Game Changers in North Carolina and Indiana
Robert Goidel
Posted: 05.07.2008 / 8:44 AM EDT
Hillary appears to be hanging on despite what can only be described as a crushing defeat in North Carolina. Her campaign had said it would be a “game changer.” Indeed it was. North Carolina looks to be the beginning of the end of the Clinton campaign. The only question now is when.
Clinton’s narrow win in Indiana will be downplayed despite the Obama comment that it would be “a tiebreaker.” In effect, it was tie. And in this game of presidential nominations, the tie goes to the leader.
Neither outcome is different than what one would have predicted but the larger than expected margin in North Carolina and the smaller than expected margin in Indiana drives the post-election spin. And the post-election spin will be all about the Obama victory, and the beginning of the end of Hillary Clinton’s charge to the White House.
Still, if Hillary hangs on a little longer, she may be able to pull out big victories in West Virginia and Kentucky, states where she has double-digit leads in the polls. Wins in those states come too little, too late to propel her to the nomination, and will add to questions about Obama’s electability.
Besides, she will likely lose in Oregon and she will struggle with fundraising. Her post-election call for contributions is not triumphant as it was post-Pennsylvania – a campaign ready to take on a new challenge - but verging on desperate. She is now running on fumes and – it has become clear - eliminating the gas tax will not be enough to refill her tank.
The campaign will end not when the voting is done or when the superdelegates step in to settle the nomination, but when her campaign money dries up. When her financial supporters say enough is enough. Or when she decides not to loan her campaign any more money.
The Obama campaign has to hope this is sooner rather than later. Defeats in Kentucky and West Virginia will add to the great question facing his campaign. Can he win enough votes among working class white voters – the Democrats who abandoned the Party for Ronald Reagan but came back under the fold for Bill Clinton – to win the presidency?
It is a question not yet fully answered despite the number of primaries and the endless campaign.
Such questions are not new. In 1960, a time when presidential nominations were decided in conventions and primaries were only beauty contests, John F. Kennedy needed a strong showing in West Virginia to prove that being a Catholic would not hurt him in heavily Protestant, heavily Democratic states.
Several weeks ago, my brother who lives in Kentucky (where I grew up) asked if his vote would matter. Perhaps, but not in determining the nominee. The remaining states can help answer questions about Obama, but there are no more “game changers” in the deck. This game is – for all practical purposes – over.
