« Report: Obama Far Outpaced Hillary In Contributions To Super-Delegates | Home | Obama, On A Roll, Racks Up More Big Labor Support »
Hillary Wins New Mexico!
It's official: Hillary Clinton has been declared the winner of Super Tuesday's New Mexico caucus, after a wait of more than a week while provisional ballots were being counted.
State Democratic Party chairman Brian Colón announced at a press conference today that Hillary received 73,105 votes to Obama's 71,396 votes, a margin of victory of 1,709. Given the close result, the final allocation of the state's 26 pledged delegates is likely to be somewhere around an even 13-13 split.
Late Update: The final delegate count is 14 for Hillary, 12 for Obama.
Advertisement
Yes, I saw it announced live on CNN.
I also saw a breaking report that 18 people were shot at the University of Northern Illinois this afternoon.
February 14, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just saw on CLTV (Chicago Land Television), five people are now dead.
February 14, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lis + Star, please stop trying to change the subject. You are taking away Mrs. Clinton's attention. (I am trying desperate to be nice here.) This is her shiny and basking in the glory moment and all you can talk about is dead people? Come on! Typical Alobamacans. Mrs. Clinton is finally ending Mr. Alobama's cheating and cheap tricks up his sleeve phase and for our collective betterment because Mrs. Clinton has the goods. Clintons 2000 and 8!!!
February 14, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
YAAAAY!!! New Mexico matters!!
But what do I know. I'm from Minnesota, and my opinion is worthless and doesn't count.
February 14, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
YAAAAY!!! New Mexico matters!!
But what do I know. I'm from Minnesota, and my opinion is worthless and doesn't count.
February 14, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
But caucuses don't count, do they?
February 14, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
An even delagate split? Not the biggest win.
February 14, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this actually change...anything? Beyond bragging rights? Last I checked Obama was ahead in popular votes, number of states, and number of popular vote-selected delegates...
February 14, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
FIREWALL!
February 14, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's camp finally gets some good news. Sort of a blast from the past actually.
Let's watch her campaign try and milk it even though the delegates are split evenly between she and Obama.
February 14, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dammit! I rushed as fast as I could to get on with my "thank God we finally know whether New Mexico counts" snark and you guys all beat me to it.
February 14, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Darn, obama is doomed, doomed I tell you. He lost new mexico. Oh, no. He is doomed. I guess new mexico is now on the significant state list. I can feel the clinton mo coming on after this win.
February 14, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
When is the celebratory press conference scheduled?
February 14, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of the final tally, NM was a big success for Obama. He wasn't supposed to do that well due to the large Hispanic population.
February 14, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The good people of New Mexico must be relieved . . . they are significant!
February 14, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Delegates split 14-12.
February 14, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations to Sen Clinton. It was a good fight and she won it honestly. Here's looking forward to more good fights and honest results to come.
February 14, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a New Mexican I would beg to differ. This was the most poorly run election I have ever seen in my entire adult.
1. A city of 80,000 (Rio Rancho) had one polling place. Las Cruces with a slightly smaller population had eleven. (From 3 PM on it was a four hour wait to vote!)
2. Ballots had NO control numbers on them.
3. After ballots were counted, the numbers were called in by precinct captains. In several outlying rural areas those UNLOCKED ballot boxes spent a quiet cozy evening at the house of the precinct captain (the same captain who called in the vote tallies.)
I could continue, but I think you get my point. In other words, we will never, with any degree of certainty, know that the election was not tampered with. But we do have the reassuring words of the State Party Leaders who completely mismanaged this disaster. The NM rank and file can only hope no shenanigans took place. The Democratic leadership in this state is notorious for screwing up elections. We've had the Secretary of State and County Clerk offices in the larger counties since statehood. The Democratic Party leadership in NM is a laughingstock and a disgrace. I include our Governor in that mess.
But in the end the nomination process marches on to other states where they actually have responsible adult leadership in the Democratic party.
February 14, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty lousy.
I used to know a guy who worked for the election board programming optical vote machines and he told me the most amazing stories of how ridiculously badly it's run. Ballots not being stored properly, no accounting of where they are, and nobody checking, unskilled people working on the machines, and so on. In fact there was a big scandal at one point when the main elections officer was caught in massive fraud and mismanagement. She had only been outed by a rival candidate, but apparently the process continues.
Some things that seem to happen every election: There is a shortage of ballots in some region, usually wherever the anti-establishment candidate is expected to do well. Presumably becasue it's just too difficult and expensive to print and deliver more ballots than will be needed, becasue they're expensive, being paper and all. In the same district, there will be a shortage of voting stations and polling locations, due to some last minute FUBAR.
It's outrageous the crap that happens due to negligence, at best. It's really not that hard to run a proper election, and make sure you have enough ballots for Chirst sake.
When these screw ups happen, heads should roll. Election officials are well paid and supposed to qualified professionals. When somebody screws up, it should be criminally and civilly prosecuted for negligence.
These hacks like Harris, Brownie and Chertoff should be tarred and feathered, literally.
February 14, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, a lot of political careers were boosted in those types of ways. Just think of JFK in Chicago and "Landslide" Lyndon.
February 14, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It stinks all around and unless it's cleaned up it just festers and gets worse.
February 14, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was called a caucus, but it was really an election.
February 14, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The dirty little secret of this campaign is that this is not true of just NM. A lot of those supposedly "undemocratic" caucuses which have been held so far are undistinguishable from your ordinary primary election. Not all caucuses are run like IA, but it has served a particular propoganda purpose to make out that they are.
February 14, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those of you interested in finding out more about the shooting at NIU, here is a link:
http://www.niu.edu/alert/campus_alert.shtml
I'm afraid the news does not look good according to CNN. 15 casualties, 3-4 head wounds being admitted to the hospital.
Sorry I posted the news here, but I don't know how to add an update to the TPM home page.
February 14, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
15 CASUALTIES, or wounded? I haven't seen any reports of people confirmed dead, save the gunman.
February 14, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Casualties are wounded or dead, not just dead.
February 14, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't sure. Thanks.
February 14, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and I apologize. It looks as though most admitted to the hospital are wounded, not killed. I'm happy to be wrong.
Still, it's traumatic to them and to their families and fellow classmates.
Please take a little time in between all the in-fighting to think of these students and their families and friends.
1,2,3...
Okay, on with the in-fighting now.
February 14, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Five dead according to CLTV.
I live about 23 miles from the campus.
February 14, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh. All those people who don't have jobs and responsibilities and whatnot that are supposedly supporting Obama wound up tiding towards Clinton?
Suddenly, Clinton will LOVE the people who can take the time to caucus...and caucus results are just as meaningful and important as primary results. In fact, more meaningful, given that Obama just cleaned up in three straight primaries. Caucuses are the new primary....
February 14, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this mean Obama does not get 10 wins in a row?? Does it break his momentum?
February 14, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the ten wins in a row refers to wins which have occured post-Super Tues. NM was a super Tues state, so it really does not affect that 10-in-a-row.
February 14, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's such an obvious falsehood, maybe Clinton's people won't try it. But I think they're getting desperate.
The idea of "claiming" to have broken Obama's winning streak is probably too tempting for them to not give it a try.
February 14, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The New Mexico results confirm that the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday primaries were a tie. A tie means it was a loss for the "before-votes-were-cast presumptive" candidate - Senator Clinton.
February 14, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good- now that Mrs. Clinton has shown she can win a caucus- it's time for MI and FL caucuses, if needed.
Congrats!!!!
February 14, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
My back of the envelope calculations show that if the current polling holds in TX and OH, Sen. Clinton would approximately even out the popular vote. Don't count your chickens, Obama people (or Clinton people). Those who insist unpledged delegates should follow the popular vote totals may be changing their tune in a month.
February 14, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
My back of the envelope calculations show that if the current polling holds in TX and OH, Sen. Clinton would approximately even out the popular vote. Don't count your chickens, Obama people (or Clinton people). Those who insist unpledged delegates should follow the popular vote totals may be changing their tune in a month.
February 14, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you add in the numbers from the caucuses? The gross numbers reported by the media do not include the caucuses, they only refer to primaries. Add in the caucuses and he is way ahead. He would have to lose 60/40 or more in the remaining contests for her to catch up, even including florida and michigan.
That being said, who knows what's going to happen and everyone has to get out and vote. Game on.
February 14, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That polling was taking before Obama's massive victories in Virginia, Maryland, and DC.
Another poll out today shows Obama 10 points above Hillary nationally.
Hillary may win Texas and or Ohio, but I doubt she'll win either by more than 5%. After Obama adds his net delegates from Wisconsin and Hawaii next week, a 5% victory in Texas and Ohio would probably leave Hillary with a net disadvantage to her current count.
February 14, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just posting on that in Election central. I broke down the numbers.
Basically in her best case likely scenario, she picks up a gain of 80 and is still behind in pledged delegates by about 50.
She's currently behind by about 120, and Obama will probably increase his lead by about 5-10 more by March 4. So, Obama lead (130) - Hillary's potential gain (80) = her still being behind in pledged delegates by about (50).
Which is why the states in May still matter, and why the Super Delegates may matter if they attempt to throw the nomination, which would probably split the party.
February 14, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously the party is already split.
February 14, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's obviously not split, yet, becasue both candidates are doing all they can to stay unified against the Republicans. Obama has run a clean race and tried to avoid divisiveness, and while Hilalry and Bill keep playing games, they at least claim to be avoiding divisiveness.
But if Hillary stoops to nasty tactics again, or if she uses the Super Delegates to throw the nomination, then yes the party will split. I wouldn't be surprised if there are literally riots if she grabs the nomination by something like the Super Delegates. That would be totally unacceptable to voters and basically a slap in the face for bothering to care about our democracy.
February 15, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to your own numbers, kozmik, the party is obviously split. A close race, a virtual tie means "split." Approximately half going for one candidate, half going for the other. Am I missing something here?
February 15, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that there's any conspiracy here what-so-ever, but I think the number of votes beyond provisional ballots might've been adjusted as well. If you take the numbers announced today and subtract the previously announced totals (http://www.nmdemocrats.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/1129743) you get 5021 votes for Hillary and 4386 votes for Barack in the post-2/5 counting.
This is despite the fact that a large majority of provisional ballots were cast in counties in which Obama had broad support. Looking at the numbers ahead of time, I doubted Obama would be able to make up the difference, but I was certain he'd get more provisional ballots. I suppose a lot of people might've been under the impression that New Mexico was an open caucus and that they'd disproportionately prefer Obama.
Glad that no one has to take anyone out to breakfast to secure the one delegate that was up for grabs here.
February 14, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, the New Mexico delegates will split 14-12 if you look at the results by congressional district. It would have been 13-13 if Obama had gone ahead in the statewide vote.
February 14, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not going to hold. And you might want to study up on how Texas awards its delegates.
February 14, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't New Mexico a caucus state? If so, these results don't really matter, espcially since all caucuses are stacked against Mrs. Clinton in Mr. Alobama's favor.
Mrs. Clinton is struggling to keep her campaign afloat against these unfair odds. It's time for Mr. Alobama to come clean and give poor Mrs. Clinton a break. It's Mrs. Clinton's turn and Mr. Alobama is the interlooper and should let her have her just deserts.
Just my two dollars. You go girl!!!
February 14, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Mr. Alobama"? "Unfair odds"?
And we're supposed to take you seriously?
I see way too much of this childish stuff. Let's be grownups, people.
February 14, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
i don't know, i think queerbodhi's comment was funny. i mean "interlooper"? say it out loud, it will make you laugh.
February 14, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oooh! Does that mean that Bill Richardson will follow the will of the people of New Mexico and endorse Hillary?
heh
February 14, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
SUDDENLY, I really regret that California moved it's primary date from June to February. Who Knew??!!
February 14, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't count Hillary out just yet. Polls just released in Pennsylvania and Ohio show her with huge leads. I would assume that Texas Democratic Hispanics favor her, too (just like the New Mexican Hispanics did). She's down but not out - at least not yet. That's my read on it at this stage, at least.
February 14, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
She'll have to win all three of those states by overwhelming margins, which is extremely unlikely. The only battle she can truly win at this point is the PR "momentum" war - she'll likely still be trailing Obama in pledged delegates on April 23.
February 14, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
So she gains what - one net delegate in the whole thing? Congrats to her, but in the immortal words of Winston Wolf, let's not start...
February 14, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I see the update - two net delegates. Every little bit helps, I guess. Still, a strong showing for Obama in a state where he wasn't expected to do as well.
February 14, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
And please stop with the personal attacks and all, like saying that Mrs. Clinton is fat. That is just plain mean.
February 14, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This coming from the guy who calls Barack "Mr. Alobama"? Pot, meet kettle.
February 14, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we expect her to still say that caucuses aren't democratic? Or only the ones in New Mexico?
February 14, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drats! My map is all wrong now:
http://i27.tinypic.com/egaiie.jpg
February 14, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
All you Clinton haters are too predictable, I swear you guys must all be drinking from the same cup. How does the kool-aid taste, enjoy your sip, reality doesn't matter.
February 14, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you tell them Cool; the Alobomacans will get there little surprise soon enough! Hahahaha
February 14, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
IF Clinton didn't prove everything bad ever said about her by coming out up front and say straight up she will cheat if she has to to win, I don't think anybody would have nearly as many problems with her.
February 14, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink