Obama Wins Wyoming, Networks Say
CNN and NBC call Wyoming for Obama. With 91% reporting, it's 58%-41%.
CNN's estimate has it that seven delegates go to Obama, and four to Hillary, with one left. So what's outstanding is whether Obama has a net gain over her of two delegates, or four.
More soon.
Late Update: On a conference call with reporters, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe argued that tonight's results put Hillary in a deeper hole.
He noted that given tonight's results, Hillary has to win 63% of the remaining pledged delegates, which "would mean getting 68% or 70% of the vote everywhere."
"We're getting down the field," Plouffe said.
Plouffe also made some of his most aggressive comments yet about Hillary's assault on Obama, saying outright that she has chosen a "scorched earth" strategy designed to "destroy Senator Obama in some way" in order to get the super-delegates to see him as un-electable and hence support her.
So he might gain as many delegates as she did during March 4th.
March 8, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, California finished counting today, and Obama actually got eight more delegates.
March 8, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is extremely important news - or is it? Link please. Why is nothing posted in TMP?
March 8, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This actually happened a few days ago. Not sure why it wasn't reported in more place.
To clarify, Obama got 4 more delegates, but they were 4 attributed to Clinton. So it's an 8 delegate swing.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/6/18441/19312/64/470801
March 8, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Possible misinterpretation here. I heard 4 delegates got taken from the Clinton column and added to the Obama columns for a swing of 8. But not that Obama got 8. However, I could be wrong. Just a caution here. Either way it is the difference between excellent and most excellent.
March 8, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It proves that Obama gamed the system. Hillary wins two of the biggest primary states - and Ohio by a landslide - and she gets as many more delegates as Obama does in some non-democratic caucus in Wyoming. A few hundred Democrats in Wyoming, a state that democrats will never carry in November, are having more say in choosing the party nominee than the millions of Democrats who voted in Ohio and Texas.
And that's fair...how? That's the will of the people...how? You missed the part about how this makes Obama the choice of the people.
March 8, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sinbad thinks you need to take a math class!
Clinton won Ohio by 10% but Obama won Virginia by 23%
Sinbad thinks that you pick states that are favorable to your argument and forget about states that are not!
Sinbad knows that that is bad diplomacy!
March 8, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sinbad, why weren't you singing with Hillary Clinton in Kosovo?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Clintons_experience.html
Shame on YOU, Sinbad.
March 8, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why wasn't Sinbad singing?
Maybe because Sinbad was SOLVING the ongoing refugee crisis!
Did you hear that, MSM? Hillary took all the credit for the fact that I, Sinbad, SOLVED THE CRISIS IN KOSOVO!
GET TO WORK RESEARCHING THIS STORY!
March 8, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
SINBAD FOR PRESIDENT! SINBAD '08!
I am dedicated to Sinbad's candidacy. Hooray!
March 8, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR SINBAD!!!
March 9, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stephen, there are 50 states in the United States and they all should help decide who the nominee is.I guess in yours and Hillary's strategy of getting 51 percent by any means necessary, little states like Wyoming do not matter. Well, Stephen that line of thinking can come back to haunt you. That's why Hillary has egg on her face now with Mississippi voters because of her earlier disparaging comments against the state. I guess that non-Texas & Ohio size state of Mississippi matters now!
Obama is running a campaign to be President of the United States of America. He had the insight not to write off any states. That's call judgment!
March 8, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's called wasting your time and money. Wyoming doesn't matter and Mississippi doesn't matter either. The race for pledged delegates doesn't matter anymore because it is now impossible for either candidate to get the nomination on additional pledged delegates alone. The undecided super delegates will ultimately decide the matter, and what's more important to them is how the candidates will do in the big swing states, and the total popular vote. Obama should be saving his money and energy for Pennsylvania, which is the last chance he'll have to overtake Hillary and prove he's a viable candidate. But he's an inexperienced candidate who doesn't understand that, so he'll probably lose.
March 8, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary wrote off the "little" states and look where it got her. There are plenty of superdelegates in those states and some of them (and their colleagues) are running for re-election, so the popularity of a Democratic candidate in their particular state matters. The fact that a state went red in the last presidential election doesn't mean all its Representatives and Senators are Republicans, or that the down ticket state legislators are all Republicans. Moreover, remember that the President is elected by the electoral college, not the popular vote.
March 8, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Monstrous. It's true after all.
March 8, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen -- Kos calls it Hillary's "insult 40 states strategy" which couldn't be more true. Hillary's vaunted political machine wrote off half the country, leaving an open field for Obama and enabling him to take the delegate league. They are victims of their own strategic mistakes -- now they project their own inadequacies by blaming the process they chose to ignore.
Hillary's approach to delegates is quite bizarre. Superdelegates, that is appointed delegates rather than elected delegates, are even LESS small "d" democratic than caucus-selected delegates, yet her only option at this point largely relies on them, having completely blown their chance to win it through pledged delegates.
Moreover, Hillary's insistence that the only states that matter are the ones she carried is equally illogical. Does she really expect to win the presidency without carrying states like MD, VA, DE, IA, WI, MO, and CO? Does she really think that Barack can't carry MA, NY, or CA? The polls don't say that -- one of my favorite takeaways from the just released SUSA 50-state survey is that Barack runs stronger than Hillary in MICHIGAN! -- a state where he wasn't even on the ballot in the primary and where he has hardly set foot.
But -- I'm not about to oversell Barack's primary wins or losses as a predictor of his chances in a given state in the fall. Its like Penn says (this is a paraphrase) winning a Democratic primary is not an indicator of who will win that state in the fall. So true.
Dave in DC
March 9, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"last chance to overtake Hillary."
Hillary must overtake Obama--not the other way. Remedial logic and math classes do take furry beasts, BTW.
March 8, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's this type of strategry that cost Democrats the 2000, 20004 elections (electoral college). And will ultimately cost Clinton the nomination. You can't lose the majority of states, delegates and the popular vote and still think you are the best candidate. If she's the best, she should COMPETE and WIN in every state.
March 8, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you a Republican?
March 8, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may be impossible for either candidate to get the needed majority through pledged delegates alone, but the closer the candidates' totals are, the more viable Clinton's arguments that the super delegates swing the nomination to her are.
March 9, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Overtake? She's behind. I guess you mean "lap."
March 9, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wyoming and Mississippi doesn't matter? Christ, go choke on a rusty railroad spike. I'm tired of the Clinton campaign and its rabid supporters insulting Democrats who live in states that she is losing, in states that are smaller and in states that tend to be red. This is called the Democratic primary for a reason: every Democrat gets to make their voice heard from Alaska to Texas, from Hawaii to Maine.
March 9, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't understand this meme: "Obama can't carry states that matter".
The primary is a very different beast than the general. It's Democrat vs. Democrat, which means that how a candidate does in a split vote has very little bearing on what happens when it's Democrat vs. Republican.
Just because Obama doesn't do as well against Hillary in a state like Ohio doesn't mean that when it's Obama vs. McCain all of those Clinton voters are going to vote against Obama for some reason.
March 9, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is WAY ahead of Clinton. It is very unlikely she will catch up. Do the math .
March 9, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Overtake? He's been leading her in pledged delegates since Iowa. He has never trailed her. The only thing he has needed to overtake her in is name recognition, and he's been doing that state-by-state since January.
March 9, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The will of the people works in mysterious ways.
March 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh well, another state that doesn't count.
There it is. We are told that a growing list of American states -- now constituting, in fact, a majority of states, large, small, urban, rural, racially, ethnically and economically diverse and in every region of the country -- don't count.
Hillary: It's not that these states don't count.
It's that you can't count.
Otherwise, you'd know you've already been beaten.
March 8, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And a Democratic presidency with no gain in Democratic representation in Congress has already lost, too. Democrats can't win in any "red" state until they actually try to win.
March 9, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, Democrats will never win Texas either.
March 8, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um.
March 9, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Them's the breaks. Hillary knew the game when she started it. Why do you think Howard Dean came up with the 50-state strategy in the first place? Because by winning so many smaller states, it actually mitigates the advantage inherent in winning big states.
Put more accurately, it fairly values the voices of every state, instead of giving all the voice to a few states.
Hillary wins two of the biggest primary states - and Ohio by a landslide - and she gets as many more delegates as Obama does in some non-democratic caucus in Wyoming.She didn't win Texas - Obama did, by 4 delegates.
A few hundred Democrats in Wyoming, a state that democrats will never carry in November, are having more say in choosing the party nominee than the millions of Democrats who voted in Ohio and Texas.A few hundred? Try almost 10,000. And who the hell cares if the Democrats will carry the state in November? You're telling me that Democrats in "Red States" don't get a voice in choosing their presidential nominee? Now who's trying to disenfranchise?
And Wyoming DOESN'T have more say. Wyoming only awards 12 delegates. Texas awards almost 200. If one of them had a major advantage over the other, one of them would have gotten a much larger boost from Texas. But they don't, and one didn't.
It seems that what you're really railing against is proportional representation.
The ONLY reason Obama has such a large delegate lead is because he actually paid attention to all the states Hillary claims aren't important. The only reason. He actually gave all the states that are usually ignored, a voice in the process. And you're saying that's a bad thing.
Guess it's true what they say, you can never please everyone..
March 8, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blast, epic blockquoting fail.
And that should be over 7,000, not nearly 10,000.
March 8, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, it's precisely 8,762, right between your two previous estimates... :)
March 9, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that a Howard Dean strategy? The Howard Dean? I'd forgotten that somehow? Must be a good idea if it was Howard Deans.
March 8, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are there any Democrats that Clinton supporters do like or do they save their enthusiasm for McCain?
March 8, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's right, the same Howard Dean that was right about the war in Iraq from the very start.
March 9, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
In this case Howard Dean is right.
If the Dems keep relying on the same handful of swing states -- several of which have been trending republican - they will LOSE and have lost. Does George W Bush ring a bell???
The Dems need to broaden the states that they can win to remain competitive. period.
March 9, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it proves that Obama was prepared and Hillary wasn't. It also proves he has a 50-state plan, while Hillary only has a blue-states-plus-one plan. It's a plan that has failed us the last two elections. Why should it work this year? Especially if Hillary gets the nomination, which she doesn't have the organization to do. The most important campaign in her life, and she doesn't have a Plan B after Super Tuesday? Geez, it's hardly any wonder that most states, delegates and voters have backed Obama. When that phone call comes at 3am, I doubt Hillary has a clue how to handle it. I base this on her poorly managed campaign. She's been fierce lately, but you can't "negative campaign" your way out of a national security crisis. Or a campaign that's already lost.
March 9, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary had no plan. She mismanaged the biggest thing she's ever had to manage: her campain. She's going to lose because she lost states that she thought were unimportant. Now, watch the Clintons scramble in Mississippi. It's suddenly important and on Tuesday, the voters there will show her just what they think of her and her dismissals of them.
Go ahead, make excuses. Try to brush off Obama's wins. Move some goal posts. Hillary followers seem to be sore losers just like their candidate who can't seem to congratulate Senator Obama for all his wins.
Face it, he's going to be the candidate. He'll win California, New York, New Jersey, etc. and probably a bunch of red states too in the general election. He's a loyal Democrat who follows the rules and saw the wisdom in a 50-state strategy. The Superdelegates who are holding out are not chumps who are going to break up the Democratic Party with Clinton bullying and spin.
Hillary will never catch up. She had no plan because of her and her campaign's arrogance in her "inevitable" days. But, take comfort because she is a good senator and has a bright future to look forward too there. The country is fortunate that we'll have her representing New York and possibly even as majority leader some day.
March 9, 2008 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 8, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
this always gets a laugh!
March 8, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
HOW MUCH MORE EXCELLENT NEWS!! CAN SHE TAKE???!!!
March 8, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Four
March 8, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just had a to make a
"THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!" T-SHIRT
http://www.zazzle.com/this_excellent_news_for_hillary_shirt-235456910823818404
March 8, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get ready folks...
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR McCAIN!!!
March 9, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're dancing in the streets in Alqaedabad.
March 8, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly there are a lot of latte-drinkers in Wyoming who don't really need a president
March 8, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
joyriding around in their limousines...
March 8, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget those Birkenstocks they all wear.
Damn hippie cowboys.
March 8, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wyoming doesn't matter. The only reason Obama won is because his cousin Dick Cheney is from Wyoming.
March 8, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does it matter if it's two or four? Mark Penn just told me Wyoming doesn't count.
March 8, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And as FlyOnTheWall keeps reminding us, this also means another "appointed" superdelegate or two as well.
It's amusing how people view these separate primaries or caucuses as part of one horserace, instead of independent dots in a series. So, this dot now cancels out the dots from Tuesday that made it look like Hillary had "momentum."
It's good news for the overall delegate count. But can PA really "cancel out" all these wins by Obama?
March 8, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
It can't.
Keep the faith.
March 8, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
another section came in, at 59-40-1 atm.
Only one more section to go.
March 8, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only does Wyoming count, we all count. That's one of the important things I learned when Hillary Clinton, Sheryl Crow and I solved the refugee crisis in Kosovo.
Every state matters because all people matter. All races, all creeds, all ages.
NOW WHEN DO I GET MY FRONT PAGE POST?!
I SOLVED THE REFUGEE CRISIS IN KOSOVO FOR GODSSAKES!
March 8, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
How 'bout a Nobel, three ways?
March 9, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
God, I think I look forward to these Sinbad posts even more than I do idiotic's.
Thank you for your service to our nation Sinbad. Without your dedication to diplomacy, this truly would be A Different World indeed.
March 9, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a 2-delegate win tonight (7-5) w/ another guaranteed to go Obama's way at the state convention (8-5). This result's been set in stone for hours and I don't know why CNN's confused or why TPM's using CNN as a primary source on this. CNN was calling tied counties for Hillary online until a couple hours ago.
Doesn't matter, anyway. http://godhatesobama.com/
March 8, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
My god! I can't thank you enough for that link. The heavens opened and celestial choirs ... Well, you know the rest.
March 9, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama Math: Wyoming cubed = California + Ohio + Texas + Florida (pending) + Michigan (pending). Cattle are people too!
March 8, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize that he has won 28 contests to her 15 right? Almost double, and by much much much larger margins.
Just putting that out there...in case you are really trying to make it sound like he has only won Wyoming..
March 8, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton math: screw math, destroy Obama to the point that party big-wigs steal the nomination for you.
March 8, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently she and Rove had the same math teacher.
March 8, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why even do the math!
Why even go to math class or hope for a better grade, when you can just convince the School board to tell untruths abouth the math teacher and have him/her fired!
March 8, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain says that he will maintain George W. Bush's Domestic and Foreign Policies. Hillary Rodham Clinton has endorsed John McCain over Senator Obama.
Hillary Is The New Lieberman!
March 8, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.petitiononline.com/hcinctax/petition.html
For those who think transparency and disclosure is important; and would like to see Senator Clinton's tax returns now - not at some ambiguous future time.
March 8, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting....
56,000 people eligible to vote in the Wyoming caucaus....Total actually voting less than 7,000. So the decision was made by less than 12% of the voters. If you look at the other state caucauses there are similar stats. If you look at all the hanky panky that the Obama people did (also well documented) like blocking parking lots, bringing in outside people, prolonging the debate...etc, etc....the caucauses are ridiculous. Looking ahead to the general election....when all the people vote...Obama will either have to figure out a new way to manipulate the process(and he very well might) or the Dems will be big losers.
Obama does bring a new kind of politis to the table...politics that are blatantly negative, false, lying is acceptable (Iraq, Nafta, health care...etc) and manipulating the political process. For all of you who have drank the koolaide....you are a sorry lot!!!
March 8, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The turnout was something like 13.4 percent today, and four years ago, only 675 people showed up to caucus in Wyoming. That turnout was ten times that today, which bodes well for us!
March 8, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Singfam, I think you've crossed the threshhold. Congrats.
March 8, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
too rich. 'nuf said
March 9, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you're saying the problem is Hillary couldn't find 3500 people in Wyoming to vote for her? But I thought the Clintons' had strong ties there from their vacation in Jackson Hole?
March 8, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate it when covert Obama operatives like singfan write stuff like this to solicit even more donations from his supporters. In fact 86 Obama supporters I e-mailed moments ago have e-replied to me that right after reading this, they went to barackobama.com and made yet another donation.
A Clinton supporter I know, who is a Nobel laureate in mathematics and economics, came up with a logarithm for me, and I've just crunched some numbers with it. According to this formula (margin of error less than 0.01%), this one post will result in another $12,335 going straight into the Obama campaign coffers.
If you've been wondering why Obama will rake in more than 1 BILLION US$ before November, THIS is one more reason why.
March 8, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You, sir, are an idiot. Nobody was turned away at the WY caucuses. There were no ïrregularities." All Hillary needed was another 1,500 supporters and it would have been 50-50, and she couldn't pull it together with 50,000* available democrats? Just try to be gracious for once in your life. I guess in the Hillary has to be the next President, or else"" world, grace is not that easy to come by.
March 8, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, actual voting > 7,500. Not less than 7,000.
And as for blocked parking lots - You ARE aware, aren't you, that Wyoming has one precinct per county, and there are 23 counties. Why? Because typically Wyoming has only ever had very small caucuses: 30-40 people. So they always reserved small venues; some were even held in people's living rooms in past years.
This year, organizers had to scramble to find larger venues, and when that happens you're invariably going to run into situations where the venue is smaller than the crowd and there's.. tada.. no parking.
And MT from CC is right - you're telling me that even though she campaigned in the state, Hillary couldn't round up 1500 more people to go caucus?
That's what should worry you more.
March 8, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Singfam,
Just to brighten your day......I donated another C-Note to Barack's campaign.
I don't denigrate.....I donate!
Peace be with ya!
March 9, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, they can say this one doesn't matter, but they can't say it's unrepresentative. More than eight thousand people showed up. I'm pretty sure that's every Democrat in Wyoming.
March 8, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A clear sign that these will be 3 really big electoral votes for Obama in November.
March 8, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
NC Steve...56,000 dems eligible to vote....7,000 showed...not a representative sample!!
March 8, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Singfam, you need to learn the meaning of the words that you use.
7000 out of 56,000 is a representative sample. 700 out of 56,000 would have been a representative sample if they were randomly selected.
March 8, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not representative because it's not random. It only counts voters who care.
March 8, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
SHAME ON YOU for suggesting Hillary supporters don't care!!!
March 9, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tainted votes, tainted delegates. . It's so unfair that the results of an election have to depend on motivated voters, while all the others -- for whom the process is terribly complicated and the thought of rubbing elbows with their fellow citizens for two hours is more than they can bear -- must languished in state of disenfranchisement. I was so proud that Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea spent time and money to go Wyoming to condole with all these oppressed people and to reassure them that help is soon on the way. It will be a bright day in American when the Clintons finally get control of the Democratic party and can work to rid it of this unjust system. Oh wait, I forgot: they were already in control of the party for 8 years. Hum. They must have been stymied by the state caucus lobby. Yeah, that must of been it.
March 8, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't mess with Big Caucus.
March 8, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was making a joke. See, Wyoming is notorious for being a gigantic state with not very many people . . . oh, never mind.
Sigh. Primaries are not "representative samples" either. Primary voters are self-selecting and, in most years, that means only the most committed partisan voters vote in their state's primary. Know what that sounds like to me? Know what else has a self-selection process that winnows out only the most committed partisan voters? A caucus.
Christ, if we wanted the president to be selected by "a representative sample," we'd abolish elections altogether and just take a damn poll on the first Tuesday in November. That way we could expand the franchise to people who are too stupid and lazy to inform themselves and then drive to a polling place and vote.
March 9, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Plouffe also made some of his most aggressive comments yet about Hillary's assault on Obama, saying outright that she has chosen a "scorched earth" strategy designed to "destroy Senator Obama in some way" in order to get the super-delegates to see him as un-electable and hence support her."
Plouffe is also 100 percent correct.
March 8, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Musgrove, not to change the subject, but that avatar looks like a painting of Coltrane that I saw somewhere. Am I right?
March 8, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
nope, i just took the default avatar and messed around with it with a very basic picture editor.
March 8, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this mean we can replace a week of "Wolfson says . . ." post with "Plouffe says . . ." posts
March 8, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn it feels good to be an Obaman today. Victory in the great state of Wyoming is sweeter than I thought it would be. What a country.
March 8, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's 7,000 state delegates, not 7,000 voters. Nice try though.
March 8, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's ">7,612 voters in 22 counties (excluding Teton Co.) who elected 319 state delegates. BTW the turnout in this year's caucuses is 1100% higher than in 2004 (675 voters.)
March 8, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton is offering the Vice Presidential slot to Senator Obama.
So much for all that Hillary as a Big Strong Independent Woman who would be in totally in charge. Bill is the one who is selecting and openly offering the Vice President slot to Senator Obama. I guess Bill and Hillary do not feel that Big Strong Hillary is capable of handling that selection process.
March 8, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill & Hill just saying: HEY BARRY, BACK OF THE (TICKET) BUS!
What @$$h0l3ssss
March 8, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
When will Obama offer the vice-presidency to Bill?
March 8, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bring on Mississippi. Let's stack some more chips in Obama's column. Every state in this awesome land of ours counts. VICTORY!
March 8, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a dream ticket for you....Hillary/Sinbad. Think it over, Mr. Penn et al.; you have to admit it has promise.
March 8, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Petition Clinton to disclose her tax returns. In the comment section suggest asking that she please also disclose her records as First Lady and her and her husband's $500 million charity which also employed some of their key campaign staffers and received tens of millions in donations from their top campaign donors.
http://www.petitiononline.com/hcinctax/petition.html
March 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Inside tip: I spoke with the Senator Clinton and told her to gather a band of gladiators outside the Forum. I told her that when Obama happens by, they should beat him with rotten mullets! She loved the plan and has sent Marcus Pennus to carry it out...
March 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beware the Ides of March.
March 9, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Food for thought:
WY has some supers, right?
Why on earth would they ever endorse HRC?
She dismisses and belittles their state, and the 35 or so others that don't vote for her.
As KOS pointed out, if every super voted their state's results, it would split close to 50-50.
I guess my point is that there might be a natural tendency of supers to vote their state, especially these places where Hillary's coattails would be poisonous. So won't all the red state supers go for Obama?
March 8, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another strategic blunder by Hillary:
Pantsuits do not have coattails!
March 8, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That might be bumper sticker material...
March 8, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the funniest line of the day by far.
Well, that and the Ask Sinbad forum.
March 8, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, they were all set to commit to Hillary. But then they just read Singfam's post here belittling them so they bolted to Obama.
March 8, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent expansion of your thoughts on red state super-d motivations here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/8/10246/00557/770/472129
March 8, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looking at CNN's Wyoming results story, CNN continues to blur the distinction between superdelegates and pledged delegates:
"The candidates had been separated by fewer than 100 delegates, CNN estimates"
First off, this is not accurate to begin with.
RealClearPolitics says: 1588 1465
That's not under 100.
Also, blurring the distinction is a Clinton strategy. If they can pretend the pledged delegates are only slightly apart by mixing in unpledged and giving it as small a number as possible, so much easier the task of overturning the will of the voters.
March 8, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama winning makes me happy. Reminds me of the good old days of 3 weeks ago.
March 8, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it does take one back doesn't it. Bill, Hillary and Chelsea all campaigned hard in Wyoming, and as soon as Hillary gets trounced, all the old Clinton whiners show up to complain about how unfair it has been. Just like those good old weeks pasts.
"All politics is local" Thomas Tip O'Neill
Hillary would not build the party.
Pantsuits do not come with coattails!
March 8, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Plouffe also made some of his most aggressive comments yet about Hillary's assault on Obama, saying outright that she has chosen a "scorched earth" strategy designed to "destroy Senator Obama in some way" in order to get the super-delegates to see him as un-electable and hence support her."
Plouffe is right.
Scorched earth it is.
Will there ever be an HRC backlash for her traitor comments about McCain???? Also the muslim smears?
March 8, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plouffe needs to call her a monster. He can always resign the next day. Some advisor or another has to do this every week until they run out of advisors.
March 8, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can now add cowboys to black people, educated people and young people that don't count. Might as well add the Indians too.
Best, Terry
March 8, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just how is winning 4 or so delegates to 100 or so gaming the system?
March 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not mattering is EXCELLENT NEWS!! for WYOMING!!!
March 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barista, in honor of our comrade Obama's glorious victory in the great state of Wyoming, I'll take a shot of rye and a plug of yer finest tobacci.
March 8, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
A ticket featuring Obama and Clinton would certainly be formidable and historic. But the people of Wyoming have spoken and clearly Obama should be at the top of that ticket.
March 8, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh well, another state that doesn't count.
March 8, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Idiotic is so funny.
y'all know that Idiotic has his/her own blogspot, right? I think it's called excellentnewforhillary.blogspot.com. or something like it.
March 8, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the late update, Greg.
March 8, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wyoming doesn't matter because neither candidate will be able to win the nomination on pledged delegates alone. That issue has already been resolved and become irrelevant. The only thing that matters, at this stage, is how the super-delegates will vote. And what's more important to them is experience, the ability to fight and win in the big states, and the total popular vote. Hillary is leading in all of these categories. You might as well count cows in Wyoming instead of counting pledged delegates because it doesn't matter.
March 8, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The delegate count stopped mattering in February when it was clear she'd lost the nomination.
All I've been counting since then is the days before she drops out. :)
March 8, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Psst.
There's more than just a Presidential election going on this November. The Super Delegates, many of them, are also running for office. All of them want to maintain Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
Option A: Most votes, delegates, states AND has built ground-up organizations in EVERY state and is ALREADY campaigning for down-ticket candidates.
Option B: I can win the big states. Little states (and the Democrats running in them) don't matter.
Do the math. Believe me, I'm sure the Supers are...
March 8, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plouffe also made some of his most aggressive comments yet about Hillary's assault on Obama, saying outright that she has chosen a "scorched earth" strategy designed to "destroy Senator Obama in some way" in order to get the super-delegates to see him as un-electable and hence support her.
Plouffe is correct. Gary Hart agrees. If Sen. Clinton cannot have the WH then, dagnab it, no Dem can...
I'm still waiting for that new map where we will see the New Reality of "real" states and "boutique" states.
March 8, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me that Obama supporters are the ones making all the ad-hominum attacks: Hillary is a monster. Hillary is out to destroy the party. Hillary is a devious lying bitch. Hillary is Satan.
Questioning a candidate's qualifications like Hillary is doing is NOT the same as attacking her character. Obama supporters need to GROW UP and start behaving like adults. It's their own immaturity and inexperience that drives them into these self-defeating, ad-hominum hissy fits.
March 9, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
That almost hurt.
March 10, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
All these little state victories are just playing into Dean's 50-state plan. And to make matters even better, when Democrats come out and meet together to caucus, they discover which of their neighbors are also willing to take the chance of declaring themselves to all the Republicans in their state.
I see a long term benefit to all this for the less conservative side of the American populace. In those red states they're finding each other and identifying themselves.
This can only help the Democrats in the fall election.
The difficult part of it is that Sen. Obama is pulling only 3/5ths of the Democrats out of the woodwork. So for the fall election there are possibly going to be 2/5ths of the electorate in these sparse states who are unhappy about the Democratic candidate.
March 8, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
A look at the likely outcome of Obama's worst 8 days of the primary season (3/4 - 3/11)
Wins 3 of six states
Win in delegates in Texas, one of the 3 states he lost and 3d most populous state in the nation
Tie in overall delegate count for the 8 day period
Head into a 5 week dead period in the election cycle.
I'll take that.
March 8, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
But . . . but . . . she has Hillmentum.
March 8, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama actually widened his pledged delegate lead this past week, if you count the California certification.
March 8, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Win in delegates in Texas, one of the 3 states he lost"
Proving my point once again that Obama has gamed the system. He even wins more delegates in states where he loses the primary. Then Obama supporters turn right around and they claim this proves he's the choice of the people. Incredible. They must be a dumb as they assume the rest of us are.
March 8, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn! Damn! Damn! Damn!
He has got his mojo back...
Where are my flying troll monkeys?
Damn! Damn! Damn! Damn!
March 8, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here! I'm here! Everyone needs flying ninja monkeys (except my husband who doesn't use them responsibly)
March 8, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they make a medication for that. Flying ninja monkey disfunction (FNMD) is a serious problem.
March 8, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difficult part of it is that Sen. Obama is pulling only 3/5ths of the Democrats out of the woodwork. So for the fall election there are possibly going to be 2/5ths of the electorate in these sparse states who are unhappy about the Democratic candidate.
Elfpix, no need to worry. Exit polls show again and again that most voters would be content with either Obama or HRC as the nominee.
The mudslinging among politico-netizens to the contrary notwithstanding.
March 8, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slate has already started the 'Wyoming doesn't matter' talk. Moving Goal Posts! A win isn't really a win. Another state that doesn't matter unless Hillary wins it. This is getting downright comical.
Where is idiotic? Isn't this execellent news...for Hillary?
March 8, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Could Wyoming be trending purple?
(Yes. I'm kidding. Duh.)
March 8, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get this! I've been checking AP for the past hour or so. THERE IS NO STORY FOR WYOMING!!!! Nothing! Nada! Zilch! The latest election header is (get this): "Bill stumps for Hillary in Miss." Am I crazy? Is this a news blackout or what?
March 8, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you understand? If the press reports even a single positive story about Obama's wins, it proves conclusively that they hate Hillary and are trying to force her to fail.
March 8, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct link: http://www.excellentnewsforhillary.blogspot.com/
March 8, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you insane? The rules are the rules. Obama didn't create them and he hasn't "gamed" anything. How offensive. The Clinton campaign apparently didn't do its homework. It makes you wonder where Senator Clinton gets off suggesting that she would be more prepared to be Commander in Chief than Obama -- if her campaign is any reflection, one would have to assume that she would be unprepared == just like she has been in anticipating (and then reacting to) Obama's rise in the campaign, because she only prepared for one thing -- being presumptive nominee as of Super Tuesday.
In a free society, you still play by the rules. Obama didn't make them up, he just adapted to them more effectively. Different states have historically used caucuses for a reason -- but the bottom line is that both campaigns knew them going in. I like Hillary but she has only herself (and the evil twins, Wolfson and Penn) to blame for finding herself losing caucus after caucus. Whatever happened to those vaunted Clinton organizational skills?
March 8, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
it is a bit strange watching the news tonight. i'd almost assume that Hillary won tonight with all of the commentators still trumping her. On CNN just now, I believe it was Lou Dobbs, one of this guests said that Obama was (i forget the exact words) making a bad choice by not accepting the possibility of VP under Clinton. That it shows how Obama isnt for party unity. I mean, how can the one loosing offer the winner the VP slot. I just don't get it.
I'm really beginning to feel that the establishment really did want Hillary to be the nominee...and that originally the notion of Obama running was a cute little gimmick...that his speaches would rally support for Democrats but by Feb. 5th, those votes would ultimately end up in Clinton's box. Now their in a pickle because they didn't forsee Obama actually winning the most states, the most delegates, the popular vote...and now they are trying to come up with a way where Hillary can still be their nominee...and somehow get Obama votes as well. I hate being one for conspiracy/establishment theories, but I can't escape this notion tonight. Maybe Hillary did know she would win. Perhaps she did have the SDs in place for the nom. from the very start.
March 8, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
They dont call it the Clinton news network for nothing.
March 8, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just remember that Hillary and Obama raised $90M together. It is in the media's best interest that they spend that money (on advertising). I don't think they care who wins, so long as a huge pile of cash ends up in their coffers.
Except Fox. Who really does want a particular outcome: McCain/Sinbad
March 8, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So did Obama win the white vote in Wyoming?
March 8, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, you beat me to it, but you made me laugh just the same. Gee, I wonder what the racial breakdown was in wyoming. Any info from the clintons news network yet? I wonder what other way they can come up with to demean the win. Anybody with any ideas?
March 8, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's running the clock out on Hillary.. Will be interesting to see what the superdelegates do after Mississippi.. I bet Obama has a bigger win there than WY, and his 2 wins should nearly make up for his losses in TX and OH.. Not bad considering Hillary was campaigning in TX & OH, since Feb. 5, while Obama was rattling off 10 in a row from Feb. 5 to Feb. 19....
Since Feb. 5, there's been 15 primaries/caucuses, and Obama has contested all 15, while Hillary only contested a few. No wonder it's been 12-3 since Super Tuesday.. Yes, yes, but Hillary's a fighter. lol
March 8, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL @ "gaming the system."
Amazing the rookie can do such a thing to someone with vast experience...
March 8, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in France and really appreciate the fact that I can follow the elections on internet which I've only had for two years. It makes such a difference.
Yesterday I looked at CNN and despite criticism of the "slant" in the American media -- to put it euphemistically -- one of their journalists characterized a member of the Clinton campaign as "whining". I emailed in to complain. CNN tried to sell me a video of something or other. Is democracracy such a lost cause for the press?
France was against the war in Iraq. Like Obama's opposition, it seems very idealistic. And part of the motivation may have been superior judgment and lofty ideals. But -- in the case of France, they had a pretty good deal with Hussein in terms of oil. In the case of Obama, his ILLINOIS constituency as a STATE AND NOT NATIONAL senator was not pro-war. So how much mileage should voters allow him to make on that speech way back when?
I love soul music, used to listen to a station called WAMO that only played African American music in the sixties when I was growing up in the Pittsburgh area. Smokey Robinson, Stevi Wonder, Marvin Gaye. I love the campaign song of Will I Am. But I can't vote for a song.
War has come with mismanagement. Peace will come with good management. Obama hasn't even assumed the committee he chairs in the senate. He won't provide the management we need to mop things up. I don't doubt he has the intelligence and talent to be president. He just hasn't put in the work.
Over here in France, voters got caught up in the "music" of a slick presidential campaign last year. Nine months later, Sarkozy has plummeted from over 53% to under 40%. Were the election to take place today, his female rival Royale would win. But there are no second chances. Whatever we elect we have to live with.
Oh -- by the way -- Sarkozy ran on "Change". Sound familiar?
March 8, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has done more in the US senate in his short time then Clinton has in her entire term.
Do your research Obama is more then qualified, also this is the political blog dont assume we just listened to a song and said o ill vote for obama.
March 8, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last Wyoming county, Teton, finally reported!
80% for Obama! So Obama finishes Wyoming with 61% to Hillary's 38%, a 7-5 delegate split plus the apportioned delegate for the winner to make 8-5.
Sweet.
March 8, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I should add that this brings the vote total to 8,753 - 14.8% turnout of the state's registered Democratic voters.
March 8, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, are you suggesting that the Democrats not hold any primaries or caucuses in states that didn't pick a Democrat in the last election? Or, that they not hold primaries or caucuses in states with small populations? Or what?
March 8, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here in the cesspool called new Jersey I e-mailed my congressman (Pallone) and Senator Menendez today - both of whom are Clinton superdelegates and were quoted in a Wash Post article today making derisive remarks about Obama's ability to win. I wrote them that if they keep helping damage the front-runner I will not vote for them for re-election. I meant it.
I suggest all Obama supporters e-mail their local superdelegates and let them know you won't vote for them if they help the Clintons destroy Obama's electability or assist in her stealing the nomination. She can win it fair & square or she can go home. No compromise on this.
March 8, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, Vaughn B, This isn't France, Hillary isn't Royale, and Obama isn't Sarkozy. Okay?
Thanks. Bye.
March 8, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stephen,
That's about the most pathetic statement I've seen on a blog.
So because neither candidate can achieve a majority of delegates without the supers, that means they should just give their vote to Hillary because she is, well...Hillary.
Forget the fact that she will have LESS delegates, LESS election wins; LESS actual popular votes for her.
How bloody undemocratic do you need to be for your candidate to win?
Look, caucuses are a bit ridiculous, but they have been part of the game for decades. That your candidate and her campaign were so sure of themselves, so damned arrogant that couldn't even imagine that THE PEOPLE would even consider voting for someone else. With that conceit in mind, they never planned for ANYTHING past February 5th.
Well, politics is a tough business and guess what- Hillary, Penn, Wolfson, etc. got burned. They didn't do their work. They didn't understand.
A presidential campaign is BY FAR the largest thing that any of the candidates have ever run. Well, Hillary has failed that test.
Finally, just because these states haven't voted Democratic in years, doesn't mean they should be written off. Maybe if the Democrats would show a little respect to the smaller states, just maybe these people would at the very least consider voting for our candidate.
Instead, the Clinton 50%+1 attitude just tosses them aside and lets the GOP have them. Barack has won them because he has shown he cares about them and respects them.
Hillary respects nothing...just herself.
March 8, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So because neither candidate can achieve a majority of delegates without the supers, that means they should just give their vote to Hillary because she is, well...Hillary."
Essentially yes. Hillary has proven she can carry the big states. She appeals to Hispanics, the retired, women and the working class, all of which will be vital in the general. All Obama has proven is that he appeals to blacks, who will vote Democratic anyway, young people who eventually flake out in every election, and red states that no Democratic candidates will ever carry. He's got nothing to offer.
March 8, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christamighty. I say it, and Hillary supporters stick their fingers in their ears and go "LA-LA-LA-LA-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU" but what the hell, I'm going to give it one more whirl.
If Hillary wins the nomination by getting superdelegates to vote for her despite having lost the pledged delegate race and the popular vote, you want to know what Obama's supporters are going to say? They're going to say she stole it! Why is this so hard for you to get?
We are Democrats and this is 2008, not 1996. After 2000 and 2004, Democratic voters are about as stable as sweaty dynamite when it comes to stolen elections. If we're lucky, Obama's supporters will stay home. If we're unlucky, they'll vote for McCain (who is, P.S. and by the way the least objectional possible candidate in the whole GOP for many Democrats). And if we're really unlucky, they'll hit the streets in Denver in a scene that will make all the talking heads compare it to Chicago in 1968.
Do you people really think for a minute that African Americans are going to vote for Hillary is she steals this thing from Obama? Do you imagine that any of the students who've turned out for him will? Do you really think you can elect a president with just a bunch of crusty old union guys, senior citizens and middle aged single white women? If so, Presidents Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry want a contribution for their presidential libraries.
If you people really think she can win the presidency is she gets nominated by convincing a couple of hundred party hacks to convert this entire primary election campaign into a sham, then you delusional. Got that? You are indulding in magical thinking. She cannot win the presidency if she steals the nomination. Not. Going. To. Happen.
March 9, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know this will piss off Hillary people, and I'm sorry for that because it goes against what I want to say, but...
I'm done worrying about her and bill and this media created "close race." And about Mich and Florida. Let's have the redo and be done with it.
This thing is over. Hillary can't overtake the pledged delegates. All she can do is steal it with backroom deals. If the Dem party is dumb enough to allow that after 2000 election, I'd rather know it now and be done with them.
Anyway, my point is, as a political junkie, I've gotten all worked up about this mess, but it's really silly for me to capitulate. This thing was over March 4, the moment Hillary didn't dominate .
My goal now it to remind myself of this fact every thirty minutes, as I watch the kitchen sinks fly by. But I wonder if it's not time that many of us Obama folks take his cue and start thinking more about McCain, and less about who the headlines slight. It's time for me to anyway.
March 8, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Obama needs ASAP is for these supposed 50 super delegates that he says he has on his side to come out and formally endorse him.
Clinton is pulling a Lieberman here. The longer she can have an audience, the greater her chance of bringing him down and gaming the system. He's assured of going into the convention with the majority of popular votes, pledged delegates, and states won. If Clinton gets the supers that Obama is too damaged to support and gets the nomination, the election is lost and the party as we know it is finished.
He's got to close this thing down. Does anyone know if there's a contact list of the unpledged and Clinton supers? This is going to require a grassroots effort.
March 8, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Relax, fellow Obama supporters. Gloating is bad for business. THAT was the lesson of last Tuesday.
Stay focused, make phone calls, talk to your friends and family (if they haven't voted yet and even if they have). And let's work together to keep vetting Hillary - and putting to rest once and for all the canard that everything there is to know about her is already out there.
For example, did you know that Terry Macauliffe paid for the Clinton's home in Chappaqua, NY, in order for Hillary to establish residency in the state in which she was handed her senate seat? When asked about this on CNN last week, Hillary refused to answer.
And why isn't the press asking Hillary why Sandy Berger remains one of her key foreign policy advisers? For those who don't know, Berger - Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser in his second term - was caught, arrested, and convicted for stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them. The classified documents were understood to contain information on the Clinton administration's handling of various terrorist activities (including unsuccessful Y2K attacks). Makes Samantha Powers offhand remark seem tame in comparison.
There's plenty more vetting to come. Bon appetit.
March 8, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"For example, did you know that Terry Macauliffe paid for the Clinton's home in Chappaqua, NY, in order for Hillary to establish residency in the state in which she was handed her senate seat? When asked about this on CNN last week, Hillary refused to answer.
And why isn't the press asking Hillary why Sandy Berger remains one of her key foreign policy advisers? For those who don't know, Berger - Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser in his second term - was caught, arrested, and convicted for stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them."
Damn, just when you think all Senator Clinton's dirty laundry has been washed and folded, there is another pile to deal with!! Deep stuff.
March 8, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton spin according to CNN:
'This is a come from behind 'strong showing' we are thrilled with this near split in delegates'.
A 23pt loss and losing 62% of the delegates is good? I suppose she could have lost MORE, which I guess is one way of looking at it. 'Gee, I have one black eye, but I COULD have had two...'
In the stellar words of idiotic -"THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!"
March 8, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think idiotic has been embedded in the Clinton campaign. Go idiotic!
March 9, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know the more I think about the state of super delegates, the more confident I get (which is not to say sure). Hillary cannot overtake Obama on pledged delegates. If we redo FL and MI, Obama will pull a good share of the delegates. She simply can't do it.
Next, the big/swing state argument is fallacious. It has failed the last two GEs. The Survery USA state by state exercise shows how Obama redraws the map. It also shows how much more flexibility Obama has on getting to victory. He can challenge in many, many more states than Hillary can. Why on earth would they want to pursue the same failed strategy again?
Obama brings life the Democratic party in all 50 states....yes, even the ones that don't count. The supers surely understand this. Not to mention those from the "states that don't count" must feel totally dissed.
Finally, fundraising. Obama has clearly demonstrated his superior skills in this area. Money talks.
Oh, and any supers waiting for an opening to move to Hillary had a huge opening this last week and how many moved? Was it one or two? And Boxer clearly stated it was all about her constituents.
To think at this point that the remaining supers are going to break 2-1 in favor of Hillary is foolish.
March 8, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right on the pledged delegates. I wish I were convinced that you're right on everything else. Money does talk, and with that being said, she's got plenty of money behind her to keep her in this thing. That she still has backing in spite of the fact that she doesn't have a chance to win with the pledged delegates says a lot.
This is a battle to decide whether the party is going to be under the control of the DLC or the Dean crowd. The DLC'ers are ruthless and unprincipled. Don't overestimate the supers. If they start seeing a lot of trumped up polls saying Clinton is stronger, they'll fold.
All this party ever does is fold. And there's an argument that this even is a party, rather than something that exists merely to create the impression that there is an opposition party.
March 8, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dam them caucuses...Let me see, Clintons never objected to caucuses voting in the past and on December 31, 2007 Hillary was favored with 42% Hillary and Barack 23% in the Rasmussen Poll in Iowa that was just fine, until she lost and now they suck and not democratic process. (Not Ready On Day One) Now Hillary and McCain voted for Iraq War (American Deaths=3,975, American Wounded=29,320, Iraqi Deaths=1,182,393 estimate ( http://antiwar.com/casualties/ ) oh yes, and 20,000 vets’ brain injuries not.) This is why Hillary says, She and John McCain has proven they can be commander-in-chief. Hey what is a few deaths mean anyway…We the American people don’t believe in accountability we still have Bush in office and he is commander-in-chief.(Clinton & McCain (NOT READY ON DAY ONE)
March 8, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to start a new Phrase opposite Idiots.Here goes THIS IS EXCELLANT NEWS FOR OBAMA!!!!By the way can`t wait for Mississippi on Tuesday!!!GO OBAMA!!!
March 8, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html
"Saturday, March 08, 2008
How Obama Can Win and Win Strong
I am aware of the delegate math.
I know that, unless the Clinton team runs roughshod with regard to superdelegates, the numbers are unassailable.
However, for Obama to not only win, but to win strong, and thus to be in the best position for the general, he must step outside of the box created when Clinton tactics were applied to his own admirable stance.
By declaring himself the candidate of the new politics, putting the politics of Rove et al. aside for a politics of honesty, straight-forward decency, and strength, he has putatively left the field open for Clinton et al. to lob innuendo after innuendo. If he responds, he is in violation of his commitment to the new; if he continues with his current path of non-response, he will be taken down by a series of attacks, that however false or fantastic, will eventually raises doubts in the mind of the electorate as to the validity of his new politics, and will, in the great viscera of the electorate, so responsive and so easily changed, appear "weak."
If he attacks, it is said, he betrays himself; if he continues on the same path, he is whittled down by rumor and insinuation.
Clinton's current strength is her ability to attack, however true the nature and content of the attacks. Obama must turn this very behavior into its own negative. To do so, Obama must relentlessly name what she is doing and anchor it--calling for an "end to the era of 'kitchen sink' politics, i.e.:
"It's about time that we left the era of "kitchen sink" politics, of distortion and insinuation, behind us. We have all seen it before this--a period where it was often difficult to tell falsehood, rumor, and misinformation from truth. It was this type of politics that contributed to a war in which we have lost the best of our national treasure, our nation's men and women. It is this type of politics that our opponents not so long ago decried. And it is this type of politics that, more than anything else, signals weakness--the inability to base one's statements and actions on the firm ground of truth, on our collective and honest dedication to the construction of a new and positive future--and instead, on a retreat into the politics of personal destruction.
It's time to take out the dirty dishes; It's time to empty the kitchen sink. After an era where it was often difficult to distinguish fantasy from truth, it's time to put that era behind us, to base our future efforts on strong and honest desire to build a new and better future."
What Obama can create is his own "There you go again" moment--one that will both define Clinton (someone, after all, has to do it), and place the Clinton camp in their very own box, of their own making: Where any attack will immediately be associated in the voter's mind, and will be accompanied by a roll of the voter's eyes, as another example of Clinton's "kitchen sink" politics--of the chaotic, inconsistent, contradictory and frantic willingness to say or do anything to be elected, be it the changing of one's personality, tone, degree of honesty--or one's degree of tolerance or gusto for the politics of personal destruction.
Without a single attack, this demonstrates the nature of the Clinton camp: in a moment of crisis, and in danger of loss, rather than respond with strength, principle and authority, they throw the "kitchen sink" at the issue, abandoning principles and frantically strewing innuendo as they do so.
With powerful moral force, it names exactly what the Clinton camp is doing, and anchors it both to the politics of the past Administration, and to the very political tactics that Clinton herself has denounced and disavowed. It provides direct evidence--thus far, the only direct evidence--of how a Clinton Administration would likely govern in times of chaos, crisis, and other "3 a.m. moments" (thus disempowering her already shaky claims to superior foreign policy judgment): With a "kitchen sink" approach of tumultuous, changing, disorganized and contradictory attack, rather than with consistent purpose and moral authority.
Obama must persistently name what the Clinton camp is doing rather than complain, and he must then link it to the very essence of an old politics that has been lived through by all of us, and denigrated by most, over the past 8 years.
Thus named, and thus defined, Obama can then invite Clinton up to the higher ground--to a debate based on policy and principle--or she can choose to stay in the box that she and her camp have created.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html
----------------
March 8, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you think that nearly 8000 voters came out to represent an entire state, how can you possibly not be inspired?
Yes, it's the 50th state in population out of, well, 50 states, but 8000 voters is nothing to sneeze at! You could fill a very, very small stadium with that!
Another impressive win for Obama! Hillary must be really, really scared about the change in momentum! This'll stop the cackles out of that woman! Watch out Hillary, I hear your horns and tail start to show when you get really frustrated and mad! Hahahaha!
March 8, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
With Obama as the nominee, we might see a Democratic congressman/congresswoman out of Wyoming this November, even if he doesn't win the state.
A rising tide lifts all boats.
March 8, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very possible. They have a Dem governor.
March 8, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
franklyo - I didn't realized it until now but you and Hillary are both size queens!
March 9, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hell to the NO!
March 8, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone considered that Hillary might be staying in the race in order to carry water for the establishment party bosses of both parties.?
There are two mavericks in the race, Obama and McCain, but recently McCain has compromised himself away from his outsider status.
Read William Karp's book, "Indispensibe Enemies" , published in the early '90's, I believe. Karp makes the case that, in cases where the status quo political machines of both parties, [which allot and share certain power arrangements] are threatened by 'maverick' [uncontrolled by them] contenders from the ranks of either party, then those party elites of both parties join ranks to do what it takes to defeat that maverick.
That book has helped educate me about why Howard Dean's grassroots efforts [50 state strategy] is so unpopular with the beltway DLC [Clinton's are aligned with the DLC] , and why, now, Obama and his 50 state strategy is also being dissed and belittled.
I think the real battle among the superdelegates will be a battle within their souls. An unknown number of these souls may have already sold their original principles for rank and privilege and protection within the back-room establishment power-sharing.
March 8, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems Foster who is supported by Obama won his race.
Obama is already helping democrats gain more seats in congress.
March 8, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a bit of a small news item but it looks like Dems will also pick up a seat in the House tonight. Although they are still counting, Bill Foster appears headed for a win over Jim Oberweis.
(This is the fight for good ole Denny Hastert's seat)
While this doesn't seem like a big deal, those of us in IL know that Oberweis is a ticking time bomb. He has as many crazy religous ideas as Huckabee but with 1/2 the personality and twice the dickishness.
I am relieved, very relieved.
March 8, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a small news item. This is a shot over the bow of the superdelegates. Obama's team was instrumental in this victory.
March 8, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
rstephen:
"Obama has gamed the system. He even wins more delegates in states where he loses the primary. Then Obama supporters turn right around and they claim this proves he's the choice of the people. Incredible. They must be a dumb as they assume the rest of us are."
The rules, the caucus system, the states--it's all been there for a long time. Other candidates have managed to navigate the system. But, Hillary can't. Why? She's only run for election twice, both times in New York, where it just took name recognition and tens of millions of dollars from wealthy friends.
Obviously, she's not equipped to handle a national campaign. She's got horseshit advisors. And none of them can do simple math.
"I don't like caucus states." Well, I guess you don't want to be president then, do you.
March 8, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just don't get it. Obama has only three things going for him:
1. He's black, so 95% of black Democrats vote for him and that's how he's won most of the states where he has. But that's meaningless in the general because they'll end up voting for Hillary anyway.
2. A lot of young, naiive generation Xers looking to discover their identity by overthrowing their baby boomer parents, ie Hillary. But young voters are the least reliable voters of all - they always flake out in the general and they are already threatening to boycott the election.
3. A lot of limousine liberals who thought they could buy the election for him. But money doesn't have as much leverage in the larger states because of the high cost of advertising, which is why Obama can't win there. And raising money won't matter in the general election because both candidates will be given a fixed amount to campaign.
March 9, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does the American Samoa caucus on Monday count?
March 8, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama gets 4 delegates tonight:
1. 7-5 pledged delegate win in WYoming
2. Obama will also get 1 add-on delegate in May because he won the caucus today
3. Democrat Foster won Hastert's old congressional seat tonight in a special election so he will be a new superdelegate for Obama
4 new delgates today is the exact amount Hillary is likely to have received (after Texas caucus results are finalized) on March 4th.
Math is great.
March 8, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3507714.ece?token=null&offset=12
"One Clinton aide yesterday derided Mr Obama’s victories in “boutique” caucus states rather than the hardscrabble terrain of the rustbelt, saying: “Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don’t need a president, they need a feeling.” "
The large, sweeping insults continue. How does *that* aide keep his job?
March 8, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
uh..
oh wait, you're from France. got it. moving on..
March 8, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to propose Boston's classic "More Than A Feeling" for the new Obama campaign theme.
March 8, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm. This isn't good. The WP has a story on undecided supers, and they say [a] they're not going to decide until the convention and [b] that they're comfortable with overturning the pledged delegate lead.
Says one Oregon super: "If the pledged-delegate total is within 100 votes or whatever, I don't think there's a great deal of significance in that."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802664.html
March 8, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I see the dilemma.
Should the superdelegates pick the nominee who leads in the popular vote, leads in the delegate count, leads in states won, leads in fundraising, and is dedicated to unifying the party and expanding it's base....
OR not.
It sickens me these idiots haven't done their job and taken the lead, if that's their supposed job. If they don't care about the delegate count, then WTF are they waiting for!?!
March 8, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Candidate who leads in popular vote = Hillary
Candidate who leads in big states won = Hillary
Candidate who beats the candidate with 2-1 edge in fubndraising = Hillary
Candidate whose base includes Hispanics, working class, women, retired folks = Hillary
Looks like a landslide to me.
March 9, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
actually Obama leads the popular vote by 600,000. even with Florida and Michigan factored in he leads her by 300,000 votes.
just sayin.
March 9, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just saying you're wrong:
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI) Obama - 13,582,247 Clinton - 13,614,311
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
March 9, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read the fine print. Those numbers don't include Washington, Iowa, Maine, and Nevada. Three of those four are Obama popular vote wins. (And all four are Obama wins by the only stat that really matters, delegates.)
March 9, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
It says those states haven't released the vote totals. I don't care what your crystal ball says, you obviously can't include totals that haven't yet been released.
March 9, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, b/c she wins Ohio and a bunch of New Yorkers and Californians vote for her, she deserves the nomination?
Why should Ohio count more than all the states Obama won...
and don't forget, after the Caucus, Obama WINS Texas.
March 9, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"after the Caucus, Obama WINS Texas."
...and your definition of winning Texas is because Obama got 100,000 fewer votes in the primary?
Brilliant.
I admit - if we could win the election by losing it, Obama would be the best candidate for the job.
March 9, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, he wins Texas because he won more delegates from that state, and that's the standard of winning and losing in this contest -- as both campaigns have recognized at one point or another.
Your argument is basically equivalent to the Pats saying they should get the Super Bowl trophy because they got more yards.
March 9, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clue to Obama supporters:
The general election is not a caucus. You can't win electoral votes by losing the popular vote in Texas or in any other state. If you could, then I agree, Obama would be the best candidate to win the election by losing it.
March 9, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note to Clinton deadenders:
You have to win lots of the small ones to even get a chance at the Big One. Your candidate's "experience" as First Tea Pourer are irrelevant. Your resistance is irrelevant.
You are losing. Badly. You will continue to do so. And when you lose and decide to vote for McCain in a fit of self-destructive rage, you will lose again.
Because the Democrats will beat you. Again. Fair and square, with a superior candidate who stands for all that is best about your country.
And you will stew in your hatred until one day, when you find, quite surprisingly, that he does something incredible that will make you extremely proud of your President when you least expected it.
March 9, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, let's see if I follow the "logic."
a. Any state that would go Democratic in the fall that Obama won in a caucus, would have been won by Hillary if there had been an election,
b. Every state that Hillary won would go for McCain in the general if Obama were the nominee, including California, which hasn't gone Republican since 1988, and New York, which hasn't gone Republican since 1984.
c. After stealing the nomination, Hillary will carry enough of the states won by Bush that Obama has picked up by electoral margins that, alone, exceeded the Republican primary winner's vote tally to push her over the top.
d. Any state Hillary can't win doesn't matter.
So tell me, do you have a chip in your brain through into which Mark Penn directly transmits the talking points? Because the only other explanation I can see is sock puppetry.
March 9, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the way Drudge echos TPM's headline, "Obama Wins Blowout in Wyoming". I guess it takes lilliputin minds to appreciate lilliputin victories.
March 8, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lilliptuin to you maybe, who can't see that every vote matters, every delegate counts.
I mean, it's not like anyone's going to get 50 delegates in one swoop anymore.
March 9, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's called the 50 state strategy. Democrats did it in 2006, and now Barack Obama's doing it in 2008. He has more states, the popular vote and, most important, more delegates. Hillary will never catch him. Cheer up and don't be angry like Mrs. Clinton: It's unflattering and nobody will like you.
If Camp Hillary would have had what you call a "lilliputin" strategy she wouldn't be in an impossible situation and the Clinton trio would not be in Mississippi and would not have wasted all of that time in Wyoming. They're being hypocritical for you.
Hey, at least she'll still have her Senate job and her first lady dressing gowns in the Smithsonian. Smile.
March 9, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the Liliputian victory that wiped out Hillary's net gain from Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island? So it's been a while since I read any Swift. What's smaller than a Liliputian victory? Oh, I know! That would be Hillary's massive win last Tuesday.
March 9, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Superdelegates by position:
Clinton Obama Gov. 10 11 Sen. 13 15 Rep. 72 70 DPL 10 4 DNC 139 101 Add-Ons 0 2 Total 244 203 Last Updated: 3/7/2008 http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.htmlMarch 9, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The large, sweeping insults continue. How does *that* aide keep his job?
They're insulting Obama supporters, not Obama.
Voters are fair game for slash and burn. Candidates are off limits...unless your last name is other than Clinton.
March 9, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he's the head of the DNC and he brought the organization into the 21st Century with better use of the internet and his 50-state strategy, to have a Democratic Party presence in every state. (The DLC-led DNC had allowed those local groups to disintegrate.)
It forces the Republicans to spread thin its money over a greater area since they're forced to fight even in red states. And where we didn't even bother to field or fund candidates, we now are contesting races, building up our local Democratic talent, and creating a support system, and putting out our message instead of allow the Republicans to dominate the conversation in conservative areas. It's a start.
Help him fund it: http://www.democrats.org/democracybonds.html
March 9, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll try this again without tags...hope it works.
Superdelegates by position:
Clinton Obama
Gov. 10 11
Sen. 13 15
Rep. 72 70
DPL 10 4
DNC 139 101
Add-Ons 0 2
Total 244 203
Last Updated: 3/7/2008
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
March 9, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can anybody show why the Wyoming delegate allocation is 7-5? Looks to me like he is very close to getting 8-4, based on his final percentage for the state:
O: 5,378 61.44%
C: 3,312 37.84%
Unc: 63 0.72%
By my math, the magic number percentage between a 7-5 and an 8-4 split is 61.25%, which is the mean of 7/12 and 8/12.
Of course, there may be more to it than that, but CNN has the delegate breakdown at 7-4, indicating that they think one delegate is still in question.
CNN's results:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#WY
March 9, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
My bad -- 15/24 = 62.5%, not 61.25%.
7-5 looks right -- sorry.
March 9, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wyoming doesn't matter because the winner there isn't married to a former president.
March 9, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Doesn't matter, anyway." http://godhatesobama.com/
Tee Hee..........cute.
March 9, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the CNN coverage.. "After losing Democratic contests in the delegate-rich states of Ohio and Texas this ..."
He lost Texas?
Excuse me CNN, but he WON Texas. More delegates than Hillary = win.
March 9, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoyed reading the disgruntled Hillary supporter comments here: very entertaining! Cheer up and just get behind Barck Obama now rather than setting yourself up for disappointment when she will not even get on a conciliatory short list for vice president.
I continue to find the contradictions in the Clinton campaign amazing. Bill and Hillary dream of having Obama as a vice president, although he doesn't meet their presidential "threshold." According to them, he only wins states that don't matter, but the Clinton trio are now scrambling in Mississippi as they did in Wyoming because these states are apparently not so unimportant when you're in an unwinnable situation.
Did you see Hillary kissing Mississippi's behind to make up for her nasty comments about them when she believed her own press and thought she was inevitable. That sight highlighted a certain arrogance that I'm sure she shared with Patty Solis Doyle and Mark Penn pre-Iowa. Both she and Bill have tried to guilt voters into voting for her just because she's a woman. Unfortunately, she's Hillary Clinton. We will have a female president some day, just not this election.
Hillary has a wonderful career to look forward to in the Senate. She will be a big help to President Obama in helping put forth his agenda. She might even be majority leader some day.
It's flattering and telling that Hillary and Bill have been floating the idea of VP slot for Senator Obama, but it's ridiculous to have the winner of more states and delegates to give up what it rightly his. He will be the Democratic Party's nominee for president of the United States in 2008, so come on in HIllary supporters, be good sports, loyal Democrats and gracious losers (unlike your candidate), and support Barack Obama-the Superdelegates will.
March 9, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
well said, Amber.
The sooner Hillary accepts this, the better for both her and Obama.
March 9, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS GRATE N3WS 4 HILLARY!!11!!!!
March 9, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine my surprise when I learned that I had caucused for Obama Tuesday night in one of those "boutique states" the Clinton folks have been rambling about lately.
Of all the colorful things I've heard said about Texas, that's the first time I've heard it considered anything so delicate... unless maybe you consider including W's ranch here.
I'm still reminding folks who will listen that W. was born in Connecticut, and I'm certainly willing to help him move back home. Anytime.
I voted for Gore in '92, even shook Bill's hand at Meacham Field; but I don't think I want to see another carpetbagger around here again for a very long time.
Boutique, my ass.
March 9, 2008 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/03/heilemann_monstergate_woke_the.html
Excellent.
March 9, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The proof is in the pudding. Hillary cannot win. As much as I've heard it bandied about, playing with Slate's Delegate Calculator brings it home: Hillary simply will not be able to get ahead of Obama in pledged delegates unless Obama makes some kind of devastating mistake to hurt himself.
However, Obama will still need super delegates to get him to 2,025, so from here out he must work to get his pledged delegate lead over her as healthy as possible to make the will-of-the-voters case as clear as possible to the super delegates.
The best case scenario I can make out is to win by around 200 pledged delegates. By giving Hillary PA and WV, and giving the rest to Obama (using the margins we've seen so far) he could get to around 1,700 to her 1,500. That would be a fine and clear result for him to achieve:
http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/
March 9, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, stop being a sore loser. Every state counts. Every single state in the union (whether you like to admit it or not) is populated by Americans. Hillary could just as easily have taken Wyoming and then you'd be arguing that it was a very important victory. Give it up. Hillary's trying to seat delegates from a state where the other two candidates weren't even on the ballot, and I'll assume you think THAT'S fair, right? Even though everyone knew the rules going in? THAT'S gaming the system.
This is politics. It's not supposed to be fair. It's supposed to be Democratic. And it has been. Hillary lost. Give it up.
March 9, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This board is a mess. I posted this in reply to a post by rstephen, about a mile up the page, who claims Obama is "gaming the system."
March 9, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM, why no new header for Wyoming? Is there still some chance the networks will change their minds? Come on, the follow-up header should be: "Obama Overwhelms in WY"; or at the very least: "Obama wins big in WY." The final tally is 61% to 38%. Considering that Hillary, hubby, and Chelsea blew into the state on a nimbus of momentum, with their blue collars flapping as it were, this loss is something of a rebuke, wouldn't you say? I don't know about anyone else, but given the huge turnout yesterday, I was expecting a much closer result. Going in, it wasn't obvious that the caucus was going to be another Obama blowout, and therefore the result was something of a surprise. It's worth at least a few words of acknowledgment and an accurate tally of the results.
March 9, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Second string CNN anchor kept repeating how she made a strong showing. What is wrong with these people.
March 9, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we put his in perspective?
There are 59,000 registered Democrats in Wyoming. About 8700 of them (14%) caucused. Obama got 5378 votes. Total. There are more Democrats than that living on my block.
March 9, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point about putting it in perspective. Do you know that just 675 people caucused in the state in 2004? Slight uptick wouldn't ya say? Kind of puts it "in perspective."
Yeah, WY isn't gong to make or break anyone's run at the Presidency in November, but as a measure of reinvigorating the deomcratic process, it's worth taking heed of. And this idea (which many Hillary supporters seem to share) that only certain states matter is a big part of what has held the Dems back. The 50 state strategy is one of the best things that ever happened to the Dems; funny that Hillary prefers to stick to the DLC approved "big state" strategy that just squeaked Bill into the Whitehouse and helped prevent the Dems from building a majority.
But yeah, sign me up for more of that, that's gonna be awesome.
March 9, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pdiddy got it right, it's the least populous state in the country, less than 9K people caucused. It's about as important as the Alaska caucus.
March 9, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
at 8:13, you nailed it, right on the head...
"the establishment really did want Hillary to be the nominee... originally the notion of Obama running was a cute little gimmick...that his speaches would rally support for Democrats but by Feb. 5th, those votes would ultimately end up in Clinton's box. Now they're in a pickle because they didn't forsee Obama actually winning the most states, the most delegates, the popular vote...and now they are trying to come up with a way where Hillary can still be their nominee...and somehow get Obama votes as well."
Who'd a thunk it... if we don't see the inevitable demands of our changing party, and the refreshing wave of new and young activists taking part as never before in histort, us Democrats will be relegated to the same dust bin of historic ridicule as the Republicans are destined for.
The old lions in the pride rarely see the young ones growing up around them as a threat, until one day, when the new bosses just simply take over.
Then the old lions stand around, licking their wounds and wondering what happened. And wondering if they will still get to feed on the carrion left behind.
Sounds like what's happening right now in this historic presidential race.
March 9, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, caucuses measure voter motivation. The Democratic turnout in WY was 1,100% greater than the last caucuses held there. Obama won by a margin of 21%. Where's the Clinton supporters' motivation? Oh I forgot, the poor disenfranchised bumpkins all work on Saturdays. And then there's all those privileged, latte-swilling cowboys who having nothing better to do on a weekend than to shake hands with their fellow citizens for two hours and take part in a deliberative process. How undemocratic is that! It would be so much better if we could all vote in bed, don't you think? What could be more undemocratic than this often expressed contempt for small states and the methods they adopt for selecting delegates? I live in a small state. We caucus here and like the system quite well, thank you. Our vote matters. And you know what? We small fry have got the big fish on the run for a change. Ain't that just dandy?
March 9, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Blue Skies, your state just doesn't count on several fronts- it's red, it's small, it holds caucuses, it has white people in it, it has men in it... but you have lots of company. The insult 40 states strategy is EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!
Because democracy only works for the important people, the unimportant people shouldn't have a say... Wait, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the REPUBLICANS!
March 9, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet, that one state that doesn't matter erased all of the delegate gain she made on Tuesday in a mere two hours.
March 9, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, here is the scenario-Clinton and Obama both knew and agreed to the rules. Now Ms Clinton wants to change the rules . Show of hands- how many think we should change the rules in the middle of the game ? Thought so-on with the game.Ms Clinton needs to go bake some cookies and iron some shirts, she is finished. Oh, and Obama does NOT want her on his bus- in front or in back ! She is too divisive.
March 9, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey shrubnose -
I'm a male Obama supporter. You make me want to vote for Hillary.
If you cannot express your support for Obama without misogony, please shut up.
Thanks,
duck
March 9, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you do the math, for Clinton there is no path. She says she can win, but that's all spin. We won't miss her,cuz she's a bad sister. She missed the bus, and it's becuz- she thought she was bad, but she's just sad.I'm not sorry for her-just you and me- Hillary could have made history!She'll attack Barack and say he's bad, but for her-the end will be sad, sad, sad.Where IS that iron ?
March 9, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading all the posts here, it appears that this primary campaign is more than a campaign for the nomination -- it is a campaign for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, for its reform, and for its future effectiveness.
March 9, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word!
Thank goodness Obama is winning that argument at the moment. I don't want the heart and soul of my party to have Clinton's black little Grinchy heart. I think this country needs Obama's brand of politics.
I used to just prefer Obama but now am anti-Hillary thanks to her scorched earth policy.
March 9, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main problem with Obama is -- with all his "I'll raise more money" and his "I'll run in 50 states" and his "I'll attract new voters to the party" and his "I'll follow the rules and figure out how to win" -- all he is doing is standing in the way of what is best for the Democratic Party, which is to make Hillary the candidate! As Mark Penn tried to explain, winning elections is NOT the measure of electability. And neither is raising more money that is easy to do whn you energize the contributors. And running hard in all 50 states? That just shows how naive Obama is! A smart candidate concentrates on the base voters only! He is only wnning states with large numbers of Black voters, or getting high White voter turnout in states that DO NOT COUNT when the electoral college is considered.
There are certain realities at work. For one, even though Wyoming has a Dem. governor, they would NEVER back a Dem. presidential candidate, especially one who mobilized the local Dems and skimmed of independents and Republicans. Same thing with Arizona, Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia, Kansas, and Montana -- the fact that they have all recently elected Dems statewide is NO RATIONAL MEASURE of those states' possible interests in electing a Dem nominee! Isn't that OBVIOUS?! It is best not to waste money and time in those states, just as Al Gore was wise not to waste time in Ohio in 2000. Obviously, losing by 50,000 after puling out early shows Gore was RIGHT not to seriously challenge. Ditto Tennessee.
No, people, what should be obvious from this long campaign is that Hillary Clinton -- duh! -- is the best candidate. We have a better chance winning in the fall by picking her as the candidate, even though she trails in delegates, trails in votes won, trails in states won, and does worse head to head against McCain. Why? Two reasons.
1) Experience counts! You don't sit in first lady teas and lunches for eight years without learning a heck of a lot about the other first ladies and, by extensions, their husbands! No, sir!
2) The base will be there! I know, I know -- Black voters, young White voters, and college educated voters will be upset because they backed an inferior candidate. Tough. But where are they going to go in November? It is NOT as if Black voters won't vote for Hillary, or back the Republican. Because deep down inside, they know that even though Obama got more votes, won more states, got more delegates, and raised more money -- he just doesn't have the "qualifications" and "necessities" to be president. There is simply no possibility that Black voters will reject Hillary in the fall. Because the Blacks (especially the upper middle and professional class Blacks) -- they all know only the Dems can take care of their needs (like welfare and affirmative action). So they'll get in line and vote 93% Dem again!
And since there is no third party candidate as with Nader in 2000, the crunchy granola Obama voters will also be forced to vote Dem, too. We won't be losing states like in 2000.
There may be a few hurt feelings now, but those blocks will get over it and come around in the end. I think it will be Hillary Clinton by a landslide in November!
March 9, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re Merle's comment "But I thought the Clintons' had strong ties there from their vacation in Jackson Hole?" When we finished counting the ballots in Teton County last evening, it turned out that Obama won this county that makes up Jackson Hole by 80% to 20%. We had a turnout of 1,150 registered Democrats - five times as large as any previous Democratic caucus in Teton County. Every Democrat here has a warm feeling for the Clintons after their visits here in the 1990s. But the results demonstrate that 80% of us prefer Obama for President.
March 9, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 9, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with LaBonne's post. I have expressed reservations in the past about some of Obama's positions on foreign policy, and his support of a bill to give subsidies for coal liquefaction. But one step at a time. The Democratic Party has shot itself in the foot the last two elections. And it is time to move to a new strategy.
The Clintons are centrists, and they have tried to position themselves as Reagan, now Lieberman, Democrats. Clinton's endorsement of McCain as qualified to be CIC, after his strong support of the Iraq war, his advocacy of staying in Iraq for 100 years if necessary, and his "bomb bomb Iran" wisecrack raise VERY serious questions about her judgement.
The Clinton's days are over. I may have reservations about some of Obama's positions, but his direction is clearly an important step forward for the Democratic Party, and for the Nation as well.
March 9, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone still defending Hillary in terms of GE electability and/or experience is wasting their -- and our collective -- time. You can wrap it up in all that voluminous prose, BRob, but Hillary is toast in November. But don't worry, "those crunchy granola" Clinton backers will come around in time, right? Give me -- and the rest of us -- a break already. The only way she can win this thing is to become what so most of us have come to detest. And if that's a surefire way to undermine any chance at real progressive politics in DC, then way to go General Pyrrhus.
March 9, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy crap, I fell for it.
Well played, BRob. Well played.
March 9, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy crap, I fell for it.
Well played, BRob. Well played.
March 9, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe, I am serious! Take "the Black vote". Did you see what they accomplished in Wyoming, Idaho, and Minnesota? I did not know there were 5500 Blacks in all of Wyoming! Heck, I figured there were only enough to fill up Bill and Hillary's spare bedroom! But they came out, and they block voted for the Black man in the caucus, even thought he might be a Muslim! And that is one reason why I think they will come out for Hillary! Because Black people are programmed to vote Democratic! They know Hillary is on their side, so they will give her the same 93% they gave Kerry. Mark my words!
March 9, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Primaries vs caucuses? I must confess that in all my years of watching presidential politics, I have not paid much attention to the differences between primaries and caucuses. This year has been the exception. Regardless of which Democrat one supports in 2008, it might be interesting to compare the total Democratic caucus vote in Wyoming yesterday with the presidential vote in 2004. Yesterday, Obama won a significant caucus vote of 61% to Clinton's 38%. In actual numbers, that represents 5,378 votes for Obama vs. 3,312 for Clinton for a total of 8,690 votes between them. In the 2004 presidential election. Kerry got 70,776 votes (29%) vs. Bush who received 167,629 votes (69%) for a total of 238,405 between them. Yesterday's caucus vote totals represents about 12% of the vote that Kerry received, which means that potentially 82% of the Democrats did not participate in the process. I realize these are the current rules and that caucuses have been in place for a long time. Even so, I would urge the Democratic party to consider moving all states to a primary system for future presidential elections so that more voices are heard and there is greater fairness and parity among the states in the process of selecting delegates.
March 9, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/hill_raisers_down_by_one.php
Ho hum, more garbage from monster's campaign. Hey, MSM, get with it.
March 9, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every state gets two U. S. Senators and, for the past 15 years, the National Democrats have handed over the two seats in Wyoming with barely a whimper.
The Clinton campaign shows this same arrogance as it disses each state they lose rather than seeing opportunities in small states for party gains. (Oh, but that would help the PARTY and not the Clintons personally).
Since 1974, Democrats have served as governors in Wyoming for all but eight years. Those eight years, of course, coincided with the last six of Clinton's years in the White House and the first two of Bush's. It was also the longest period in history when Wyoming didn't have at least one Democrat serving in a congressional or statewide office.
Once Hillary Clinton loses this nomination, the Democratic Party can go back to thinking of itself as a 50-state party rather than just a "blue state" party or the party for the Clintons' own political power.
And it's not like the "blue state" strategy worked so well--losing the Congress during the Clinton years and the past two presidential elections. I'm fed up with cheap shots at Democrats working hard to change the politics in small states and doing it with nothing but sneers from the Clinton crowd.
March 9, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I really don't understand this meme: "Obama can't carry states that matter".
The primary is a very different beast than the general. It's Democrat vs. Democrat, which means that how a candidate does in a split vote has very little bearing on what happens when it's Democrat vs. Republican.
Just because Obama doesn't do as well against Hillary in a state like Ohio doesn't mean that when it's Obama vs. McCain all of those Clinton voters are going to vote against Obama for some reason."
This meme is the Hillary campaign's only hope of salvaging the nomination. Hillary said in an interview with George Stephanopolous that "It’ll be over by Feb. 5"
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/010308Burns.shtml
This was a huge strategic blunder and is emblematic of the arrogance of the Clinton campaign. Obama set up grass-roots organizations in state after state and got more net delegates from Idaho than Hillary did from New Jersey. After Super Tuesday, his grass-roots organizations and superior fund-raising ability were instrumental in winning contest after contest. She picked people who were sycophants and not people who were competent to manager her campaign. She mismanaged the campaign and I can only imagine that she would do just as poor a job in the White House were she to win.
Therefore, the Clintons have had to claim that the contests were insignificant or that the process of selecting the delegates was undemocratic or the populace was of the wrong demographics (i.e. too many blacks).
The ludicrous arguments about the Red states and Blue states are Clinton's last line of defense. But New York and Massachusettes will vote Democrat regardless of whether the nominee is Hillary, Barack, or a randomly-selected Governor from a Red state! Likewise, some deeply Republican states will not go for either of them.
If the appeal to the Superdelegates is about electability, then the ability to win the swing states is important, but whether Hillary won Ohio or Barack won Missouri does not tell you whether either of them will beat McCain in those states. It is my opinion that Obama can win Republican cross-over votes and Independent votes in swing states based upon the fact that the exit polls show that he attracted more of them. That is far different from the question of whether he or Hillary won the popular vote in a particular swing state, a Blue state, or a Red state.
Hillary supporters have made a point to mention that she has won the big states. But since they also like to say that Obama's Red state victories are irrelevant, would it not also apply to her victory in the Texas popular vote? (ignoring that she lost the state when you include the caucus results, 98 delegates to 95).
Prior to March 4th her supporters were still making the "big state" argument, but in the 8 larges states that had voted up to that time, Clinton won 4 and Obama won 4.
Clinton wins:
New York 139 delegates
California 204 delegates (rev Thurs Mar 6)
Massachusetts 55 delegates
New Jersey 59 delegates
Obama wins:
Illinois 104 delegates
Georgia 64 delegates
Washington 53 delegates
Virginia 54 delegates
So, the 2 biggest wins in terms of delegates for Hillary were a margin of 83 over Obama. 2 biggest wins for Obama were a margin of 90 delegates over Hillary. He is already ahead at this level and when you look at all 4 of the biggest states for Hill and all 4 of the biggest for Barry, you get Barack with 143 delegates vs. 111 for Hillary. Barack by 32 delegates in the 8 largest states prior to March 4th.
As for Hillary's vaunted "experience", this video pretty much shows what that is worth:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hwLaCb07lAs
March 10, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another Wyomingite here. Like my neighbor Phil, and Joe up in Jackson, I'm offended by the dismissive attitude HRC displays toward small state and "red" state Democrats.
Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, and Barack Obama's popularity have brought about enormous increases in participation in Wyoming. That's nice to see, not just for Obama's sake, but for the sake of Gary Trauner, a Democrat who came just 1000 votes short of unseating a multi-term incumbent Republican for Wyoming's lone Congressional seat in 2006. Gary's running again, and polling strongly, with no incumbent this time. When November comes around, I hope Gary will benefit from having a Dem Presidential candidate who can inspire Democrats to get to the polls. 75% of Albany County Dems voted for Obama in Saturday, and 80% of Teton County Dems voted for him. If Obama can attract that much excitement in November, Gary Trauner can use Obama's coattails to win the seat in the house. Then, Wyoming will have a Dem Congressman, and a highly popular Dem Governor. When half our statewide representatives in Washington are Democrats, will you still c