« Obama's Iowa Speech: We Have Won "A Majority Of Delegates" | Home | Oregon Exit Polls: Obama Handily Beat Hillary Among Whites, No-College, Less-Than-$50,000 Voters »
News Orgs Call Oregon For Obama
Barack Obama just got some good election news to balance out his big loss tonight in Kentucky: Almost immediately after voting ended in Oregon, the news organizations have called it as a big win for him in this particular swing state.
This should further pad out Obama's numbers on pledged delegates, with the campaign already having claimed a full majority of pledged dels after Kentucky alone.
Advertisement
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
May 20, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's Rock!
~
May 20, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've been waiting all year for that, haven't you.
May 21, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
That didn't take long enough either. Congrats Obama. By the way, Pat Buchanan judging by the way he's going bonkers on tubby, it's clear to me he doesn't want Obama v. McCain.
May 20, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank G-d there was a NBA playoff game on tonight. I've avoided, save the time I watched Obama's speech, the 24-hour news channels.
May 20, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would he after Obama eviscerated him on McCain's "ace-in-the-hole" issue?
May 20, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. He is just ridiculous. He cannot even try to be fair or should we question "balanced?".......he just cannot beat up enough on Obama. They really need someone more objective.
May 20, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
My question is how did he do among hard working, White Americans? Or are they only found in states that Senator Clinton wins?
May 20, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
He split them in Oregon, but it's not a big story because those voters don't count.
May 20, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you, Idiotic.
Your timing is impeccable.
May 20, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes kash79, the republicans are worried...
Charles Hagel has been praising Obama and has blasted Jon mcCain.
Also, if you look at KY results for republicans, McCain has won but 25% of the KY are not voting for him.
May 20, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has won but 25% of the KY are not voting for him.
But many McCain or Republicn backers are voting in the Dem primary for Hillary and against Obama. Anyway, my point, If I were Obama I'd not sketch my White House path through KY and WV, at this point even GA looks more promising with a AA vote and Bob Barr candidacy.
May 20, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should be noted that the Kentucky turnout was much smaller than expected while the Oregon was much higher, so today should be a huge popular win, probably enough that he'd still have the popular lead if you count FL and MI w/o uncommitted and exclude ALL the caucus states.
May 20, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
who cares about popular vote? delegates, delegates, delegates
May 20, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
During her KY victory speech Hillary announced that "we still lead in the popular vote...".
This kind of bare-faced triangulation is quite staggering to say the least.We know Obama leads in the popular vote but then again these are the same lips that told of a certain life-threatening incident involving firearms in a certain eastern block country. Go figure!
May 21, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
You misspelled "lying".
May 21, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought this, too. But according to the numbers coming in in Oregon along with percentage reported, it doesn't look like turnout is going to be nearly as high as predicted. Unless I'm misunderstanding how these are reported . . .
May 20, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if you look at the total vote, it's reverse. KY has more than 650,000 votes while OR looks it will end up with half-a-million votes.
May 20, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks to me like OR has a half million votes counted w/ 49% precincts in. That probably includes the big counties, I suppose...but it should be more than a half million.
May 20, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that count's only a small proportion of the big counties. Their turnout will be better than a half million.
May 20, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm looking at TPM board and 70% reported and 400,000 votes.
May 20, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
NBC has it at about 430,000 total votes with 51 percent reporting, so the precinct percentages must make it hard to predict the total turnout at this point.
May 21, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
At 11:03 central, CNN has 441,000 counted at 52 percent.
May 21, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
you guys are right TPM scoreboard in inaccurate. My knuckles ached as I typed CNN, I never go there. Painful.
May 21, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Understood. It's been hell listening to Begala, et. al.
But, hey, they broadcast in HD. MSNBC and others do not!
:)
May 21, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you said typed CNN.
I've stayed "Internetally" on TPM with the TV on CNN.
May 21, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the popular vote, I am amazed because the Clinton is saying that Senator Obama got 0 votes because he is under the uncommitted.
Surely, anyone with a brain would know that Senator Obama would not have had 0 votes, and certainly he should get some votes from Michigan...
May 20, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. I, for one, think Obama folks should fight hard to make sure this popular vote myth is put to rest. I don't think this false perception that somehow Hillary won the popular vote but not the the nomination doesn't help the candidate who moves on the face McCain.
Pigs did fly out of Hillary's ass tonight.
May 20, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot.
I know this is a little hard for his supporters to deal with, but he did so because he knew he would lose.
So he lost.
If the tables were turned, and Hillary was trying to keep Obama votes from being counted, all hell would break loose.
One can only imagine the outrage.
May 21, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
...Al Gore and Bill Bradley took their names off the Michigan ballot in 2000. Next?
May 21, 2008 2:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama forfeited by taking his name off. Stupid move. Too bad.
No votes for you Chicken-O.
May 21, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again my troll is trying to tear apart our party.
Troll fogu2 - if you've got issues - start talking substance. I'm all for a civil debate. Name calling is for right-wingers.
We democrats have bigger fights than this post. Let's stand united against John McCain.
May 21, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. With someone who can win. Hillary.
May 21, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
No candidate who lost the nomination has ever gone on to win the general election.
May 21, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
what will the margin of victory be for obama in oregon primary....
Doesn't look like he is going to win as big as she did in kentucky.... she beat him in kentucky by 35 points....
I think when all votes are counted in oregon primary... obama will win by 15 to 20 points.
May 20, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's about right.
May 20, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think when it's all done, Obama takes 48 pledged delegates for the night and Hillary takes 55, yes?
May 21, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you predicted a Hillary victory a few days ago?
Fess up.
May 21, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
And KY or any other place in Appalachia is nothing to crow about.
A significant percentage of those areas by and large voted for her because Obama is black.
As Gergen said tonight, HRC should say "I don't want to win that way."
May 21, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just like North Carolina voted for Obama because he is Black. Or that 95% of African Americans vote for him because he is Black.
May 21, 2008 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apples and oranges.
Those black voters for Obama in NC have been voting for white candidates for ages.
The Appalachian white vote we're talking about have never voted for a black person and wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ if he was black.
Get it?
May 21, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is hard to admit.
But this is a thumpin in OR. Did not expect it.
HRC is my girl, a fighter. But Obama has shown he can fight too.
If Obama is dem nom, I will back him. I will never back McSame.
May 20, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome aboard gotalife (if you are the real gotalife).
If it is any consolation - while she makes me want to throw things at the tv sometimes, I have come to have a lot of respect for her grit and determination. Once the primary is over and the ire of the battle has faded, I will probably have a lot more affection for her than I did before the start of this process.
May 21, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a bigger win than I was hoping for. I am still pulling for HRC, but yes, it doesn't look good.
If this really does solidify the way it's looking, I will be on board to help Obama get into the white house. I think this is the responsible, Democratic thing to do. I would hope the Obama people would do the same were the situation reversed.
The bottom line is, we, as Americans - Democrats, Independents and even moderate GOP - have to stand united against John McCain. This is no longer the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower. It's been hijacked and driven off a cliff.
Let's work together to undo the Bush/Cheney reign of terror and restore honor and respect to our country. I'm hoping Hillary will somehow be on board in an official capacity for this as well.
May 20, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
May 21, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
In response to my troll.
Let's try to go with some substance. I'm serious. I don't know how punctuation wins anyone over.
If you've got an issue to discuss, please do.
May 21, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hagel, the anti-Lieberman:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/20/chuck-hagel-takes-on-mcca_n_102775.html
And when asked to respond to rumors circulating within political circles that the Bush administration was ginning up the possibility of war with Iran, the Senator even raised the specter of impeachment.
"You've got the power of impeachment, now that is a very defined measure if you are willing to bring charges against the president at all. You can't just say I disagree with him, let's impeach him," said Hagel. An attack on Iran without Congress' consent, he added, "would bring with it... outstanding political consequences, including for the Republican Party."
May 21, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just have to say: You go Obama! This is turning out to be a much bigger win than some people predicted. It will definitely make up for his loss in KY, making tonight kind of a wash in terms of the number of delegates won in each camp. Of course, since Obama has reached that important threshold of the most pledged delegates, it's a very good night for him. So, in terms of overall outcome, definitely not a wash, and definitely a win more for Obama than for Clinton.
May 21, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dayum.
Paul Begala just waxed eloquent about Obama's speech tonight, saying that he sounded like Bill Clinton, but more mature at a younger age.
In the words of REM ...
It's the end of the world as we know it ...
May 21, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I feel fine!
May 21, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The whole "popular vote" thing is just bullshit spin. For example...Hillary's going to win in Puerto Rico. The only problem is, Puerto Rico doesn't vote in the general election. But Hillary's campaign will include them in their "popular vote" total.
Also it's bullshit spin because as we all know, you can win the popular vote and lose the general election. Which is why we don't just hold nationwide primaries and select the nominee based on who got the most votes. Because that's not analogous to how the general election winner is determined.
Their whole argument is boiling down to "but he can't win Appalachia!!!" As if she can, come November.
May 21, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Plus, the numbers Hillary's counting are the primary numbers. The general election is a whole 'nother story.
May 21, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The only problem is, Puerto Rico doesn't vote in the general election."
Say what...? I've noticed that so many Obama fans have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
May 21, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Rockwell:
It's the Obama fans who have no idea what they're talking about?
You're suggesting Puerto Rico gets to vote on who's president?
It's not even my country, and I know more about your election laws than you do.
Pathetic.
Just pathetic.
May 21, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are a lot of problems with using the popular votes from the primary to suggest that HRC is more electable than Obama in the general. But, a big one is the fact that they do not account for Caucus states. The fact is that the selection of a Democratic nominee for President is NOT based on popular vote. The rules are more complex than that. And trying to obfuscate that and play with the rules to make an argument that you have a better candidate is just silliness.
In the end, it doesn't matter, because the only audience that argument should make a difference with is the SuperDels, and they have not bought it. So, we have our presumptive nominee before us and Hillary slowly having to accept that. Now, how gracefully she does that - that's still unknown, but the signs so far in that regard are not good.
May 21, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will the last HRC supporter on a desert island near Guadalcanal in 2010 who still insists it's not over please turn off the Diebold machine?
May 21, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
May 21, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
No concession from Clinton.
No victory lap for Obama.
The race goes on.
Clinton remains the best choice.
May 21, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, my troll is trying to undermine the unity of the Democratic party.
I'm all for a healthy debate about what's best for the democrats, but math is math, and Obama will be the nominee. He's not my first choice, but he's the one we need to unite behind for the better of our country. Bitterness is best left at GOP headquarters.
This is an open invite for my troll to move on to bigger and better things.
May 21, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You want substance then?
Hillary has won almost all of the big states, big time, over Obama. She has shown that she can also take the white South (I love how if Obama takes a 'red state,' it's a big deal, but if Hillary does, it never means anything...)
She has the popular vote, counting two states that Obama supporters would go nuts over if it were their guy who had taken them instead of her, and she were blocking them.
She's also a better debater on her feet, and has more solid proposals.
I know I know, when Hillary runs, it's all about ego-- when he does, it's about "change." Right? Is that the rule?
May 21, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama didn't block revotes in FL and MI. He proposed caucuses. HRC camp said no. He would have been fine with revotes if ALL Dems could vote, but they wouldn't allow MI Dems who had crossed over to vote in the Republican primary (because their candidate of choice wasn't on the ballot) to participate. So you can drop the bullshit line about Obama blocking a revote. Hillary's people and the state parties and legislatures put up as many obstacles as Obama supposedly did.
May 21, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
There. Fixed!!!
May 21, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
A caucus is not a popular vote election.
Clinton now has the popular vote lead by a wide margin.
Wonder what Al Gore's analysis of the situation might be?
May 21, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
In response to my troll (he is hard working - kudos to him on that).
Despite what you might think of caucuses, they are a democratic tradition from our founding days. Yes, as a Clinton supporter I was less than thrilled by the results - Obama's people outflanked us in everywhere but Nevada, but they're a legitimate form of an election.
Part of being involved in a democracy is succumbing to the will of the people, not trying to bend and twist the outcome in your favor. I myself and tempted to take your route, but I know that it completely contradicts my core values as a Democrat and an American.
As much as I would prefer Hillary, if Obama is the nominee, and that seems all but guaranteed right now - I will work just as hard for him as I would Hillary.
May 21, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Caucuses are not legitimate "elections," they are caucuses.
Obama has done well in college town red states. Big deal. His underpinning is weak-- terrifically weak for a Dem candidate-- and this will cause him to lose. The base is not there for him.
May 21, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Never thought the day would come, but Fogu2 you are absolutely right that we need to back Obama who is now all but guaranteed to be the nominee instead of trying to twist facts around. Kudos to you!
May 21, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sucker
May 21, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing that Obamites are still crunching numbers to try to prove Clinton has already lost. I thought they said it was over. Why are they bothering? Probably falls under one of the definitions of insanity.
May 21, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect to my troll...
I think Al Gore would weigh in that one Republican cheating in the 2000 election would not warrant a democrat taking up the same tactics.
The time for division is over. We are dynamic, promising party when we stick together. I still firmly hope Hillary has a critical place in Obama's ticket - if not VP - then a cabinet position, but this dead-ender talk is nonsense.
The infighting, name calling, gotcha game has to stop. The stakes are much too high.
May 21, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, what are you... Gollum now? Clutching at your precious, Hillary, before plunging into Mt. Doom with her?
May 21, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Al Gore would weigh in that one Republican cheating in the 2000 election would not warrant a democrat taking up the same tactics.
cheating by....wanting to count the Florida vote, eh...?
You make no sense. That's what OBAMA doesn't want to do-- just like Bush.
May 21, 2008 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone asked Clinton or one of her surrogates what has changed between the time she signed the oaths, or pledges, not to seat MI and FL and now?
I now the answer is obvious, she didn't think she'd need them to win when she signed. But Clinton or her supporters will not give the obvious answer, I suspect, if the question was ever put to them. I'm actually curious and have not seen it asked. Maybe I'm better off. . .
May 21, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
They'd say that they didn't realize that so many people would vote in MI or FL and that now that they have, they want to respect their choice. It's BS of course, since she starting saying that we needed to count them before FL even voted, but that would be their answer if pressed on it.
May 21, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is so typical of the news coverage Clinton has been receiving for months. Everywhere the media are screaming, "Obama wins big! Obama wins big!" Yet if you take the trouble to look closer Hillary won Kentucky 65% to 30%, while with 75% of Oregon precincts reporting Obama won by 58% to 42%. So in two states that are roughly equal in population, Obama's 16 point win is bigger than Hillary's 35 point win. Far more people voted for Hillary today, but "Obama wins big!"
May 21, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are so right. The bias is unbelieveable.
And I love this "Obama has the majority now" thing.
They admit that the total elected delegates will probably go up due to a compromise in June-- but they still want to claim that the majoirty is tonight's number-- not allowing for the total increase that's bound to come.
If the total goes up, that ALSO INCREASES the amount needed for a "majority." And it ain't tonight's number!!
That's not just bias-- it's stupidity.
May 21, 2008 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
On MSNBC, Chuck Todd said that the most likely compromise for FL and MI would see their delegates sat, but counting as half like what the republicans did. Todd said that if the delegates are seated and counted as half, then Obama would likely still have more than half of all elected delegates after tonight.
May 21, 2008 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
there is no way in hell that Clinton would win KY in November. However, there is an excellent chance that Obama will win OR. So her 35 point win is somewhat less consequential.
May 21, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's claim tonight does not include FL and MI. He is wrong. And he is wrong to disenfranchise those voters. They did nothing wrong. He's the fool who forfeited MI and lost in FL.
If seating them as voted prevents him from having the 2,210 necessary they will either be seated or it will go before a judge. Anyone care to guess whether the lawsuit is already being put together on that one?
May 21, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Troll! Yeah, you there! Why do you continue to spew out such nonsense? When did Obama ever disenfranchise those voters? Nooo, it was the elected officials in both states. But you, Troll, would never understand such a complicated concept as that, would you? Now go be a good Troll and run back to your cave. I'm sure there's a nice scrap of goblin meat waiting for you.
May 21, 2008 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
When did Obama ever disenfranchise those voters?
By not wanting to count them!
if the tables were turned, you Obama fans would be screaming BLOODY MURDER if Hillary were trying to leave out Obama votes.
The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
May 21, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you just say if?
May 21, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Justy another Bitter Hillary Troll.
Go cry to Taylor Marsh.
May 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
MI and FL are still getting away with breaking the rules even if their delegations aren't seated. They now will have an earlier primary election from now on, and they'll get a disproportionate say in who the next nominee will be. It's really unfair that they're getting seated, when CA and NY could just as easily have broken the rules. If that had been the case, you know MI and FL would be screaming about the unfairness.
So for them to break the rules, get away with it, and *still* get seated is appalling. The fact that Clinton is breaking her pledge to follow the rules and is stoking the flames for her already dead campaign is beyond the pale.
May 21, 2008 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed that what Hillary is claiming is appalling.
But Michigan and Florida won't be seated without penalty, and you can bet more stringent rules will be set for the next set of primaries in 2012.
One thing for sure, their delegations will only get full convention status if it's clear they will not overturn Obama's nomination.
You'll notice Michigan has proposed a formula that would basically give Hillary just 10 extra votes -- and it's her campaign, not Obama's, that is rejecting that compromise.
Texas has signaled it will settle for its vote total to be cut by 50 per cent.
Neither offer gets Hillary anywhere near where she needs to be. But she really has no standing to demand more than the state's party leaders will accept.
It's OVER.
It will be official by March 31 if not earlier.
May 21, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you mean FL when you said TX?
May 21, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The voter should not be penalized.
They did nothing wrong.
May 21, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please excuse my relentless Troll. Unfortnately, he seems less committed to Hillary Clinton than causing general upheaval within the Democratic Party.
I wanted more than anything to see Hillary as the nomination, but were she to secure it through a legal proceeding, it would be a terrible thing for the Democratic party. It's time that we put an end to this sectarian fighting and started pooling our efforts into beating John McCain in November.
I hope that my fellow Clinton supporters, including my troll, will join me in trying to restore honesty and dignity to our country.
May 21, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Real Fogu, it may be time to leave your troll behind. I suspect that there is no real chance of convincing him to make a positive contribution to the party. He appears to be of a mindset that if he can't win the game, he'll kick the gameboard over on his way out the door.
I find that those types are best ignored - unless they are aggreviously spreading false information and then their falsehoods should be firmly corrected.
May 21, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just to weigh in on the "popular vote metric" -- it IS a BS metric, and not just because of the reasons mentioned above. The problem is that a number of states hold caucuses. Obama has won every single caucus save one (Nevada). Voter turnout in caucuses is extremely low compared to that of primaries.
Read
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/04/04/the-popular-vote-fallacy.aspx
Allow me to use my own state of MN as an example. Minnesota is a caucus state with results of 66-32% in favor of Obama which yielded an excess of caucus voters of 73,115 for Obama. This figure is included in the media created margin of approximately 700,000 for Obama. But, because turnout in Caucus states is considerably lower than in primary states (Clinton is right about that), the margin of victory is also held down. Neighboring Wisconsin has a similar sized electorate. If the same number of voters turned out for a Mn primary as in Wisconsin and if Obama had the same 66-32% majority, his voter margin would have been over 340,00 rather than merely 73,115. Or, if Obama carried a hypothetical Mn primary by the same pct as neighboring Wisconsin (58-41%), then Obama's popular vote margin would have been 190,000 instead of merely 73,115. Even if Obama's margin of victory would only have been 10%, his popular vote margin would have been 110,000 --- still considerably more than he is credited with when only including caucus margin of victory.
Treating the vote totals in caucus states in the same category as primary vote totals significantly disadvantages the caucus states. Even though Mn's electorate size is comparable to Wisconsin, there were 5 times as many voters in the Wis primary as in the Mn caucus. This makes the Wisconsin primary 5 times more important than Mn even though the electorates are essentially equal. Another reason why it is a myth to suggest there is such a thing as a popular vote total. If the rules are unfair, change them but do so before the primary season not after. For this season, stick with the rules.
I think it speaks for itself. The fact that Hillary Clinton continues to use such a fallacious metric for the primary is just pathetic.
May 21, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Treating the vote totals in caucus states in the same category as primary vote totals significantly disadvantages the caucus states.
That's complete nonsense, because whoever voted there voted there. You can't try to CLAIM unvoted votes for your own guy!
The case can easily be made that Hillary would have WON in those states if they were general election states.
Look at Washington. Obama won huge in the caucus, but not very big in the subsequent primary.
I love it! Two different rules-- extrapolation for Obama, but elections for hillary.
May 21, 2008 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look at Washington Obama won huge in the caucus, but not very big in the subsequent primary.
In Washington ALL of the delegates were awarded based on the caucus. There were NO delegates awarded based on the primary (for the Democrats, that is, the Repubs awarded delegates based on both). So Obama won huge in the caucus, and neither candidate won anything at all in the primary.
May 21, 2008 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
why are you decrying having "two different sets of rules" and then going on to arrange hypothetical (but not actual) scenarios in which Hillary wins the nomination?
the simple, hard, unyielding fact is that ACCORDING TO THE RULES CURRENTLY IN PLACE FOR SELECTING THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT...
Obama has won.
you can talk about hypothetical situations in which Hillary could have won the nomination if that makes you feel better, but they are utterly meaningless in a practical sense. if Hillary Rodham Clinton's vote was the sole determining vote for who wins the nomination, Hillary Clinton would be the nominee; but it's not, so she isn't.
Obama hasn't gotten where he is now by breaking the rules, but by following them. by contrast, Clinton (and, evidently, Clintonites) sees fit to totally disregard the rules, that she herself agreed to, when they no longer suit her purposes.
May 21, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has not won anything yet. The rules as they exist today state today state 2026 is what is needed to claim the nomination. He does not have that. This manufactured metric of the majority of pledged delgates is BS and he got called on it by the Clinton campaign which made them hold off on that premature Mission Accomplished banner.
Even if he hits that 2026, Hillary need not concede until the DNC Rules & Bylaws committee makes a decision on MI & FL. And let me tell you, Hillary supporters will be mighty pissed if the DNC which has been puttign the thumb on the scale for Obama this whole campaign pulls a supreme court 2000 and discounts the votes of millions of voters in FL.
May 21, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Morning.
You're right - it's a BS metric. It doesn't exist.
This is the primary - not an election. All this is about is sending a percentage of delegates per candidate to the convention in August and that's all it is. And they don't get picked just based on votes. They get picked based on whatever method the Democratic Party chooses.
There is no voting right in a primary. None.
May 21, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. It is a primary election.
And it is BS to be based on 48 states.
But lawyers all have a degree in BS. The truth is merely and inconvenience.
May 21, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The math gets simpler. Obama needs 72 more delegates to reach the 2025 total. Hill needs 234. Not possible. Countdown to victory! Victory for Barack Hussein! Get over it.
May 21, 2008 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Buchanan, Glen Beck and Lou Dobbs are all objectionable with their lack of objectivity. It's like they want to play the lone-voice-of-reason routine, but without sensible positions.
May 21, 2008 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan are unregenerate racists.
Overt, open and mouthy about it.
May 21, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone from the Clinton camp actually given a list of numbers per state that they use to back up their claim about popular vote?
That is what frosts me, even beyond the sheer gall of the overall deception by trying to change the goal posts: Hillary repeatedly lies to the whole world about the votes, but never, to my knowledge, does she or her team offer explicit data.
May 21, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm winning the popular vote" = moving the goalposts (suddenly, it's not the delegate counts that matter) + very 'creative' math (FL & MI count, despite Obama not even on the MI ballot, but caucuses don't count because they aren't technically part of the 'popular vote').
Really, haven't we had enough of this tactic? I got an overdose of it from GWB, I hate to see it from a democrat, even if this is CLASSIC DLC maneuvering.
Howard Dean, whom I otherwise respect, had better get up off his ass soon and resolve the situation. Stop hoping that the counts are going to solve it for you Dr. Dean.
Would the Clintons sue the DNC over FL and MI? Or will their campaign debt balloon up to over $50M before they get the chance?
May 21, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I imagine for them to do that, they would have to have a reasonable chance of it making a difference, and ultimately I don't think it will. Obama's got a solid lead now in pledged delegates and there will be more SuperDels in his camp between now and May 31. The DNC's Rules Committee will make some decision about how to seat the MI/FL delegates, so as not to bias the primary outcomes. For Hillary to pursue a crash and burn course of challenging the results at that point, everything would have to be extremely close and she would need a lot of people backing her in the Party. I just don't see that happening. She's making a lot of noise now over the issue in the hopes that the Committee will rule in her favor, but I think by June 3, she's gonna have no realistic option, but to move on and play nice.
May 21, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, but she's been doing such a great imitation of The Black Knight up to now ("It's only a flesh wound!") that I worry whether rationality hasn't gone entirely out the door.
OTOH, Terry McAuliffe makes a great circus clown!
May 21, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's start the countdown to 2026.
75 and and counting...
May 21, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
2,210
May 21, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The betting services are really impressed with the Clintons' argument. Obama is actually up 0.1% from yesterday, and he now is only 2.1% less likely to win the Dem nomination as John McCain is to drop dead before election day.
May 21, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton is certainly entitled to try and convince the super delegates to vote for her any way she wishes. If she thinks her "I'm winning the popular vote" garbage will win her supers, then she should have at it. Unfortunately for her the supers aren't buying it. Soon, Obama will be over the top in any scenerio in which Michigan and Florida is included and it will be due to the steady flow of supers into his column. At that point what will Clinton say? I suppose she will try to say that the entire delegate process both pledged and super is a sham and that only the popular vote should count. And if she is behind in that as well, as she likely will be? God only knows.
It doesn't matter. She isn't all that. She isn't going to "rip apart the party," because she doesn't have the power to do it. The party is bigger and stronger than any one pol. If she continues down this path she WILL be crushed. Not only by her political enemies in the party(who must be legion) but even by her supporters who do not wish to commit political suicide with her.
The choice is hers. She can support Obama or she can see her political career and legacy utterly destroyed. Either way Obama will be president in January 2009. With or without the die-hard Clinton hold outs.
May 21, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment!
May 21, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
BREAKING: La Times reporting that HRC campaign debt soared to S31 million
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/clintondebt.html
May 21, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Despite raising over 20 million in April? And giving herself another huge loan? How?
May 21, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I want to know...
Where has all the money that people gave the Clintons gone?
May 21, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
For her to be in that kind of debt and still talking tough as if she has a shot to win is really mind blowing.
May 21, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
indeed. utterly mind blowing. And I know mind blowing when I feel it 'cause I ingested some seriously mind blowing alkaloids in my youth. But I ain't got nothin' on Hillary and Bill. They are out there.
I sort of feel sorry for them.
Not.
This ain't t-ball, get hit with a pitch and it hurts.
And McCain, "I pity the fool"
May 21, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Penn.
May 21, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's more, now some HillFolk are saying they'll pay for revotes in Michigan and Florida!
With what?! Monopoly money?!?!?
May 21, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
LA times have issued an update. Mathematical error, oops, her debt is only 20 mil.
Woof, I am relieved, I gotta say / not.
May 21, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
... as John McCain is to drop dead before election day.
Posted by NC State Dem
May 21, 2008 8:16 AM
May the pastacular tentacles of the FSM wrap him in gluten and absorb him into squiggly rapture....
May 21, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"She added another $9.5 million in unpaid bills to vendors this past month alone, pushing her total debt to vendors and herself to the new astronomical figure, about a 50% debt increase in one month."
What the hell is the matter with all you Obamaniacs!
Does that figure not prove to you that Hillary is ready on day one to balance the national budget.
May 21, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
She willing to pu her money where her mouth is.
The Obamas can't even bring themselves to make charitable contributions.
Arrogant and selfish.
Clinton remains the best choice.
May 21, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, she's putting a cavernous hole of debt of where her mouth is. Get it?
I feel sorry for all those colleges and high schools stuck in her mouth, looking to get paid. Must be kinda gross.
Stupid schools expecting to get paid for offering up there space and time for Hillary. I mean, they owe her. Not the other way around.
May 21, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I thought the Democratic nomination was decided by delegates, not popular vote. Isn't popular vote not really the popular vote during this process because it doesn't include several caucus states? Or does that mean you just choose the popular states. Like California is popular. Seems like a pretty cool state. I guess Iowa, which doesn't count popular vote, isn't cool enough. Poor, nerdy Iowa, Maine, Washington, and Nevada. Not counting popular vote. Sheesh, you'd think they were expecting delegates to mean something. Dumbasses!
Why are there delegates anyways? Clearly popular vote is all that matters this year. I mean that's why those four states don't even count it- right? They don't count popular vote because it matters. The do count delegates because they don't matter. Of course, it makes perfect sense. Hello, I'm leaving. Goodbye, do you mind if I come in?
I also thought that the Democratic nominees had all signed a contract that said FL and MI wouldn't count this year and that their delegates wouldn't be seated. I know when I sign something into writing it doesn't mean anything. I mean my lease? Totally not going to follow it. I moving out tomorrow with no notice and I still want my security deposit back. ALL OF IT!
I mean what was the point anyways? I mean it's not like other states would go unchecked and be free to move up their primaries and caucuses at will if there weren't consequences for FL and MI. I mean, FL and MI got to move up, why can't my state of MN. I think we should have our caucus on Jan 2nd. Then we'd REALLY have a say. I think California and all the other states should move ahead of Iowa and have it dead last. Who went and made IA king anyways.
What does "all the votes must be counted" mean? Isn't there many people in those two states who didn't vote because they weren't going to count? How de we count THEIR vote? Also, wasn't Edwards still running during FL and MI? Shouldn't he get some delegates as well. Isn't that fair?
I just can't keep track of all these goalposts. I'm just going to throw them up in the air and see where they land.
May 21, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
To they above post. DONE & DONE!
May 21, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink