CNN Calls Washington State For Obama
CNN and Fox call it for Obama: With 42% of the vote in, it's 67%-32%.
Advertisement
by dickday
by SleepinJeezus
by O¿O in the crowd
by RonP
by socraticgadfly
by M.Paul
by rational
Subscribe to this blog's feed.
Nice. Even bigger margin than expected. Costa Rica for Obama!
February 9, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
pretty good night.
February 9, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget the Obama Money Bomb scheduled for 2/12. Click on my moniker and go to the blog post with details.
February 9, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
One Obama: 67%
Two Clintons: 32%
Hillary: get out now before you end up with a primary challenge to your own senate seat.
February 9, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
3 state Caucus Sweep ~ Obama style
February 9, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
i am watching MSNBC's coverage and Pat Buchanan is making me sick...Every time he mentions BO he mentions African American voters in the same sentence...its like he is going out of his way to imply that BO is running as a black candidate...
February 9, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, I was so glad when that one political analyst called him out trying to say Kansas was a state that leans to far left liberals and African-Americans.
February 9, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Crypto Racist, Buchanan, will have a hard time making that case for Nebraska, and Washington State.
February 9, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes we are.
February 9, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and yes, we will!
GObama!
February 10, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama goes up to speak at this JJ dinner, the crowd is going to go nuts...
February 9, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of observations about electability. First, the polls showing an Obama win over McCain are meaningless, as much as I -- an Obama supporter -- would like to think otherwise. In theory, Obama's low negatives would suggest they could only go up, much as Kerry's did, and his numbers in the polls would subsequently go down.
However, claims that Clinton would be a tougher candidate against the Republicans and the swift-boat machinery, because she's been slimed before and she's still on her feet, is also an empty argument. As we see again today, she hasn't been slimed in any meaningful way and she's tied with a first-term senator, despite her having enormous institutional advantages. Why should we assume she'll run a stronger campaign when the electorate will be more hostile?
February 9, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you say, "Bloodbath"?
February 9, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where would Obama be without caucuses, one wonders?
How many American voters respect those anachronistic, anti-democratic methods of choosing a candidate?
If Obama's wins weren't so heavily skewed toward caucuses, if he and Hillary were more or less just trading one caucus for another, I don't think it would be an issue. But I think it's going to be a major issue if his delegate count is based critically on his caucus wins, and derives relatively little from actual elections by ordinary voters.
One wonders how Obama could really argue that he enjoys any real legitimacy as a choice if he could not have won without the help of these antiquated practices.
February 9, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those Sour Grapes are eating away at your Insides.
February 9, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, no, I've been predicting that Obama would win Washington and other caucus states precisely because they are caucuses.
I simply repeat my point: what kind of legitimacy can Obama claim if he wins only in virtue of those anti-democratic practices? This is especially true since polls themselves seem to show that his performance in those caucuses far exceeds the level of popular sentiment lying behind him.
Again, if it weren't a systematic issue, it would be no big deal. But it is systematic.
February 9, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
So when/if she wins Maine (as projected), what's your argument going to be then?
February 9, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not even particularly sure she will win in Maine.
But that misses the point anyway. The real point is how she and Obama would have fared had they had elections instead of caucuses. If she indeed wins in Maine by a bit, I'd expect that she'd win there by a landslide if it were an election.
Look, the average unsophisticated voter simply doesn't feel comfortable with caucuses -- and why should they? There is no secret vote, there are all kinds of intrusive social pressures that might be applied, and they are lengthy to the point of being burdensome in a busy voter's life.
I'm sure that such people simply don't show up in the same numbers for caucuses as they do for elections. This, no doubt, is why Obama does so very well -- by greatly raising the bar for voter participation. Take that away, and his numbers would come crashing down to earth.
Now this may not be a problem for the sophisticated latte sippers, who I'm sure like that their cohort shows up in such impressive numbers for caucuses.
But it's a little short of that thing called democracy, isn't it?
February 9, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me you are missing the point. Both Clinton and Obama knew the nature of the contest in each state. She contested well in Iowa and Nevada--and won. They've competed in primaries she's won more, but he's won some as well. At the end of the day, you take the contest as you find them and compete. If you lose, complaining about the format is just sour grapes.
February 9, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So hard work, and playing by the rules, doesn't cut it any more?
February 9, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said, ask the average American voter how much respect they have for caucuses, as opposed to elections. I think they recognize that elections are the clear gold standard for democracy as they think of it. If you want legitimacy, you win in virtue of elections, not due to caucuses.
February 9, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, we don't live in a democracy. It would be better described as a Constitutional Republic. We do not elect our President directly. We have that thing called the Electoral College (ask Al Gore). And US SC judges are appointed, not elected. As are many statewide offices. Nice try tho. Good luck spinning the Tuesday "primary" results!
February 9, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt the average American doesn't even know what a caucus is.
I'm from Iowa, so 2008 was my third caucus (previously in 2000 and 2004, natch). And they are fun. Far more fun then voting in a primary. You get to meet and talk to your fellow democrats. In states that do have caucuses, they are well liked. In states that do not have them, the average voter won't care. To the extent that they have an opinion, that opinion is probably driven by their preference between Obama and Clinton.
That said, keep going. Watching you grasp at straws is mightily entertaining.
February 9, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
what is wrong with caucus?
hope they get off there butts and set one up in michigan, so i can vote.
it might keep me from voting against every state level incumbent i can. (but probably not)
February 9, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Caucuses favor those candidates with the better organization, money, enthusiasm, and local political support. Hillary Clinton should be crushing Obama according to those rubrics - how do you explain Obama's victories?
February 9, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, like Connecticut, right! Wait...that was a primary. But it was the independents that made that illegitimate! Oh wait...it was a closed primary. Oh, but it was all those black voters in Connecticut...oh wait...the state is almost entirely white. Oh, but it's right next door to Obama's homestate, he clearly had a big advantage...oh wait, no it's not, it's in Clinton's backyard.
Or Utah.
Or Missouri.
etc etc.
Face it. Obama is popular, he's organized, his supporters are enthusiastic, and he's growing his coalition, while Clinton's base is shrinking. No amount of spin can change those facts.
February 9, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're wrong.
February 9, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The interesting thing about the CNN results so far is that the precincts that have reported so far are mainly rural precincts, and King County (the most liberal part of the state, which includes Seattle) results aren't in yet. This looks like an Obama landslide!
February 9, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many American voters respect those anachronistic, anti-democratic methods of choosing a candidate?
Round abouts 70 percent of them in Kansas, Nebraska and Washington, for starters.
Sour grapes, frankly. Sour grapes.
February 9, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton campaign is really bankrupt of even good spin now. Wasn't it a person named Hillary Rodham Clinton who went for the Knock Out Punch in the Iowa Caucuses. Say it again Iowa Caucuses. First state to vote, and Hillary went full bore there, but after she loses some Caucuses, now we start to hear to hear Hillary's Sour Grapes Brigade proclaiming that Caucuses are not fair.
Did you hear the one from them about how tonight's result are not meaningful because Senator Obama outspend them by a few hundred thousand in those states.
Hillary's Sour Grapes Brigade need to explain how that works to that big spender Mitt Romney.
February 9, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said, if it weren't for the fact that Obama has based so much of his success on caucuses INSTEAD OF elections, there'd be no real issue.
And your argument is going to be with the average American voter who thinks of caucuses as antiquated and anti-democratic.
Obama's going to have to prove his legitimacy to them as a choice. Unless he can prove he can win major elections in diverse states, I don't know how he does so.
February 9, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another point worth mentioning.
Look, it might be no big deal if there were only one or two caucuses at the beginning of the primary process, and those played a role in creating "momentum". That might not seem particularly fair to most people, but if in the end the nominee were selected by a true vote of the people in elections, that vote would confer all the necessary legitimacy on the candidate.
But that does NOT appear to be what we may be heading towards. Instead, it looks like we may get a candidate, Obama, who could not have gone ahead in delegates without a tremendous contribution from caucuses as opposed to elections.
I rather doubt that the American people will feel fully comfortable with the legitimacy of such a candidate. There will certainly be very serious questions about it.
February 9, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
the margins of BO victories so far isnt good for Hillary as far as delegates awarded goes...
February 9, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone know the delegate count as it stands now, minus the superdelegates? CNN keeps reporting the total including the superdelegates, which still indicates that Clinton is ahead. But given the trends, and considering the superdelegates are free to change their minds at any time, imho, that count isn't very useful.
February 9, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pledged delegates: Louisiana 56; Nebraska 24; Washington 78
February 9, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
As this thing fills up:
http://www.wa-democrats.org/index.php?page=display&id=273
you can do finer-grained analysis.
King County (Seattle) is going for Obama almost 3:1. Clinton is coming close in some rural S and SE counties (Franklin, Adams, Yakima) that have larger Latino populations, but as of right now I don't see a single jurisdiction where she leads. This is a pretty diverse state: it's not just us latte liberals in Seattle.
February 9, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow! >50% in every jurisdiction
February 9, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Caucuses were put in place for a reason. Justg as small states were typically the first states to vote in order to give lesser known candidates a chance, caucuses are in place to allow those who build grassroots organizations a chance.
When you run a campaign from the top down, you cannot compete with a campaign that allows activism from the bottom up.
Obama puts a strong organization in a state and then allows the volunteers to become the foot soldiers.
This is why Obama is so effective in caucuses.
February 9, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that's odd is that while the Democrats have over 50% counted, the Republicans haven't even started reporting. Very strange.
February 9, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie -- by my count the pledged delegate count (that is, everyone but the super-dels) is:
Obama: 910
Clinton: 882
This doesn't include today's results.
February 9, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, american woman, for the info on the pledged delegates. In the interim, Chuck Todd on MSNBC also came up with a count. He said its Obama: 960; Clinton: 900. But he also said the number was squishy (paraphrase). Since the states that voted today still haven't finished reporting, we may know more by the end of the evening.
It's hard to imagine any but the most stubborn Clinton-supporting superdelegate going against the will of the people, if, as many are predicting, it does ultimately get down to a question of the superdelegate votes. A lot of them are elected officials and there would be hell to pay in their next election...
February 9, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's campaign has a delegate count up:
link
February 9, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
With the Potomac polls, it looks like the Hill isn't gonna have a very good week.
February 9, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
frankly0 "If you want legitimacy, you win in virtue of elections, not due to caucuses." You mean like in SC and WA?
I don't follow your logic. If a state has caucuses, I don't think a candidate has any other option in that state. What am I missing?
February 9, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, frankly0, we'll see what happens in the "true democratic" primaries on Chesapeake Tuesday then ;-). I recommend you come up with a better argument.
February 9, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maryland has a very large African-American population. Obama will therefore win in an election.
What he needs to do, to attain some real legitimacy, is win an election convincingly in major states with genuinely diverse populations (i.e., not heavily skewed toward his core demographic base).
Why shouldn't he be able to do so, if his message is so effective, and reaches across racial and social lines, as he pretends?
February 9, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right... because African American voters aren't "real" voters. Just like Caucus voters aren't real voters. Well whatever. You can take your 3/5th rules and calculators and spin them however you want. The only thing Obama has to do is rack up delegates, like he did tonight :)
February 9, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeaToShiningSea said "With the Potomac polls, it looks like the Hill isn't gonna have a very good week. "
Bingo! So she's screaming at MSNBC about the evil David Shuster. What a laugh. If that is the best "controversy" Hillary can fan into flame, she's really desperate.
Maybe instead, she should release a major policy statement. Oops, she would have to have one to do that.
February 9, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the CNN exit polls are even close to accurate, it will be another Obama win in Louisiana.
Exit polls: Katrina victims more likely to back Obama
Posted: 08:40 PM ET
Sen. Obama enjoyed a bowl of gumbo -- with hot sauce-- in New Orleans Thursday.
Sen. Obama enjoyed a bowl of gumbo — with hot sauce– in New Orleans Thursday.
(CNN) — The more likely a Louisiana Democratic presidential primary voter was to have been affected by Hurricane Katrina, the more likely they were to support Democrat Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.
Among the 15 percent of voters who had been affected by the storm and said they had yet to recover, Obama had a 58 to 39 percent edge over Clinton. The 28 percent of voters who had been affected, but had since recovered, supported Obama by a slightly smaller margin, 54 to 43 percent. And the 55 percent who had not been affected at all by Hurricane Katrina supported Obama by the narrowest margin, 51 to 48 percent.
February 9, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
party-of-one asks frankly0:
I don't follow your logic. If a state has caucuses, I don't think a candidate has any other option in that state. What am I missing?
You're missing that frankly0 will say anything at all, no matter how ridiculous, in order to spin for his preferred candidate.
Check his posts on Washington Monthly. He's a non-stop all-out spin machine for Hillary Clinton, and no level of absurdity is too large for him.
February 9, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And of course he has no problem playing the racist card, just like Bill Clinton did, to try and diminish Senator Obama's success. He apparently is unaware that Barak Obama is the elected US Senator from the large, midwest state of Ilinois, where he carried the white majority in his election to the US Senate.
Bill Clinton sure had no objections gaining his victory margins, in several states, from the overwhelming support of African American voters. Do you notice the paternalistic tone to the Clinton campaign's gripes about African American voters!. It is like they are telling them that they should still know there place, and not be deciding for their selves who they are allowed to vote for.
February 9, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting factoid, relevant to your comment, was brought up on MSNBC just now. They were discussing the extent of black support for Obama in Louisiana. Then someone (didn't catch who it was, sorry) mentioned that in 2004, Kerry won an even more substantial percentage of the black vote in Louisiana.
So much for the attempts to spin Obama's huge numbers as purely a racial thing...
February 9, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
edit: their place
February 9, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turnout for my precinct quadrupled 2004, the previous record, and statewide we may double 2004.
And yes, there was enthusiasm. Enthusiasm like I haven't seen in decades.
This thing
http://www.wa-democrats.org/index.php?page=display&id=273
is filling up. Out of 67 jurisdictions Clinton has so far won precisely one.
February 9, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink