Live-blogging the DNC

Live coverage of the second night of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver.

I doubt many people are reading this anymore, but I'm always happy to write for writing's sake.

The big story here at the Democratic National Convention has been the continuing feud between supporters of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clinton's supporters are convinced that the Obama campaign has continuously disrespected the New York senator, to the point that more than a third of them have said that they refuse to vote for Obama and will instead either vote for John McCain or stay at home. Perhaps it's just me, but I can't quite figure out what the Obama campaign has done to defame Sen. Clinton other than defeat her in the primaries. It all seems like a lot of sour grapes to me. In fact, I'm surprised that so many Democrats would rather see a Republican in office to assuage a grudge. Of course, it's more than likely that the media has made this a bigger issue than it really is. In fact, my blogging on the subject is only making it worse. Let's move on.

Virginia governor Mark Warner delivered the keynote address tonight, something that has drawn particular attention this year because of Obama's stirring and now-famous keynote address in 2004. Warner was tapped as a likely Democratic nominee until he announced that he would not run in 2007, preferring to see his daughters graduate from high school first. After listening to his speech, I really wish he would reconsider. Warner is a terrific speaker and a centrist to boot. Rather than enshrine Obama and demonize McCain, he talked about reaching across the aisle and accepting good ideas no matter which side they come from. I'd love to see a President Warner someday. He seems like someone a lot of people could get behind. At the very least, he's not someone that people could forward emails about claiming all sorts of atrocities. (Not that we have anyone like that now.)

After Gov. Warner, a parade of lesser-known governors (Ohio's Ted Strickland, Massachussetts' Deval Patrick, and Montana's Brian Schweitzer) came out and did exactly what Warner didn't - demonize John McCain. That's their job, really, but it came as quite a contrast from Warner's speech. I'll summarize their speeches here:

"As you're aware, by electing Barack Obama as the next president of the United States, we will be able to create three billion new jobs - every month! It's absolutely amazing what we could accomplish! By contrast, if John McCain becomes president, we will literally be forced by law to brutally slaughter and consume our own children. Is that what we want to see happen in the future? No! Only Barack Obama can save us from the coming apocalpyse!"

(Actually, I really enjoyed Brian Schweitzer's speech. He played up the fact that he's a simple rancher from Montana, and he really seemed to be having fun. It's a rare thing to laugh out loud during a convention speech. I did several times during Schweitzer's speech. Here's hoping we see more of him in the future.)

While I'm waiting for Sen. Clinton to come on stage, I'll talk about Deval Patrick briefly. I thought it was interesting that they invited him to speak, considering the "just words?" flap earlier in the primary season. He was a good speaker, but I cringed a little bit when he started having the audience chant "yes, we can". It seems a little bold of him to invite plagiarism back into the campaign. The McCain campaign is doing a good enough job of shredding Obama's image without him adding more fuel to the fire.

(Schweitzer is still going, and he's shouting at each state's delegation individually to get up off their feet and shout for energy independence. Man, this guy is an electric speaker!)

Before Sen. Clinton took the stage, they played a montage of her speeches and people talking about her. It was pretty inspiring, and you'd better believe they put that "18 million cracks" line in there a couple of times. Chelsea Clinton narrated the video, and she introduced her mother to the crowd, who gave her a few minutes of a standing ovation and waved a ton of Hillary posters, which seemed to appear out of nowhere. The big question, though: can she convince her supporters to (enthusiastically) back Obama?

It sure looks like she's off to a good start - she mentioned the fact that she was a "proud supporter of Barack Obama" within the first 30 seconds of her speech. Statements like "we are all on the same side, and none of us can afford to stay on the sidelines" seemed like pointed remarks to her supporters to vote for Obama already.

She's doing a very good job of reminding Democrats what the real contest is - not Clinton vs. Obama, but Obama vs. McCain. She mentioned once that Obama was her candidate and was met with grumbles of disdain, but she kept talking and shouted them down. I'm convinced she's sincere. While she's certainly disappointed that she didn't win this round (who wouldn't be?), she really wants to see a Democrat in the White House.

(Personally, I think she'll be a more powerful agent for the Democratic Party as a senator than she could have been as a president. She'd meet with a lot of strong Republican opposition as a president, but in Congress, she can be a strong voice and push things through. This is probably the best situation the party could be in at this point, all things considered.)

It's interesting that all of these speakers have stayed away from personal attacks on John McCain in keeping with Obama's vision of post-partisan politics, but that it seems to be open season on attacking George W. Bush. His name is practically a four-letter word here at the convention, becoming synonymous with "failed leadership," "economic ruin," and "short-sighted."

Wow. Hillary's finishing this speech off with a bang. She's asking her supporters, "Were you in this campaign just for me, or were you in it for [a million stories that tug at the heartstrings]?" For someone whose public image is so much about me-first and selfishness, she's doing a good job of taking the spotlight off herself. I saw a lot of shots of tear-streaked faces of women who are still reluctant to let the dream go, but the message seems to be getting through. This is a really good speech.

Now she's implying that it's our duty as Americans to elect Barack Obama to ensure a brighter future. That's a powerful statement, and it's interesting that she was able to make the point without mentioning either Bush's or McCain's names. Very skillfully done.

That's it for the convention tonight. It looks like Hillary did all that she could to convince her renegade supporters to get behind Obama and the party in November. She wasn't wishy-washy in her support, either. She made it very clear that she doesn't want to sabotage her party's chances at the White House. Sure, you might argue that such was the politically expedient thing for her to do (could she really stand up and tell people to abandon Obama?), but the message really seemed sincere. I was impressed. But boy, would I be excited if Mark Warner were on top of the ticket. Especially if he had Brian Schweitzer as his VP. What a tremendous ticket that would be. Maybe someday in the future.

The death knell

Why Hillary is finished after last night's primaries.

For those unaware, Indiana and North Carolina each held primaries last night. Barack Obama had long been projected to win North Carolina, and Hillary Clinton was supposed to win Indiana. Then the recent Rev. Jeremiah Wright imbroglio started up again, and people thought Obama would do much worse than expected. Hooray for lowered expectations! Obama won North Carolina by 15 points (which is actually less than he was supposed to win it by a couple of weeks ago) and narrowly lost Indiana, effectively murdering any remaining spark of hope Clinton had of winning the race.

How can that be, you ask? Isn't Obama's lead only 150 or so delegates? Aren't there still several more contests to go? Actually, the primary season is very nearly over. (FINALLY.) There are only six more primaries to go, with a total of 217 delegates left. Obama's lead is roughly 150 delegates. Hillary would have to win something like 86 percent of the remaining delegates to get a lead in pledged delegates, and even then she has to convince about 70 percent of the superdelegates. (I'm not just pulling these numbers out of the air. You can see for yourself by using Slate's delegate calculator.) This isn't even close to realistic. Hillary has only won one blowout state, and that was her home state of Arkansas. She doesn't have a prayer anymore. In the next few days and weeks, you can expect to see superdelegates flocking to Obama in droves.

The moral of the story? Clinton can't win unless it comes out that Obama was caught having gay sex with Adolf Hitler's corpse while defecating on a lapel pin. Or something like that.

The Political Horse Race

The queen mother of all bad omens.

The Kentucky Derby was run this weekend, and predictably, was made into a political metaphor. The field was packed full - 20 horses were entered - but was devoid of a clear favorite. Making headlines was filly Eight Belles, the first female horse to be entered in the Derby in nine years. Starting to sound like the Democratic primary season yet? It certainly did to Hillary Clinton, who announced before the race that she was endorsing Eight Belles to win. Eight Belles ran valiantly, making a big push through the home stretch to come in second. Pretty good for a filly.

And then disaster struck. Galloping through the second turn, Eight Belles broke both of her front ankles in a freak accident, collapsing to the track. Veteranians were summoned to the scene immediately, but there was nothing that could be done, as the filly was euthanized on the track. Eight Belles was the first horse in the history of the Kentucky Derby to die on the track.

That alone would be an awful political omen for Hillary Clinton. Watching the horse you endorsed to win become the first to DIE ON THE RACETRACK has to be sobering. It gets better, though. The winning horse was a largely untested young phenom named Big Brown. Wow. I'm not given to superstition usually, but this is pretty alarming.

Pre-race favorite Colonel John finished fifth.

AP Photo/Brian Bohannon

In which the author loses his mind

Why this primary season is driving me insane.

(In this article, the author will replace his traditional style of summarizing news stories without editorial bias with RAW UNBRIDLED SARCASM. Please be forewarned that the following statements will be purely opinion and not meant to be construed as fact. Thank you. --ed.)

The dominant story in the headlines today was that Barack Obama all but officially cut ties with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his controversial pastor who has been causing problems for him on the campaign trail. (I've already documented my feelings on the Wright imbroglio previously; feel free to refresh yourself on them.) After laying the story to rest a few weeks ago, Wright has taken it upon himself to go on a speaking tour in an effort to clear his name. To his credit, he sounds much more polished and intelligent than the sound bites you hear on YouTube. And to his credit, Obama really didn't have any other political recourse than to once again publicly distance himself from Wright. That's all good and well. But why does this story have to be the top item on my Google News page? It's a story that's already been put to bed several weeks ago. It didn't affect the polls the first time around, and it won't affect the polls this time around. (Pro-Obama voters would love him even if he ate babies, anti-Obama voters would hate him even found a way to cure cancer and turn it into gold, and undecided voters will vote based on the economy.) Let it go already! It doesn't matter!

I know I sound like a broken record here, but the fact is that none of the election coverage over the past few months has really mattered. Almost without exception, each state has gone for the candidate projected to win there weeks and months earlier. The only exception has been Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire, which showed Obama leading on the day of the primary. Can we please skip to the end already? Clinton DOES NOT have a chance to win the nomination. She can take the race all the way to the convention, sure, but in the end, she's going to end up as close to winning the nomination as Dennis Kucinich. Taking second place isn't any different than taking twentieth. You still lose.

Don't believe me when I say she's not going to win? Take a look at Slate's Delegate Calculator, which shows how many delegates each candidate has and stands to win in each state. As I'm writing this article, Obama holds a 155 delegate lead. That may not sound like much when there are over 3100 delegates that have been awarded, but that's more delegates than there were at stake in Ohio. (Remember when Ohio was a big deal?) Obama's lead is huge, and Clinton isn't doing much to chip away at it. The major media outlets made a huge deal about her win in Pennsylvania last week, saying that she was back from the dead and that maybe Obama was the underdog now. This is lunacy. Absolutely ridiculous. She ended up with a net gain of 12 delegates from that primary. If she wanted to make a legitimate claim that she could win this race, she would have needed at least twice that to start making a dent in Obama's lead. As it stands, Clinton needs to win the remaining nine primaries by forty points each to even catch up to Obama. Forty points. That means she needs to get at least 70% of the vote in nine more contests if she wants to take the lead and start convincing superdelegates that the has the voice of the people.

Do we have any idea how utterly impossible it is to get 70% of the vote in any given state? Any??? It's only been done twice in this primary season. Obama did it in Hawaii (where he benefited from being a native son and the caucus format) and Clinton did it in Arkansas (again, with the native son). Obama couldn't do it in Illinois. Clinton couldn't do it in New York. John McCain is just barely pulling it off now, even though he's UNOPPOSED. Is this starting to make sense? HILLARY IS DEAD, PEOPLE. ACCEPT IT.

Seriously. Let's just agree to tune out all election coverage until June 4, when we wake up and see that Obama is STILL ahead after the Montana and South Dakota primaries. Clinton won't have a leg to stand on. She'll be completely finished and won't have anything else to fall back on. (Who am I kidding? Of course she'll come up with something else to justify staying in the race.) Anything else that happens between now and then can be safely ignored, unless we find out Obama is a convicted murderer, alligator rapist, or serial pope abuser. Almost every single primary (remember New Hampshire?) has gone according to the polls so far. There's really no reason to assume that it won't continue. Here, I'll even tell you who's going to win each of the remaining nine contests:

May 6: Indiana (Obama, close)
North Carolina (Obama, by a lot)

May 13: West Virginia (Clinton, by a lot)

May 20: Kentucky (Clinton, by a lot)
Oregon (Obama, close)

June 3: Montana (no polling data available, but probably Obama by a lot)
South Dakota (same thing)

There aren't any opinion polls taken for Guam and Puerto Rico, either. Even if we assume those to be virtual ties, there's no chance that Clinton will get 70% of the remaining vote. Even if she does, she still has to convince something like 80% of the remaining superdelegates to side with her. It's impossible.

Seriously. Come back and read this article on June 4 and see if I wasn't right.

Lights Out in Florida

Shockingly, an actual development on the campaign trail.

While I was adamant that nothing significant would happen with respect to the election until the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, I may be forced to eat my words a mere two weeks later. Something major is afoot, and it's not what you think it is. Barack Obama's speech on race today was stirring. It was impressive, and critics hailed it as a turning point in his candidacy. Some people said this was the moment that put him past the presidential threshold. It was impressive. It sounded fantastic, and certainly did a lot to improve his image, which is what this campaign is centered around. But it wasn't the most significant piece of election news today. The most significant news, actually, was something that came without a lot of fanfare, which is surprising, considering its implications. Florida Democratic Party chair Karen Thurman announced today that Florida will not hold a re-vote for the Democratic primary. The results are to stand as is.

This leaves three possibilities for the Florida Democratic delegates, none of which are particularly appealing to Hillary Clinton, who won there with 50% of the vote.

Situation 1: The delegates from Florida aren't seated at the Democratic National Convention in August, and Clinton's 17-point victory counts for nothing. The Florida delegates don't matter. Ouch.
Situation 2: Barack Obama, who will control who can and cannot be seated at the delegation since he has the most delegates, allows the Florida delegates to be seated, but only if he has enough of a lead that seating extra Clinton delegates isn't a threat to him. They don't matter in this situation, either. Ouch.
Situation 3: The Florida delegates are split 50-50 in a reallocation. Neither candidate earns a net gain from Florida. The delegates still don't matter. Ouch.

No matter how you slice it, Clinton stands to lose a lot from this decision. Florida could have offered up to 186 delegates. Even if she only won by ten points (which is a somewhat modest projection), she would have gained twenty delegates on Obama. That's a lot when you consider the gap between them is just over 140. Her chances of winning the popular vote shrink up without Florida, too. A re-vote in Florida would likely have been even more in her favor, pushing her closer to the popular vote and the claim to have the voice of the people. That doesn't look likely now. Superdelegates are trickling away from her, too. She's losing, and even a major victory in Pennsylvania probably won't be enough to stop the bleeding.

So that's the real news from the campaign trail. The news outlets will rave and swoon over Obama's big speech, but you'd better believe the announcement out of Florida has the Clinton campaign sweating a lot more.

The Dream Ticket?

Sneaky tricks as the primary season continues to unfold.

Remember how I told you the next few weeks would be a lot of coverage about nothing? It's already underway. The insanity surrounding Eliot Spitzer aside, a "major" event has arisen on the campaign trail. Since her wins in Texas and Ohio rejuvenated her campaign, Hillary Clinton has been subtly floating the idea that Barack Obama could be her running mate in November. Crowds flew into a frenzy as she remarked, "A lot of people wish they didn't have to [choose between Clinton and Obama]. A lot of people say 'I wish I could vote for both of you.' Well, that might be possible someday."

The Obama response was predictable. He was quick to point out that he is "not running for vice president," and that the Clinton camp can't say both that he is too inexperienced to be president but suitably experienced to be vice president. And he's right, of course, but the real problem this poses for Obama is the one that lies under the surface. By suggesting that Obama could be her vice president, Clinton places herself as the front-runner. It's almost a condescending remark, as though it were something a mother might say to her well-intentioned but ultimately misguided child. She's implying that even though Obama is running in front right now, she will be the party nominee in the end, and that this is a good way to get his feet wet.

The genius of the whole thing is that the whole argument is implied. If she were to say all of this out loud, Obama could argue against it without too much difficulty. However, you can't argue against something that isn't said. Obama is trying to make the nonverbal argument into a verbal one by saying that Hillary isn't in a position to start choosing a vice president just yet since she's still behind. He's going to have to crack down a little harder. Clinton is getting into the voters' heads. There's no reason to think that she won't continue tactics like this one.

Whole Lotta Nothing

And why you can expect a whole lot more of it until the Pennsylvania primary.

Now that the much-ballyhooed Texas and Ohio primaries have officially settled nothing other than the fact that the Democratic primary race will continue, the American public gets to wait seven more weeks until another major primary. True, there is a caucus in Wyoming tomorrow and a primary in Mississippi on Tuesday (both of which should be easy Obama victories), but the Pennsylvania primary on April 22 has 158 delegates at stake, nearly three times the amount of Wyoming and Mississippi combined. So we should look forward to a month and a half of silence, right?

Wrong. The candidates want to keep themselves fresh in your mind (predictably), so they're going to do all they can to keep themselves in media coverage, and especially to make sure that their opponent looks as bad as possible. So we should look forward to engaging and intellectual debates about the various issues facing our country, right?

Wrong again. With a few exceptions, party primaries aren't really about issues. (The 2006 Senatorial primary in Connecticut between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont, which was widely seen as a referendum on the Iraq War for the Democratic party, is a good example of this.) Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have differences when it comes to the issues, but for all intents and purposes, they're very minor issues. Both of them agree that we need a universal health care program. Both of them believe we should get our troops out of Iraq. Both of them believe we need to turn around the economy. Their only major policy difference is Obama's claim that he'll meet with leaders of countries such as Cuba, Iran, and North Korea without setting preconditions, but the fact that this hasn't received much attention in the media goes to show you that these elections aren't about issues.

I've argued before that this election is about image. If you want proof of that, you need look no further than the slogans for each candidate. Obama's is "change we can believe in," and Clinton's is "solutions for America." Could we have two less substantive themes? Obama has been famously vague about what sort of change he will enact as president, earning criticism from the Clinton camp, but she has been equally vague on what "solutions" she would provide. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, though. We already know what issues and policies the Democratic candidate will pursue in office, whichever of them is ultimately nominated. What we're voting for is an image. Do we want the candidate who has an image of hope and staying above the fray, or do we want the candidate promising experience and an ability to fight?

Once you accept the idea that the election has nothing to do with issues, the fact that stories such as Obama's traditional Somalian outfit or Clinton's dallying to release tax information are dominating news cycles comes as no surprise. They aren't trying to show that the other is weaker on the issues. They're working to destroy image, because ultimately, that's what voters are deciding this primary season. An interesting side note: for all the noise generated about McCain being a phony conservative, can you think of anyone who looks more like a Republican than him? He looked and acted the most like a conservative of any of the candidates, with the possible exception of Ron Paul. He's old, and he's cranky. Mitt Romney was his strongest competitor, but the image he gives off seems like he would have been more at home in the Democratic party. (Is it any surprise that he was elected as the governor of Massachusetts?)

So prepare for a lot of stories about nothing over the next seven weeks. They may sound important and critical to the election, but you'll find that even if it sounds like there are issues on the surface, it boils down to image, and that's what counts in the end.

We've Only Just Begun

Making sense of last night's primaries.

Hillary Clinton put a stop to the Obama freight train with victories in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island last night. Her campaign had made a big point of Texas and Ohio especially - Bill Clinton even suggested that if his wife did not win those two states, she would not be able to secure the nomination - and with last night's results, she publicly declared that her campaign has "turned a corner," even going so far as to hint at a Clinton-Obama ticket.

Should we go ahead and coronate Clinton, then? Or is Barack Obama's claim that Clinton's wins last night, though impressive, still aren't enough to make a dent in his delegate lead? And if you're a Democratic superdelegate, who should you vote for now? Which candidate is more likely to be successful in a general election?

Each side is quick to point out their electoral strengths and their opponent's weaknesses. Clinton reminds voters that she is consistently winning large states that serve as Democratic strongholds, and that nearly half of Obama's wins are in caucus states, where a much smaller percentage of the population is represented. Obama argues that he is winning smaller - but more - states, and many that traditionally fall into the Republican column, which gives him an advantage over John McCain in the general election. Both of them make a strong case for the nomination. Let's look at each in turn.

Clinton. She's right when she says that she's consistently winning the most populous - and traditionally Democratic - states. Of the ten most populous states in the Union, Clinton has won six (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Ohio, and Georgia) to Obama's two (Pennsylvania and North Carolina have yet to hold primaries). Those make a bigger difference in the electoral college than they do in the primary season. She's won eight fewer states than Obama has, but she's far ahead when it comes to electors. If the two candidates were fighting in a general election, Clinton would be ahead 263-189. 54 electors is a big deal when there are only 538 total. (That's a ten percent margin of victory. Nothing to sneer at.) Clinton's victories have also consistently come in primary states, which have the same election format as will be seen in November. All but one of her wins (Nevada) have come in primary states. Her margin of victory isn't great - she averages 54% of the vote in her wins - but in a general election, each state is winner-take-all. Proportional allocation of delegates has hurt her in this race, and that's something she wouldn't have to worry about if she were the party nominee.

Obama. While Obama hasn't won many large, delegate-rich states (his two biggest states have been his home state of Illinois and Georgia), he's done very well in smaller, traditionally red states. Over half of his primary wins have come in states that went for George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004. There's reason to think that he could siphon some of those away from McCain this year. Clinton's claims that his caucus wins are tainted don't quite hold up, either. It's true that his wins in those states (11 of 24) have represented a much smaller percentage of the population, he's done just fine in primaries, too. He's won nearly as many primaries as Clinton has (13 to her 15), and has done so with a higher average of four percent more of the vote.

So who should superdelegates side with? If you're looking to stick with the time-honored "two coasts" strategy of focusing on the Pacific west and the Northeast, Clinton might be your best bet. She's shown that she can easily win those states and probably be competitive in battleground states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If you're looking to adopt the new "50 states" approach that Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean is pushing, though, Obama might be a more attractive option. Obama has made significant inroads into the mountain west and the South. He would probably be unable to win all of those states for the Democrats (do you really think Idaho and Utah are going to be blue states this year?), but if he could pick up Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Georgia, that would result in a 41-elector difference, and none of those states are out of the realm of possibility. Obama's command of the black vote could prove to be decisive in this election. Yet Clinton holds an equal sway over blue-collar workers in financial straits, and there are more and more of those every day with the current recession. Each candidate has powerful strengths. Superdelegates will have their hands full making their decision in the coming months.

Did Hillary Throw in the Towel?

The results of the Texas debate.

Hillary Clinton has publicly staked her political fortunes on the results of the Texas and Ohio primaries. Having lost eleven straight contests, she was under pressure to perform well in this debate to re-energize her campaign. And instead of coming up big with her back to the wall, she seemed to shrink from the task.

Clinton's strategy to stop the Obamamentum has changed over the last few weeks. During the days leading up to Super Tuesday, she tried being friendly and polite, worrying that voters would be turned off by negativity. When that didn't work, she turned up the venom in the Wisconsin contest, accusing Obama of hiding from voters and being unwilling to engage in a debate. That didn't work, either. With two make-or-break states coming up, advisers have recommended a "scorched earth" policy for Clinton, ratcheting up criticism to as-yet-unseen levels. It doesn't seem like she went for it. She was presented time and time again with opportunities to attack Obama, and time and time again she opted to make the debate about issues. She presented the facts about her platform - ably, mind you - and tried to let them speak for themselves.

The problem is that the Democratic race is no longer about issues. For all intents and purposes, Obama and Clinton don't have many significant differences in policy. Either of them would accomplish similar things if elected. The fact is, however, that America is no longer voting based on issues. They're voting on electability. Obama has the momentum, he has the money, and he has the delegates. Now that the Republican race is (effectively) wrapped up, the Democrats want someone to unite around. It looks more and more like they're gravitating toward Obama. Clinton seemed to get a sense of that as the debate went on. Obama responded impressively to her cry of "let's get real" by saying that "the implication is that...the people who have been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional," earning applause from the audience. She responded with a jab at the recent charges of his plagiarism, saying "lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches isn't change you can believe in; it's change you can Xerox." The comment actually drew boos from the audience, and seemed to catch her off guard.

The real stunner that made it seem as though Clinton was effectively conceding the race came at the end of the debate. While answering a question about a time in her life when she had been tested, she said that she was "honored to be here with Barack Obama." She went on to say that "whatever happens, we're going to be fine." Those words sounded ominously familiar - John Edwards used them in his concession speech on January 30. Clinton may or may not have been intending that same effect when using them, but the comparison is apt. It's unlikely she'll still be in the race after Texas and Ohio. It's possible that she wanted her campaign to go out gracefully rather than shrill and grating.