Did Wisconsin Matter?

Did Wisconsin Matter?
By Jay R. Hagerman
Thursday February 28, 2008

On Tuesday February 19th the states of Wisconsin and Washington divvied their delegates based on the turnout. Despite frigid temperatures in Wisconsin, the voters turned out in good numbers with over 1.5 million votes cast. The winners were Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, as I predicted in the last article. The question remains; did Wisconsin matter? There is a dual answer, so yes and no. Of course Wisconsin’s sheer delegate count definitely matters. However, in the long run of this campaign, Wisconsin has no significance.
In the Democratic primaries, the Clinton campaign did not blink after losing to Obama in Wisconsin. She is campaigning heavily in the delegate rich states of Texas and Ohio. In her speech delivered in Ohio after the Wisconsin results were rendered, Clinton was preaching her economic policy to that state. Both Ohio and Pennsylvania have been suffering in the decline of population and the loss of jobs. Clinton’s economic policy entices blue collar voters and will give her an advantage over Obama because he is struggling in both of the March 4th states. Obama is down in the polls to Clinton, some polls claim by double digits. Obama gave a hearty oration to a vast crowd in Texas. He quoted John F. Kennedy, a leader he has been likened to, and once again preached about the need for hope in America. Recently, he has been questioned by the media about his use of rhetorical flourishes instead of talking about policy issues. Obama’s speech from Texas had more policy in it, showing the adaptability of his campaign. If Texas or Ohio votes for Obama Clinton is as good as finished. I don’t think she will lose either state, but Ohio will be the closer of the two. With her “firewall” of Texas and Ohio, Clinton will not be out of the race. In fact, she may emerge as the front runner again on the morning of March 5th.
The situation is quite different on the Republican side. John McCain is the heir apparent to the nomination of his party. He readily won the vote in Wisconsin, as I predicted, by about 15 points. Many have been asking why Mike Huckabee is still in the race. I have three theories. First, Huckabee heartily believes that a Democrat will win in 2008 so he is setting himself up for a presidential run in 2012. Second, Huckabee is gaining recognition for a potential senate seat run against one of the two Democrats in his state, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln. I don’t think this is completely his motivation, but may be an alternative to the presidency. Finally, instead of bowing out of a presidential run he may be staying in this race to gain momentum for his new occupation. Huckabee is no longer the Governor of Arkansas and now gains his income by giving speeches for profit. Mike may give off the illusion that he genuinely thinks he can win through a brokered convention. Well, I think he is genuinely wrong. With McCain having 942 of the 1191 needed delegates he is very strong. I think Huckabee may still win Texas and Mississippi. Apart from those states, I think McCain will be completely legitimized soon, gaining the needed delegates. Look for McCain’s campaign to take on a ‘general election’ style now directly challenging Clinton and Obama while being civil with Huckabee.
Wisconsin has not exposed any revelations in this primary season. It has only reinforced the importance of Texas and Ohio in the March 4th primaries. What has been hinted at and not discussed is the pending importance of the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. If Texas and Ohio lean toward Clinton, which I think they will, our state may see rallies and events popping up across the Keystone State’s landscape. If this is the case I think Pennsylvania goes to Clinton and McCain, but can be won by Obama only if Ohio is won by a large majority. That means his ‘rust belt state’ message works and he will run with it.