Latest Tally: Hillary May Emerge With Gain Of 10 Delegates
This morning we gave you the latest delegate hard count from NBC, which gave Hillary Clinton a 46-34 delegate edge on the Texas primary, with 46 delegates yet to be allocated. As it turns out, the Texas Secretary of State site has a more up-to-date count based on the totals in the state Senate districts, and Hillary's edge is much closer in their numbers.
With all 126 delegates estimated by the state's site, it's 65 for Hillary to 61 for Obama — a +4 edge for Hillary compared to the ongoing +12 estimate that NBC currently has, assuming the Texas state site's calculations are accurate.
In Rhode Island, Hillary won a 13-8 advantage, while Obama got a 9-6 win in Vermont. NBC currently has Ohio at 73-62 for Hillary, with six delegates left to be assigned. That gives Hillary a net advantage of +17 for the night, without the Texas caucus results factored in. Assuming Obama wins the caucus, this would trim Hillary's lead slightly, potentially leaving her around +10.
Late Update: Using the Ohio Secretary of State's district-by-district numbers, combined with this delegate calculator at BuckeyeStateBlog, Hillary Clinton ends up with 74 delegates to Barack Obama's 65 delegates, with two more delegates up in the air. That would put Hillary at +9 in Ohio, down from NBC's current +11, and +15 overall before the Texas caucus results are known.
Uh, the delegate math out of Texas actually shows roughly even numbers of delegates. Hillary currently has 65 delegates and Obama 61. That's only a net gain of 4 delegates from the primary process.
Look here if you don't believe me.
Obama is winning in the caucus as well, so he may end up with a net GAIN from Texas.
Which may end up actually cancelling out her win in Ohio.
March 5, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone know what the total delegate counts would be, if every elected superdelegate voted for whoever got the most votes in their state?
March 5, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woop-dee-doo
March 5, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric,
The Obama campaign is currently claiming that the final tally will be 187-183, a 4 delegate Clinton win. For those who are interested, full analysis on my blog
March 5, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and Obama's claiming a 75-66 Clinton win in Ohio, in line with Eric's carefully assembled late update. There's no real reason to doubt Obama's numbers - they've been accurate after every contest so far this year. They may have to be adjusted by a delegate or two either way. But the bottom line is that we now know how things turned out last night, and it was 187-183 in favor of Clinton.
March 5, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder whether this is excellent news, and for which candidate?
March 5, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
OH MY GOD! LOOK AT THE MOMENTUM!! IT IS ANYONE'S GAME NOW!! IT IS WIDE OPEN!!! OBAMA HAS STUMBLED!! THE WORLD IS UPSIDE DOWN!! HILLARY IS INCHES FROM SEALING THIS DEAL! THE VOTERS HAVE REJECTED OBAMA!!!!
Oh, wait, 10? Did I read that right? 10 delegates? So now he is only ahead by 150 instead of 160? Okay............
Hmmmmm
March 5, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the update.
March 5, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Huckabee just got her Kansas. Good for her.
March 5, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There were some comments last night that if Obama won more delegates in the Texas primary despite Clinton's popular vote victory, Clinton could use that as evidence that the pledged delegate margins don't reflect the will of the voters — and that would undermine Obama's efforts to focus on "the math."
A slight pledged delegate victory for Clinton is in line with the popular vote, which may actually help the math argument in the long run.
March 5, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bennett-
Obama's numbers put him down by 2 delegates in the primary, up by 9 in the caucus. So I'd say Hillary's still got a case to make that she performs worse in caucuses than in primaries.
The problem is that it's now immaterial. There's no great block of undecideds left to sway with arguments about momentum, fairness, or process. There are just 284 superdelegates who haven't yet declared their support, and Hillary needs the backing of roughly 200 of them to win. (Plus, of course, enough of the others to compensate for those listed as backing her at the moment who have publicly declared they won't vote against the clear-cut pledged-delegate leader.)
The media remain focused on momentum, on legitimacy, on all the things that have mattered in years past. The problem is that in this cycle, it's all about the delegates. Hillary narrowed the gap by just 4 yesterday, and that wasn't enough. She's not going to narrow it much in the remaining months, either, no matter how hard she tries.
March 5, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
They should just put together a Hillary/Obama ticket at this point.
In 8 years, that will give Obama the sure shot of presidency and a total of 16 straight years of demacratic control of white house.
March 5, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bahhh! Obama would never agree to that. Nobody with a political future or half a brain would run as her No. 2. It's all downside and no upside. It's going to be a clinton/clinton ticket if anything.
March 5, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you mean that in 8 years it will give Hillary an excellent shot at the presidency.
March 5, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Screw that
March 5, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That sounds maybe okay until one thinks about Bill as First Laddie which would return the VP slot to less than earthworm status.
Bill is a problem, IMHO, for a negotiated ticket where Hillary lands as the Prez candidate. The only counter to him is a Prez who is not Hillary. But Bill would frankly always be a problem since he seeks the limelight like a moth to a bulb.
March 5, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR BRETT FAVRE!!!
March 5, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
so she gains under 10 delegates overall, and Obama gained 4 super delegates in the past 24 hours.
So where does that leave us?
Obama is winning just as much as before expect now there is less delegates to go.
She needs to do the right thing and concede, before this gets ugly.
March 5, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary cannot ever overcome Obama's pledge delegate lead and Hilary cannot overcome Obama's popular vote lead. Therefore, she only wins the nomination unless she steals it. Riots, literally and/or figuratively, will happens if this occurs, not to worry though because it is all about Hillary.
March 5, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Putting the Clintons' delegate wins from March 4th need to be put in perspective, something that her campaign seems to have completely lost: the ability to reason, use logic and have any kind of perspecttive. Her combined net delegate wins from Texas and Ohio won't even amount to the Obamaa's delegate lead from *many* individual states: Washington state (+23) or Virgina (+25), etc.... and is about the same delegate advantage he gained in Wisconsin(+10).
*** Texas + Ohio + R.I. + Vermont = Wisconsin!!!
March 5, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction:
Hillary cannot ever overcome Obama's pledged delegate lead and Hilary cannot overcome Obama's popular vote lead. Therefore, she wins only if she steals it. In it to steal it. Riots, literally and/or figuratively, will happen if this occurs, not to worry though because it is all about Hillary.
March 5, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
what about even if Clintons win everything left on the map unless they wins over 65% of votes, she'll still loose the game. Yet Clintons will go around talking "you can't have mine until I hand it to you". They are a bunch of drama queens on a soap TV on 3 pm in the afternoon...
March 5, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just like Super Tuesday. At first euphoria and exclamations about Clinton's great victories and then reality starts to set in.
Mark Penn said they would be narrow his pledged delegate lead to 25 after March 4th. Didn't happen.
Wolfson said they would be TIED after Ohio and Texas. Didn't happen.
After all of that hype and bluster by the Clintons and the media, she stands to net 15 delegates (probably 10). Let that number sink in: 15. Her defining moment is winning 15 more delegates than him.
You can say that the media is easier on Obama if you like, but I guarantee you if he'd lost 12 of the last 15 contest and was GLOATING about a 15 point delegate pickup the media would be leading the charge for him to get out.
March 5, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop the Presses! Hillary won "Crucial Tuesday" by 10 delegates!?! Obama won *Wisconsin* alone by 10 delegates!
March 5, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Repeat after me, blogosphere:
WHERE ARE THE TAX RETURNS?
WHERE ARE THE TAX RETURNS?
WHERE ARE THE TAX RETURNS?
WHERE ARE THE TAX RETURNS?
WHERE ARE THE TAX RETURNS?
March 5, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa!!! She spent her campaign into debt, trashed a possble standard bearer and sold her sweet little democratic soul for ten lousy delegates!!!
Obama won that playing meticulously fair in Wisconsin. Clinton continues to demonstrate she can't mnage herself out of a paper bag. Make her go away.
March 5, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tax returns?
Didn't she already say that they would be released on April 15th?
Hmm ... grasping at straws ...
Here's what the "guru" Chuck Todd said on Monday:
"If either candidate nets more than 10 delegates in tomorrow's contest, that would be considered a major upset. The most likely result is a five-delegate swing in one direction or the other."
Last night was a major upset - Obama got creamed in Ohio and won just 5 of 87 counties.
Hillary is now the front runner in this race.
Yes she will.
March 5, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kos has the differential at +1:
Vermont (15 delegates)
Obama 9
Clinton 6
Rhode Island (21 delegates)
Clinton 12
Obama 8
Texas
Primary (126 delegates, Link)
Clinton 64
Obama 62
Caucuses (67 delegates; tentative results based on a straight percentage from 34% reporting)
Obama ~37
Clinton ~30
Total (Nowhere near final)
Obama ~99
Clinton ~94
Ohio (141 delegates, punching in results with 97% reporting here)
Clinton 73
Obama 68
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/3265/76888/604/469268
March 5, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK I just crunched numbers from the live TX caucus returns at [precinctconventionresults.txdemocrats.org], and extrapolating each dirtict out gives Barack 47772 out of 89397 state convention delegates, or 54%. That leads to a 36-31 delegate split of the 67 available. Hillary won the primary delegates 65-61 (even though she only won by less than 2%, she got just over 50% in a lot of the districts with odd numbers of available delegates, giving her the +1).
Texas delegates are then 97-96 for Barack. Latest numbers from Ohio suggest 78-63 for Clinton, Rhode Island was 13-8 Clinton, and Vermont as 9-6 Clinton. Very good delegate night for her, a net gain of 16 delegates.
The problem is that she ate up 380 of 981 remaining delegates (38%) to cut down just 11% of Obama's lead. She needs to now win 62% of the remaining delegates to enter the convention with a pledged delegate lead (another way to look at that is Barack only needs to win 38% to enter the convention with a lead).
March 5, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
10 delegates?
That's it? Obama should be able to win those back, and then some, in Wyoming and Mississippi.
March 5, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Hillary may only gain 10 more seats in spite of winning the three most populous states in the March 4 primary - and blowing Obama out in Ohio - says exactly what's wrong with the system of apportioning delegates.
Obama has gamed the system - particularly in those less democratic caucuses. The result is that he now has an almost insurmountable lead in total pledged delegates in spite trailing in the total popular vote once you include Florida and Michigan.
Total Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* Clinton - 13,563,192 Obama - 13,522,829
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Clinton will probably increase her popular vote lead after Pennsylvania and the rest of the states are heard from, because Obama is finally getting the kind of scrutiny he should have had all along.
The question is: Are Democrats going to nominate a flawed and inexperienced candidate whose advantage with limousine liberals and his lopsided appeal to black voters enabled him to game the system? If so, we shouldn't complain when Republicans steal elections after they lose the popular vote.
March 5, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton is just 40,000 votes ahead when you include the 2 uncontested states of Michigan and Florida. Not a very strong case.
Michigan and Florida don't count. Period.
March 5, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michigan and Florida may not count to you, but they count to the Democrats in Michigan and Florida.
March 5, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's not just me. They don't count as far as the DNC is concerned. At least not as they currently stand. Now there very well could be new primaries and/or caucuses held, and that'd be fine. But until that happens, using the FL and MI numbers is just silly.
March 5, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's silly is pretending that you want the candidate who the people have chosen, when you really want who the limousine liberals have chosen with their money, and you're willing to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan for their sake.
March 5, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would indeed by silly. However, the candidate I support is the candidate the people have chosen, as evidenced by his lead in donors, his lead in states won, his lead in popular vote and his lead in pledged delegates.
And at no point have I supported disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan. I say let’s have a new primary in both. It’s YOU who wants the Michigan vote to stand when Hillary was the only name on the ballot. Talk about disenfranchisement.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to hop in my limo and go do an interview.
March 5, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That many people have limousines? Maybe we shouldn't attack Republicans on the economy after all.
March 5, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, hey, where is my limo?!
March 5, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or my prius? Or my trust fund? Heck, I do not even have a latte 360 days out of the year...
March 5, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a tell-tale sign of desperation when someone starts blaming the system for their candidate's shortcomings. Obama didn't game the system, he played within its parameters. It should be a negative that he has such a strong grassroots support structure that he does well in caucuses? No one forced Hillary to ignore the smaller states of Super Tuesday – she simply couldn’t afford to play in them. So Obama should be punished for raising more money (from FAR more donors) and utilizing a 50-state strategy? Get real.
March 5, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bottom line is: Obama will have more pledged delegates, Obama will have won more states and he currently leads in the popular vote by just under 600,000.
March 5, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"No one forced Hillary to ignore the smaller states of Super Tuesday – she simply couldn’t afford to play in them."
That's another aspect of gaming the system. Hillary couldn't afford to play in them because all the limousine liberals are sending their checks to Obama. But why should they have more say in who the next Democratic candidate is than someone like me, who can't afford to send a big check to Hillary?
Seems to me you're in the wrong party. It's the Republicans who believe that rich people should pick our candidates.
March 5, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHA! You’re hilariously misinformed.
Obama has over 1 MILLION donors. His campaign is built on small donations, less than $500 a pop.
It’s Hillary who is being primarily funded by max donations. Do yourself a favor and look up the donor breakdowns.
March 5, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's well known that wealthier Democrats favor Obama. And the average Obama contribution is $140. How may working class Democrats can afford to give any candidate $140 in this economy?
Like I said before - if you're arguing that the candidate with the most money should win the nomination, you're in the wrong party.
March 5, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Rules? There ain't no rules in a knife fight."
When a Black man starts to well, someone wants to change the rules in the middle of the game. It just doesn't fit the paradigm. It's not who is "supposed" to win.
Whenever someone from an out of power group begins to upset an established power structure, the power structure seeks to alter the rules of the game.
The only thing about Senator Clinton that is "outside" is her gender... in every other respect she is the establishment candidate... an inherited (by marriage) Senate seat, a barrel full of IOUs from established political types, and a media that is counting votes in "big states"... the states where people like them live... instead of Democratic party delegates whom the rules say determine who wins.
The business of counting Florida and Michigan delegates after those states broke the rules of the game is just the icing on the cake.
"Rules? There ain't no rules in a knife fight." And apparently for Clinton this is a knife fight.
March 5, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
rstephen ... couldn't have said it better myself. Perfect analysis.
I'm very confident regardless of the pledged differential - the "supers" will ultimately get behind Hillary once she takes PA.
Had Obama pulled out TX (and I'm not talking about the delegates) Hillary would have taken a beating today and gotten a lot of tough questions.
Instead he lost by 3.5% - a pretty nice margin for Hillary considering she was outspent 2:1 and Obama had the momentum going into last night.
HC is now in the drivers seat.
March 5, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary had a 20% poll lead 3 weeks ago, and now 3.5% is a "considerable win"? Someone has spiked the Kool Aid.
Just objestively looking at neighboring states in the region, you have to assme Obama wins Mississippi and Wyoming, and likely wins big. I hate to tell the Hillary backers this, but it's a 50 state union .. not a 5 state union.
March 5, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've given $125 dollars to Obama (about average for his donors = $109). I'm a year out of law school working for a Legal Aid organization. I'm $70,000 deep in student loan debt and you have the nerve to call me a limousine liberal when your candidate has raised over half her money off of maxed out contributors ($4600). You've used a machine built off your first 8 years in the White House and Obama has started from scratch using everyday Americans. If I'm a limousine liberal your a private jet jackass.
March 5, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was not on the ticket in Michigan so only a delusional kool-aide filled fool would count that state. Simply put, Obama has the popular vote lead by either 200,000-600,000.
March 5, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Omama was not on the ballot in Michigan it's because Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan. Why should all the states that Obama racked up after superTuesday because Hillary goofed and didn't plan that far ahead - why should they be counted? and yet when Barack goofs and takes his name off the ballot in a Democratic election - that should not count? Seems to me you have a double standard.
March 5, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That might be the single most idiotic analogy I've ever read.
All dems took their name of the ballot in MI as punishment for them moving their primary date up. To somehow compare that to Hillary's utter lack of planning for a post-Super Tuesday contest is simply ridiculous.
March 5, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"All dems took their name of the ballot in MI as punishment"
All Dems did NOT take their names off the ballot. Hillary's name was on the ballot, and Obama actively urged his supporters to vote uncommitted. So why should Obama's boneheaded strategy in Michigan not count, but Hillary's boneheaded strategy after superTuesday count? I don't see your logic.
March 5, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Hillary was the only name on the ballot. Since when did Michigan become Russia? One name on a ballot is now considered a fair and true election?
The basic logic is this. Abiding by the wishes of the DNC and pulling your name off the ballot in Michigan is not the same thing as failing to plan adequately for a drawn out primary fight. It's just not.
March 5, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? 2,857,000 people voted in Texas in the Democratic primary last night. 2,187,000 people voted in Ohio. That's 700,000 more votes in Texas.
The population of Texas is three times the population of Ohio. Texas gets ~60 more delegates than Ohio does for convention representation. You're saying this is unfair? The two states, despite their massive population difference, should be equally represented?
Obama executed the system perfectly. It's Hillary who chooses to believe half the states don't matter because they don't contain her base constituency.
As for the 'less democratic caucuses', why are they less democratic than a popular vote? Maybe in past years, but this year there has been HUGE turnout at the caucuses, making a good argument that the caucuses this year have been very democratic.
Fair enough, and maybe Hillary can get the same kind of scrutiny - the kind of scrutiny she's never had at all.
March 5, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That the winner of the popular vote in the Texas primary nevertheless ends up with fewer delegates out of that state at the end of the day would seem to me prima facie evidence that the process is not entirely democratic. You're overlooking that not every vote in that primary carried equal weight -- for the most part Hispanic votes, for example, carried less weight than African-American votes, for example, because of voting patterns in their respective districts in 2004. And then a caucus is for some reason thrown in on top of that and makes the process even less even-handed by giving a double vote to those primary participants who happen to have some free time in the early evening after the election. Sure, those are the rules, but you can't claim that they are up to the one-man-one-vote standard.
March 5, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be careful what you wish for.
The more the Obama "wins" on the score of pledged delegates even in the face of a popular vote going dramatically against him, the more he loses in terms of the moral argument that should persuade superdelegates. If the popular will goes one way, and the pledged delegates the other, what's left of Obama's argument?
I think that Clinton will happily cede pledged delegates if it undermines Obama's argument to the superdelegates.
March 5, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama currently leads in the popular vote and pledged delegate vote, dramatically.
March 5, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can keep saying that Obama leads in the popular vote, but the fact is that he doesn't. More Americans have voted for Hillary in the primaries so far, than have voted for Obama. And sooner or later you're going to have to deal with that reality. You can't change political realities with words alone.
Total Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* Clinton - 13,563,192 Obama - 13,522,829
March 5, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, your assertion that the popular vote is going dramatically against him is simply false. He leads by ~600,000.
That said, it may not be a fair system (and I'd agree with it. Hell, it's this system that screwed Gore in 2000). But it IS the system. Pledged delegates decide the winner, not popular vote.
But I think it's a moot point since Obama currently has a substantial lead in both.
March 5, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That assumes that you don't take into account the votes in FL and MI.
In the end, whether they have do-overs or not, FL and MI have to figure into the popular vote and the delegate count.
My expectation is that at the end of the primary process, with FL and MI included, Hillary wins the popular vote.
But the main point here is that every time it looks like Obama has nothing really change in the pledged vote count, or even has it go in his favor, despite the popular vote going dramatically for Hillary -- which is what is happening with the Mar 4 results -- the more the larger public becomes only more cynical about the "rules" that assign those delegates, and the meaning of those delegate counts.
In the end, the superdelegates are going to care deeply about public perceptions when they make their decisions. Insofar as the Obama campaign "wins" on the pledged delegates at the expense of the popular will, it loses in the public eye.
Whence my admonition, be careful what you wish for.
March 5, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you prediction is hardly fact.
And this: "Insofar as the Obama campaign "wins" on the pledged delegates at the expense of the popular will" has yet to happen since he currently leads in both. If Clinton overtakes Obama's popular vote lead, then we'll talk. Until then, dabbling in hypotheticals is a waste of time. Although I understand the desire for Clinton supporters to do so - the reality is starkly against them.
And, I agree. FL and MI will and should count. But not at their current showings. It makes no sense to count a primary where only 1 name appeared on the ballot. So, until they re-do those elections, using the old FL and MI numbers is just illogical.
March 5, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
being misinformed is excellent news!!! for hillary!!!!
March 5, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, basically Hillary's "remarkable wins" netted her about the same (or fewer) delegates as Obama netted in the District of Colombia? This is just one "latte drinker"s opinion, but perhaps Mark Penn should refund Hillary his paycheck.
And since when is 54-44 a "blow out"? That was precisely Hillary's problem .. she got a few wins in big states (after basically conceding all the other states), but she couldn't blow Obama out in any of them for the delegate difference to really matter.
March 5, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary gets the nomination, she'll have done it by:
- never having led in pledged delegates,
- denigrating an inspiring message of hope
- mocking a new generation of voters
- opportunizing on lies and rumor
- endorsing her Republican opponent: [i]"I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House."[/i]
- approving ads that use fear tactics
I want to believe that that will not happen, but I am not naive enough to think that it couldn't. Once again, our future plays on a lethal and disturbing precipice.
March 5, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is, many of the states Obama won were smaller, red states that dems never would win in the general election anyway.
The states Hillary has won are the big states and are *must wins* in the General election, like Ohio for example.
So although he may have a handful more in the count, her wins are more significant in looking to the general election.
March 5, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh boy, this tired meme again? Yeah, Obama never won any big "swing" states ... other than Virginia, Colorado, Missouri and Wisconsin ... all of them other than Mizzou by landslide margins.
Meanwhile, Clinton won all the big "purple" states like Texas, California and New York ... wait, what?
Clinton has two nice wins ... Tennessee and Ohio, the rest are relatively meaningless.
March 5, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the rest are relatively meaningless" despite the equivocation with relatively, is a daft statement.
At the same time RaeK's assertion that Hillary's are "more significant" is similarly daft.
All the wins for both candidates count, on a delegate by delegate basis, Obama simply has more of them.
March 5, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you think Obama loses California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts in the fall? Really? Traditional Democratic strongholds go red in the fall is laughable. That is the crux of your argument right?
Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada and Florida are the swing states that are in play in the fall.
Obama's won 4 of the 7, and hasn't spent the last month denigrating the other states as Clinton has in her attempts to downplay his victories.
I suspect you'll be making that argument in a few days if Wyoming and Mississippi don't go Clinton's way (they are "challenges" for her according to Penn). They don't count because she didn't win them.
March 5, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly as I would have said it. Obama shows he can win where Democrats can lose... Hillary shows she can win where Democrats can't lose.
March 5, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. You can't judge a hypothetical general election on the results of a Primary! Or, are you saying that CA and NY wouldn't vote for Obama?
And that Texas (my home state) would vote for... HILLARY?!?
March 5, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither Edwards nor Obama were even on the ballot in Michigan, and there was still a large percentage for undecided. If you think Michigan and Florida being excluded is undemocratic, how about working for a second primary in each, perhaps with an election campaign, or even both candidates actually on the ballot?
March 5, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gripping analysis on your blog Mr. Fly.
All should go read it.
March 5, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
since when is +4 delegates "momentum"
March 5, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Winning the Ohio Primary has nothing to do with winning Ohio in the General Election. NOTHING.
Obama is stronger against McCain.
Hilary is McCain-lite, plus a plan for universal health care plan--very similar to her plan that failed 15 years ago.
No candidate who voted for the illegal, immoral and misguided War in Iraq should be President.
March 5, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
this would be the count if Dean had the courage to LEAVE NO VOTER BEHIND
Clinton Delegates
1326
Super Delegates
238
1564
Obama Delegates
1361
Super Delegates
199
1560
Dem Other
73
March 5, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beg pardon, but I have given more than $140 dollars, in small $25 spurts when I can, to Obama over the course of the campaign, and I make under $25,000 a year.
March 5, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I calculate that the caucus spread is in Obama's favor by about +7 delegates as of 15 minutes ago. To get up-to-the-minute TX caucus results, see...
http://precinctconventionresults.txdemocrats.org/election08district
March 5, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
rstephen - Does Clinton still lead in the aggregate popular vote if you credit Obama with the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan?
March 5, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
on feb 9 (lousinana, nebraska, washington, virgin islands obama picked up 49 pledged delegates.
on feb 12 (DC, MD, VA) he picked up 52.
on feb 19 (HI, WI) he picked up 19.
on march 4, hillary picked up ~10.
oooooooooooooooh.
source for pledged delegates is http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/d_delegateScorecard.shtml
March 5, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
forget the net delegate gain for the night from texas...
...the big story of the night is that hrc and HER SUPPORTERS finally found a way to be competitive in the embarassingly non-democratic process inexplicably approved by the democratic party that is called "the caucus".
ranking up delegate totals based on 20% margin wins in states where a total of 50,000 voters casts ballots is a pretty thin foundation on which to build one's claim to "legitimacy" of nomination.
...and now that hrc has figured out the caucus process, developed her own animated cadre of on-the-ground supporters who can stump for caucus attendance, seems like we won't be seeing anymore obama blowouts that net him 2 or 3 to 1 delegate advantages out of these abominations to democracy.
so, as others on this string have indicated, i'm very encouraged that hrc will be VERY competitive in all caucuses going forward, and i'm equally encourage and confident that hrc will continue to dominant the primary process.
whoever knew delegate math could be so fun!
March 5, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Ten delegates.
You'd think she had parted the Red Sea, from the coverage.
So this means all she needs is like 15-16 more nights like last night, and she'll be tied.
How many primaries are there left again?
March 5, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Four Democratic presidential candidates - U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, U.S. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards - filed affidavits with the Michigan Department of State requesting that their names be removed from Michigan's Jan. 15 Democratic Party Primary ballot.
March 5, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once the TX caucus results are finalized, she will have a net gain of less than 10. This means that on a 370-delegate night, she gained a net of at most ten delegates. She must be "surging" with a "huge comeback" eh?
March 5, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
let's see. current media reports of total delegates, pledged and super, only account for the "announced super delegates." at present that's approximately 400.
the total number of pledged delegates is approximately 800.
what's the import?
neither candidate can/will get to the required 2025 required to win nomination outright with pledged delegates. means super ds necessarily have to be a part of the equation.
i don't know how all the delegates are picked, but if they represent existing and former elected officials, then i'm guessing that like representation to the u.s. house, the bigger and more populace the state, the more super d's allotted to that state.
now, let's take the obama-ites argument that "super d's should vote the way their state voted." well, again, my guess is that by winning the big and most populace states, hrc will have a significant advantage in super d's, super d's who's only voting motivation would be reflecting their state's preference for a nominee.
what's that i hear? silence. hum?
does show the shallowness of the ever-shifting rationales provided by the obama-ites of either counting or not counting super d's...having them vote for their state or not vote their state.
super d's are a battleground just like primaries, just like caucuses, just like states.
making an effective pitch to win their vote is no different than winning a primary, caucus or state, and it's all fair.
stop trying to whine your way to the nomination, man up, and play the game to conclusion.
March 5, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Michigan. If the results of our "primary" are used to give HRC the nomination, my continually declining opinion of her will bottom out.
Don't lecture me about being disenfranchised if HRC isn't allowed to steal our delegates.
We didn't have a primary. The DNC told the candidates to withdraw, and every major candidate but HRC did. I supported Kucinich but am now behind Obama. I know many Obama supporters who didn't vote that day (or who voted for Mitt). No way Hillary get 70% of the vote in a real primary.
This and many other shenanigans have pushed me from a casual Obama supporter to one who is getting out the checkbook today.
Since I'm all wound up, I'm going to try to ignore the hypocritical comments about whining.
March 5, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
rstephan wrote: "It's well known that wealthier Democrats favor Obama. And the average Obama contribution is $140. How may working class Democrats can afford to give any candidate $140 in this economy?"
What's the average donation given to Hillary? Using your logic and assertions, it should be well below $140 and demonstrate that she is a politician of the working class.
How about this number: 60% of Hillary's donors have give the maximum donation of $2,300 (Obama only 37%).
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=P
Small donors are usually defined as $200 or less in national politics. The numbers speak for themselves:
Percent of Hillary's donors at $200 or less: 16%
Percent of Obama's donors at $200 or less: 34%
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=S
March 5, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama keeps bragging that he won more states.
The fact is the big states, ALL of which she won, are twice the size of his avg. small state.
Her big states should therefore be counted double. At that rate, she's won more.
March 5, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear they will have to take Fla. and Mich. because without them, NEITHER candidate can reach the magic number.
March 5, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink