Why Texas will mean the end of the Clinton Campaign

[grantcart]

I. Make or Break State
Clinton surrogates have gone on record in a high profile way that Texas is an absolute must win.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/13/carville-do-or-die-for-clinton-in-texas-and-ohio/
quote
He hinted at a similar sentiment earlier this week on CNN, but James Carville – a supporter of Hillary Clinton’s White House run — was decidedly more blunt Wednesday on the impact a loss in Texas or Ohio would have on her presidential bid.
"Make no mistake," Bill Clinton's former chief strategist told the Orlando Sentinel. "If she loses either Texas or Ohio, this thing is done."unquote

II. Texas is in part a caucus state:

http://www.star-telegram.com/national_news/story/464900.html
quote
Texas has an unusual system of choosing delegates that involves both a primary and a caucus.

The system, which follows national party standards, is geared to ensure that all Democrats have a shot at making it to the convention and making their voice -- and choice -- heard.

"It's very, very confusing in the way politics in general is confusing," said Rebecca Deen, an associate professor of political science at the University of Texas in Arlington. "The Democratic National Convention has weighted the votes, but they want to make sure the people who participate get to weigh in."

Texas will send 228 delegates to this year's Democratic National Convention in Denver. Of those delegates, 126 will be assigned to vote for candidates based on election results.

An additional 35 will be super delegates . . .The remaining 67 delegates will be chosen through the caucus system -- with 42 being rank-and-file Democrats and 25 being party leaders and elected officials, according to a Lone Star Project Report.
unquote

Hillary and her machine has already dissed the caucus system pretty thoroughly I wonder who energized their folks are going to be for a process disavowed by their candidate. More to the point Obama's forces are skilled and they have the bodies motivated to move on a caucus.

III. The absence of a post Feb 5th campaign plan shows Clintons behind Obama in organization

On Feb 6th the Clinton campaign identified a single staffer going to Texas while Obama campaign had a detailed plan sending in the Iowa team to open 10 offices. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5520230.html

quote Adrienne Elrod, a 1998 Texas Christian University graduate who worked on the campaign of Houston Democratic Rep. Nick Lampson, flew to the state to do communications for Clinton. . . .

Obama officials said he would open 10 offices around the state including Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin and in the Rio Grande Valley.

The campaign named Adrien Saenz, a former aide to Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, D-San Antonio, to be its state director, and Mitch Stewart, who directed Obama's Iowa grass roots operations, to be Texas field director.

Another veteran of the Iowa campaign, Josh Ernest, a 1997 Rice University graduate who worked on former Houston Mayor Lee Brown's 1997 campaign, was named communications director.

"The ground team that has been on board since Iowa is parachuting in tonight (Wednesday)," said Juan Garcia, a Texas state lawmaker from Corpus Christi who attended Harvard Law School with Obama.



IV Delegate Distribution favors Obama.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/texass_unique_primaucus.php

To begin with no one gets a single delegate for taking the state. Delegates are appropriated to state senate districts based on Kerry's performance in 04.

quote
The delegate-rich districts are the most heavily liberal state senate districts. According to this calculation, they're in Austin and in two of the most concentrated African American parts of the state. Advantage: Obama.

Clinton will get plenty of support from Latino voters, but they tend to be more spread out and thus will see their votes somewhat diluted in the 31 separate primaries. In order to "win" -- both enough delegates and statewide, you need to organize what amounts to caucus-like campaigns in each of these districts.

The white vote in Texas will probably split, with Obama taking men and Clinton taking women. Though Latinos make up a slightly larger share of the electorate than African Americans, they tend to vote in lower proportions.

Unquote.


V. Its a narrower election map.

Obama underperformed on Feb 5th because he had to spread his resources to 20 states and fight the most established machine in modern history. He was unable to personalize the campaign in every large state. He was still able to narrow the margin and either win or reduce significantly what was a 20 point plus margin in most states.

This time he will be able to focus tremendous resources including; campaign staff, money, campaign appearances, media campaigns on basically two states. He will be able to spend significant time in Texas. Currently Clinton 48 Obama 38.

Obama also has a great deal of momentum that he did not have on Feb 5th, the Hispanic community is not as homogeneously organized in Texas as it is in CA. Anecdotally Texas is thought of a place that has particularly high anti Hillary base and it is not a closed primary.

Hillary will have a real battle in simply getting 51% of the primary vote. If she does this it will still be way behind the expectations that have been laid out. More significantly it is not just likely but probable that her percent of delegates (because of distribution and also the caucus) will be less than her popular vote percent. If she is able to sustain an electoral victory she could well end up losing the delegate battle. The latest DU reports continue to show huge numbers of volunteers being organized weeks ahead of basic steps by Clinton. Its still 3 weeks away but it appears now that Texas will likely mean the end of the Clinton campaign.