« McCain Could Clinch GOP Nomination Tonight | Home | Hillary Spokesperson: Obama-Rezko Story Should "Set Off Alarm Bells In Newsrooms Across America" »
Delegate Counts Suggest Hillary Needs Big Win To Impact Delegate Math
Going into tonight's races in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont, Hillary Clinton has a lot of ground to make up in the delegate race. With 370 delegates up for grabs, She would need a net win of around 15% in order to really make a dent in Barack Obama's lead of 150 pledged delegates.
Here are the latest tabulations from different news organizations, including super-delegates unless otherwise noted:
CNN: Obama 1,378, Clinton 1,269
CNN: Obama 1,184, Clinton 1,031 (Not counting supers)
NBC: Obama 1,194, Clinton 1,037 (Not counting supers)
ABC: Obama 1,385, Clinton 1,275
CBS: Obama 1,389, Clinton 1,267
Associated Press: Obama 1,386, Clinton 1,276
Associated Press: Obama 1,187, Clinton 1,035 (Not counting supers)
New York Times: Obama 1,303.5, Clinton 1,212
New York Times: Obama 1,155, Clinton 1,021.5 (Not counting supers)
And here's how many delegates are up for grabs tonight:
Ohio: 141
Rhode Island: 21
Texas Primary: 126
Texas Caucus: 67
Vermont: 15
Total: 370
Advertisement
I posted this a few threads back but it's more appropriate here:
Here's Al Giordano's ("The Field" blog) predictions for Texas (and, I know I sound like a broken record, but he's been pretty spot-on throughout this primary season):
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=822
So, according to him, Rhode Island and Vermont will be a wash as far as delegates (she'll take RI, he'll take Vermont), Clinton will carry Ohio (barely) and gain +5 delegates, and Obama will win Texas handily, giving him +27 delegates. This will give him a net +20 delegates to add to his already substantial 150+ delegate lead. Al believes that the 3AM phone call ad backfired big time in Texas and that, along with Limbaugh's shenanigans, will pull more voters into Obama's camp. If this comes to bear (and I'm betting on Al's continuing his hot streak), then Mark Penn can spin all he wants but Hillary will be down by 170+ delegates and the supers will start making noises. Let's keep our fingers crossed and have faith in the wisdom of Ohio and Texas voters!
March 4, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Al Giordano's reasoning goes as follows: If Obama wins by 53% in Texas, and ifHillary wins by around 10% in Ohio, and if it's fairly close in RI, and if Obama has his usual caucus blow-out in VT, then Obama will net +20 delegates tonight. I like Giordano a lot, and I don't doubt for a second his skill at inferring delegate counts based on this or that set of assumptions about the raw vote. But the assumptions (derived from weirdly fluctuating poll numbers) are precisely what has everyone squirming in their seats this morning. Has Giordano given a good defense of his premises, or is he just going on hunches and hope like all the rest of us? In the case of Ohio, for example, he decided at the last minute to plug in the results of the latest SurveyUSA poll which changed his delegate prediction there from a delegate win for Obama to a delegate win for Clinton. I don't find this especially reassuring. Still, on election night, when Giordano has actual percentages in hand, he'll be the man to consult as to the eventual delegate count.
March 4, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I think Hillary should split all of her remaining delegates 50/50 with McCain, you know, in the spirit of their sudden cooperation:)
March 4, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
If she switched parties (as seems to be her intention) wouldn't she actually be the GOP front-runner?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-4mJLqW4Y4
March 4, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention the fact that after today there won't be any more contests for Hillary to make up these delegates, and Obama is likely to only win more, so unless she can get 150 more delegates than Obama tonight, it is over as far as I'm concerned.
Actually, scratch that, it has been over for a while.
March 4, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard that this morning on MSNBC, Tom Brokaw said that Obama has 50 superdelegates lined up to endorse him. Is this true? Is he going to dump them all tomorrow?
Do you think that the superdelegates really appreciate a Dem candidate suggesting that the Republican opposition would make a better president? Please, Gore, Edwards, Richardson. Stop this nonsense.
I feel like Grover in Kicking and Screaming - Go away cookie man!
March 4, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Catch-22: The only way for Hillary to show she's presidential material at this point is to withdraw from the primary (or at least to stop going negative, which has been her only semi-winning strategy).
March 4, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it interesting that the New York Times numbers are closer than everyone else's. If I were cynical, I might think they were biased towards their senator…
March 4, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
These numbers make clear that Hillary has little if any chance of overtaking Obama in the delegate count. So while she has a right to stay in the race, her strident, shameless attacks on Obama's qualifications and character are only doing John McCain's dirty work for him, should Obama become the nominee, and alienating 50 percent of her base in the unlikely event she pulls in out. Once again, the Clintons are putting their self-interest above the party's.
March 4, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You Obama morons all forget MI and FL. You are so desperate that you now accuse Hillary of endorsing McCain. Your love boy gives a good speech and nothing more. He even lies about the record of his supporter, Jay Rockfeller. Obama is going down!!!
March 4, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you done the math with MI and FL included? Obama's still ahead. In order for Hillary to win, she has to seat them and win the majority of delegates from here out, something she hasn't been able to do yet.
March 4, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aimey, we have all asked you nicely not to use insults to make your point. You are laughable at this point and not worthy of a response. If you can't argue your point with civility and respect, then you don't deserve any attention at all. You need to look at your own blindness with regard to your candidate and her campaign tactics (and her baggage and skeletons) before you post your diatribes against Obama supporters. No one is perfect, least of all Clinton, and the sooner you can come to grips with that the better.
March 4, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I got a bit carried away. I don't understand why you, as a female voter who knows Clinton well, would trade a sure bet for a hypered phenon. It is unbecoming for Obama campaign to call Hillary's campaign as liars repeatedly. Different people have different intepretation of the same facts. Obama campaign has lowered itself to name calling too many times. I believe you should really sit back to re-examine Obama's campaign tactics to judge for yourself whether Obama is truly involved in a new kind of politics.
March 4, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does female have to do with it? Many of us are more inclined to vote for Obama exactly because we do think we know Clinton! I remember her from the Clinton White House and wasn't impressed then with how she handled crises, and I'm not impressed now. That 3 AM ad really worked hard against her in more ways than one!
March 4, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Sorry, I got a bit carried away. I don't understand why you, as a female voter who knows Clinton well, would trade a sure bet for a hypered phenon."
Aimey, I AM familiar with Clinton, having watched her style of politics for the last 15+ years, and having watched the way she has run her campaign this election. And that's EXACTLY why, as a woman, I won't vote for her.
March 4, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you so proud of Obama style of politics? Buying elections with overwhelming money advantage? Relying on union boss to bully voters? Saying one thing on NAFTA while sending an emissory to the Canandian government saying "never mind"? Trying to win points by repeatedly call your rival compaign people as "liars"? This is really a new style of politics, oh, my a$$.
March 4, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Buying elections with overwhelming money advantage?"
I guess if you think of the more than one million Obama donors as a special interest -- donors whose average contribution is less than Hillary's average contribution -- you might think there is something wrong with this. That is, in the Orwellian world of Hillaryland.
"Relying on union boss to bully voters?"
You mean like AFSCME and AFT?
"Saying one thing on NAFTA while sending an emissory to the Canandian government saying "never mind"?"
You mean being a part of the administration that claims NAFTA's passage as one of its great achievements and then flip-flopping when you get to Ohio? (Not to mention the growing evidence that this was a manufactured McCain-Stephen Harper hit job on Obama.)
"Trying to win points by repeatedly call your rival compaign people as "liars"?"
When the shoe fits...
March 4, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aimey, I don't understand how you can say that he's "buying votes" - why, because his fundraising operation is vastly superior and he has more money for ground operations and ad buys? That's politics - it's been that way for a long time now and that's why there needs to be a complete overhaul of the process to level the playing field. But "buying votes"? And the union thing? Again, that's been a mainstay of Democratic politics forever - Hillary has her own endorsing unions out there working for her (and, to be fair, Obama's union bosses didn't get up before a rally and call Clinton's supporters latte-drinking, Prius driving, did they?) He's beating her at her own game and that doesn't make Clinton supporters happy. I've already conceded that the NAFTA/Canadian thing was poorly handled and could present a problem for Obama with the voters in Ohio today, but you can't tell me that Clinton's campaign didn't also reach out (as was indicated in the original CTV report) - they just didn't get caught. She is also extremely misleading about NAFTA because, like it or not, she did support it during her husband's presidency and it's on record.
I also must address the "female" thing. Just because I'm female, and from New York, doesn't mean I will march in lockstep and vote for Clinton solely on the basis of gender. I do want a female in the White House - just not this female. She's an adequate Senator and I voted for her twice, but I don't like her style of politics - the triangulating, the cold calculation of each move and vote for political reasons, and especially her Iraq and Iran votes, which she refuses to apologize for even after overwhelming evidence that she was wrong. And you know what? She can say all she wants that Obama didn't have the intelligence that she did, but 23 other senators voted AGAINST the AUMF in 2002, senators that also had that intelligence, senators that withstood whatever pressures were coming to bear from the Administration, so her arguments don't hold water with me. She voted the way she did for purely political reasons because she thought the war would be a cakewalk. Well, guess what? Now it's coming back to haunt her, and she has no one to blame but herself.
No, Obama is not perfect - who among us is? But so far I believe he represents a change - he may not be the Messiah come to lead us out of the wilderness, as some may think, but he is young, he's fresh, he hasn't been in Washington long, and he seems to have the capacity to bridge the divide between the left and right. Of course, we'll see if he can actually do that, but for now, to me, he represents the best hope for this country to move in a new direction. Clinton just represents more of the same.
March 4, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aimey - you have to admit that the money he had available to spend was from his supporters. Individual, small donors. To view this is a negative is pretty out there. If his supporters are very motivated to donate and he did it without playing the usual politics with lobbyists - how does that reflect poorly on him?
March 4, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact of matter is that he is running many more ads than Clinton campaign. He's trying to overwhelm her with the money he raised. Why not allow the people to decide with both campaigns at equal footing?
March 4, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, some people have principal. After that comment where she needlessly added McCain into her criticism of Obama, I now believe her to be a bonified Republicrat.
Actually, I never liked her because I always thought she was anyways.
Anyhow, Bob Shrum mentioned a "Soviet Election" with adding Michigan's delegates where there was only one person on the ballot and after they were predetermined not to count.
March 4, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless Dennis Kucinich is not defined as a candidate by you and Dodd is a ghost. Obama could have left his name on the ballot but he chose not to so he could pander to IA and NH. You reap what you sowed, plain and simple.
As yourself a question about Democratic rules: as a rule, super-delegates should feel free to vote their conscience so that the crazy mob will not nominate another George McGovern again. Now obama is asking that rule with super-delegate rule being suspended. On the other hand, millions of people went to poll and vote for candidates. He and you are arguing the will of those people should not be counted because there is a rule against counting them.
So are you for DNC rules or against DNC rules?
March 4, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Admit you're wrong about this, or provide a source. OBama has never asked for super-delegates not to count. Some of his supporters have, sure, but neither him nor his campaign have.
March 4, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for focusing on the reality of the situation rather than the spin and/or ersatz scandal du jour. Fact: it's all about the pledged delegate math. Hillary cannot catch up, period. End of story.
If she refuses to drop out then the party leaders need to step in and help her exit gracefully. She's dragging the party down.
March 4, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
So - as an Obama supporter, here is what concerns me.
Obama is clearly ahead in the delegate math and will remain so. But if Hillary wins tonight in Texas and Ohio it gives her reason to stay in. She can justify staying in by pointing to popular vote wins. That in and of itself is not a problem- but this is also a PR campaign and superdelegates are the real targets. So I think today may be a draw.
The problem is tomorrow--
The continuation of the NAFTA story which I think will harm Obama long term.
The Rezko trial. We will enter a month of Rezko coverage before PA votes- this could lead to a definite change in momentum which may sway the superdelegates back...
What do you all think?
March 4, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have similar fears. Clinton has "worked the refs" now to the point that the media feels they've got to go after Obama even more harshly just to give the illusion of fairness.
To this point, Obama's attacks on Clinton have been issue-based -- voting for the war in Iraq, the health insurance mandate, flip-flopping on NAFTA -- while Clinton has attacked Obama's qualifications and character. I think now Obama may have to respond in kind because Hillary's gotten a free pass on her vulnerabilities. For example:
** The fact that her claim of superior experience is a fraud. (Was she on the National Security Council? Was she Treasury Secretary? Her many years as a corporate lawyer at Rose Law Firm amount to better preparation for the White House than Obama's years as a community organizer?)
** The repeated instances of Clinton fundraising sleaze (Norman Hsu, for example, something we haven't heard much about lately).
** All the Clinton White House sleaze (from the Marc Rich pardon to travelgate -- if she's claiming credit for the Clinton administration's successes she can't run away from its failures).
** Bill Clinton's financial dealings and their refusal to release their income tax returns.
I know this kind of attack is not in keeping with Obama's preferred style, but it does no good to stay constantly on the defensive.
March 4, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
If they reveal their tax returns now, that'd actually give us a chance to "vet" them before the GE! My impression was that their camp has been pushing the vetting thing quite a bit, so…
(Of course, good money is on it not really mattering, since she won't be in the GE.)
March 4, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that if Obama can't find effective ways to counter that stuff and win Pennsylvania, then even I as a supporter would start to question how he'd fare in the GE. Politics ain't beanbag.
March 4, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the NAFTA story will hurt Obama longterm. Right now, it's confusing, and there is a lot of bad information out there.
Same with Rezco, actually. Obama DOES need to address, but once he does, if it's anything like his other quick-responses, he'll be fine.
It will take more than ties in Ohio and Texas to switch superdelegates.
March 4, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aimey,
I'll keep waiting for your *logical* argument why MI should be counted in any scenerio.
March 4, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no rule against having Obama's name on MI ballot but he opted to take his name off because he wanted to pander to the voters of IA and NH. You reap what your sowed.
Now, let's assume Obama fails to file for his name to appear on PA ballot because he is cocky enough to think he would have sewed up the nomination by April 25. Do you think the votes in PA should count?
March 4, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
are you against a re-vote in Michigan and Florida?
If MI and FL want their votes to count, have them vote again, with both candidates on the ballet.
March 4, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re-vote: are you going to pay for the cost and the time people have to go over to the vote booths again?
March 4, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Florida and Michigan chose to break the Democratic Party rules. They are the ones who will reap what they sowed.
March 4, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get the fact right young boy. FL primary was sponsored by the state. FL democrats were forced by Republicans to have an early primary. They asked to have their primary late but was rebuffed by the Republican-controlled legislature. The Democrats are being mistreated by Republicans in FL. Now you want them treated even worse by the national Democratic party?
March 4, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize that the Democratic party issued a decision about MI and FL, right? Was Edwards being similarly cocky/pandering by removing his name from the ballot in MI?
March 4, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a tortured argument. The truth of the matter is, all parties agreed that Michigan would not count, including Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and others. In fact, since they also knew it would not count, many Michigan democrats chose to vote in the Republican primary. The fact that Obama's name was not on the ballot simply distracts from the real issue. The most fair thing for both Michigan and Florida would be a re-vote.
But I'm guessing you won't have to worry. Most likely Obama will maintain his lead in pledged delegates and have enough super-delegate support that the delegates from Michigan and Florida can be seated and he will still win.
March 4, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
ALL candidates were requested to take their names off the Michigan ballot by the DNC. Hillary was the ONLY candidate who did not comply.
March 4, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't lie to me like that. If that were the case, why the rule only applied in MI but not FL? Why Obama did not remove his name from FL ballot?
I was born at night but not last night.
March 4, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, you should check out the names: Dodd and Kuccinich. They were on the ballot as well.
March 4, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!
March 4, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. Now my day is complete.
March 4, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding is that Florida's rules, unlike Michigan's, made it impossible for candidates to remove their names.
March 4, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Hillary-Surgers.....any reasonable winning scenario for HRC tonight still has her behind in delegates (counting supers or not). The overall popular vote will still favor Obama, as well as the remaining primaries (I think we can assume a wash between Penn and NC)....Any way we slice it, HRC is looking for some sort of Swift-Boating miracle to pull this thing out.
March 4, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why isn't anyone pointing out the THOUSANDS that have died on both sides because Hillary Clinton and John McCain authorized the biggest blunder in American history by invading Iraq?
It's not just a VOTE them made - it's about what happened AFTER that vote!
March 4, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, both McCain and Hillary should be prosecuted for war crimes.
March 4, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dammit. Weirdness with posting.
ANYWAY...waiting for logic from Aimey? Don't wait underwater, friend. You need only review her other posts to see that she's an incoherent blowhard of the highest order, and capable of nothing aside from regurgitating Clinton's talking points de jour. Give her credit, though - as her ad-hominem attacks and random complaints demonstrate, she's backing the perfect candidate.
All I ask of Hillary's supporters is this: If she does win the nomination (or "win," as the case may be), and if she does go on to win the presidency - once it's clear that electing her was a horrific mistake, be sure to own up to your role in making that happen. None of this, "Well, I didn't realize..." or "I wish I'd known..." bullshit we hear now from those who backed Bush. At least have the intellectual honesty to stand by the choice you made.
Wait a minute...just remembered who I'm talking about here. Never mind.
March 4, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Florida-Michigan nonsense is what turned me against Clinton. I thought it was sneaky and underhanded for her to try to change the rules after the game was played. Everyone agreed that those two states wouldn't count, so no campaigning was done. I don't know whose idea this was, but it was a bad decision, politics as usual. If Clinton manages to get the nomination by somehow getting Florida and Michigan to count, it would set off a firestorm that would split the party and hand the election to McCain. It would damage the Democrats for years to come, alienating a new generation of voters that has surfaced this year. I hope that Hillary cares enough about her party and her country not to go down that path.
March 4, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Son, you are totally wrong again. The DNC voted to strip MI and FL. It is only as a courtsey to the early voting states that the campaigns refrained from campaigning in MI and FL. No campaign explicitly declared from the very beginning that those delegates should be excluded because everybody understands taht they will be eventually seated. Obama, Edwards, and some others went a step further to please the early states by removing their names from the ballots. It is their decisions only. Now their votes would be the ones make the difference. So you are now willing to tell the two million people who participated in the primaries of these two key states that your vote shall not count because your Democratic leaders did not follow the rule by allowing other four states to vote ahead of you?
Very new politics, very democratic, indeed!
March 4, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with this reasoning is that Senator Clinton explicitly justified leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan (after Obama and Edwards had withdrawn theirs) on the grounds that the DNC had already made its decision and that the results would not count. Yes, Dodd and Kucinich left their names on as well, but neither of them was ever regarded as anything other than the longest of long shots to win the nomination. At that point, Obama certainly and Edwards probably were still regarded as viable challengers.
The fact remains that their decision left Clinton with no viable competition in Michigan, and she herself clearly expressed her agreement with the decision of the DNC. The Michigan delegation was not to be seated at the convention--this was agreed to by ALL of the major campaigns.
Now, if the Michigan Democratic Party wants to schedule a new vote and Clinton wins after both candidates have had the chance to campaign, then good for her. This, frankly, is exactly what her campaign _should_ be pressing for (in Florida as well), because she's going to need delegates from Michigan to have any chance at the nomination. But attempting to represent the January results as a legitimate election is highly flawed reasoning on any number of levels.
March 4, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never seen Josh Marshall in such a gloom and doom state. His bubble hasn't burst yet. Wait until tomorrow.
March 4, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The prospect of a return to the Bush-Clinton era inclined me against Clinton. It was the Florida-Michigan tapdance that sealed the deal for me against her. I'm an Independent who wants the Republicans out this time around, but she has now persuaded me that I'll have to vigorously support McCain if she is the nominee. I cannot begin to imagine how it is that the democrat party could even contemplate nominating a woman with so much baggage and such contempt for the political process. Especially in a year when the mood is to throw out the old gutterball style of politics.
March 4, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any Obama victory will be tainted by the fact that he disenfranchised 2 million plus voters in MI and FL? Is this really how OBama supporters want to win?
March 4, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
HE disenfranchised 2 million plus voters?????????? You have to be out of your mind. You really think it was his decision to have those states hold their primaries too early? Really?
March 4, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an Obama supporter, I'd be happy to have a revote in those two states.
But simply declaring the results of the fake primaries official and giving the delegates to Clinton is out of the question.
March 4, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did no such thing.
March 4, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone stop to think that Vermont might be a bigger player than people are anticipating? If Obama and Clinton essentially split in Ohio and Texas (i.e. their net delegate gain is zero or close to zero), Vermont might actually net Obama more delegates than those two states.
It's a long shot, for sure, but let's not forget about the little people up here...
March 4, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awww, y'all are so cute! ;)
March 4, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing about this fight between the Dems is that Obama can win the General Election and Hillary would have a major major uphill climb to do the same.
Hillary can win Democrats, but will lose the independents. The independents are going to decide this election. The GOP nominee isn't a fire-breathing conservative, but a moderate.
Clinton backers still aren't presenting a rational explanation of how Clinton wins the general election.
March 4, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's more prepared for that 3am phone call, "knows the military," ad nauseum, more than McCain, right? That's her general election strategy, right? Or is that her primary one against Obama, one that McCain would use to trounce her in the general?
March 4, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 4, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does OBama need a revote in FL. He was on the ballot.. and lost pretty decisively! Just like he lost the other big electoral states like CA, NY.
March 4, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You Obama morons all forget MI and FL."
You mean the Soviet style non-elections?
Her "Mission Accomplished" fantasy victory in FL with 0 delegates.
Her marginal win in Michigan as the ONLY CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT!!
Sorry that some of us are too "reality based" to borrow the term from the Bushies.
March 4, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why does OBama need a revote in FL. He was on the ballot.. and lost pretty decisively! Just like he lost the other big electoral states like CA, NY."
Because he wasn't allowed to campaign -- to meet people, to talk to them and tell them his plans.
She won on name recognition alone.
It's the only way she can win -- if the voters don't have a chance to meet him. The more time he spends anywhere, the better he does. Witness Iowa, where all candidates spent the entire 2007. He won in a landslide with an all white midwestern electorate.
March 4, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are lying through your teeth like Obama. Obama won IA with Landslide? How much time he spent in NH, in CA, and in MA? He won so much! Let's wait for the night's over to see whether his time was well spent in TX and OH.
By the way, your love boy was not forbidden from campaigning in FL. He voluntarily decided not to campaign there as a goodwill to the early states. As a matter of fact, he was the only one who viloated the no-campgaign pledge by running Ads there therough MSNBC.
Get your facts right before you comment, woulda?
March 4, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the big unknown in all of this is what happens in Texas. It is a really strange process and can the polls possibly predict who is likely to show up twice to vote today? How do you poll for that? I'm not sure what that means - who it helps, but I'm pretty sure that none of us have any idea what to expect.
March 4, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
BKinDaHouse:
The Dem. Part said that the delegates wouldn't be seated because those states moved up their primaries despite the Party telling them not to.
Obama respected his party's decision on this and didn't campaign in those states. Hillary did (which some of us see as a bit devious). Those primaries were not fairly contested. If the Pary wants to seat those delegates, they have to allow a real campaign with both contenders to take place.
Everyone who followed the process knows this intuitively. There are just some Clinton supporters pretending that they don't.
March 4, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aimey Mae you've been misled by your candidate. Again. The chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence in 2002 was Bob Graham of FL not Jay Rockefeller of WV. Graham read the NIE on Iraq in the fall of 2002 unlike Hillary and voted against the AUMF in Iraq unlike Hillary. Obama said she should have heeded his advice.
Hillary has been saying that Jay Rockefeller who is now chair of Select Committee on Intelligence, who also endorsed Obama and was campaigning with him over the weekend voted for the AUMF which is true. She either doesn't know who her colleagues are (or were) in the Senate but more likely it's just another one of Hillary easily disproved smears. Please wise up. She's not going to be the nominee and trash like this only hurts the party.
March 4, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both Obama and A$$holerod gave people the impression that Jay voted against the bill after reading the NIE. You can have a different opinion but not entitled to your own fact.
March 4, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
good luck to you ... BO is going down tonight.
HC has the momentum.
HC by 8% in OH
HC by 5% in TX
HC by 10% in RI
BO by 15% in VT
HC's net will be 18.
March 4, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Obamanation is going down!
March 4, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only 132 delegates to go under your improbable scenario, eakboyeack.
Where do they come from?
March 4, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep ONLY 132 to go with Edwards 26 coming and victories in PA and NC.
March 4, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I gave PA and NC 60-40 splits for Hillary (quite generous of me).
With Edwards 26, that's 81 delegates.
http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/
You show me how you figure this will work.
March 4, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is going to need ass-whippings the rest of the way, much like my state of Virginia gave her a few weeks ago. Not going to happen, people. Obama will be WAY ahead in delegates, even if that FL total is counted.
She has 2 choices:
1. Bow out tomorrow for the good of the Party.
2. Destroy the party and any chance we have at beating McCain in November.
Which is it going to be, Hillary supporters?
March 4, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happens to Edwards' delegates?
March 4, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
About Florida: Didn't the Governor offer to pay? Wasn't that the sticking point?
Why can't we have a re-vote again? Because it might give Obama more votes than Hillary?
March 4, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, the Republican legislature will appropriate more money for the Democrats to have a make-up primary. You can keep dreaming!
March 4, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well here's the link. Took all of 2 seconds to find it on Google...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080302/pl_bloomberg/a_z1b1gct_nm_1
March 4, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink