Post Politics Hour

washingtonpost.com's Daily Politics Discussion

Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.

Chris Cillizza, washingtonpost.com political blogger, was online Wednesday, Feb. 20 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest news in politics.

The transcript follows.

Get the latest campaign news live on washingtonpost.com's The Trail, or subscribe to the daily Post Politics Podcast.

Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts

____________________

Chris Cillizza: Good morning everyone. After another late night covering the races in Wisconsin, Hawaii and Washington State, I am recuperating at my house today -- and celebrating my 32nd birthday! (Shameless promotion). But, I always have time for an hour's worth of chatting.

So let's get started.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: The Fix is awesome, Chris. You've talked a bit about whom Sen. Obama might pick for vice president if he gets the nomination, but is anyone who endorsed Sen. Clinton essentially disqualified from consideration? Endorsing Clinton implies they thought she was better prepared to be president. Obama doesn't exactly have a lot of endorsements from high-profile Democrats with experience.

Chris Cillizza: Compliments will get you everywhere. ;)

I don't think endorsing Clinton would make a candidate ineligible to serve as Obama's vice president, but also think it is very unlikely that he would pick anyone who had not backed him in the primaries. The reality is that there are lots (and lots) of people who want to be vice president, and getting yourself into that final group to be considered requires some risk and some luck.

Take Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine -- he was for Obama before almost any other elected official. Endorsing Obama (and, therefore, endorsing against the Clinton machine) was a major risk at the time that has paid off in a huge way for Kaine. Kaine also shepherded Obama to a victory in the Commonwealth last Tuesday.

That's a pretty impressive resume. And there are many other like Kaine. Given that, it's hard to see Obama overlooking all of those people to pick someone who went with Clinton during the primaries.

_______________________

Jackson, Miss.: It now seems clear that Hillary will never come close to catching Obama in the pledged delegates, and that her only way to win the nomination is through superdelegates, which would set off a firestorm (and is very unrealistic). Is there any chance she will decide to step aside soon, or are we in for two weeks of her campaign attacking the almost assured Democratic nominee?

Chris Cillizza: I think there is almost zero chance that Clinton leaves the race before votes in Ohio and Texas. Polling shows her with a comfortable margin in Ohio and a far narrower lead in Texas, but both are states where the Clinton footprint -- from her husband's eight years as president -- is strong.

A loss in either of those two states would signal the end for Clinton -- a fact her campaign privately acknowledges.

Because of the way Texas apportions its delegates, it's almost inconceivable that Clinton could walk away from the Lone Star state with anything close to a convincing victory. But at the moment, she just needs to score a win or two.

_______________________

Austin, Texas: How negative do you think Hillary will go now that the Wisconsin exit polls suggest that voters were not impressed with these attacks? Or, rather (and I think it is pretty much the same thing), how much is she willing to weaken the eventual Democratic candidate in November.

Chris Cillizza: If you look at the exit polling out of Wisconsin, it suggests that Clinton's tactics had decidedly mixed results.

More than one in four voters said that Clinton had attacked Obama unfairly, and that group went for the Illinois senator by a whopping 91-6 margin. Just 6 percent said Obama was the only candidate to engage in unfair attacks; 27 percent said both candidates unfairly attacked one another -- Clinton won that bloc by 12 points.

What that data suggests is that if Clinton can turn the race into an all-out brawl over the next two weeks with voters concluding that both candidates were playing nasty politics, she might have an edge.

Of course, that sort of strategy has the real potential to backfire, given the momentum Obama has built in the past two weeks.

_______________________

Kerrville, Texas: Isn't one of the Hillary's biggest problems that she simply is losing on the question of "who would you rather see and hear from for the next four years?" Even if one concedes the "experience," "day one" and "doer" stuff, it just seems that Clinton fatigue is increasingly hard for her to overcome. And her whole "sense of entitlement" to the nomination is really off-putting.

Chris Cillizza: I do think one of the things the Clinton campaign underestimated at the start of this race was the extent to which Democratic voters wanted to move on from not only the Bush administration but also the eight years Bill Clinton spent as president.

It's not that Democratic voters thought/think Bill Clinton did a bad job (in fact, polling suggests the contrary is true) but rather that the rank-and-file supporters of the party want a fresh face, someone outside of the Bush-Clinton dynamic that has dominated American politics for the past two decades.

Unfortunately for Sen. Clinton, she can't change her last name or present herself as a fresh face. Her great strength is her know-how and the sense that she has seen it all before. In most elections that would be enough, but not in an election where a desire for change is the overwhelming motivator of Democratic voters.

_______________________

Baltimore: Why does Hillary continue to just pretend every primary she loses didn't exist? It makes her look like an incredibly sore loser, almost as if she's saying Democrats in the states that didn't vote for her don't matter. After all, people in Wisconsin went out in 5 degrees to vote for her; the least she could do is thank them.

Chris Cillizza: I was struck by that too. It's a tactic Clinton had adopted of late, and not one I totally understand.

My guess is that the Clinton campaign wants to portray her as forward-looking and optimistic -- focused on the next potential win, not dwelling on the last loss -- but, it seems strange to not even offer a word of thanks for the hundreds of thousands people who are going out and voting for her in these contests.

It may just be the difference between winning and losing. Remember that when Clinton won in Florida she made a special trip to the Sunshine State to thank supporters.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Have we come down to the point that Clinton needs to win both Ohio and Texas? Should she lose one of those two, would party leaders lean on her to bow out gracefully? Are Rhode Island and Vermont afterthoughts?

Chris Cillizza: Put simply: yes. The justification for Clinton's candidacy is growing more tenuous by the day as she watches Obama win contest after contest. A candidate can only go so long without winning before questions will be raised about whether they can in fact win.

Ohio and Texas shape up very nicely for Clinton demographically -- large rural, blue collar and Hispanic populations -- so losses in either one would cripple her candidacy.

As I said above, it's not clear given the delegate-allocation rules whether Clinton will be able to make up any serious ground on Obama if she wins anything short of blowouts (20 points or more) in Ohio and Texas -- and at the moment, it seem very unlikely she will be able to do that.

_______________________

St. Paul, Minn.: Hi Chris -- thanks for your insights. Knowing how much you like Senate race questions, here's one for you: A recent poll here in Minnesota shows Franken beating Coleman (though not by much). Where do you think that race is going? Is this just a blip, or does Franken have momentum? If so, where is that coming from? My sense is that Franken hasn't closed the deal yet, so he's benefiting mostly from overall Democratic enthusiasm and a very unpopular Republican president, rather than his own electability.

Chris Cillizza: A few good Senate question in the queue. I saw that poll, and to be honest would be a bit skeptical. I think Franken has run a really good race to this point and has to be considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, but it's not clear what (if anything) Norm Coleman has done that would put his numbers that low. My guess is that if you polled today Coleman would have a mid-single-digit lead and likely would be under 50 percent of the vote. That's not good news for an incumbent -- especially in a state that went so heavily for Democrats at the federal level in 2006.

Coleman is one of a handful of extremely vulnerable Senate incumbents, and it's hard to see this race being decided by more than a few points in November.

_______________________

Washington: Chris, regarding the Mississippi Senate race: Seems like an uphill climb for the Democrats, even with former Rep. Shows out of the race. Or is it? Do you think there would need to be a wave nationally to make this competitive? Thanks.

Chris Cillizza: Terrific question.

Former Democratic Rep. Ronnie Shows's decision to get out of the Mississippi Senate race clears the way for former governor Ronnie Musgrove (D) to take on Sen. Roger Wicker (R) basically one-on-one.

I've heard a lot of talk lately about how, with Obama at the top of the ticket, the substantial black vote in Mississippi could turn out in record numbers and sweep Musgrove into office. While there seems little doubt that Obama would drive huge numbers of African Americans to the polls, it's hard to see how even that sort of influx could overcome the distinctly Republican lean of a clear majority of Mississippi voters.

Musgrove is a solid candidate who has been elected statewide; Wicker is an appointed Senator who will be making his first statewide run this fall. Still, given Mississippi's underlying Republicanism, it's hard to imagine this seat going to Democrats.

_______________________

Washington: Why are Ohio and Texas so much better than Wisconsin demographically for Clinton? They seem similar to me.

Chris Cillizza: Great question. They're not necessarily.

As I wrote last night on The Fix, the shape of the Wisconsin electorate should have favored Clinton. Sixty percent of Wisconsin voters last night were women, sixty percent had no college degree and four in ten earned less than $50,000 a year -- and yet Obama won or ran very competitively in each of these demographic groups, raising real questions about whether or not she retains the winning coalition she built in earlier states.

Those results should be very worrisome to Clinton in Ohio, particularly where the demographics are not all that different than Wisconsin.

_______________________

New York: Happy Birthday, Chris, and thanks for doing these chats. Like the Republican Campaign, these chats are very civilized.

Chris Cillizza: Hey, thanks. And I offer no comment about the Republican campaign -- studiously neutral!

_______________________

Seattle: Thanks for having these chats, Chris. I know our state confused everyone with the Republicans going half-caucus and half primary and the Democrats going 100-percent caucus and beauty-contest primary. There has definitely been a cause of consternation here. In retrospect, which one do you think gets better attention from the candidates for issues in the individual state: A caucus four days after Super Tuesday, or a primary two weeks later? Or is it better to regionalize with other states, a la the "Potomac Primary"?

Chris Cillizza: It's an interesting question. In a typical election cycle, a primary two weeks after Super Tuesday likely would be an inconsequential contest, as these races usually have been wrapped up well before the primary campaign enters a second month.

In retrospect, the idea of a 50-50 primary/caucus doesn't make all that much sense, as (I think) it reduces the punch of the state by diluting the votes.

_______________________

Ferguson, Mo.: Hey, Chris. If it's true that Hillary's hold is "tenuous" as you say, isn't it incumbent on news agencies and enterprising reporters to do a thorough final vetting of Obama before Ohio and Texas? If he gets the nomination and some horrid scandal emerged during the late summer, it would be too late to retract the endorsement. Shouldn't we get all the facts out, warts and all? (That's assuming there are more rocks out there that haven't been looked under!)

Chris Cillizza: I am actually on a conference call as we speak with the Clinton senior campaign staff (who says men can't multitask?!) and one of the main points the Clinton team is making is that the next two weeks will serve as a vetting process for Obama by the national media.

The Clinton campaign already has been seeking to drive that "closer look" -- pushing the story line that Obama had borrowed lines from Gov. Deval Patrick (Mass.).

The next two weeks will be telling. It's clear Obama is now the front-runner in the race. That means he will be in the bull's eye between now and March 4.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: When is the Senate election in Mississippi? Can Elizabeth Dole be beaten? What about Nancy Collins? Gordon Smith of Oregon?

Chris Cillizza: Lots of questions. Let's take them one by one.

1. The special election race in Mississippi will be waged simultaneously with this year's November elections.

2. Democrats have high hopes for state Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina but Sen. Dole is a well-funded and savvy politician.

3. I assume we are talking about Sen. Susan Colline of Maine. If so, she is in a very serious race against Rep. Tom Allen (D) this November. Collins is well liked and has the sort of moderate profile voters in Maine are attracted to. Allen has a clear primary field and has significant backing from the national party.

4. Gordon Smith of Oregon is another vulnerable Republican incumbent. National Democrats have rallied around state House Speaker Jeff Merkley although his campaign has gotten off to a somewhat rocky start and he will have to beat feisty Steve Novick in the primary. Still, given Oregon's Democratic leanings, Smith faces a very serious challenge.

Did we get them all?

_______________________

Grizzly Adams: What was with the beard? It looked like you were trying to grow one for about a week and now you're back to being clean-shaven. Did you lose a bet? Were you trying to cope with the cold? Or was the wife away for a week and you wanted to see how you looked with it?

Chris Cillizza: Ah yes.

The idea behind the Fix beard was to keep it growing from the time of the first votes on Jan. 3 in Iowa until it became clear who would be the nominees of each party.

That plan was buoyed by the fact that Mrs. Fix was an early advocate and consistent supporter of the beard.

As the race wore on (and on), the Fix beard grew more problematic. While McCain emerged as the GOP nominee, the fight between Clinton and Obama showed no signs of ending.

And, Mrs. Fix began to sour.

A decision was made. The beard was shaved. Case closed.

_______________________

Chris Cillizza: Folks,

That's all I have time for today. Thanks for taking an hour with me today. If you want more on the events of last night, I have a winners and losers post up on The Fix right now. Make sure to check it out.

Have a great week.

Chris

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.