Third March 4th Results Thread

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 00:10


States with winners are in bold. Updates will appear below the tables. New threads will be created when the comment load becomes too high. Second results thread here. Entering the night, my count shows Obama with 1,194.5 pledged delegates, and Clinton with 1,033.5

March 4th Primary and Caucus Results
State Reporting O % C % Delegates Obama Del Clinton Del
Ohio 92% 43% 55% 141 62 73
Rhode Island 99% 40% 58% 21 8 13
Texas Primary 97% 48% 51% 126 62 64
Texas Caucus 36% 52% 48% 67 0 0
Vermont 86% 60% 38% 15 9 6
Total NA NA NA 370 141 156

Update 8--Texas Delegate Update: CBS is showing Clinton ahead in Texas delegates 78-70. However, they don't break it down by primary and caucus, so I can't gauge where the delegates are coming from. I'll try to have an update on the table soon.

Update 7--Be Patient On Delegates: Look everyone, just be patient on delegates. They take a looooong time to count. Earlier, Clinton supporters were freaking out because Obama was ahead in Ohio, and now Obama supporters are freaking out because I am showing Clinton so far ahead in Ohio. Don't worry, it will change. If you want updated Texas delegate totals, check out the Texas Secretary of State website. If you want updated Ohio delegate totals, please point me to a good link. Right now I'm using CBSnews.com, but I imagine there are better options. Just relax and be patient. I just put another homebrew in the fridge and I'm getting ready to watch Raider's of the Lost Ark. I'll be up for a long time, and I'll give you the new results when I find them.

Update 6--I'm From Pennsylvania and I Don't Have To Care About What You Think: Reading some of the comments, it never ceases to amaze me how supporters of both candidates always insist that the other candidate is getting the better media, no matter what. The same thing goes for rationalizing wins and losses, and what delegates should and should not count. Really, there is some  sort of brain damage that occurs when people start getting a little too far behind a candidate.

But really, so what? I'm from Pennsylvania. In fact, I am a precinct captain and a member of the state party committee. My fellow precinct captain (division committeeperson, as we are called in Philly--better start to learn the lingo) is the ward leader, and she will attend the Friday meeting with both Obama and Clinton. In other words, right now, everyone else has to care about what I think, not the other way around. It'll be like Iowa on steroids, as a friend of mine running for delegate is fond of saying.

Update 5--Still A Volatile Campaign: Clearly, there is still a lot of volatility in the electorate. Obama won early Texas voting 50.6%--47.7%, and was tied or ahead among likely Texas voters just four days ago. However, three days of bad media for Obama, and Election Day voters seem to have swung in favor of Clinton by about ten points (and yes, the polling did see this coming tonight, within 1% of current margins). With the wild swings in this election, clearly, nothing should be taken for granted in the future. Of course, after tonight, Obama will still comfortably lead even with Florida and superdelegates included.

Update 4--Voters Don't Want the Campaign to End: Every time one candidate has had a chance to finish the other off, the voters have decided they want the campaign to continue. Clinton lost Iowa, then Obama lost New Hampshire, then Clinton lost South Carolina huge, then Obama managed to pull even on Super Tuesday, and now Clinton seems to have scratched together enough tonight to keep going.

Update 3--Clinton wins Texas primary: CBS projects Clinton as the winner of the Texas primary, at least in terms of the popular vote. No doubt she will continue on to Pennsylvania now. Still, in addition to the Texas caucus, there are also a lot of delegates still to be counted tonight. I'm in for the long haul.

Update 2--Texas margin stagnant: I've noticed that Clinton's lead in Texas has been stuck at in the 50,000s for a loooong time. Obama doesn't seem to be making up any ground, but he isn't losing any ground, either. Also, this will be the ultimate test of the caucus vs. primary difference between the two candidates.

Update: It looks like the networks caught up to me on Rhode Island. Congrats to international news orgs on staying even with a guy in his bedroom in West Philly. Also, keep in mind that the Texas primary delegates shown here are projections, not actual final delegate totals.  

Chris Bowers :: Third March 4th Results Thread

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Third March 4th Results Thread | 101 comments
I'm wondering why (0.00 / 0)
Obama isn't catching up with Hillary. Have the Urban areas just not come in yet, or what? Did she manage to oust him in some of the areas they thought to be his strongholds?

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
Could it be (0.00 / 0)
that she ran a better campaign? How about buyer's remorse? Or Rezko? Or NAFTA-gate?
[ Parent ]
You mean, (0.00 / 1)
Hillary's bullshit lies?  Rove like Fearmongering?  And No, running a better campaign means you don't lose double digit leads in two weeks.  Rezko HAS NOTHING to do with Obama as any one who isn't a moron can read.  Blago, yes.  Obama, no with the exception of a little strip of land.  Hillary shouldn't go throwing stones on land deals now should she?  I hope he hits her with all the crap she did before and during the Clinton Administration... White Water, Travel gate.  She's lucky to not be in jail right now.

And its far from being over.  She has a LONG way to go to make up those numbers.  

[ Parent ]
You know I've been noticing your 'comments'.... (4.00 / 3)
....fer a while now and this one, this one:

I hope he hits her with all the crap she did before and during the Clinton Administration... White Water, Travel gate.  She's lucky to not be in jail right now.

Makes me wonder if you are working for the McCain campaign.

If not then you are.....

....in a totally delusional state of mind.

And should.....

Seek help.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Obama's numbers don't add up (4.00 / 1)
35+8+64+0+9 = 116.   Not 124.

Cunha for Congress (FL-06)

P.S. I'm not a big fan of John McCain
Yeah... (0.00 / 0)
  I'm not convinced that Obama is going to win the popular vote in Texas, but it will be extremely close.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
Steve Clemens (0.00 / 0)
Clemens claims Texas will be called for Clinton shortly.  Sigh.

On the other hand, if Obama bounces back it will improve his fighting narrative.  But it this won't help in the general if he just meekly costs on past victories.

CNN says (0.00 / 0)
Dallas and Harris Counties still to come.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Have you checked out who is on his foundations board (0.00 / 0)
and leadership gang... just google the names and parent corps with the name Clinton... shit no wonder the guy has been going out with guns with regard to the Obama NAFTA story ... -- and not hitting Clinton.
[ Parent ]
sorry foundation... ha! (0.00 / 0)
"Think Tank" yeah right...
[ Parent ]
Bias (0.00 / 0)
Wow, some people really can't see beyond their own biases, can they?  Sure Clemons is most likely in the Clinton camp, but he has been perfectly honest and has made several critical assessments of Clinton as well as Obama.  His critique of the NAFTA flap was to put up a video with no comment and he got on Clinton's case for the 3am ad.

You really can't see past you partisan nose, can you?  Sad, really.  And note, before you counter attack, I'm an Obama supporter.

And you'll notice he got this right.

sad, sad, sad

[ Parent ]
Be interesting to see how these states.... (0.00 / 0)

.....in particular the two big ones compare on a breakout that you just completed for the primaries to date.

I'm really wondering if women are starting to break for Clinton. There has been more than a little anger in the feminine networks of the 'sphere over both the media's anti-feminist bias and Obama's seemingly innate sexism.

Also the Latino vs. Afro-American break.

I'm sure you'll get to this in the near future and I'm sure someone is going to start mocking up models for the GE.

One thing seems clear to me, ignoramus that I am,.....

This isn't over yet.

No matter how much some wish it to be.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

The thing is (0.00 / 0)
It's nearly impossible to see how Obama will lose, on the delegate count.

However, I said this in my last commment, the GROUPS that support Hillary, a larger percentage of those groups are likelier to defect to a guy like McCain, then Obama's groups (base) is likely o defect to John McCain.

Also, Hillary's groups have a larger representation in the United States at large, than in the Democratic party.

I have been scoffing at the "electability" argument, but based on demographics, it's shaky.

Ah well - in for a penny, in for a pound.  Hopefully, any democrat will be able to win this year.

[ Parent ]
People here keep saying it will turn (0.00 / 0)
But the numbers keep going in only one direction!

CNN says massive caucus mismanagement by Dems in TX (0.00 / 0)
Huge turn out, parking lots jammed, massive underestimation of turn out. People running around xeroxing ballots. People walking long distances from parking lots far away. Some of the story sounds like those who knew how to take charge in a caucus situation won votes.

Bad news for the night it sounds like, but awesome for Dem party building (presuming they didnt piss tons of people off) for the future. The Dean strategy.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

It's been like that all along (0.00 / 0)
You are right that it will build Party excitement.

When I had to manage the process in Colorado, things were chaotic, people were a little frustrated, but in the end very patient.

There was very little mismanagement or manipulation of the process. In fact, it is a little hard to do that, as the process is so open. The crowd watches as the raised hands were counted. These are normal neighbors, not Party machine hacks.

[ Parent ]
Houston (0.00 / 0)
Houston (Harris Co) has 33 percent of precincts reporting and a tally of approx Obama 150,000 Clinton 100,000.  Extrapoling, it appears that there should still be 500,000 votes cast and Obama would net 100,000 more than Clinton.

Clintons delegate totals also wrong.  My addition shows 130.

Looking also at the SD breakdown in Texas (0.00 / 0)
I see all these 0% to low teen percent reporting for Houston/Galveston.

I do think those should come in to Obama.  We'll see.

[ Parent ]
Never mind (0.00 / 0)
Based on the spreads so far, won't make enough up in TX.  Texas, in popularity, will go to Hillary.
[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
Obama should be getting votes from Houston (and to a lesser extent Dallas and other cities), but there's also still a lot of votes to come in from the Rio Grande valley.

In Ohio, it's going to tighten, no, when Cleveland finally comes in?

[ Parent ]
based on the map at the NYTimes, (0.00 / 0)
I don't see him overtaking her lead at this point.  Don't believe me?  Check out Webb county (on the southern border), and El Paso. Those votes should offset Obama's gains in the metropolitan areas, if I am calculating correctly.  It looks like he just lost Texas' primary.... (bummer).  
[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
I concur.
[ Parent ]
delegates (0.00 / 0)
What's up with the delegate counter?

Hillary got 3 delegates from RI
Obama got 3 delegates from Vermont
Hillary got gained anywhere from 5-9 delergates in Ohio, but probably more like 5-6.
Obama will receive a gain of 3 delegates in the primary portion of texas, and may make up more in the cacus portion.

In summary, he said tonight was awash, and even Obama may, but nto for sure, win in more delegates.

Todd says only 5-9 for OH? Bowers has a 14 spread (0.00 / 0)
I wonder why the difference?
[ Parent ]
I think it's CBS (0.00 / 0)
I asked about it earlier and ya know it wouldn't surprise me more Obama bias.  I watch FAUX news talking about some irregularities on the Obama camp in Ohio as well.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
Estimates vs. Actual (0.00 / 0)
Chris hasn't assigned roughly 46 delegates in Ohio at this point.  I believe Chris' numbers are based on actual delegates assigned based on actual results.  Chuck Todd's are based on an estimate of the results.  Essentially Todd is extrapolating and filling in gaps, which is why he has to give you a range.  Cuyahoga County, for example, only had about half of its votes counted last I looked, so many delegates there would still be unassigned.  

Saxby Chambliss, worse than disgraceful; he's reprehensible.  
[ Parent ]
What really won (4.00 / 1)
What really won are true Progressive and Populist positions on trade, economics and labor.

If Democratic leadership cannot kick out those corporate lobbyists bills at this point they are deaf.

Ohio screamed for true trade, economic, labor reforms from the rooftops.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

Sigh (4.00 / 1)
Well, Matt Stoller's prediction came through - we've gotten the most annoying possible outcome tonight: big Clinton win in Ohio and a tiny win in Texas.

Are we really going to have to go through 7 more weeks of this? Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton cannot possibly win the nomination?

And then what if she wins another 10-12 delegates in Pennsylvania? We'll just go right through June or what?

Annoying.

Yep.. and the media is playing right along... (0.00 / 0)
They love it too... gives them ratings.

Everyone's cheerleading the fact that Clinton is back in the race now despite the fact that the delegate situation is pretty much the same as it was when the night started.

Was it a good night for her?  Sure.  Does it change the reality of her situation?  Not really.

The real winner of tonight is John McCain, who gets to have our nominee continue to be dragged through the mud through no effort of his own.

[ Parent ]
Reality is Illusion (0.00 / 0)
Clinton once had - before any votes were cast - an aura of inevitability - it was an illusion.  Then Obama won, and won, and won, seemed like he should have put Clinton away - but it was an illusion.  Now, Clinton is the come-back kid II and its still an illusion.  

Don't get me started on McCain and HIS illusions...

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
It's going to the brokered convention (0.00 / 0)
From latest update to post, Hillary gains 25.  It should be less after the TX caucus, but still a gain.

She still ends up behind in pledged delegates by 130.  Take the 105 from MI/FL and it's down to a margin of 25.  Less than half her lead in super-delegates.

So by counting option #6, she still has the lead.  So it goes on.

If the rumored 50 supers go to Obama, then Hillary is losing even by option #6.  But then she squeaks about caucuses, popular vote, etc.

And we go to convention after being negative for 5 more months.  And Democrats lose the presidency, senate, and barely hold the house.

[ Parent ]
Democrats will be Democrats, eh? (0.00 / 0)
Its enough to make you take another look at Nader.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
so annoying (0.00 / 0)
ok - ugh - so looking at the calendar, maybe we can we project the next knockout opportunity. because Obama can't be knocked out because Hillary has no mathematical way of recovering, so its either Hillary out early or we duke it out at the convention... this is barring some unlikely tsunami of Hillary winning bigger and bigger. doubtful. she just squeeked out a win in TX, lucky duck.

March 8  Wyoming:     Obm
March 11 Mississippi: Obm

then a long time

April 22 Penn:  Close - edge to HRC at best 10pts, but i doubt it.

semi-long time

May 6 Indiana:         Obm
May 6 North Carolina:  Obm
May 13 Nebraska:       Obm
May 13 West Virginia:  Obm
May 18 Hawaii:         Obm
May 20 Kentucky:       Obm
May 20 Oregon:         Obm
May 27 Idaho:          Obm

lets not even talk about June, its getting stupid at that point.

Unless I am mistaken I don't see Hillary winning anything in May. Maybe Indiana? At best it would be tight. Wyoming and Mississippi will neutralize tonight. Hillary momentum will be dead in the water on the march to Penn. If she's lucky she gets 10-12% margin in Penn. If she's unlucky she's out then. But I think she'll do well in the state.

I imagine North Carolina a blow out for Obama on the order of South Carolina. Lots of college towns lots of African Americans. But that might be just bring Obama to par with Hillary after Penn in terms of momentum in the media. I think it will then likely take to May 13th to land a knock out. If he can pull 20% margin vitories in Nebraska and West Virginia then that could be it. If those votes are smaller then he'll really have to just wear her out with another month of withering defeats. In which case, we go all the way to Idaho when she finally relents and the Dem party leadership gets tired enough.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
A little Obm happy there? (4.00 / 1)
Kentucky and West Virginia are right in Clinton's demographic wheelhouse. I give Obama no chance in either.
[ Parent ]
how do you judge that? (0.00 / 0)
Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia
all are mostly white, as in 85%+, with similar income, similar education. They each have a few colleges. Farm country in the first two, coal in the latter, with an exception in Indiana, the corner being part of the chicago metro area.

not much different than Kansas, and Iowa. Tennessee, Ohio and Missouri are kinda similar, but with much larger African American populations. Ohio differs in significantly in terms of industry and thus is more like Pennsylvania.

So I dont see how those are in the wheel house, at worst/best its a toss up it seems in Kentucky and W Virginia. But its all a hunch to me, I would gladly defer if someone who has worked in these areas or lives there jumped in to offer some better insight.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Nebraska on 5/13... (0.00 / 0)
Awards zero delegates. Obama won our caucus on 2/9.

About the only positive I can take out of this is that maybe, just maybe, we can get some kick-ass turnout for our primary in May.

The delegate math looks no different after tonight than it did yesterday. But now we're going for at least seven more weeks, and I think I'm going to be sick.


Further Reading

[ Parent ]
sorry - that was based on bad source (0.00 / 0)
cnn or nytimes or someone had a calendar with primaries in states that have already had caucuses. so here is a revise. critique at will, I'm just trying to get a grip on it.

Nebraska per above is done, and so is Idaho - duh. Which actually means the schedule is ever more painful and drawn out... here we go:

March 8  Wyoming:     Obm
March 11 Mississippi: Obm

then a long time

April 22 Penn:  Close - edge to HRC at best 10pts, but i doubt it.

semi-long time

May 6 Indiana:         Obm
May 6 North Carolina:  Obm
May 13 West Virginia:  HRC
May 18 Hawaii:         Obm
May 20 Kentucky:       HRC
May 20 Oregon:         Obm

break cause we need more breaks

June 3 Montana:        Obm
June 3 South Dakota:   Obm
June 7 Puerto Rico:    HRC?

so assuming someone must know something more than me, I leave Indiana in O's col, because of the Chicago influence, and put Kentucky and WVirginia in the HRC col.

What a mess. If the country and HRC are not going to accept a numerical victory (e.g. full abuse of super delegates is in play) then the goal is to get media momentum. This schedule sucks, who planned this thing. its so even. ;) Kentucky has got to be a better chance for Obama than WVirginia. He takes NC to quash Penn, the battle moves to Kentucky. He wins Kentucky its his, he loses and its a brokered convention?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
To Be Honest (0.00 / 0)
I don't watch the news very often. What exactly happened these last few days that accounted for the "bad media coverage" everyone is referring to for Obama. What exactly was covered that made him look so bad?

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
Yup, "three days of bad media for Obama"? (0.00 / 0)
What bad media? I didn't notice anything especially negative. And it's still been the usual ridiculing of Clinton all the time. If she wins this round, it certainly will be in spite of the media. SNL may did help, though.
[ Parent ]
Sure, no bad media... (0.00 / 0)
It's all negative against Clinton all the time, right?

Oh wait... no, they've given her every opportunity to come back in the race despite the fact that she probably can't win (unless there's a real Obama campaign meltdown).

And then they've focused on this stupid "Naftagate" story, as well as Rezko, and constant media play of the ridiculous 3AM ad...

Oh, and Hillary's "as far as I know" comment, etc...

Yeah, nothing bad has happened to Obama in the media recently... nothing that would basically shift the two big races about 10 or more points in Clinton's direction in about 3 days.

[ Parent ]
Naftagate? Rezko? That's been a big topic the last three days? (0.00 / 0)
The Canadian angle of the Obama camapigns Nafta bashing got some coverage, but imho not at all of the kind it would have got if it had been Clinton who screwed up so badly. However, this is a subjective judgment, sure. But where has the Rezko story been the last three days? It seems this is already old news.

And there sure is some difference between the idiotic character studies and mindreading of Clinton everywhere in the columns, and the reporting about the factual news from Canada. Besides, what should the media have done? Ignore the allegations from that prominent source? This would really go too far in favoring Obama, even for the effing corporate media.

[ Parent ]
Fine to bring up, but they just report on rumors and such... (0.00 / 0)
What bugged the hell out of me about Naftagate was how blown out of proportion it was, and how Clinton continued to lie about it after the story was effectively denied by every party involved.

So, some guy that's related to the Obama campaign, more than likely not even authorized by the Obama campaign, says to someone in Canada the truth: that we likely won't opt out of Nafta, but it's a heated primary campaign so the logical conclusion to "renegotiating" the trade agreement was laid out on the table... no different than what Obama has basically been saying, and no different than the completely unreported Clinton story saying that she won't remove troops from Iraq.

Yet, the only thing we heard for nearly a week was how Obama was being two-faced.  So, whatever.

[ Parent ]
not just some guy (4.00 / 1)
it was Obama's senior economic adviser. he did deny the quote as manufactured however by the source. Clinton has certainly used it to her advantage, and the Obama team's damage control was handled about as poorly as one can.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
And so did the source... (0.00 / 0)
Canada also denied it and said that it was misreported.

So every party involved all say that it was misreported.

I'll grant you that Obama's damage control didn't do well on it, and that certainly Obama's losses tonight are as much his fault as hers.  But virtually everyone is in agreement that it was a bad week for Obama as far as the media coverage went.

[ Parent ]
And that shouldn't be newsworthy? (0.00 / 0)
When a Obama campaign staffer tells not only "someone in Canada", but an official of the Candain government, "the truth", that Obamas statements shouldn't be viewed as a serious approach on getting rid of NAFTA, but more like the usual campaign brouhaha, this sure is news. I don't see how anyone can seriously complain about this being reported. It would be evidence of a pro Obama bias if this would have been ignored.
[ Parent ]
See, you're doing it now... (0.00 / 0)
The "truth" was basically the same thing he said in the debate.

He did not say in the debate that he'd withdraw from Nafta.  He said that he'd use the THREAT of withdrawing as leverage to renegotiate.  That, to me, means that we probably won't withdraw from Nafta.

So what gets told to Canada?  That we probably won't withdraw from Nafta.

Wow!  How terrible.  What a two-faced asshole.

[ Parent ]
If this was so clear.. (0.00 / 0)
then why did a staffer deliberately have to point this out to the Canadians? Hmm, this doesn't make much sense to me. Also, pls note, the media just reported the fact. I can't remember any columnists picking this up. But maybe I just missed those opinion pieces.
[ Parent ]
Act Blue Page Compromise Proposal (0.00 / 0)
Now that it looks like this thing is going to go on for a long time, perhaps it's time to reconsider what we do with the Act Blue Page endorsing a Presidential candidate.  We need to start raising money for the Democratic Nominee.  Is it possible to begin raising money for the candidate that wins the Democratic Nominee?  So, money raised will not be used in the primary, but rather in the general election.  Given how long this may go on, we need to start saving dollars for the general election.  

I don't know whether this suggested compromise is legal under FEC rules.

Saxby Chambliss, worse than disgraceful; he's reprehensible.  

on the general election (0.00 / 0)
We could only raise money for them IF they opt out of the General Election Public Financing.  (Or at least, they could only get the money if they opt out.)  Obama might or might not opt out, Clinton seems to have opted out.  

The most useful thing is primary money, which they could use up until the convention in August.  But no compromise is possible there.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
A piece of good news for everybody (4.00 / 4)
One piece of news coming out of tonight that we can ALL celebrate: CNN is reporting that with the nomination locked up, McCain is headed to the White House this week to be endorsed by Bush. Hahahaha. Good move, McCain. We will ALL have our cameras ready.
Negative advertising works a treat (0.00 / 0)
It works - that's why they use it. It seems to work best on last minute deciders. That's why they throw out the accusations and weird photos and refuse to deny starting rumors at the last possible moment. It works.  
Indeed, Chris: PA matters now. (0.00 / 0)
I grew up in Gettysburg, and will almost certainly be moving back in with my parents for the month of April (if not more).  Being an Obamabot, I'll be working 40+ hour weeks for the campaign.... Should be interesting.  The candidates might even come to town for a visit or two... So, I guess there is a silver lining to this whole thing.
PA (0.00 / 0)
Isn't PA like the second-oldest state in the nation? Seems like another Ohio to me for Clinton.

But I'm sure Chris'll have plenty to say...

over the course of the next month and a freakin half.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, 2nd oldest. (0.00 / 0)
It sure doesn't look friendly for Obama, considering that it is a closed primary, and that there are a very large number of elderly voters in PA.  Also, like Ohio, a significant portion of PA is Appalachia.  

So it'll be a tough fight -- but a lot will certainly happen between now and April 22nd (for better or worse).  

[ Parent ]
It is old (0.00 / 0)
But that does not necessarily mean the registered Democrats are old. They probably are, but, I don't have the figures handy.  
[ Parent ]
Volatility isn't a good word for it (0.00 / 0)
How the heck, every time, does the "Obama is surging" expectation get based in?

I checked over the RCP averages - for TX, had Clinton 47.4, Obama, 45.7

Ohio - Clinton 50.1, Obama 43.0

RI - 48 to 38

VT 55 to 36.  

So Clinton outperformed, by about 4 points, the polling average.  Good for her.

But the media expectation somehow, was different, and favored Obama.

More than that, I gave Obama two points on average, from the RCP.  So ended up being 7 points off. Why did I do that?  Well, because in WI, Obama outperformed the polls by about six.

At any rate, the only thing that happens now, is that this continues.

But as Chris says, yes, lots of 'volatility'. Swings for either candidate have average up to 10 points, positive or negative.


Yes, but (0.00 / 0)
Four days ago, those same averages showed Obama up 3 in Texas, and down only 4 in Ohio. That is the movement I discussed.  
[ Parent ]
Your Ohio Delegates math is off (0.00 / 0)
Obama is likely going to lose by 9 delegates by my county... Your Texas numbers are correct - w/ the caucus he will likely pick up 9 total in Tx...and the whole day will be 1-3 delegates from where we started.
where (0.00 / 0)
are you getting those delegate numbers from Ohio?  They are so far off.  

In Texas I have Hillary up by 1-2 delegates, not 4.  

CBS (0.00 / 0)
I'm using CBS for Ohio and Burnt Orange Report for Texas. I'll check your numbers.  
[ Parent ]
Don't be ridiculous, Chris! (0.00 / 0)
"Reading some of the comments, it never ceases to amaze me how supporters of both candidates always insist that the other candidate is getting the better media, no matter what."
Uh, excuse me pls, Chris, but YOU started this by writing "three days of bad media for Obama". So, by your own rules, this is egg on your own face.
Why don't you simply answer: What bad media?  
Since you insist (0.00 / 0)
Since you insist on being a confrontational asshole who can't even both to read the titles of the quick hits section of this website where the link has been posted for 12 hours now, I'll link it again:

PEJ Campaign Coverage Index: February 25 - March 2, 2008--Press Takes a Harder Look at Obama-and Itself

Go yell at the Project for Excellence In Journalism, and demand they respond to your comments even though their response, like mine, was posted in broad daylight more than 12 hours ago.

[ Parent ]
Don't you see the paradox? (0.00 / 0)
YOUR statements, Chris:
"three days of bad media for Obama"
Followed by:
"it never ceases to amaze me how supporters of both candidates always insist that the other candidate is getting the better media, no matter what."
Sry, but the only logical conclusion seems to be that you're guilty of exactly the kind of behaviour you point out here.
Why shouldn't it be allowed to criticize this, in a respectful manner? Pls note, I didn't call anyone "asshole"...

I guess your position is, your statement is right because there's a link on this site somewhere supporting it. Uh huh. Sry that this esacaped my attention. Well, it would have been nice if you simply posted this info in response to the questions in comments, preferrably without name calling. Now, should I link to the polls showing that more people think the media is biased pro Obama, than the other way round? This would result in exactly the kind of pointing game you yourself criticized.

[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
But you did repeatedly demand that I answer a question you posed, and you did it in capital letters, and said there was egg all over my face. That was really civil, non-assholish behavior. It's not like I'm busy or anything, its not like I posted on this several times today already, and yet you are still trying to start a fight in the comments. Thanks, much appreciated.

If you want to quote me to demonstrate a logical paradox, please quote me in my entirety. You seem to think that because I prefer Obama, I discounted myself as a judge of who is and who is not receiving bad press. However, if you read the entire paragraph, you would have noted that I also wrote the following qualifier: "really, there is some  sort of brain damage that occurs when people start getting a little too far behind a candidate." I doubt anyone would consider me a particularly strong Obama backer. As such, I was removed from the equation.

If you want to play logical games, I can play them all night. If you want to think that Clinton's poll numbers turned around in the last four days but that there was no corresponding change in media coverage, fine. If you want to dismiss the project for excellence in journalism, fine. If you want to ignore that I have repeatedly argued that Clinton has faced more difficult news coverage during this campaign, and not understand that I am specifically arguing that changed over the weekend, fine. If you want to play the victim because I called you an asshole, fine. I don't really care, because I live in Pennsylvania, and now everyone must bow down to me. And as a Clinton supporter, isn't that what you really wanted, anyway?

[ Parent ]
Totally blown out of all proportion (0.00 / 0)
What are you talking about, Chris? I simply answered on a comment by JewishJake here, then engaged in a discussion with leshrac55, and I didn't repeatedly demand answers. Nobody did any name calling or seriously attack you.

Only then, instead of simply pointing to the link supporting your statement, you chose to somewhat ridicule us commenters having that friendly discussion by stating in "update 6", not in comments:
"Reading some of the comments, it never ceases to amaze me how supporters of both candidates always insist that the other candidate is getting the better media, no matter what."

That's when I pointed out that you previously engaged in excactly the same behaviour, because, after all, you stated in "update 5" that Obama got "three days of bad media". I did use exactly one word in capital letters, deliberately, to remind you that this is an actual quote by you. Sry, if you felt insulted by this, it wasn't meant to be.

I don't care if you're a precinct captain in Pennsylvania, or the king of the moon, I still think what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And if you make a point about the media treatment of Obama, it's ok for us to voice different opinions here. That's all I wanted to say, and I don't understand at all how this can be construed into me allegedly making an argument about "excellence in journalism" (huh?).

Well, Chris, it seems to me you're a bit tired and grumpy tonight. Why don't you take a break? Exhaustion is only increasing the risk of making errors in judgment.

[ Parent ]
asdf (0.00 / 0)
Sry, if you felt insulted by this, it wasn't meant to be.

OK.

Well, Chris, it seems to me you're a bit tired and grumpy tonight. Why don't you take a break? Exhaustion is only increasing the risk of making errors in judgment.

For someone who doesn't want to be insulting, you sure are damned patronizing.

And if you don't want to blow something out of proportion, don't keep writing even longer repsonses.

And if you make a point about the media treatment of Obama, it's ok for us to voice different opinions here.

And if you are just going to fall back on "let's agree to disagree," please reconsider forcing the argument in the first place. That's pointless argumentation 101.  

[ Parent ]
Tsk tsk (0.00 / 0)
"For someone who doesn't want to be insulting, you sure are damned patronizing."
Well, just my personal opinion, but imho someone who calls other "assholes" and speculates about "brain damage" isn't in a very good position to complain about a lil bit of patronizing...

However, of course I'm not a precinct captain from Pennsylvania, so what do I know about anything. 'nuff already.

[ Parent ]
SD's (0.00 / 0)
Brokaw was saying today that the Obama camp has 50 superdelegates lined up.  Don't know how much truth there is to that, but if the numbers haven't changed much by the time we wake up, maybe some of the SD's will conclude that Hillary just didn't put a big enough dent in Obama's lead tonite, and that it's time for the ship to leave the shore.  And if that happens, there better not be any whining about 'fairness' from the Clinton camp, because she started this campaign with a huge batch of SD's who committed to her early.
credit to fladem and others who saw this coming, and to clinton's team (4.00 / 1)
Clinton performed about 5 points better than I thought she would. Notwithstanding the discussion re where the race goes from here, it's a performance that her team deserves a lot of credit for.

of course, the candidate deserves a bunch of credit as well (nt) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Pew reports who will vote for McCain from Demo supporters (0.00 / 0)
About 25% of Hillary supporters will vote for McCain, if Obama the dem candidate.

About 10% of Obama supporters will vote for McCain, if Clinton the dem candidate.

Scary statistic

Thanks for the hard work (0.00 / 0)
It's very appreciated.
Chris, if you have a moment, take a look at PocketNines diary (4.00 / 1)

Here is the link.

 

From what you can tell, is this accurate? 

 

Thanks in advance! 


From what I can tell (0.00 / 0)
What I can tell from a quick glance at that diary is that it is predicting the future. Not good.

What I do know is that Obama will still hold a commanding lead in pledged delegates after tonight, and will go on to win Wyoming and Mississippi over the next seven days. I also know that the campaign will continue on to Pennsylvania, and that there is no way for Clinton to win without both Florida and either maintaining her superdelegate lead (rumors are it will collpase) or Michigan. If she doesn't win Pennsylvania, she needs both the superdelegate lead and Michigan. And even then, she still faces an uphill battle.

[ Parent ]
Not quite sure what you mean by predicting (0.00 / 0)
Since it is more "suppose if...", but I get your point about not getting too ahead of the next few races.
[ Parent ]
I'm from NC and I don't care what you think (0.00 / 0)
Smile!

I'm, a precinct "chair" (no militaristic "captain" terminology here).

Chair of the county party communication committee.

Already seeing the Obama campaign organized here:
1) A week and a half ago national campaign manager Plouffe located and met with the folks who, beginning last spring, organized local groups.
2) Our Obama state field director was put in place at about the same time and sends e-mails to everyone in the state who has signed up on the website.
3) The Obama group has already swamped the local party, had large numbers of new Democratic registrations, is coordinating a large voter registration drive, will have representatives "crashing the gates" of the precinct meetings next week, and the county and congressional district meetings to follow.
4) Local republicans and even GOP candidates for statewide office are already being scared off of running or are trembling in fear of the down-ballot effect.

Bring it!



Visit DebateScoop for political candidate debate news and analysis.

Bad bad bad (4.00 / 3)
If the Texas caucus goes against the primary result, as is likely, this lends itself to the talking point that Clinton has been winning all along in a certain sense.

It seems to me that all of the questions surrounding tonight lead down an ugly road. If Obama wins more delegates than Clinton tonight after losing 3 out of 4 primaries, how will this look to voters?

This whole primary system has revealed itself to be so archaic and Byzantine- )Florida, Michigan, primary calendar selection, caucuses vs primaries, hybrid primaries, delegate allocation)and all of the arguments about super delegates and whether they should throw the election.

And the supporters of these candidates actually have to argue the tortured, hypocritical explanations for why their favorable outcomes are The American Way. And just when I need a little inspiration, a nice cup of yes-we-can, I turn to Obama's speech tonight to hear him tell me why the voters tonight don't really matter because the delegate math is essentially the same. Are you kidding me? That's not appealing to our hopes, to our concerns, to our sense that we matter as voters.  

Good point! (4.00 / 1)
I want to add, try to see this from a broader perspective: How can the Dem Party support primary procedures in some states that result in the delegate count NOT reflecting the popular vote, when at the same time it is rightly criticized by Dems that Gore lost the election because of the arcane election college system, despite winning the overall vote count? This doesn't make any sense. If the Dems are serious in wanting every vote to be counted, and having equal weight, they should start with their own primary system!  
[ Parent ]
Maybe we can change the process for next time... (4.00 / 1)
Although it's unlikely. Right now we're stuck with the system for this time, though.

I know a lot of people have been arguing for a National primary day, but I actually still like the idea of a "race".  I think it allows exposure to more candidates, rather than the most likely outcome of just voting for the candidate with the highest name recognition.  It also preserves the fighting for votes in different states that will have vastly different demographics and issues that are important to them.  I don't think that Iowa and NH should get to go first every time, though.  Maybe there can be a rotation or just a  drawing out of a hat among several "battleground" states, I dunno.

So maybe what we should have is primaries, but just the popular vote is counted.  After all the states have voted, whoever has won the total popular vote wins the nomination.

Of course, I've also personally wanted to see what a caucus is all about, since it seems like it'd be kind of fascinating and fun, but I also realize that they're less democratic.  Much as I hate to say it, even though it seems like kind of a mess, I kind of like the idea of the Texas system of both a primary and a caucus, although it'd make even more sense if there were more than 2 candidates in the race still.

Oh well, just brainstorming here... =)

[ Parent ]
The simplest method often is the best (0.00 / 0)
"So maybe what we should have is primaries, but just the popular vote is counted.  After all the states have voted, whoever has won the total popular vote wins the nomination."

Yup, exactly! Why make it more complicated than this? This would be simple, fair, and democratic. And this might even become a positive example, putting pressure on Congress to adopt this nationally. Afaik the Dem Party is free to decide on how its primaries shall be conducted, are there any real obstacles to such a reform?

[ Parent ]
Well, not needed... (0.00 / 0)
I guess my curiosity about caucuses is just one thing that's sticking with me. =)

I kind of like the idea of having to physically go and represent your support for your candidate, and then the sort of lobbying that occurs when there are more than 2 candidates in the race.  It seems sort of like a positive aspect of democracy to encourage this sort of involvement and debate to pick a candidate.  I like the idea of (part of) the vote kind of representing sort of a community aspect, rather than just a solitary, secret experience.

I realize that I'm probably romanticizing this a bit, as I've never been to a caucus.  Nonetheless, it just seems like it's sort of a cool process.

[ Parent ]
Caucus advantages (0.00 / 0)
While primaries are undoubtedly more democratic, is being as democratic as possible a wise goal to have for a primary?

In one sense a primary is just the first step in trying to win a general election.  In that sense a caucus can make more sense than a primary.

To win a caucus you need to attract people with at least enough commitment to show up at a particular time, and depending on the format stay for a while.  Those people are more likely to be (or become) activists or campaign volunteers who can go on to sway many people in the general election.

[ Parent ]
It's a point, (0.00 / 0)
But isn't this putting too high a focus on activists instead of voters? After all, the campaign with the most activists already has an advatage in turning out the vote. And the general election isn't about counting the activists, but about counting the votes.
:-/
[ Parent ]
Activists can generate votes (0.00 / 0)

1 vote is 1 vote.

1 activist, especially if given several months in which to work, can "generate" dozens of votes.

If you work for the registrar of voters, the general election is just about counting the votes.  If you work for a campaign or political party, the general election is about winning.

Choosing your nominee via caucus rather than primary could help the chances of winning "in the fall".

Then again, the reverse could also be true.  I'm mainly thinking out loud, and, like leshrac55, am fascinated by the caucus process.  Perhaps irrationally so.

[ Parent ]
Why do you think a unity ticket is unlikely? (0.00 / 0)
At talk left, BTD is saying is inevitable. What's your view?  
Brokered Unity (0.00 / 0)
Just to throw out an entirely stupid suggestion, I could almost see Dean, Gore and other high ranking super delegates getting all the other supers to agree now that we will either have a Clinton/Obama ticket or an Obama/Clinton ticket; whoever gets the most elected delegates gets the top.  That would force the campaigns to be relatively positive and use the rest of the primary season as a sort of reality show ad for the Democratic party.

Not buying it, eh?

[ Parent ]
ive alwasy had a hard time (0.00 / 0)
imagining that either wants to be on the other's ticket. their personalities are too big to be second.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Sure (0.00 / 0)
The point was they wouldn't be given the choice, the unity ticket would be forced on them.  Technically, the delegates choose the VP, not the candidate.

See, I told you it was a bad idea.  

[ Parent ]
Could maybe see Clinton/Obama... (0.00 / 0)
But less likely is Obama/Clinton.

Since Obama would really have to self-destruct to lose the nomination, a unity ticket seems extremely unlikely.

Also, I know that a lot of people like to think of this as a "dream" ticket, but have people considered the downsides?  I don't think it's a given that an Obama/Clinton ticket retains all of Clinton's supporters, yet it probably would be enough to energize the right and maybe even drive away some independents.

I could be wrong... but I'm just not sure the positives outweigh the negatives.

[ Parent ]
the downside (0.00 / 0)
is that by putting a big personality on the bottom of the ticket, the top ticket candidate now needs to defend attacks on that person. and the top of the ticket person is not going to be good at that. the person can only really defend themselves... unless they have a wife, and then she is their best defender, but that's a special exception. a candidate needs milktoast on the bottom part of the ticket neither a help nor a problem.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Obama victory still not inevitable (0.00 / 0)
"Since Obama would really have to self-destruct to lose the nomination, a unity ticket seems extremely unlikely."

He don't need to "self-destruct", simply losing the popular vote might do the trick. Regarding the widespread outcry about the 2000 general election 'result', it would be quite difficult for the Dems to nominate a candidate who didn't get the highest number of votes.

Also, Clinto made up ground today, and it's possible that this will revive her campaign. So, imho, the race is still very much undecided.

[ Parent ]
No, sorry... (0.00 / 0)
I know that a lot of pundits tonight seem to think that tonight hit a "reset" button on the race, but after they come back to reality they'll realize that Obama still has a roughly 150 pledged delegate lead.

Clinton also may not have made up any ground tonight... it's still unclear, and we won't know for a few days.  In fact, she may have lost even more ground, but the pundits say this resets the race, so it must be right, right?

I guess we'll have to wait for the popular vote totals, but I think up until today, at least, it actually turned out that using the popular vote gave Obama a bigger edge than the delegates.  In other words, Obama's lead in the delegate system percentage-wise is less than his lead percentage-wise in the popular vote.  Not sure if that's still the case, and I'll leave that to Chris to put together after final numbers come in in the next few days. =)

But the reality of the situation is simply that this is a delegate race.  We talked a bit in another thread about changing to a popular vote system, and I can get behind that... but that's not the system we have now, and the math simply doesn't work for Clinton.

[ Parent ]
Some points (0.00 / 0)
Firstly, you can't deny that the results show some momentum for Clinton, after a long streak of losing.
Secondly, if Obama wins the popular vote, he should win. That would be a fair, democratic result.
Thirdly, this is a delegate race in the first place, sure, but don't forget about the superdelegates. That's the system that's in place now, and the superdelgates will decide the race. The question is, which candidate should they support? The one with the more pledged delegates, or the one with the most votes? I'm very much hoping they go for the second option.
[ Parent ]
No reason to believe they'll be different yet... (0.00 / 0)
I still don't think we have any reason to believe they'll be different... I suppose if it gets to that point, the Super Delegates will have to decide, and at that point I'd probably be fine with either option.  I don't like the delegate system, but it was setup that way for a reason (like the electoral college), and so whichever way they decide to go I think I'd be fine with.

We had to deal with it in 2000 (and yeah, it really sucked), but people got over that fact.  I will say that if they split the pledged delegates vs. popular vote, the chances of a joint ticket go up exponentially. =)

[ Parent ]
well but right now the popular vote does favor (0.00 / 0)
clinton if only by like 30,000 votes, and the delegate count gives a slight lead to Obama. I suppose if one excludes the votes of MI and FL, that's not the case, but even with those two the popular vote is tightening a lot such that its conceievable that there could be a split between the choices-- ie, pop vote to Clinton and delegate vote to Obama.  Even ignoring this, the numbers are so tight that quite frankly I think a unity ticket is the only fair way to make sure all the various demographics are represent fairly in the process. But thats just me.
[ Parent ]
FL and MI can't count yet... (0.00 / 0)
Ridiculous to include them in current totals as it's clear they won't count as is...

We can add them in after they (likely) have new contests and I think the difference will still be clear, and Clinton won't have some "mysterious" reason that the Super Delegates should subvert the popular will.

[ Parent ]
It's silly if your goal is to spin (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Not spin, reality... (0.00 / 0)
Howard Dean made it definitive today.  They either need to hold new contests or take it to the credentials committee.
[ Parent ]
That's about the delegate count (0.00 / 0)
not the votes. The silliness is your pretense that they are o ne and the same when we both they are not.
[ Parent ]
good by (0.00 / 0)

Boy, was I ever wrong! (0.00 / 0)
Had to stop in and admit how badly I missed on my predictions.

The pollsters largely had it right and I had it completely wrong.

She beat Obama in Ohio by about as much as anybody imagined. That's a big win for her, despite the overall delegate wash.

Third March 4th Results Thread | 101 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox