Hillary on the ropes

March 4th, the date of the Texas and Ohio primaries, promises to be another night of high drama in the epic duel for the Democratic nomination. After 11 straight defeats, no one in the Clinton camp is under any illusions as to how important these two contests have now become, with former president Bill Clinton even stating publcly last week that his wife's chances of securing the nomination will end if she does not win both states.

Amid all the media talk of Texas and Ohio representing Mrs Clinton's "firewall", it should not be forgotten that another of the New York senator's fall-back positions, her possible reliance on superdelegates in the event of narrowly losing the pledged delegate count, also appears to be under threat. According to the Associated Press, since February 9th Obama has increaesed his number of superdelegates by 25 (to 181) whilst during the same period Mrs Clinton has actually seen her number reduced by two (to 241), a trend that will have alarmed the Clinton campaign.

Even if she can maintain a lead in this category, the very principle of using superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters is now under attack by many within the Democratic party. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the most senior Democrats in the country, has said that “it would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided" whilst Doug Wilder, a former governor of Virgnia, has gone further, warning of riots worse than those seen at the 1968 Democratic convention "if superdelegates intervene and get in the way of it".

Given that Pelosi is neutral in this race and Wilder an Obama supporter, it is perhaps more significant to note the words of California superdelegate John Perez and of Congressman Charlie Rangel. Rangel, a superdelegate and one of Senator Clinton's most prominent African-Amercian supporters, said at a conference dinner in New York state last Sunday "it's the people [who are] going to govern who selects our next candidate and not superdelegates". Perez meanwhile has withdrawn his support for Clinton and said in a recent interview :

"Given where the race is at right now, I think it's very important for us to play a role around bringing the party together around the candidate that people have chosen, as opposed to advocating for our own choice"

With so much talk coming from both Clinton and Obama supporters about the possible damage it could do to the party, it is now far from certain that Clinton will be able to rely on the support of superdelegates to push her over the finish line if Obama wins the final pledged delegate count.

All of which further underlines the importance of her winning Texas and Ohio and closing the gap in the pledged delegate race. The current maths make for unpleasant reading for Mrs Clinton. According to RealClearPolitics, Obama currently has 1,193 pledged delgates to Clinton's 1,034, representing a lead of 159. With 981 deleagtes at stake in the remaining 16 contests, this means Clinton needs to win 58% of the remaining delegates if she is to catch Obama in the pledged delegate count.

Despite the Democrats' complex proportional representation system (which is based mostly on congressional districts rather than on the statewide vote), delegates are in fact awarded largely in line with the percentage of votes received statewide. An analysis of voting figures so far confirms this - if delegates had been awarded based solely on statewide voting percentages in the 40 primaries and caucuses held so far, Obama would lead by 173 delegates rather than the current 159, a difference of just 14 or 0.63% of the total number. We can therefore reasonably postulate that in order to win 58% of the remaining delegates Mrs Clinton will need to win approximately 58% of the popular vote in the remaining 16 primaries and caucuses.

To make matters worse for the New York senator, Obama is almost guaranteed victory in two of the remaining states - Mississippi and North Carolina, both of which have large African-American populations (37% and 22% respectively). Even if Obama won both states by just one delegate (and based on voting patterns up to now he is likely to win by a far wider margin), this would incresae the percentage of the popular vote Clinton would need in the other 14 contests to 60%.

Looking at the results in the 40 contests so far, Senator Clinton has only managed to break the 60% threshold once (in Arkansas, where her husband was governor for 12 years). She has only scored 55% or higher in five other states or territories - Michigan (where Obama's name was not on the ballot), New York (where she is a serving senator), American Samoa, Oklahoma and Massachusetts.

As such it is importamt to realsie that not only does Mrs Clinton need to win both Texas and Ohio on March 4th, she needs to do so by huge landslide margins of 20% or more. If she wins both by say 55% to 45%, whilst this would provide a propganda coup and a temporary morale boost, because it is less than the 20% required it would actually increase the percentage of the vote she would need in the remaining states to 63%.

The situation is not without hope for Mrs Clinton however. Firstly there is the question of John Edwards and who he will instruct his 26 pledged delegates to support. Then there is the question of the two rogue primaries held in Michigan and Florida, both of which were won by wide margins by Senator Clinton. Currently all 213 pledged delegates from those states are barred from voting at the convention due to violation of Democratic National Committe rules, however Mrs Clinton has repeatedly called for this decison to be reversed (an action that would substantially boost her delegate tally) and Florida democrats have even threatened legal action to have their delegates' voting rights restored. Attempts at a compromise ("do-over" caucuses) have so far been rejected by both states.

The support of John Edwards, and the fate of the rogue Michigan and Florida primaries, these are the three wildcards that remain in the pack for Mrs Clinton. With the maths currently working against her, Senator Clinton's hopes of beating Obama may now rest on all three wildcards being dealt in her favour - if they are, the dynamics of the contest will change dramatically. In what is fast developing into one of the classic battles in US political history, it could be that the most dramatic twist is yet to come.