c) actually want it to get worse.

  • Ed @ #4 said about Hillary: “She comes across as plotting, scheming, Machiavellian, triangulating, cold-hearted.”

    No she doesn’t, Ed. I find Hillary to be personally likable, and the campaign has only made me like her more. The image that you describe is the one that has been carefully crafted for her during the last fifteen years or so by the Republican Smear Machine. It’s discouraging to hear that this meme has permeated the consciousness of us left-leaning types in addition to Rush’s dittoheads.

    But Rush and company should be careful what they wish for. Without the negative image of Hillary that they created for her, she probably would have had a cakewalk to the nomination. Now their boy (well, McCain isn’t exactly their boy, is he?) will be facing Obama in November. I think Obama will have coattails. It looks to me like a historic landslide will bury the Republicans in November – forever, I hope.

  • Lori #19,

    Thanks for the link. When it comes to putting competent people in her administration, it appears that Hillary Clinton would pick up precisely where George Bush left off.

    (For some reason, the names Rove and Penn come to mind. Two four-letter words.)

  • Over at TPM, you’ll find this headline: “The Thinking Man’s Madrassa Smear” followed by this ending:

    “On another front, here is a recent post at The Politico about emails sent out by a member of Clinton’s finance committee asking friends and acquaintances to “read the attached important and very disturbing article on Barack Obama.” The enclosed article is this one by the neanderthal American Thinker blog by Ed Lasky. There’s much more of this going on than you realize. And it may be prepping to expand dramatically.”
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/178330.php
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Pushing_the_Israel_angle.html

    If Hillary surrogates go this way, she’ll lose more than the nomination. She’ll lose, forever, the respect and support many of us feel for her today.

  • I was worried that BO was another Carter… but there is starting to look like a more apt comparison – Tony Blair. A young, inclusive candidate – a good speaker, who won votes from every side because he seemed to embody “newness” and “change”. Won a historic landslide victory. And then… achieved very little in office, when he discovered that rhetoric didn’t actually get things done… and don’t mention Iraq.

  • OkieFromMuskogee (#22): I absolutely agree with everything you said. That’s why I wrote “She comes across as” rather than “I feel she’s”. The debates showed me a human Hillary I hadn’t known was there before. The only button I wore all during 1992 read “Elect Hillary’s husband”. And in 2000 my webpage was a plea for Hillary to be on the ticket. I’m sorry if I didn’t express myself very clearly above. I’d vote for Hillary in a minute if Obama stumbles.

  • Ed @ #4 said about Hillary: “She comes across as plotting, scheming, Machiavellian, triangulating, cold-hearted.”

    OkieFromMuskogee said: No she doesn’t, Ed. I find Hillary to be personally likable, and the campaign has only made me like her more.

    It’s not just the vast right wing conspiracy, okie. Hillary’s handlers have enabled this to persist. She has been three different people just since Iowa, and that DOES look calculating, poll-driven and insincere. Cold-hearted and Machiavellian are too much, but she’s got image problems of her own making.

    Over the same period, Obama (and Edwards) remained consistent. They tweaked message, but that’s it.

    I’ve been more impressed with Hillary than I expected. She’s a better speaker and politician than I thought she would be, but she’s not in Obama’s league when it comes to communicating and connecting, and she’s paying the price for that.

  • I find Hillary to be personally likable, and the campaign has only made me like her more. -OFM

    I agree that Hillary is personally likable, but her campaign certainly hasn’t done her any favors. Some of the things it has done (supporting voter suppression in Nevada, campaign chairs forwarding blatantly false emails, etc.) have been a big turn off.

    Plus, putting all of her eggs in the Super Tuesday basket (and now quickly transferring them to Desperation Tuesday) probably didn’t improve her likability in the largely ignored states (again, probably the fault of her campaign).

    Mr Furious said it much better at comment 27. I just don’t think her campaign has made her more likable.

  • #25 – SYD. Blair modelled his political career on Bill Clinton’s so not sure your comparison is correct.

  • Danp@14 asked “what does it mean?” for Obama to assume the mantle of frontrunner.

    What it would mean is a further embracing of the success his story line — Change, Hope — has had on the electorate. To date, Obama has been running as the “insurgent candidate.” And now that he has indisputably taken the lead by almost any measure — more people, total, have voted for him; he has more pledged delegates; he has more pledged delegates and committed superdelegates; he has way more states, etc. etc. etc. — it seems clear that the message of his insurgent candidacy has caught on.

    Obama doesn’t have to give up his position as the insurgent candidate in order to claim frontrunner status. Instead, the storyline going forward is that Clinton is the old, tired “establishment candidate,” but that Obama has been transformed into the frontrunner because THE PEOPLE don’t want the establishment candidate; THE PEOPLE clearly want the young, fresh “insurgent candidate” and that is who Obama is and who THE PEOPLE will put in the White House.

    Everyone loves a winner, and Obama is now clearly a winner. Everyone loves the rebel, and Obama’s message is that — compared to the DLC, at least — he is the rebel candidate.

    And everyone really likes a rebel who wins. Obama should embrace his wins by embracing his new frontrunner status.

  • I’m damn proud of my funny-shaped state! Mark Warner. Tim Kaine. Jim Webb. And now Obama. Suddenly Virginia has got it going on! And my tiny city of Roanoke went for Obama too! Zing!! [Now if we could just do something about the slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing yokels who voted for Huckabee.]

  • On Matt Yglesias’ cite last night, someone wisely predicted that Wisconsin won’t count because it wears part of Michigan as a hat.

  • wvng way back at #2 nailed it with the coattails observation. Donna Edwards was as much a candidate for changing Bush Dog Democrat ways as there is out there and she won very convincingly. She received something like four times the votes of the entire Republican primary field combined.

    Barack’s change rhetoric has sounded nice and everything but the Edwards victory now makes it seem that change away from what we’ve experienced the past seven years is only limited by our ability to conceive it. We now need to fill all the retiring Republican Congressional seats with Democrats like Chris Dodd and unlike Jay Rockefeller.

  • To #25: Blair did ok domestically when in office. In fact, except for Iraq, his government would be considered quite successful. After all he won reelection twice with large margins.
    About delegates: given how delegates are allocated in Texas Hillary would have to win by at least 20-25 points to get significant advantage in Texas delegates over Obama. Basically, delegates in Texas are allocated in proportion to the turnout in the previous election in a specific State Senate district. Hispanics (assumed pro-Hillary) had the lowest turnouts and thus the fewest delegates allocated to them. And a lot of districts have 4 delegates. So if Hillary wins by 5 points she will have roughly the same number of delegates as Obama.

  • It’s great…exciting. Haven’t seen this much fanfare of enthusiasm since Bush in 2000. Whoever shouts “change” loud enough wins. I’m excited about making that come true. I and most of the people I know have been screaming for it for the last 7yrs. Glad Obama is getting behind us and as soon as we can make our health care NOT FOR PROFIT and get rid of these lobbyists and NAFTA then we will have accomplished a large part of that change. Time to get really enthusiastic now and pull our candidate behind us.

  • Comments are closed.