Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Go Me! | The Morning News »

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Dep’t of Tiny Victories

posted by on April 23 at 23:50 PM

Major news outlets are now calling PA a nine point spread, one digit less than the double-digit victory being trumpeted this morning—and one point closer to my (divulged only to coworkers) prediction of eight.

Meanwhile, the delegate numbers are crazy confusing. Has anybody found any news outlet reporting the district-by-district and statewide pledged delgate breakdown? Just curious.

RSS icon Comments


I checked, but couldn't find anything.

Posted by Mr. Poe | April 24, 2008 12:38 AM

hi lol i'm on my wii!

Posted by wiiguy | April 24, 2008 12:43 AM

I'm on my wii too, if you know what I'm talking about. It's better than trolling about Dan's ansu.

Posted by ecce homo | | April 24, 2008 1:01 AM

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a delgate map. If you mouse over the congressional districts, it tells you how many delegates went to each candidate.

Posted by Shewho | April 24, 2008 6:22 AM

Obama campaign is saying Clinton netted 10-12 delegates. I'm guessing the counts have settled this morning.

Posted by ru shur | April 24, 2008 7:15 AM

annie it's not about the delegates anymore. neither obama or hillary can reach the magic number without super delegates. the byzantine nature of the democratic party's primary process giving unequal weight to different voters and states along with the super delegates makes the argument far more complex than just who has the most delegates after PR. my favorite example is Idaho where a total of 18,000 came out and obama gained 12 delegates but in PA where hillary won by 200,000 out of almost 2 million voters she gained only 10 delegates. we all give credit to obama's brilliant strategy of going after delegates in near fascist states like Idaho and the deep south states where a november victory for a democratic candidate is rare as hen's teeth but no credit is given by obama supporters for hillary's strategy of winning in the big swing states that will be needed for victory in november.

If she can overcome the massive money advantage again in IN and make it close in NC the SDs will have to decide between her electability arguments and his it will ruin the party arguments.

He will most likely win out and we will then see if he can withstand a real negative campaign. It will be interesting to see if the repubo ads in NC will have any impact on the democratic primary.

Posted by McG | April 24, 2008 8:01 AM

McG, the number of super delegates you need is a function of the number of pledged delegates you have.

And you've never been to Idaho, have you?

Posted by elenchos | April 24, 2008 8:09 AM

The Obama site has been the most accurate on numbers with MSNBC and CNN eventually coming around to the same they report the day after the election. They have the split going 84 for Hillary 74 for Obama. This means that Hillary only got 53% of the available delegates. This means she didn't beat the margin she needed before Penn. in order to reach 2025, the number needed for the nomination. Before Penn she needed 57% of all remaining delegates. Because she didn't do well enough in Penn, the margin she now needs to get of all remaining delegates is 60%.
Hillary has, of course, lost. It's over. But she's evidentally decided Ralph Nader is a good role model and will stay in, despite it increasing the Repubs chances, unless some of her present supers begin to switch allegiance and force her out. I'm not sure any of them have the courage to do that. But I think its time we start insisting they do and pointing to their support of Hillary, at this point in time, as the same as those who supported Nader against Gore.

Posted by Mike in Iowa | April 24, 2008 8:15 AM

How electable is Hillary Clinton if she's now down to single digits amongst African Americans, a key Democratic constituency?

How electable is Hillary Clinton if she can't win the next generation of voters?

One thing's for certain: cheap attacks carry more weight now that McCain can preface the most crazy drivel with "Even Hillary Clinton agrees that Barack Obama..."

Huckabee kept running long after he had no chance of winning but he never served as a validator for attacks against McCain. It says a lot when the used-car salesman-esque Huckster has more scruples (and common sense) than you.

Posted by ru shur | April 24, 2008 8:24 AM

@2- I can has delegates on ur post?

Posted by lol cat | April 24, 2008 8:33 AM

The real question people should be asking is why can't Hillary close the deal on the nomination? She said she'd clinch it on February 5th! What's the hold up?

Posted by ru shur | April 24, 2008 8:39 AM

Mark Kleiman pointed this out yesterday, although the numbers may have tightened since then. Sig Figs FTW

Posted by RL | April 24, 2008 8:41 AM

elenchos - yes i've been there - boise, sun valley (ketchum) drove through wallace (saw your bike parked there) - what's your point - that it's not as far right a state as the order and larry craig would indicate - 85% for bush.

the nomination will not hinge on whether obama has 120 or 175 more delegates than hillary - most likely he will win because he has the most delegates, not 2025 but the most, and his campaign in league with the media have made that part of system, including the disproportionate delegate counts from places like Idaho, the deciding part while ignoring the balancing purpose of the super delegates.

since obama and his supporters have been sure of victory for a couple of months, why did he keep telling her to quit? why not just let her run until he got to 2025 elected delegates? why did he once again try to "disqualify" a female opponent running against him in a primary?

he should't have orchestrated the hillary quit campaign because it has torn at the fabric of the party - but it is consistent with his history.

Posted by McG | April 24, 2008 8:45 AM

hello! Any one slogging there today? Wake-y wake-y, eggs and bake-y...

Posted by Mike in MO | April 24, 2008 8:46 AM
Posted by some dude | April 24, 2008 8:55 AM

@13 our party has time to heal and congeal? duh.

but i guess hillary will tell us the few weeks after the convention will be enough time to fix the wounds.

Posted by cochise. | April 24, 2008 9:00 AM

@13: the Obama campaign and the media didn't make the rules, the Democratic party did and Hillary Clinton didn't have a single fucking problem with any of those rules (even though they ran the party for 12 years) until she started getting her ass kicked.

I'd love to know what % of the Af Am vote you think Hillary will get if the superdelegates decide to dick over a black man who won more votes than her?

As I've said before, she isn't running for 2008 anymore, she's running for 2012 and kneecapping the nominee is the only she can.

Posted by ru shur | April 24, 2008 9:01 AM

McG, in #8, Mike in Iowa explained exactly why the number of pledged delegates matters. Hillary has an even steeper uphill climb to get enough super delegates than before Pennsylvania. I suppose if you actually faced up to what these numbers say you would have given up long ago. Instead you pretend they don't exist. Which is crazy.

The reason they wanted Hillary to stop is that her negative attacks help McCain.

"In league with the media." What a cult freak you are.

Posted by elenchos | April 24, 2008 9:01 AM

Reason for some many frustrated Democrats = first election with non-obvious results since the birf of the internetz + We All Thought Kerry Would Win Now No Dem Will Ever Win Waaah

Having an election in one party be in a state like this is not unprecedented, guys. And it's no indication that the party is either falling apart or strengthening.


Enjoy spring and summer, folks. The important shit will start up once the conventions are over.

Posted by mackro mackro | April 24, 2008 9:09 AM

@13: And another point - no, Obama isn't going to win Idaho or a raft of other red states. But he is going to boost Democrats downticket in races that we *can* win. Ask Larry LaRocco or Walt Minnick who they'd rather have at the top of the ticket.

How much do you think President Hillary will get done with no House or Senate dems from Red States? This is one of the problems with electing the Clintons - no long term thinking or plannning, it's always about short-term political expediency of the now.

In a lot of ways, that's why they lost the nomination: They couldn't even conceive of not winning the race on February 5th, much less coming out of it with fewer delegates and states.

Not exactly great traits to have in a President, don't you think?

Posted by ru shur | April 24, 2008 9:10 AM

My favorite person in the world today is John Mellencamp. He's supporting Obama *and* Clinton. His reason? He just wants the Democrats to win, period.

And you know, supporting both Obama and Clinton isn't self-defeating for the Dems. If only every paranoid Democrat on the internet felt this way...

Posted by mackro mackro | April 24, 2008 9:11 AM
Posted by mackro mackro | April 24, 2008 9:13 AM

@21 How is it a smart or admirable thing to support both candidates for a nomination? This is a competition, not a three-way. Straddling the fence on which candidate you support won't help the party reach a decision, and every week we go without an agreed-upon Democratic candidate provides more fodder for the Republicans to use against the party during the final race. That's how I see it, anyway. Clinton might not be killing the party, but at this point it's pretty clear that she's not bringing the party TOGETHER, either. She needs to be done, and John Mellencamp needs to grow a pair.

Posted by Katelyn | April 24, 2008 9:18 AM

elenchos - how clear can i make it. she will not catch him for elected delegates. the chance she would has been very small for months. he hasn't had a chance to get to 2025 for months as well. part of the byzantine system is that totally right wing states like ID can give a candidate as many delegates as a big state that is play like PA even with a crushing win (about the same margin as Bush 1 beat Dukakis). Crazy. But the other part of the system was designed for balance. To look at where and how delegates were won and how the candidate will perform in the fall. the supers' job.

the negative attacks by hillary don't come to the level of a pillow fight. you think the wright and bitter episodes would have been overlooked if she had quit?

you watch when he gets the nomination the media will turn - we'll hear about his first campaign, his run against rush, his relationjship to rezko et al. and his history in general.

Posted by McG | April 24, 2008 9:20 AM

McG, you just repeated everything you said in #6 without any sign that the dozen posts that followed it touched on your awareness in any way. You seem to live in a bubble.

Posted by elenchos | April 24, 2008 9:27 AM

@13 - When did Obama tell Hillary to quit? He's never said that. On the contrary, he's insisted that remaining in or dropping out is her decision to make, and refused to call on her to quit. Provide some sources here before making unfounded claims.

Even so, it's not hard to imagine why it would be a relief for Obama if she quit. Not because she's a serious threat to his path to the nomination, but because it delays the unification of the Democratic party around his candidacy, and because she's been teaming up with John McCain to heap manufactured scandal on Obama. It's tearing down the Democratic party and damaging our candidate's public image (among people who only pay attention to the talking heads on CNN or Fox, not among people actually paying attention to Obama).

Posted by David | April 24, 2008 9:31 AM

@23:Clinton might not be killing the party, but at this point it's pretty clear that she's not bringing the party TOGETHER, either.

...soooo if that's the case, why does Mellencamp via his neutrality need to "grow a pair"?

Posted by mackro mackro | April 24, 2008 9:33 AM

@23:and every week we go without an agreed-upon Democratic candidate provides more fodder for the Republicans to use against the party during the final race/

It also allows the Democrats to gather more information about each state for their Nov. campaign strategies and keeps McCain out of the press too.

The voters that matter will *not* start paying attention once the nominations are locked in on both sides. In the meantime, many Democrats and Republicans already made up their minds, and they're not going to change. But hey, it makes for lots of hits on Slog, Wonkette, Daily Kos, etc.

Posted by mackro mackro | April 24, 2008 9:38 AM

@24 right. obama has SOOOO many scandals in his closet yet to come out. all of this 'republicans are gonna get 'em hard' talk is just another clinton scare tactic.

duh, it will happen to anybody.

we should feel lucky having someone that is popular with nearly a clean slate. think of how much crust is in mccain's smelly old closet. THINK ABOUT IT! keating, divorce, 100 years, bomb iran, black babies, liberal republican, old......

Posted by cochise. | April 24, 2008 9:43 AM

I never said either candidate will make it to the magic number without supers. But each earned, pledged delegate has a vote equal to that of a superdelegate at the convention, so it is ridiculous to pretend superdelegates matter and pledged delegates somehow do not. In any case, it's a Clinton pipe dream that the supers will go en masse in the same direction to overturn the pledged delegates. Too many of those thus far uncommitted superdelegates have already stated publicly that they think that would be a bad idea.

David's right, Obama has never said that Hillary ought to quit. Neither have I, for that matter.

@4: Thanks! That doesn't have all the info I was looking for (what happened to the delegates tied to the statewide popular vote that I kept hearing about? was that a lie?), but it is interesting. Who knew Obama won Pittsburgh's CD?

Posted by annie | April 24, 2008 9:44 AM

Because it's better to make a goddamned decision so that the voters who matter, as you say, can start paying attention. This has gone on for waaaay too long. I have no patience for people (like Mellencamp) who are STILL playing the "I support both!" game. Pick one so we can get to work building the strongest case possible for our chosen candidate. This infighting is silly and the answer isn't to support both -- it's to PICK ONE and get behind him/her.

Posted by Katelyn | April 24, 2008 9:46 AM

Really David - what do you know about Obama?

And when a major supporter like Sen. Leahy goes on TV saying Hillary should quit that's not done by the campaign, give me a break.

How many voted on delegates are enough to have everyone else quit? If there were 3 in the race would 1200 be enough? If no candidate has 2025 in elected delegates then it an open question until the convention.

Read the record. See whether obama has been one to bring the party together in the past. In IL? check on how much he helped other dems before sending money to supers campaigns -

Posted by McG | April 24, 2008 9:48 AM

@2 - how do you see the whole screen? when I surf SLOG on my wii it scrunches it up ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 24, 2008 10:12 AM

Only in the Clinton La-La land McG resides in is campaigning and fundraising to build Democratic majorities considered a negative.

Posted by ru shur | April 24, 2008 10:21 AM

As for "what do we know about Obama", we do know that the best the Clintons and the GOP have been able to come up with is some guilt by association and "he's black".

Posted by ru shur | April 24, 2008 10:26 AM

The USA Today has a nice delegate summary by PA Congressional District. It's 83-73. I think there's little chace that the few remainig precincts yet to be included on their site (it's updated daily) will have any impact on the results, but it might swing another delegate on the margins

Posted by Allen | April 24, 2008 10:50 AM

@36--Sweet, thanks. So the at-large split was 19/16. That's what I was wondering.

Posted by annie | April 24, 2008 11:07 AM

Oh yeah, Hill goes on!

Long after her chance of winning is gone.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | April 24, 2008 12:04 PM

You know, I started this election season with a great deal of respect for both Hillary and Obama, but the Clinton campaign has made me realize that the left-wing side of the Democratic party is as sleazy and power hungry as anyone on the far-right. I have lost all respect for Hillary and to my amazement, Geraldine Ferraro as well.

The absolute racist crap we are seeing out of North Carolina, with the Clinton campaign apparently alligning with the most disgusting Rovian elements of the far right, absolutely makes my stomach turn.

That nearly half of the Democratic party is apparently stupid enough to go along with this, has convinced me that I can no longer associate myself with the party... at least not until this older generation of greedy, self-absorbed, racists bunch of mindless dolts does our party a huge favor and dies off.

Posted by James | April 24, 2008 12:17 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).