It's Clinton that Is Running Out of Time and Money

So many polls, so little time...

The polls are all over the map, and I mean literally all over the map: from California to New York Island! The only way to read them is to compare them with what was going on two weeks ago -- in which Clinton maintained a double-digit lead over Obama in most of the country. Now it's all tightened up.

Compare them with what those same pollsters were saying two months ago -- that the Clinton nomination was inevitable, with a national lead of up to 30 points -- and what has happened is no less than spectacular in political terms.

Remember also that the polls were so wrong about New Hampshire where undecided voters broke overwhelmingly for Clinton. And they were even more wrong about South Carolina, where undecided voters broke overwhelmingly for Obama landing him with a 28-point landslide victory when not one pollster clocked his lead at over 15. In both cases, the X factor was higher than expected voter turnout, and we can expect to see that again on Tuesday.

The question is: Which way will voters break?

The Democratic nomination contest is close enough that if things break as they did in New Hampshire or South Carolina, providing an overwhelming victor across the board, it could cripple the candidacy of one on the losing side that doesn't have millions of dollars left to fight on in the coming primaries on February 9, 12 and 19.

In that sense the stakes are much higher on Tuesday for Clinton -- who is expected to win overall -- because if undecided voters break to Obama (or if Independent voters flood the Democratic primaries in higher numbers than projected, producing the same result), as The Field noted yesterday, the Clinton organization may find itself needing to rev things up just as its tank runs out of financial gas. Clinton needs a convincing win on Tuesday -- say, a margin of 200 delegates or more -- or her fundraising is going to dry up. A Wednesday morning story about a "narrow victory" or "virtual tie" won't replenish her bank account sufficiently. The PACs and DC lobbyists have already maxed out. New donors won't come forward without major momentum. And she doesn't have a big enough base of small donors to sustain the high "burn rate" of a campaign top-heavy with highly paid consultants and staff.

Many pundits ask "Is Obama running out of time?" That is so the wrong question. The right one is whether Clinton is running out of time -- because she is definitely running out of money. She needs that convincing win on Tuesday like someone stuck deep underwater needs oxygen.

Remember that Obama's biggest single fundraising night last month was the night he lost the New Hampshire primary: he still has money in the bank and will have lots more no matter what happens on Tuesday (I wrote last September that this would be the story of '08 because a candidate with a large base of small donors has the advantage once the usual suspects among influence-seeking donors have all maxed out). If he fights Tuesday to a virtual tie, keeping Clinton's delegate lead in striking distance right before eight more states and the District of Columbia vote in the next two weeks (all in states where Obama has the demographic advantage: caucuses in Washington state and Nebraska and a Louisiana primary on the 9th, caucuses in Maine on the 10th, primaries in Virginia, Maryland and Washington DC on the 12th and primaries in Wisconsin and Hawaii on the 19th). Those post Tsunami Tuesday states offer 444 pledged delegates and would likely offset anything but a smashing victory by Clinton this Tuesday, while continuing to run her fundraising operation into the ground heading into some very expensive-to-compete states beyond: Texas and Ohio (along with Vermont and Rhode Island) on March 4, Mississippi on March 10 and Pennsylvania on April 22.

On the other hand, if a South Carolina style surprise repeats on Tsunami Tuesday, it could force Clinton to consider getting out of the race while she still has a political future as a New York Senator.

But what about a New Hampshire surprise on Tuesday? Unfortunately for Clinton, there has been no breakthrough moment (like the emotions expressed on the eve of the New Hampshire primary that provoked a backlash against a male-dominated media's literal manhandling of the moment). And the debate on Thursday night was at best for her a draw. There has been no really memorable or positive breakthrough moment for Clinton since New Hampshire.

There was one thing in the debate that could hurt Obama and it's ironically related to the fact that people like him: the prospect, raised by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, of a Clinton-Obama ticket. But that's a pipedream for those that gullibly believe it. In the event that Clinton wins the nomination she might well offer the position to Obama, but I'll bet money with anyone that wants to part with it that he'd never agree to it.

Unfortunately for Obama, he can't say that aloud, or risk being accused of a "snub" anew. He knows that he'd be crazy to subjugate himself that way to a campaign that takes DC lobbyist and PAC money (which would dissolve much of the good will that his small donor base has for him), and with a nominee that might well burn down to November defeat, turning its vice presidential nominee into something that would look like Edwards looked this round after his '04 vice presidential run (and like Lieberman looked in '04 after his '00 VP candidacy). Obama is ambitious (you have to be, politics), but not blindly so, and not crazy. It ain't gonna happen. But if a big enough sector of voters is naïve enough to think they could get two for one by voting for Clinton, that could give her a bounce on Tuesday. Obama needs to dissuade some voters of that argument without frontally assaulting it. I don't know how he does that. Any thoughts, readers?

Finally, the factor that almost nobody in punditland is talking about is that of rural voters. With Edwards out of the race (who generally ran stronger in rural America, and in many places ahead of Clinton but behind Obama, than he did in urban and suburban centers), if Obama now jumps to win an outright majority of the kinds rural communities where he won clear pluralities in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, that alone could tip the balance on Tuesday. It's a big X factor, and here at RuralVotes you've got a front row seat.

The original version of this report was published at The Field.

Comments

[theuniversal]

Obama is likely Clinton's best shot at winning the general election, but I agree that Obama would never agree to be VP, for many of the reasons you gave. His anti-lobbyist and increasing government transparency agenda, which are the foundation of his candidacy, would go nowhere under a Clinton administration. Also, with Bill Clinton around, Obama would be pure decoration. I'm pressed to think of a better way for Obama to waste his talent than as a VP under the Clintons. Obama himself surely knows this more than anyone. He'd never do it. If Hillary is the nominee, McCain will win the general, and maybe Obama could run again against McCain in 2012.

In any case, looking at the delegates split from the first 4 contests, Obama's broader base of support, and his ability to perform outside of the traditional democratic strongholds, and the state of their finances, the writing is already on the wall: Hillary will lose.

[altohone]

Interesting analysis too.

I see no reason that we can't agree with both views.

I did notice that in the recent debate, Hillary once again used Bill as a scapegoat for her campaign's tactics... and referencing Michelle in the same sentence she tried to minimize those tactics by equating the two spouses efforts.

I find it all a strange way to WANT to win.

The approach is exactly what so many are hoping to get away from, yet there was "can't hold her own" Eleanor something on the McGlaughlin group saying Hillary "had gone a long way toward repairing the damage"...

... completely ignoring that Hillary had done anything but take responsibility for her actions. If others were swayed like her by what I see as transparent old-school gutter politics with a smile, we may be over-estimating voters.

Obama supporters best rally before another loss instead of after like NH... and assume we'll have to fight beyond Tuesday.

[DoninJoisey]

The polls are certainly good news that America is finally waking up.
I still worry about the democratic machine, back room deals, and the superdelegates, but it's obvious as we see record turnouts that I'm not alone in wanting change.

[ckemp]

The most convincing case against the not-happening ticket:

The Clintons will not ask Obama to run as VP, so he'll never get the chance to (or have the responsibility for) saying yes or no. Sen. Obama does not help Clinton in the general election, and she will not squander her run on a costly short-term effort to appease Obama supporters, should she get the nomination.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I think the main thing that happens in elections is that they decide who is going to get the handout.