Wisconsin's Over - Now Texas and Ohio

In the wake of Barack Obama’s convincing win over Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin last night, we can identify some important issues and answer some good questions. First, let’s take a look at Samir’s e-mail comments, sent before we knew the results of the Wisconsin primary:

Comment by Samir D.:
I thought I'd give my opinion on a few issues for the blog- I really enjoy looking at it!

I think that the Democrat nominating process is fair because every senator, representative and governor should have the right to endorse a candidate and play a part in getting them elected. I can however see the "unfair arguments". Maybe, I'm just a bit biased because Hillary Clinton needs every superdelegate she can get. I also feel that Michigan and Florida should have their delegates counted at the National Convention because it wasn't the fault of the ordinary Florida voter - 2 million people (I think)'s votes counted for nothing- that's unfair and undemocratic. Michigan/Florida Democrats broke the rules but not the citizens of Michigan/Florida.

I wanted to ask you-
What is the situation in Ohio like? Have the candidates visited the areas near Hudson? Do you think that a lot of independents will vote in the Democratic primary either to vote against Clinton because they hate her or for Clinton because they feel that McCain has a better chance of beating her than Obama?

I personally think Ohio will be her comeback state but think that Wisconsin is going to be closer than we think!

Hope all is well- look forward to seeing the next blog post!

Thanks for your comments, Samir.

For today, let’s focus on one important and often overlooked topic: the type of primary conducted in Wisconsin. In that state, they run an open primary, which means that any registered voter can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary. (Many states, such as Maryland, have a closed primary – you can only vote in your party’s primary; if you are registered as an independent, you can’t vote in EITHER primary.)

Exit polls from Wisconsin showed Obama and Clinton splitting the vote of registered Democrats nearly 50-50. Where Obama won big was with independents and Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary. He won those voters (about a quarter of the total vote in the primary), by a huge margin (65-35 or so). That explains the lopsided 17 point victory he scored over Senator Clinton.

What happened in Wisconsin gets me to Samir’s question about Ohio. Our state (and Texas too, for that matter) also has an open primary. Most observers think that, as in Wisconsin, a substantial number of independents and Republicans will cast ballots in the Democratic primary. And Wisconsin is likely to be a good indicator of how those folks will vote in Ohio and Texas. Whether Senator Clinton has enough traditional Democratic party support in Ohio to stave off this likely independent/Republican tilt toward Obama and make it, as Samir says, “her comeback state” is, of course, the big question to be answered over the next two weeks. What do the rest of you think about Samir’s point? What about your general thoughts on the American presidential nominating process?

Let me leave you with this thought: Remember, upper 6th students, when we went to the American Politics seminar at the British Library in early November? We had four “experts” (two former Congresswomen and two University instructors) give us their presidential picks.

Here’s what they said: for the Republicans, Giuliani 3, Romney 1, McCain, 0. For the Democrats, Clinton 4, Obama nada. Que pasa?