Comments on 845 to 836
Yeah, American democracy in action - a training ground for the Electoral College.
I'm proud of Hilldawg. I want to bury my face in her snatch.
So every day there's been a primary so far, Obama has won the delegate race, even when he "lost".
I'm quite content with that result, mind you, but it's a pretty bizarre way to pick a candidate.
The MSM really fucking sucks. All last night I couldn't understand why they were declaring HRC the winner, when less then half of the votes in California were even counted yet. It's like they are trying to will her into the candidacy.
I'm afraid this shit is going to tear the party apart. Seriously. Instead of being excited about either candidate, now I don't want to even think about this election.
Wake me when we have a candidate, and hopefully we haven't embarrassed the party or torn it asunder with state-by-state combat.
Hey Dan, do you have a link to the story? Because I'm looking around on msnbc, cnn, etc., and all still show Clinton with more delegates
ECB's head explodes.
Hey Sven, check out the NYT Delegate Count gizmo. They aren't even prepared to give a wild guess as to how many delegates were won in Iowa. "Delegates decided April 26 - June 14." Same with Nevada and so on.
They're more worried about having to retract than giving their readers the wildest clue as to who has the most delegates.
That's what I was saying: In theory, supposedly, nobody knows.
The real news is Obama's appeal to independents--the people who actually elect the President.
Even though these were primaries, Obama won independents by large margins in most regions, including states in Clinton's column, such as Arizona and New Jersey, where one out of five primary voters were independents. He won them by 15 points in Clinton's home state of New York, and by 30 points in California. In the swing state of Missouri, independents flocked to Obama by a decisive 37 points.
If a primary is a way of determining the best candidate to win...
Counting delegates is tricky. The New York Times has it at 845 for Clinton, 765 for Obama. So ...
Do Clinton's supporters believe at the 11th Hour indepedents will break from the GOP for Hillary? I'm not trying to be snarky, I just want to know if that is the game plan. Or is it Republican women switching in Swing States at the 11th hour? Or is it another battle in Ohio but this time Hillary squeaks it by for the Dems? I see less Electoral College acknowledgement from the Clinton side and am curious what the game plan is.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html
I believe if you count the total popular vote in all the of the so far, Obama has won more votes. He also has the lead in the delegate race (not counting the establishment super delegates) going into this weekend's primaries where he seems to be leading in each state, and he is raising more money.
Last night was amazing at Moe bar - packed bar went completely silent for Obama's speech. I have been hanging in bars for a while, and have never seen such a packed bar dead silent for a political speech...pretty amazing. And very few were listening to Hil's speech
It's looking like Obama got 70% plus of the under 60 vote last night. Amazing.
Interesting. Looks like Obama's massive margins in small states (81%! in Idaho) balanced Clinton's smaller victories in big states.
Dan, for you to dare to mention that Barack Obama won more delegates Tuesday than Hillary did can only indicate one of the following:
Trash the delegate/super delegate/electoral college crap, and go with a popular vote. This country thinks it's so damn cute to do things this way. Frankly, it sucks.
@11
yes exactly haven't you been reading Slog the last 5 weeks?
After Obama gets slammed for smoking pot, doing blow, having no foriegn policy experience, being tied to a Illinois slimeball fixer who gifted him $300,000 and who is now under indictment, and after the national press gets over the current "new challenger" story arc....his image and electability will go down and in the end he won't sin all those independents in the middle of MO, OH or FL.
He's never faced this kind of onslaught. Hillary has and has won despite it. the same way that Bill and Hill (she's his no. 1 adviser for several decades) won despite being slimed as ultra liberals back in Arkansas (they won several times) for rpesident, in the impeachment fight, and again for president. And then, after all the negativity she won NY twice.
Meanwhile this is the number of tough general election fights Obama has ever won:
zero.
Also, she's just way better on the mortgage mess, health care, military affairs.
Getting independents in a primary election with no GOP attack machine going has very little to do with getting them in a general election.
thanks for asking, btw. I'm totally aware of Obama's strengths, but the OBama supporters seem to think that he can float above the fray in a ggeneral election. I just saw him in a press conference and he looked awful, stumbling and rambling.
btw I hope either one picks the other for VP, too.
@12 @13
you are just making up facts, aren't you? You have no link and no tabulations. Please provide them. I mean did you actually do the math?
Huge Hillary margins in CA NY TN NJ MA are outweighed by super huge Obama margins in Delaware, Idaho and Alaska?
WTF??
If you ahve a link or did the math, show us.
It would take about 300 Idahos to equal the margin in CA.
It's pretty fucking bad when every major news organization in this country comes up with a different delegate count.
Again, say what you want about Republican policies, but we at least have a fucking clue who their candidate will be.
The Democrats don't exactly instill a sense of confidence in anything they do.
Hillary's plan:
1. Swift boat the swift boaters.
2. ???
3. Independents break for Hillary!
Aw, folks, it was kind of a tie.
@4: Once you get to about 30 percent to 35 percent of the vote counted, the tally includes reports from every part of a state and the numbers aren't likely to move much.
OK I made up that fact about 300 Idahos.
It's actually "only" 79.
[I made that up, too. Since it's okay to make shit up.]
J.T. Cornball @5 -- I might be in the minority, but I feel quite the opposite. I'm excited to have two outstanding candidates to pick from. No more 'lesser of two evils'. And whoever gets the dem nomination is going to clean up in November. Did you see the dem vs. rep turnouts? Go Democrats!
Simple math shows that super delegates will be deciding the Democratic nominee, not the people who are voting, unless we can convince those delegates to follow the will of the people. (The only way the Democrats lose this election is if the super delegates choose our nominee in a bitter battle.)
My rough calculator gives Obama 827 last night, Clinton 790. His big comeback in California late last night, from down 55-32 to down 52-42 (remember, each percentage point change is four delegates in Cal), made a big difference.
Look at it state by state: he won by such huge margins in some small states that his delegate edge there is more than Clinton's in larger states that she won by smaller margins: he's +11 in Idaho, which only has 18 delegates, but that's the same advantage Clinton got in huge New Jersey, 107 delegates, 58-47 Clinton (assuming perfect proportionality, which probably isn't true).
Obama's +15 delegates in KS, +19 in CO, +25 in MN, +31 in GA, + 49 in IL. Some big states there. He also won by smaller margins in AL (+7), AK (75%, but only +7 delegates in a tiny state), CT, DE, MO, ND, and UT, and he's leading in NM (too close to call, still; though whatever happens the delegate spread is only going to be 1 or even 0.
Clinton's big win was her home state, NY, +39. My calculation has her down to +37 in CA, then +15 in her other home state of AR, +14 in MA, +11 in NJ, +9 in both OK and TN, and +5 in AZ.
Neither side got the knockout blow they were looking for, but Obama's ahead on points. And he's got money she can't match.
Obama got more votes last night, people. It's nothing to do with the Electoral College. MORE VOTES.
#11: Thanks! OH, Flordia, Missouri, Arkansas...I'm following you. Actually, I've only recently found Slog and have few Clinton supporter friends so I didn't really know what the Electoral College gameplan was (ie which states). I just got a lot of "experience", "she's been tested" and "her healthcare covers everyone" from my Hillary friends---not strategy to beat the republicans/get the independents in Swing States.
Oops..#25 was directed at #16 (who was responding to my #11). Need coffee.
For those of you counting delegates (e.g., Fnarf), I should point out that Colorado's caucus was "non-binding." We only really elected delegates to the county convention, who will then elect delegates to the state convention, who will then elect delegates to the national convention, who can vote for whoever they want to. Yeah, I know, it's pretty fucked up. But don't count those chickens yet, cuz they haven't hatched.
unPC, it's easy for a small state to balance a large state if the margins in the former are very large.
Missouri is a large state, and Obama "won" it, but will come away with ONE extra delegate, because it's only 49% to 48%.
Minnesota is the same size -- 72 delegates -- but because Obama won that one by 67% to 32%, his delegate margin is possibly going to be 25. See how that works?
Idaho in fact exactly balances huge New Jersey in delegates, because the former was a wipeout and the latter was fairly close.
California's funky rules are probably going to help Obama even more.
It is also a big mistake to say that Obama's wins were only in small states. Illinois is not a small state; neither is Georgia or Colorado. Of the states with more than 50 delegates, they won the same number; and Obama won his by more. Of the smaller states, Obama won eight to Clinton's two.
RedStaters know what's up:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/obama_the_democratic_front_runner#comment
What do people think of the fact that Obama seems to be winning the more conservative "swing" states and Clinton is winning the democratic strongholds?
Doesn't this sort of go against the "Obama is more liberal" idea?
Doesn't this also suggest that Obama is more "electable"?
Let's review:
NAFTA
CAFTA
WTO
Don't ask, don't tell
ending welfare as we know it
Waco, Texas
Counterterrorism Act 0f 1993
"accidentally" bombing an asprin factory in Sudan
Telecommmunications Act
A decline in real wages, adjusted for inflation, for the entire 8 years
Lest we forget, doing nothing between 1992 and 1994 when the Dems had majorities in both the house and the senate.
Anything new? Wall Street banks are being investigated by the state of NY in the Sub-prime mortgage fiasco. A law firm who wrote the risk assessments for the securities those banks issued is not however, but they will represent all of these banks. $$$. Why would HRC, a NY senator,and a lawyer, interfere with the creating of the housing bubble by people in her own state?
Actually, looking at exit polls, I take it all back. It's just race. Hispanics vote like 80% for Clinton, blacks 90% for Obama. Whites are about evenly split, with young folks voting for Obama and old folks voting for Clinton. How disappointing.
Just saw this thread and should have put my comments here...
Watching the US map of delegates last night, I was driven nuts that the TV networks colored in Florida and Michigan for Clinton.
Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan! -- and Clinton shouldn't have been there either. She won simply because she didn't play by the rules.
In Florida, where candidates didn't campaign, it was clear that a front runner with name recognition was going to win.
If HRC loses to Obama without the Florida and Michigan delegates, however she does instead win with them, and the DNC party bosses are "persuaded" to have them count, I fear anarchy in the Democratic Party.
We'd all better hope one of the two wins without Florida and Michigan.
I'll be someone who ensures that legal action is taken for a corrupt system.
Reality Check
Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the vote thanks to the candidacy of Ross Perot. Let's not act like the Clintons now how to completely dominate the other side.
F @32:
Actually, looking at exit polls, I take it all back. It's just race. Hispanics vote like 80% for Clinton, blacks 90% for Obama. Whites are about evenly split, with young folks voting for Obama and old folks voting for Clinton. How disappointing.
This makes me curious now about the male/female breakdown. Kinda hoping there isn't such a gender gap (for either candidate).
I'm really wondering, though, why Latinos, as opposed to non-Latino whites, have voted so overwhelmingly for Clinton. Any explanations?
*know
typos are annoying
Reality Check @33, great post. The Florida/Michigan situation has dire implications for the Democratic Party. This has the potential to create grievances between Democrats the likes of which we're used to seeing between Israelis and Palestinians or Democrats and Republicans.
Who would ever have thought that Florida 2000 would get replayed in 2008 in the nomination process and not the general election?
And it's the kind of thing that's very, very easy to misrepresent into just a "he said, she said" thing.
The New Hampshire Union Leader thinks otherwise.
@ 9 - How did Obama win independents in New York? Only registered Dems can vote in the primary.
she's just way better on the mortgage mess
No she is not. She wants to try to bail out homeowners which will fail and only prolong the mess.
Whoever is elected Prez, R or D, is going to do some kind of stupid, too-late, wrong-people mortgage bailout bill which will do more harm than good.
This is just more proof that Sen Obama would make a better candidate - because he would not just win the popular vote in the US but the Electoral College.
Sen Clinton might not win the Electoral College (if you do the math of where she won and lost you can see the actual pattern).
Some people understand tactics and fighting dirty (Clintons) - some understand both tactics and strategy and don't need to fight dirty (Obama).
@39 - and having a five year rate cap will actually cause other things - like stagflation.
Money's kind of strange that way - you plug up one hole and it pours out another.
@30
No.
In a general election there will be $100 million of TV ads making sure every voter knows Obama is a super liberal. The most liberal senator, one study said. He won't be Mr float above it all, then.
@28
Perhaps you didn't read @12 to which I was reacting, or I was not clear. Regrets.
I was reacting to this statement:
"I believe if you count the total popular vote in all the of the so far, Obama has won more votes."
(@12)
This is a made up statement with no links or math or data. It's contrary to common sense which tells us if you sweep CA NY NJ and MA all by rather large percentages, you've got more total votes than if you just win Ill and GA (and CT narrrowly and Mo narrowly). (All the littler states basically wash out in this type of approximatory thought exercise).
And in this context ID and ND and such are truly irrelevant. Number-of-voters-wise.
And that doesn't count MI or FL.
I have never ignored Obama's great strengths nor GA IL etc. I have said this several times:
Obama seems to have a problem winning large states because the only ones he has won are Ill. (home field) GA (AA share) and ennnhhh, maybe you could count CT.
Meanwhile he LOST
1. California
2. New York
3. New Jersey
4. Massachusetts.
5. Florida
6. Michigan.
After huge free media and about $15 million in TV ads all over CA and MA, he should have won! That is, unless voters just didn't like him or his message enough.
####
So....who IS the winner in total votes?
Now, if anyone wants to go down the road of measuring "total votes received" pls. do so. But showing the nos. would be appreciated.
++++++++++
On the mortgage mess:
One of Clinton's strengths is the economy. Her proposal to have a moratorium on foreclosures will help her win the general election.
I am not aware of Obama's plan but I do not think it is as dramatic as Clinton's.
If you want to win in Ohio and Florida..in Michigan...her approach is the more electable one.
And btw FDR shut down the whole banking system and state legislatures all over the midwest and plains ELIMINATED the foreclosure remedy in the Great Depression. What Clinton is proposing is a mild version of that.
If this type of approach --- meddling in the free market -- is good enough for FDR it should be good enough for us.
The laissez faire reaction = Hooverism = leave people without hope = no one cares about the people = losing the general election.
This is how people like Clinton win elections and overcome the negative barrage thrown their way. People react to them by thinking "hey, she's actually going to do something that will help me," which counts for more than this ethereal professorial preachy-hope we can transcend politics and all the Republicans suddenly will just agree to better budgets, tax increases and health care plans.
unPC, you're completely wrong on many of your facts. For starters, you should look into which states are large and which aren't. CT is way smaller than MO or MN, for instance. And your analysis is just plain wrong: winning large states by small margins DOESN'T give you more delegates than winning small states by large margins. I showed you how that works in Idaho, but you apparently don't care.
Consider this: Obama won more delegates from New York -- a state he lost -- than Clinton won in any state except New York and California. You continue to act as if you believe these states are all winner-take-all. None of them are.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).