posted
Missouri is breaking better than I thought it would. I am going to bed and hope for good California news in the morning.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Winners are being projected, but the delegates aren't going to be allocated until the final counts are in. I'm still looking for Clinton and Obama to each have around 700 delegates by morning. The GOP side is a bit tricker, but I think McCain, at least, will top 600.
Clinton will have won 10 states and Obama 13, so get ready to hear about how your crappy little state is less important than the "strategic" states Hillary won.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The latino vote nation wide is on Clinton's side, but, in the southwest it's a much narrower lead. It might even break even in some states.
But dig this: If the race is between Obama and McCain, conceivably, working class white men could go for Obama and latinos for McCain, which would make the electoral map look much more unpredictable, and less like a Civil War map, forcing both parties to redefine themselves as the deeply pro-immigration wing of the Left goes to McCain and a splinter of white men go with the democrats and Obama. It would make for a fascinating national dialogue. It may even be good for the nation.
Won't happen. Republicans made sure in the last eight years that latinos will stay with Democrats, maybe even in dramatically larger numbers than ever before. I was listening to a lation rights group leader earlier tonight talking about how Republicans are basically taking lations to the tops of buildings and kicking them off the roof.
I think the "latinos hate blacks" thing is way overrated. They might prefer Hillary over Obama (not by wide margins in all places), but voting for Hillary over Obama and voting for McCain over Obama is something entirely different. He isn't going to steal the latino vote in any meaningful way.
Edit to add:
I think they'll probably end around 900 each, maybe 1000 for Clinton. But, I wouldn't be surprised if we woke up to a big swing in Superdelegates to Obama. He outraised her 32 to 12 million in January, largely because Clinton's contributors are tapped out, and Obama has hundreds of thousands of small contributors who haven't given the limit yet. He'll use this excellent showing to raise millions more. It's why Hillary wants debates every week until it's over, she wants the free media because she can't compete all of a sudden with the cash he has.
aspectre is right, that was a hell of a speech. He's on a roll, and if he keeps it going, superdelegates flow to him, cash flows to him, and I think after LA, VA, MA, and DC this weekend and next week, he'll be called the frontrunner.
On turnout: Democrats are running away with it. More Democrats are voting in most traditional red states than Republicans are. This continues the trend of dramatic Democratic turnout that bodes very, very well for November.
So basically Obama will spin the number of states won, and Clinton will spin the big delegate victories.
I can't wait to see the total number of delegates at the end of this. As well as the total popular vote percentages.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I think there is something to be said about the states that Obama won tonight versus the ones that Clinton won tonight. For instance, Utah went for Obama but there is no way that Utah votes democrat in the general election, Missouri looks to probably go for Obama but Clinton is so close that the delegates won will be nearly identical, Mass. went for Clinton which is a shock given the endorsements of the Kennedy's for Obama, and though the race is close, the Latino vote went nearly 2-1 for Clinton.
I think all that means that Clinton won Super Tuesday and will take the nomination, though the fight will be interesting coming out. I think the most important states for Democrats in the general election will be Michigan, Ohio, New York, California, and Florida, all of which Clinton has either won or probably will win. One of the most important states in the primary season is going to be Texas on March 4 (in which I will vote--for the first time, my primary is actually going to mean something!!), and with the large Latino population in Texas, Clinton will most likely take the second largest state in the Union along with the largest.
To me, the race looks like McCain/Huckabee (other than ultra-conservatives, the entire republican party seems to dislike or even hate Romney and Huckabee is the perfect offset for McCain's weak stance with evangelicals and conservatives given his success tonight) and Clinton/Obama (if he accepts the VP nom and if she isn't dumb enough not to offer it to him) and that will be an interesting race. In the latest national polls, McCain actually leads Clinton...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Who projected Misouri for Obama? CNN still hasn't for some reason."
MSNBC when actual vote count had made it impossible for Clinton to win without pulling in 90+% of the remaining votes.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Democrats outvoted Republicans in traditional Republican strongholds in the south. McCain will hurt them there. With Obama as the nominee, I think South Carolina flips, and maybe MO and IA too. Even if Florida and Ohio go Republican (and I don't think Ohio will), then the Dems win.
Hillary might not bring them out in quite the same way, but, the enthusiasm is still there.
I think in this election, the General I mean, a lot of states Republicans takes for granted aren't going to be there. It's going to be insanely tight.
I've not yet seen a poll where McCain, Obama or Clinton beat each other outside the margin of error. It's a statistical tie for all of them.
Delegate counter update:
Hillary 591 Obama 476
McCain 487 Romney 176 Huckabee 122
Well I guess McCain doesn't have it sewn up but, I don't see what could happen that gives it to Romney or Huckabee. There's still a lot of votes to be tallied up and handed out, especially in California, which could take all night due to its complexity.
For a total of about 10 million. Republicans got outvoted by more than a million votes in today's primary alone.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting in that MSNBC gave the probable delegate count as 781 for Obama 776 for Clinton under the assumption that Clinton would receive the maximum from her campaigns numbers for the California split.
At the time MSNBC made the delegate split, 17% of the California vote was counted with 55% for Clinton 33% for Obama for a 5 to 3 ratio in favor of Clinton or a 10 to 6 ratio in favor of Clinton
With 35% of the California vote counted, the results are 53% for Clinton 37% for Obama for about a 10 to 7 ratio in favor of Clinton
With 49% of the California vote counted, the results are 53% for Clinton 39% for Obama for about a 4 to 3 ratio in favor of Clinton
Also independents had to check a bubble in a manner that was machine-readable or have their ballots tossed out. With large numbers of checked bubbles being tossed out for not being machine-readable in some counties, their election officials are now asking the Secretary of State for a ruling which would allow all independent ballots to be counted, bubbles checked or not.
posted
at my LA polling place the volunteers were both careful and clear to be sure to check the bubble at the top for all the non partisans that were going through. Plus I already knew from online. but I guess not every polling place was as well informed or managed.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strider, with the way delegates are apportioned, Obama could get ~45% of those CA delegates with 40% of the popular vote.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
With 84% reporting in California, Obama closed another two points.
Clinton 52% Obama 42%
In New Mexico, with 92% reporting, the race is down to the wire.
Obama 49% Clinton 48% (Down by 500 votes)
Saturday is the next race, with Louisiana and Washington for both parties, Nebraska for Democrats, and Kansas for Republicans. Seeing how well Obama did in Kansas, I think you can count on a win there for him on Saturday. 158 pledged delegates are up for grabs for the Democrats. Looks like 79 plus LA for Republicans, I couldn't find the number, or recent polling data for any state in the next week, but that'll change in the next two days.
On Sunday are the Maine caucauses for the Democrats. 24 delegates are up for grabs.
And then next Tuesday is the "Beltway Contest" in DC, Maryland, and Virginia, where Obama is expected to have an advantage. He could emerge in a week with the Big Mo. 168 delegates are up for the Democrats, and 140 for the Republicans.
So in the next week, 350 delegates are up for the Dems, and somewhere around 219 for Republicans. McCain will come out of today with less than 800 delegates probably, which means it looks like both elections are going to March 4th at least.
posted
The poll numbers wound up being pretty close to on the money when all was said and done. Who'd have thunk? The notable exception is those late calls for California going to Romney and Obama. I guess everyone wants to believe a Cinderella story.
As for red states and blue states and turnout, I guess there is something to that, but I'd only really look at closed primaries as a fair indicator. I still think that how someone is doing in a purple state is pretty important, and McCain, at least, does better in those (against other republicans).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Curious as to how close the polls came to predicting the elections? The polls were pretty good with the exception of New Hampshire in predicting the early contests, but let’s take a loot at how they did on Super Tuesday. Maybe I’ll stop posting polls if the numbers don’t pan out. This’ll be a big post, just to warn you, but I want to repost the polling data because I can’t just do an average or pick a random one, you’ll want the best numbers. I won’t do all the states, but I’ll pick a few and you can compare the rest if you want.
We start with Alabama
February 2nd - Barack Obama 44.4%, Hillary Clinton 37.4% January 31st - Hillary Clinton 46%, Barack Obama 41%, other 7%, undecided 6% Hillary Clinton 46%, Barack Obama 40%, other 5%, undecided 9% Barack Obama 47%, Hillary Clinton 47%, Other 5%, Undecided 2% Barack Obama 40%, Hillary Clinton 35%, Edwards 9%, Undecided 16% And to give you an idea as to how much things have changed in just a week: January 23rd - Hillary Clinton 43%, Barack Obama 28%, John Edwards 16%, Undecided 23%
Actual Result? – Obama 56% and Clinton 42%. Looks like they were all way off. Margin of error plus undecideds wouldn’t make up that difference for any of those polls.
Arizona
February 1st - Hillary Clinton 43%, Barack Obama 41%, undecided 13% January 31st - Hillary Clinton 46%, Barack Obama 41%, Other 12%, Undecided 3% January 24th - Hillary Clinton 37%, Barack Obama 27%, John Edwards 15%, Undecided 18% January 20th - Hillary Clinton 45%, Barack Obama 24%, John Edwards 9%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Undecided 21%
Actual Result – Clinton 51% and Obama 42%. It looks like those undecideds broke more for Hillary.
Georgia
Georgia February 2nd - Barack Obama 52%, Hillary Clinton 37% Barack Obama 51.3%, Hillary Clinton 35.6%, Other 4.7%, Undecided 8.4% Barack Obama 48%, Hillary Clinton 28%, Mike Gravel 1%, Undecided 23% February 1st - Barack Obama 47%, Hillary Clinton 41%, undecided 10% January 30th - Barack Obama 52%, Hillary Clinton 36%, Other 4%, Undecided 8% January 22nd - Barack Obama 41%, Hillary Clinton 35%, John Edwards 13%, Undecided 11%
Actual Result – Obama 67% and Clinton 31%. If you assume that all of those undecideds broke for Obama, then these aren’t horrible polls, but they really show you the power that those undecideds have in these things.
Missouri was pretty much a dead heat in the final days, and it looks like undecideds broke down the center for them, with Obama just barely edging her out.
Illinois
January 31st - Barack Obama 51%, Hillary Clinton 40%, someone else 1%, undecided 8% Barack Obama 55%, Hillary Clinton 24%, undecided 20% January 29th - Barack Obama 60%, Hillary Clinton 24%, John Edwards 11%, Some Other Candidate 3%, Not Sure 2%
Actual Results – Obama 65% and Clinton 33%
Massachusetts was pretty much right. Obama picked up something like 10 points of others and undecideds, but that still wasn’t enough because he didn’t claw any voters away from Clinton.
Minnesota
January 29th - Hillary Clinton 40%, Barack Obama 33%, John Edwards 12%, other 2%, don't know/refused 13%
Actual Result – Obama 67% and Clinton 32%. This one was way off. I have no idea what happened in Minnesota that coinvinced every Edwards voter and undecided to go for Obama, plus another 8 points off Clinton. That was a dramatic turnaround. That polls was done by Minnesota Public Radio. I guess the local guys just aren’t as good as the national professionals.
I won't do anything for the Republicans, except to say that they mostly said McCain would win and he mostly did. For all the close states that had Huckabee statistically tied, he pulled it out and won.
Keep all that in mind when I post polling data before the weekend.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Obama campaign's Excel spreadsheet claims "state-by-state estimates of the pledged delegates we won last night, which total 845 for Obama and 836 for Clinton -- bringing the to-date total of delegates to 908 for Obama, 884 for Clinton."
Wish the spreadsheet were made public.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This causus vs. secret ballot dynamic is fascinating. I've always assumed that people are more willing to vote with their sense of courage with a secret ballot, but that may be received wisdom that I've never examined. I've been a part of a lot of elections, and as I reflect, the phenomenon is much more complicated. People want to be popular, respected, and safe. With a secret ballot, one doesn't have to worry about being popular or respected.
Obama's problem with Latinos is extant, but it's also an easy fix. He could either get a slew of endorsements, or change the tenor of his talk to emphasize and reassure the community that dubiously legal immigrants and work situations are protected and part of his One America. It's a big, flimsy tent he is throwing around the nation, and there is more than enough room for latinos.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He'll be able to reach out to them more once he is the front runner, I think. And you have to look at what states are left. Besides Texas, he won't have to deal with many more border states.
Huckabee's declaration that he is number two... yeah. Whatever, dude. He keeps the party interesting, that's for sure. If he's hoping to get Romney to drop out of the race, he sure isn't demonstrating very good negotiation and leadership skills there.
So here's my dilemna: Do I vote for my main man McCain or do I vote for Romney as a conservative against Huckabee?
Romney needed the economy to be worse to win. That was where his bump in the numbers was coming last week.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Obama could get say Richardson to endorse him (perhaps with a promise of VP or some other nice cabinet position), would that be enough to pull the Latinos to him?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Obama could get say Richardson to endorse him (perhaps with a promise of VP or some other nice cabinet position), would that be enough to pull the Latinos to him?
Maybe, but that's a cheap win, and pooka is right, he can win the remaining states without Latinos, but the problem is moral. We are talking about a large community of people who work for living. Even if you win without them, you can't feel good about it.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's interesting how we have 3 different news sources reporting 3 different delegate totals. It looks like CNN is reporting lower for both candidates (presumably not counting the ones that are close until the final numbers are in?), NBC is reporting the most for both (based on estimates including the ones CNN thinks too close to call), and Fox is somewhere in the middle (maybe doing the same thing as CNN but further along in the calling process?).
It might be a day or two before the dust settles and we get a definite count of where the Super Tuesday delegates all landed.
posted
I prefer the results without the superdelegates. Well, I would let Hilary count one, because there is no chance he is changing his vote. But, other than that, I would consider the superdelegates still in play. Why would bringing in Richardson be a cheap win? In theory, him being an active part of the cabinet will help ensure that Latino concerns are considered (of course, Latino concerns are fairly varied, but still, it's something). And as a former Richardson supporter who moved over to the Obama camp, Richardson as VP would be awesome!
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he meant that forging ahead in the knowledge that all the border states have already voted would be a cheap win. But I don't think Obama has done anything deliberate to alienate Latinos or to discount their importance. It's just that Clinton has been more aggressive in courting their votes.
Uh, no, it was regarding the quote about Richardson. I guess picking Richardson because he is of Mexican heritage would be cheap. Picking him because of his political and especially foreign policy experience would not be cheap.
NM is still counting, apparently. How funny.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Obama is clearly demonstrating that his campaign continues to spread throughout the entire country. I think it stands to reason that his campaign will continue to increase while Hillary's decreases. Hillary basically held on to whatever she could keep her hands on, while Obama casually took away whatever was not nailed down.
As a tentative guess. I think Obama will snag Washington State, Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland, and DC by next Tuesday.
While Hillary will get Maine and Nebraska, and MAY edge Obama out on Virginia and DC.
Had Super Tuesday come a month from now, I think Obama would have gotten even more then he did and Hillary would have kept less.
edit: New Mexico is an obscenely close race.
double edit: I may have to reconsider Maine for Clinton, her fundraising there has been terrible as of late.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Uh, no, it was regarding the quote about Richardson. I guess picking Richardson because he is of Mexican heritage would be cheap. Picking him because of his political and especially foreign policy experience would not be cheap.
Ok, I can see that. I wasn't thinking about it that way. To be honest, if I was going with a candidate exclusively due to race, I would pick someone whose heritage was more obvious. A last name like Gonzales or something. Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Republicans shore up their nominee soon, in the open primaries that follow, would they attempt to influence the vote for the dem candidate (as people suggested doing in Michigan but didn't actually happen)?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's certainly one of the arguments against an open primary. I'm not really sure why they have them, honestly. I can see the value of a semi-open primary.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
NPR has Clinton at 1000 Obama at 902 CNN doesn't seem to have as many of California's delegates incorporated as NPR does. NPR is reporting the CA delegate split 191 for Clinton 150 for Obama, with a 52%-42% vote split.
I suppose there are pros and cons to this. Does it show commitment or desperation?
And it flies in the face of comments in Dec. from Bill Clinton:
quote: Clinton may address these questions at her 4 pm press conference in Arlington, VA today. One issue that could come up there are comments made by her husband Bill regarding self-financed campaigns back in December.
Discussing campaign finance reform, the former president noted that New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg could "spend a billion dollars and not miss it" on a presidential campaign.
Clinton then complained that the Supreme Court "seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us.”
“For example, they say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary’s campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform,” he said.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: The Obama campaign's Excel spreadsheet claims "state-by-state estimates of the pledged delegates we won last night, which total 845 for Obama and 836 for Clinton -- bringing the to-date total of delegates to 908 for Obama, 884 for Clinton."
Wish the spreadsheet were made public.
Granted! Now don't you feel dumb for not wishing for a billion dollars instead?
Actually, I'm not 100% sure that's the same spreadsheet being referred to, but it seems to match up with the numbers quoted in your link.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
Here's the delegate tally:
