Obama Nets Iowa Delegates From Former Edwards Backers
The Iowa caucuses might have been over two months ago, but Barack Obama is still making gains off of them. In today's Iowa county Democratic conventions — which those caucus delegates were elected to participate in — Obama picked up the votes of roughly half of John Edwards' former supporters, netting him seven delegates.
Going into the June state Democratic convention, where the federal delegates will finally be selected, Obama is projected to have 23 delegates to Hillary Clinton's 14, with eight remaining delegates either still nominally for Edwards or uncommitted.
To put this in perspective, Hillary's total gains in the Ohio primary amounted to a net advantage of nine delegates.
Late Update: NBC News is now putting Obama's projected net delegate gain at five, not seven. The current numbers: Obama 23, Clinton 16, Edwards/Uncommitted 6. Still, it's hardly a bad day for Obama.
Late Late Update: The newest NBC projections give Obama 25 delegates, Clinton 14, and Edwards/Uncommitted 6. That's a gain of nine delegates for Obama since the January 3 precinct caucuses, and a loss of one for Clinton.
dare Clinton complain? it will be interesting to see ...
meanwhile, the drip drip drip of support for Obama continues, and the problem for Clinton mounts
March 15, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, I thought the county conventions was where Hilly was supposed to pick up dels. No?
This + Rezko clean bill of health + Pelosi going on the Sunday shows talking sense = Good day for Barack.
March 15, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta appreciate the awesome organizing and ground game that the Obama campaign has created and maintained from coast to coast.
March 15, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice!! I assume that more often than not, Edwards delegates would switch to Obama than to Clinton.
On the other hand, I don't know what this Mike Glover from AP (at the link) is thinking, but he starts his report but saying that Obama's delegate lead is "fragile."
Then he goes on and calls the Superdelegates "automatic delegates" following Mark Penn's mandates...
March 15, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah i noticed that to. Not sure how almost a 170 pledge delegate lead (which NP said is what matters) is fragile when you take into account that you would have to win like 70 percent of the rest of the votes to catch up.
March 15, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed the "automatic delegate" reference too. Evidently Penn hijacked the AP Newswire.
March 15, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think it was Harold Ickes who came up with "automatic delegates." But let's all keep attributing his success in getting the AP to use the term to Penn. Maybe we can provoke a fistfight between them.
March 15, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pure genius.
March 15, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It must have been the black Lutheran vote that did it.
March 15, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon idiotic! We need ya!
March 15, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much for her cunning plan to steal delegates from Obama by making robocalls to his county convention delegates.
March 15, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone explain why delegates can remain uncommitted at this stage? Thanks.
March 15, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
They were Edwards delegates. With him now out, they can kind of float around.
I do find the fact that all 7 that switched from Edwards went to Obama. IMHO, a sign of things to come.
March 15, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I wonder, though, about those that remained uncommitted or neutral (depending on how one wants to classify them I suppose). I understand why "other" remains an option at some levels of the voting hierarchy but at the level of the state convention, it seems odd that staying neutral remains an option.
March 15, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 15, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
AHHHHHHHH!!!! Much better! Thank you!
March 16, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just to clarify, I believe the final tally, per Chuck Todd at MSNBC, is +6 for Obama. (Obama gained 7, Clinton gained 1.)
So, his "fragile" delegate lead is sadly verging on gossamer at this point.
March 15, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
A delegate lead of 167 is "gossamer". Ok.
When you have a realistic method for Hillary to pick up 167 delegates, let me know. Until then, you're dreaming.
March 15, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Furion, note "fragile" in quotes.
March 15, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh I did not catch the sarcasm. I owe you an apology, then.
[sigh]
Oh yes, the apology: I apologize :)
March 15, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks much. :)
As an apology gift, here're 3 more delegates for Obama. So now it's +9 in Iowa.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obamas_gains.html
March 15, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I apologize to you, will you keep finding more delegates?
March 15, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a deal. Apology accepted. :)
Ambinder says Obama +10.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/obama_picks_up_a_net_of_10_del.php
March 15, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
To clarify further, Politico and Obama website state it at Obama 25, Clinton 14 and Edwards 6.
March 16, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Atta boy!
March 15, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
He meant that with respect to the 7 delegates just picked up. But think of it this way: If she wins 18 states in a row all as much as Ohio, then she will only lose by a little bit.
Too bad there are only 6 contests (8 if you count mi & fl) left with 50 or more delegates at stake.
March 15, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's even more interesting is that they switched after 3-4 days of horrid news for my candidate. Don't know yet how it plays out in Peoria -- today's tracking polls weren't fun to look at -- but it's good to see this strong indication that his support hasn't dropped.
March 15, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in Iowa, and the line that a couple of the remaining Edwards delegates are giving is that they are waiting to see if he officially endorses anybody.
March 15, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No wonder Clinton wants to delay the final Texas numbers.
March 15, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
She wants to delay the Texas number because it will show that Obama won Texas.
So according to Bill Clinton's Rule of politics "if his wife does not win Texas and Ohio she will drop out. I guess she will drop out on March 29th, 2008 because the result will show that Obama won Texas (61+40=101)to(65+27=92) to 560,000 popular votes to HRC's 440,000 votes in the caucus alone.
In essence Obama would have one both popular vote and Delegates in Texas.
March 15, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess this is cool if you're an Obama supporter (like me). Of course if you voted for Edwards in Iowa because you liked Edwards...
Its 2008! Can someone please explain to me why we still vote this way?
March 15, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one at Monsters Inc cares about delegates anymore. If they did they'd drop out now, because she cannot catch him.
March 15, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting... Ewards is my pick for VP. He had already announced when I wrote to Senator Obama asking him to run for president...as I am sure many people did. I think that they would work VERY well together and share some core values that would make for a powerful support for change in the Whitehouse. They could be very powerful together in working to change the role that lobbyists play. I also feel that if anything did happen to Senator Obama I would be most comfortable with Edwards taking the reigns and that his values and character are most in alignment with Senator Obama. Senator Dodd stated that he does not want to be president because he prefers his role in the senate. No one else really rises as desirable for me. Please scrap the idea of Wesley Clark...he is supporting Hillary and I think he could play a role of somekind but I don't know enough about him to want him to be VP
OBAMA/EDWARDS '08
March 15, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
1brillante: "Please scrap the idea of Wesley Clark...he is supporting Hillary and I think he could play a role of somekind but I don't know enough about him to want him to be VP."
Yes, 'tis true that Wes stands up for Clinton, but that is a bit more military loyalty (he was General Commander of NATO under Bill) than total policy agreement. He vehemently opposed continuation of the Iraq blunder when he ran for prez back in 04. I believe he could be had.
I think the main appeal to that possible ticket is Occam's Razor simple: How could McCain — or anyone — declare a ticket to be weak on foreign relations or defense that has a former top guy of NATO on board? And he never got captured.
That ticket choice does have a little punch, yes?
March 16, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you, RealFish.
I also think Edwards would be terrific in the spot, but I can't imagine him taking it after the 2004 experience. My guess is he'd rather be AG or secretary of HHS, HUD or Labor where he could sink his teeth into fighting poverty in one form or another.
But what I'd most like to see from him is a denunciation of Hillary's help-McCain campaign.
March 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Makes sense to me. I was an edwards supporter until the eve of the Iowa caucuses. The results and his speech that night, turned me into an Obama supporter.
It was only natural.
March 15, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democracy at work.
March 15, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
A another branch of math: OBAMA MATH?
Who would have thought it?
California upward revisions,also!
ADD to 161!
March 15, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
After several weeks of the media passing around the photo of Obama in Kenyan garb, the Ferrarogate dust-up and the Rev Wright storm, it does my heart good to see that the voters in Iowa aren't buying the spin.
March 15, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the super-auto-megamatic delegates don't deliver, Hillary can always count on the Supreme Court. Until then...
Obama wins another round!
March 15, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today's Rasmussen tracking poll shows Obama:Clinton at 46:45,quite a stunning reversal from yesterday's 50:42.The Jeremiah Wright/Tony Rezko effect ?
Why is TPM Central unusually slow in posting polls which are favourable to Clinton ?Hope there is no bias.
March 15, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only poll that matters is what the voters decide...
over 5 weeks from now.
March 16, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take a pill. It's a freakin' Saturday. Let the twelve people who work at TPM take a day off, why don't you????
March 16, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I thought the calls for Clinton to GET. OUT. several weeks ago were premature, I no longer believe this, as she can only "win" by gaming the system, which will translate into a loss in November. So, Hillary...GET. OUT.
BTW, WTF is the problem with TPM's sign in? Every damn time I try to post anything here, I have to pretend I don't know my password, because the sign in keeps telling me it's wrong (it isn't) and I have to go through all the crap of getting the email link, resetting the password to what it has always been, etc etc. It's a bad system. Please fix it.
March 16, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"BTW, WTF is the problem with TPM's sign in? Every damn time I try to post anything here, I have to pretend I don't know my password, because the sign in keeps telling me it's wrong (it isn't) and I have to go through all the crap of getting the email link, resetting the password to what it has always been, etc etc. It's a bad system. Please fix it."
Try hitting the Send button again after it tells you your password is wrong. That's been working for me. I've never had to actually reset my password.
March 16, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanx for the tip Splitting Image; unfortunately it will not work for me. I come here sometimes and it shows me already logged in, then requires me to enter username and password (why? if I'm already logged in?) then tells me again that the same password I set EVERY FRICKEN TIME is "invalid".
Seriously, TPM, your sign-in sucks worse than FDL's - and that's saying something. Please, please fix it. Most of the time I see something I would like to comment on, I just end up leaving the site because it's too big of a pain in the ass to sign in. Half the emails in my inbox are from TPM for "forgotten" passwords. I'm not forgetting the password; your software is.
March 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reading these comments give insight into a really sorry state of affairs when Progressives are concerned.
To hell with principles and values, all that matters now is that your candidate wins. How? Well, that does not really matter. As long as your team wins.
What happened in Iowa is not exactly democracy. Far from it. Today, Obama was awarded delegates without ever getting a single vote for them. Today, some of the basic principles were thrown out of the window and no one here stood for the principles.
And tomorrow, if someone else decides to somehow award other delegates (pledged or super) to Hillary, without a singe vote... well, we paved the way with our silence.
March 16, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama won Iowa; Hillary came in third.
It's not surprising that a disproportionate amount of the support from the guy who came in second would go to the frontrunner. That's democracy.
It is particularly telling, however, that it is going to Obama so overwhelmingly. It may have something to do with the rather incessant sour grapes droning coming out of the Clinton campaign. She once had a positive message.
March 16, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mood - ok, so...what do you suppose happens with the delegates won in primary elections by candidates who drop out of the race long before the convention?
That's right: they typically end up casting convention votes for someone other than the candidate their voters selected.
This is the way the convention delegate system has always been.
March 16, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's website says that they've picked up a net 10 (+9 for Obama, -1 for Clinton).
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGB8CF
Either NBC News is wrong or the Obama campaign is wrong. It can't be both.
March 16, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
WHO ARE YA KIDDIN’ OBAMA!!!? Trustworthy, Naïve, Poor Instincts – All the qualities of a good Chief Executive?!
All of these are quotes from the Chicago Tribune Story:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-obama-rezkomar15,0,2968927.story
His first big contributor
Asked if he ever thought Rezko would expect something from their relationship, Obama was emphatic: "No.
Obama said voters should view his Rezko dealings as "a mistake in not seeing the potential conflicts of interest." But he added that voters should also "see somebody who is not engaged in any wrongdoing . . . and who they can trust."
Obama said he asked his friend about them. Rezko assured him there was nothing wrong. "My instinct was to believe him," he said.
My Comments:
Either he is sincerely naïve and inexperienced and therefore not qualified to be a good chief executive OR he is just another politician caught trying to triangulate his way out of a mess. Get real. All those years and all that money and he never wanted any thing from you? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaase!
March 16, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
you're an idiot.
March 16, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. This is exactly the kind of well thought out, reasoned, grown-up commentary I keep coming back to this website for. Thanks, balckstar.
(Ed. note: I have not read any of the above exchange. Just commenting on the childish name-calling.)
March 16, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there is really much need to write about a "well-thought out, reasoned, grown-up commentary" to a Republican troll who simply copied and pasted a nasty diatribe against Obama and/or Clinton onto a dozen different blogs.
Now this may not be what Alter was doing, but most of the blogs I read have been hit by a wave of people who suddenly realized after seeing the Wright videos that they could never vote for Obama. After reading the same post three or four different times, you can't help but understand what's going on.
This is only going to happen more frequently between now and November, and a lot of people are going to develop itchy trigger fingers. We all have to be careful.
March 16, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It gets even worse I'm afraid. After voting to authorize an invasion of a sovereign country, Obama turned around and gave Bush further authority to invade Iran!
Oh, oops... sorry... that was Hillary "Bush In A Pantsuit" Clinton who did that.
Note to Hillbots: engaging in arguments about "instincts" and "judgement" leads you to a very bad place, just as Hillary's instincts and judgement led America to a very bad place. Stick with the crying and racial smears, repulsive tactics, sure, but the only ones that seem to work for you.
March 16, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another Hillamatic overheating. What's wrong with these units, anyway? Garbage in, garbage out -- we can all understand that. But the rattle, shimmy, and shake. And all that smoke! Man, this one's about to blow!
March 16, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chuck Todd is now (Sunday morning) reporting that it is, in fact, a 10 delegate net pick up for Obama -- Obama +9, Clinton -1 (Obama 25, Clinton 14, Edwards 6
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/16/773831.aspx
-- it also provides a good explanation of the math and how this happened
So it looks (as usual) that the Obama campaign delivers the most accurate delegate counts -- they clearly know how to do the math on this stuff
March 16, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"What happened in Iowa is not exactly democracy. Far from it."
Oh, I'd guess that's exactly what it was! The Clintonistas have been trashing Iowa, small states, caucuses, etc. for months.
March 16, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Chuck Todd correctly observes, this is a sign of Hillary's chickens coming home to roost. Believing that they would have the nomination wrapped on February 5th, Minsters Inc systematically thumbed their noses at the voters in any state they didn't win. Now their hats are out looking for help from the people they've insulted and the results are devastating.
Didn't they understand that Edwards supporters would be able to do this? Didn't they understand the rules of the game? Where is that superior Clinton judgement and experience we keep hearing about? Is this how a Clinton White House will run things on Day One... like Keystone Cops with Blackberrys?
Why is this campaign still running? The only way Camp Clinton can possibly win at this point is through a complete and total gaming of a system of which they have little apparent mastery.
March 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I have to give Hillary an A for effort, if nothing else. As an Edwards alternate, I started getting calls last Sunday from the Hillary campaign, some robo, one a live person, There must have been at least seven of them. One that was left as a message offered a conference call with Hillary. From Obama? An email.
What's interesting is the almost manic quality of Hillary's campaign. At first she takes a casual approach, as if assuming that of course she will steamroll the opposition here in Iowa. Then it seems to dawn on them that she won't be a shoo-in, and off they go into a manic state. In the immediate run-up to the Iowa caucus day, she started flooding the networks with ads, sometimes as many as three of the same ad every half hour, if I remember right. Over-kill. The quality of the ads was good, but the same ad over and over again has an irritant factor. Then nothing until it comes time for the county convention, and they suddenly flood the phones with messages. Again, overkill.
I found the Obama email much more comfortable, less of a boundary violation, in a way.
March 16, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
She did? I must have missed those three days. What was it?
March 16, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This race was over a month ago. Why we have to go through this crap is beyond me?
March 16, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because now his lead isn't 161 anymore... It's 171 pledged delegates, the most its ever been.
March 16, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink