Chris comes though with the Definitive analysis (4.00 / 2)

irrespective of candidate loyalties etc, its a bulletproof synthesis of the data out there. prospective advertisers take note!

---

by: fernacular @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 22:04:09 PM CST

I just registered to say the same (4.00 / 1)

Oustanding work, Chris. I've been doing a lot of web and channel surfing lately and you've stood out as the most rational, fair-minded observer. By far. It's such a relief to come here and see reason win out in the midst of a blogosphere and MSM dominated by partisan, intellectually lazy and dishonest analysis.

I just saw Rachel Sklar of Huffington Post on MSNBC saying Clinton has stopped Obama's momentum, that he didn't meet his campaign's expectations. This is the kind of spin - from supposed "objective" observers - that I've been seeing all night.

---

by: vosh @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 22:37:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here are (0.00 / 0)

some more props, Chris.  Great work.

---

by: Oly @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:15:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Texas (0.00 / 0)

Wouldn't you expect Clinton to win Texas, considering her landslide number among Latinos and the Oklahoma result?

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

---

by: nstrauss @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 22:06:57 PM CST

oops (0.00 / 0)

numbers

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

---

by: nstrauss @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 22:07:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

(Shurgs Shoulders) (4.00 / 2)

Obama did fine in Colorado and New Mexico. These things vary from state to state, and the situation could be different in a month. That is a long-winded way of saying "I dunno."  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 22:14:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Easy on the triumphalism (4.00 / 1)

Because Colorado and New Mexico were caucus not primary states, this conclusion strikes me as a bit facile.  In Arizona and California, the two primary states with large Latino populations, Clinton won easily.

In fact, all in all, it would have been fairer to your readers to point out that except for Illinois (his home state) and Georgia and Alabama (states with large African-American populations), Obama won by decent margins =only= in caucus states.  

His two primary state victories were squeakers--Connecticut by 3-4 per cent, Missouri by less than 1 percent.  In the other primary states, Clinton beat him handily.  

And, yes, I do realize that Clinton didn't beat him as handily as the polls anticipated a few weeks ago, but isn't it time to put that poor overused cudgel back in its holster?  (I've actually seen messages on other sites loudly arguing Obama actually won California because he only lost by 10 points--hell, a month ago, he was behind by 20 points.)

No doubt Obama had a good night, but by any realistic standard, so did Senator Clinton.  The actual result both in delegates and popular votes was a tie, which even the cable anchors (not the commentators) were truthful in acknowledging.  

Yes, Obama did better than his expectations of a few weeks ago, and, yes, Clinton did worse.  So what?  The regular season is over, and the playoffs have just begun.  Predicting a sweep--and in essence, that's what you've done--may please the fans but says nothing about what's happening on the field.

---

by: Camorrista @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:23:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So then... (0.00 / 0)

is Texas a primary or a caucus state?

---

by: johnalive @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:42:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Doing your research for you (0.00 / 0)

Primary, March 4.  

---

by: Camorrista @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:06:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not quite (4.00 / 1)

It's actually a weird caucus-primary hybrid.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:39:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

New Mexico more of a primary (0.00 / 0)

Not like Iowa--you show up, vote and leave.  But it's party only.

IL was an election (and Hillary's birthplace) but Obama won by a much larger margin than Hillary won NY.

CN iasn't a squaker.  MO is a squeaker.  Hillary won by over 60% only in Arkansas, which would probably go for McCain/Huckabee in the general.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:34:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

By your rationale (0.00 / 0)

you should take out all of Hilary's women voters and you will see that her wins are actually wins at all.  Talk about facile analysis.

---

by: CeeusBeeus @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:42:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

oops should read: (0.00 / 0)

Hilary's wins are NOT wins at all when one takes out the high number of women voters, and by that I mean white women.

---

by: CeeusBeeus @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:43:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Clinton lost the midwest--poses a problem for Dems (4.00 / 5)

Chris was right to worry about the possibility of a brokered convention--I will be the first to admit that.  But the 2/5 results are very problematic IMHO for the Dems.  If it is a McCaiin-Huckabee ticket, which looks likely, this is problematic for the Dems if Hillary is on the ticket.  McCain can be expected to draw many swing voters and Huckabee would solidify the fundy vote behind McCain, possibly putting him a heartbeat from the presidency.

Obama won all 5 midwestern states.  He won the 3 caucuses in MN, KS and ND, after winning IA in a 3-person race.  Of these, MN and IA could be expected to go for Obama in the general.  He also won IL and MO--the former hugely, much bigger than Hillary won CA or NY.  He won MO with the urban vote--clearly.  Hillary was 15% ahead for much of the night, a time when Huckabee led the GOP.  These were the rural areas, and when the St Louis and Kansas City vote came in, he turned it around.  In IL he won both downstate and the cities.

Think about a Clinton/DLC man vs McCain/Huckabee race (much more possible than Obama on the ticket).  Who would win MO?  IL is probably still safe for the Dems, but IA and MO and perhaps OH would likely go to the GOP.  Maybe even MN.

If Hillary wins by superdelegates and/or some sort of power play, there is less enthusiasm among young voters and black voters, the backbone of Dem victories for a generation.  McCain might even win a sizeable chunk of young voters.  More likely those who are not Dem-identified will slip back into passivity.  Meanwhile, especially with Huckabee on the ticket and Hillary the Dem nominee, GOP turnout will swell.

We could well lose the Presidency and lose our chance for a generational realignment.  We'd still have Congress and McCain would not rule as a dictator, but it would be a dismal 4 years until Obama could run again in 2012.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:41:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Activism and Enthusiasm (0.00 / 0)

Obama has tremendous strength in his outreach and field operations. Here in Denver his campaign even had precinct captains, which is pretty amazing. Support for Obama was 78% in my portion of the district which is a mixed black and white area. It appears that even the latino neighborhoods went for Obama, although I don't have the exit polling.

Poorer and Urban areas historically have very low turnout. I think it comes down to voter disengagement and the attitude of "They're all the same, and don't care about me".

I think Obama as the presidential candidate can turn that around.

Imagine urban turnout increasing 50%. We'd have to look in detail at the states Bush won, but we know Ohio was a squeaker, so 20,000 or 50,000 extra Democratic votes would make a big difference..
 

---

by: MetaData @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:09:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Agree (4.00 / 1)

But what if he's not the candidate?  That's my worry.  McCain has a big edge with men which Obama can cut into.  Hillary will try to outhawk McCain in the general--and with McCain as Pat Buchanan said "making Cheney look like Gandhi" Hillary will look even more right than she now is on war and militarism.  What a prospect!  We can forget about moving the dialogue to the left on war/security issues.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:40:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

To a Democrat (0.00 / 0)

She lost the midwest to a Democrat. A Democrat with links and a senate seat representing a midwestern state. And considering that turnout was kicking seven shades of shit out of the Republican efforts, I don't think you can argue she's roundly despised, merely that Obama has created oodles of activists and that if Hillary wins she needs to find a way to bring them on side.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:42:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

by your own measure she won the popular vote, she won by 1/2 million or more (0.00 / 0)

I post a coment thread from yesterday between you and me.....and if you count the Florida popular vote, she won that by 300000 and that gets her popular vote total to 800000.  And Florida is relevant because you really can't argue that that it's not in that domain.  She won contested states like Mass. and CA by the same margins.

So by the more democratic measure of popular votes....Hillary Clinton won last night.

But how do you measure it? (0.00 / 0)
And I thought you had right after that begun putting them into the totals, by the way.
I think this potential debacle reveals the folly of proportional division of delegates....

It's in the same category of progressive reform as initiatives and referenda....the horror of unintended consequences.

McCain is not taking federal funds....while we go after each other the Republicans could revel in the spectacle and the enthusiasm and money on ther side increases with the even small whiff of victory.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by: debcoop @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 15:07
[ Parent | | Reply ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by: you @ soon
To post this comment click here:  

Otherwise click cancel.

You must enter a subject for your comment
Ideally (0.00 / 0)
It would be measured in popular votes. Unfortunately, caucus states prevent that, and the Michigan situation in particular also prevents that.

Popular votes would be ideal.by: Chris Bowers @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 15:11
[ Parent | | Reply |   none0: Troll4: Recommended ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:23:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

not by 1/2 million (0.00 / 0)

As far as I can tell, Clinton won ~60,000 more votes than Obama last night. That number will change a little as the last 5% of the vote is counted, but not likely by that much. Plus, that dramatically undercounts the number of people who voted for Obama in caucus states, as it counts each state delegate awarded as a vote, rather than each caucus participant.

Obama presumably has an edge in non-MI/FL pre-2/5 popular vote, possibly enough to cancel out whatever small edge Clinton might gain from last night.

So then popular vote depends on whether you think Michigan and Florida were fair elections. Obviously Michigan is extremely problematic. With Florida you have to at least concede that Obama tends to improve his numbers after campaigning in a state, so the Florida count is at least somewhat biased towards Clinton.

Certainly, the popular vote is quite close, even if Clinton does have a lead.

---

by: Tim Sackton @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:11:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Florida's voters count even if their delegates didn't (0.00 / 0)

I think going into the general elelction saying NO to Florida and Michigan.... that they are irrelevant is the way to lose the general elelction.

Florida's numbers are in line with the numbersz she got in contested states...hotly contested states that hw as supposed to get like Mass and CA....where the Ted and Caroline were supposed to get her the Hispanic vote.  It didn't.  Her vote in Florida is real and it means she indeed won more of the popular vote than he did.

She didn't contest the caucus states nor Illinois.  He went after her in those states and he lost...and he lost it in the end becasue on the last day....they broke for her 2-1, just as in Florida the last day it broke for her 2-1.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:57:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Texas is (0.00 / 0)

1/3 Caucus 2/3 Primary...about

1/2 of those primaries are Black Districts in Houston and Dallas...the other half is the latino vally.

Obama will sweep the caucus, as the Demographics are more akin to Kansas or Colorado than So Cal.

There is not as heavy as a black-white split in Texas Politics. Remember the Ron Kirk-Tony Gonzales "Dream Ticket," and the primary base in Texas is extremely progressive.  The Dems have been cut down to only about 25% of the far left in the population - the Molly Ivans, Jim Hightower, wing of the party - perhaps why we get beat with such regularity.

Endorsements to look for:

Bill White (Mayor of Houston) ex-Clinton official but in a heavy AA city, and want to run for gov. in 2010 - could really go either way.

Chris Bell (06 Gov candidate) I would be surprised if he didn't endorse Obama.

Kinky Friedman (06 Indi runner)

Carol Strayhorn (06 Indi runner) Look for a surprise Obama endorsement from this former Democrat.

Rick Noriega (08 winner of Cornyn (sic)) I'd look for an Obama endorsement here.

Reminders: Obama has 20,000 in Austin last spring.

---

by: cardboard @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:08:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Colorado sort of went the same way (4.00 / 1)

While Colorado has a lot of Conservative Republicans, and is barely out of pink into purple, the Democratic voters are very liberal. Obama carried a lot of the state, including rural and towns, not just the urban areas and college towns.

Even latinos voted for Obama, so I think we should be careful of our demographic assumptions.

---

by: MetaData @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:14:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Judging by the huge (0.00 / 0)

amount of emails and calls this morning about getting to vote in Texas.  We haven't, in most people's memories, ever had a primary that counted.  Texas is going to be really engaged.  Also, it will be just about impossible to poll.  Dem primary turnout has been nothing for at least 20 years...nobody knows who is going to vote.

---

by: cardboard @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:20:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

still, big challenges for him (0.00 / 0)

Winning Ohio is a great test for both candidates, since it is such a key state.  Texas seems tough too.  

It's certainly exciting.  


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 22:19:27 PM CST

Good analysis (0.00 / 0)

The delegate calculations make my head spin, but its nice to know that it will wind up pretty even when it is all sorted out.  Coming into tonight, I was expecting the Obama camp to wind up losing by 100 delegates in a best case scenario.  His blowout wins in so many states changed that.

I know Hillary has a current lead with super delegates, but will she be able to rely on them going forward, even if Barack wins these next few rounds?  Are these "super-delegates" just machine Democrats who go for the establishment candidate no matter what, or will there actually be pressure on them to join Obama's rising tide if he starts racking up more wins among real voters?

Also, I'm curious to see how Super Tuesday is spun.  There has surprisingly (and distressingly) been a lot of pro-Hillary spin on the networks.  Really dumb stuff like talking about her so-called "surprise" win in Mass., or the aforementioned electability argument because of her wins in deep blue states.

Considering that Obama was down 20 points just two weeks ago, and was behind in so many of these states since the race began, the real story should be on his momentum.  If Obama had two more weeks to campaign in CA and these other states, we would be seeing much different results.

---

by: existenz @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 22:23:55 PM CST

Does that suprise you? ... (0.00 / 0)

between the two .. Hillary is the establishment candidate

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:33:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Errr... (0.00 / 0)

I think you should brush up on OH and TX if you think he can just skip and snatch it up. Obama's limited demographics are not good for those states.

Clinton won the headlines tonight and will benefit from having huge states in her pocket.

You continually underestimate Clinton and overplay Obama's hand at your peril (along with your prediction reputation)...

And with that I'll wait to see what Jerome has to say, because he seems to be the only one getting this right.

---

by: GregNYC @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 22:24:59 PM CST

Jerome had Clinton winning 15 states (4.00 / 7)

"Clinton: CA, NY, NJ, MA, MO, TN, AZ, CT, AL, AR, OK, NM, DE, UT, AK

Obama: IL, GA, MN, CO, KS, ID, ND"

Jerome predicted Clinton would be up by 150-200 delegates (including supers). Terribly wrong. Again.

Your claim that Chris underestimated Clinton is patently false. He picked her to win 12 states and 867-821 in pledged delegates. Much better prediction than Armstrong.

---

by: vosh @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 22:47:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not so fast (4.00 / 2)

She may have those huge states "in her pocket", but she doesn't have a commanding number of delegates "in her pocket".  And delegates are what will decide this thing.

Obama was down by dozens of points in most of these states as early as two weeks ago.  He closed some major gaps, but was running against the clock.  Even the best politician in the world can't close a 20 point gap in two weeks without a major gaffe by his opponent.

Super Tuesday was designed for an establishment frontrunner like Clinton.  For Obama to force her to a draw is a HUGE victory, and I'm guessing the headlines will reflect that as the facts settle in.  As of right now, many news pieces are still inaccurately crediting Hillary with a win in Missouri.

If Obama can win Minnesota, Missouri, and Iowa, then he definitely has a good shot in Ohio.  Texas is troubling because of the large Latino population, but otherwise it could be up for grabs.  Obama did well in New Mexico and Colorado, while Hillary did very well in OK.  Give Obama enough time and money, however, and he just might pull it out.

---

by: existenz @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 22:52:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

when the dust settles (0.00 / 0)

The tee vee will show an Obama win as well. Watch tonight what happens.

He won delegates and the number of states. By the DNC rules that goes further toward the nomination than winning big states.

---

by: aiko @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:19:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

hmm (0.00 / 0)

Virtually everybody is saying that it was either a "tie" or an "edge" for Clinton because of the media's cheerleading of Obama again plus the failed Kennedy endorsement- and here "a big night for Obama"?  hmmm ...and with analysis!

---

by: Jack Frost @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 22:41:48 PM CST

Thanks... (0.00 / 0)

for posting so late (early?)  

---

by: fiver @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 22:48:53 PM CST

Ashamed to be a Californian tonight (4.00 / 3)

This is exactly why California (or other gigantic states) should not have an early primary date.

A large majority of my friends -- young, gay/straight mix, racially diverse -- went for Barack Obama. (There are actually more Ron Paul supporters than Hillary Clinton supporters.) But you turn on the t.v. and they've got these marshmallow-shaped, middle-aged people blathering about how they feel safe with another Clinton in the White House, or somesuch non-issue.

Early states should not be huge mass media markets. Otherwise you get what we see tonight in California: everybody herds towards the easy McDonald's choice. Hillary Clinton really is like the McDonald's of the Democratic candidates. No good god-damn reason to go there except you've been there before and you know the brand.

Thank god for the sane, community-oriented states out there that have effectively nullified our dumb vote here in CA.


VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

---

by: mildewmaximilian @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 22:55:15 PM CST

McObama (0.00 / 0)

"Otherwise you get what we see tonight in California: everybody herds towards the easy McDonald's choice."

Well, who has been conducting a hell of a marketing campaign recently? Who has been promising heaven and earth and a pony? Who has been hyped by all those VIPs and the media? Hillary Clinton??? You must be joking.

Ok, let's put all the hype aside, what's that change Obama is promising? His program is nearly the same as Hillary's. Where's that big difference? That Obama wants to reach out across the aisle to get things done? Hell, we all have been witnessing how the rethugs have been blocking all bills Dem recently. Bipartisanship is just a wet dream.

All said and done, Obama is a good candidate. But the most honest campaigner, he ain't. And those who expect a dramatic change from him are in for a devastating surprise, if he should become president.  

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

---

by: Gray @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 23:49:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not his greatest moment (0.00 / 0)

when he said that "Hillary is like McCain in not wanting to talk to leaders we don't like". That is not true.  

"Here's a song about blind faith. That's always a dangerous thing, whether it's in your girlfriend--or if it's in your government." Bruce Springsteen, quoted in Glory Days (Born in the USA tour??)  

---

by: 4jkb4ia @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 00:39:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

actually, it is true (0.00 / 0)

Hillary has said she would not hold talks with leaders of Iran, North Korea, other unfriendly countries.  Obama has said he would.

So yes, Obama is right.  Hillary is on the same page with George W. Bush and John McCain.  Obama has mentioned this in debates, and Hillary has not objected to his characterization.

---

by: existenz @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:27:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Is it safe? (4.00 / 1)

they've got these marshmallow-shaped, middle-aged people blathering about how they feel safe with another Clinton in the White House, or some such non-issue.

In case you haven't noticed, the country is hovering on the edge of economic depression.  "Feeling safe" is not exactly a non-issue.  It's not just job security, but healthcare, the cost of living, etc.

If Obama wants these people to vote for him, he had better cut out the pablum and start addressing their concerns.

---

by: Taylor @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 00:50:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

How hilariously oblivious (0.00 / 0)

Your 'argument' is essentially: my friends and I are voting based on frivolous cultural signifiers, but we don't like it when other people do the same thing! Especially when they're  old and fat!

This really sums up a lot of the cluelessness I see from Obama supporters. They're so wrapped up in the politics of personality that they don't even realize it, and criticize others for doing the same thing.

The suggestion that the primary process should be crafted so as to give maximum power to small niches with more "refined" preferences is especially ludicrous. Guess what: if a candidate can't appeal to people outside of your and your friends' demographic, he or she will meet with electoral disaster.

Hillary and Obama are ideological twins. She may be McDonald's, but that just means that he is Burger King. We have two middle-of-the-road, cautious politicians, neither of whom will really challenge the status quo. Ridiculing those who prefer one of them is kind of like Red Sox fans denigrating Yankees fans.  

---

by: Jason C. @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:06:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Um ... I never said Obama was great (0.00 / 0)

You make some good points and some annoying ones. I've actually said before that the best thing you can say about Obama is that he's not Hillary Clinton. That ended up being enough for me to cast a very reluctant, regretful vote for him. (I agonized over Gravel as the last good guy left.)

Yes, Obama is a "fast food" candidate too. But Hillary is the worse of the two, hence my "McDonald's" label. They're both tacky, dumb choices, but Hillary is the tackiest and the dumbest choice, and of course that's what these idiots in California embrace: not just the bad, but the worst.

And I'm not suggesting that small, progressive states would vote with "refined" taste, the word you use to imply a class-based snobbery. No, all I'm saying is to unplug the fucking t.v., stop chasing the major-market t.v. voters and let the voters in states with functional, community-based political processes make the early decisions. It's too bad that Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial power is laughed off so easily, because it is a telling and frightening sign that California voters are post-literate and incapable of supporting the welfare of their own families and communities -- to a much greater degree than the rest of the country.

I reject the idea that the center is situated somewhere between CBS and CNN, and that the candidates pandering to that "center" are most viable. The television-swayed demographic, so clearly dominant in Los Angeles and the rest of California, will follow whoever wins. I saw it in 2004 when nobody gave a fuck what was happening until Kerry won a couple of states, and then you started seeing everyone with Kerry stickers -- just because he was winning and they saw it on t.v.! "Well, you got to go with a winner, man." These people are morons, Jason. There's no need to cater to them. They'll reliably follow whoever is winning, so why not craft a primary process where a progressive is favored to win and present the t.v. voters with a good, progressive frontrunner for once?

Or fuck it, just depress the young, the activists, the independent-minded. We won't need all of them in November, will we?

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

---

by: mildewmaximilian @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:45:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll concede .... (0.00 / 0)

.... that a lot, maybe most, voters are not exactly making their decisions rationally. But your post seemed to imply that it was Hillary voters, as opposed to Obama voters, who base their decisions on frivolous factors. You contrasted your "young, gay/straight mix, racially diverse" friends, who you identified as Obama supporters, with "marshmallow-shaped, middle-aged people" who were supporting Hillary.

You said:

"Hillary Clinton really is like the McDonald's of the Democratic candidates. No good god-damn reason to go there except you've been there before and you know the brand."

Which is true enough, but by singling out Hillary in this way, you imply that Obama is somehow different in this regard, which he's not. And if all we have left is two brand names, why is it any more irrational to pick one over the other?

You want to empower activists in the nominating process, with the idea that they'll produce a more progressive candidate. There are a couple of issues here. First, it's not clear that that's true; the people you're talking about have gone in for Obama as opposed to the more progressive candidates like Edwards or Kucinich. Second, you say that "These people are morons" and thus "there's no need to cater to them." The first part is maybe true, but the second part isn't. Even if they're morons, they're the morons who are going to decide the election in November. If informed, committed activists are choosing a nominee without regard for their appeal to "low information voters," so to speak, we will have a real problem. I mean, hell, if I could pick the president it would be Bernie Sanders or somebody, but that person would probably not do well in a general election.  

---

by: Jason C. @ Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:40:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

90% certainty? (0.00 / 0)

"As such, I can say with about 90% certainty that Obama will still be ahead in pledged delegates heading into Saturday."

Well, CNN still sees a tie:
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTIO...

Hmm, by saying "ahead", you don't mean "ahead by three or four", right, Chris? Let's wait and see.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

---

by: Gray @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 23:40:01 PM CST

Not irrational exuberance! (0.00 / 0)

I went to bed as Obama began to pull ahead in Missouri. I am so euphoric. Team Obama kept Team Clinton within 100 delegates as they had hoped. However cliched, from sea to shining sea, from Connecticut to Alaska, people believed in him. The Clinton team can also be proud that they pulled out Massachusetts, California, and Arizona.  

"Here's a song about blind faith. That's always a dangerous thing, whether it's in your girlfriend--or if it's in your government." Bruce Springsteen, quoted in Glory Days (Born in the USA tour??)  

---

by: 4jkb4ia @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 00:37:07 AM CST

Missouri (0.00 / 0)

The pattern is similar to how Claire won. I hope there are no snide remarks about Kenya in the Obama hater sphere.  

"Here's a song about blind faith. That's always a dangerous thing, whether it's in your girlfriend--or if it's in your government." Bruce Springsteen, quoted in Glory Days (Born in the USA tour??)  

---

by: 4jkb4ia @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:01:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama won last night (4.00 / 1)

Not only was the network coverage abysmal but blogs haven't been that much better. This is a very good analysis.

Obama won pretty big last night. He took 14 or 15 states -- that was more than anyone thought he'd get. He took many of those by ginormous percentages. He won the delegate count (probably) by as much as 30 or 40, we won't know for awhile by exactly how much, which was more than just about anybody predicted. And even in the states where he lost he generally kept the margin down to respectable numbers.

Here's one of the big lessons of tonight: the media is much more 'stupid' than 'liberal' or 'conservative.'

---

by: Matt H @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 00:45:54 AM CST

A good night for him. (0.00 / 0)

Not a great one -- a great night would've been winning CA, NJ, or MA  -- but very respectable. Pending the polling picture in Texas and Ohio, he's well positioned for the next stretch of the race.

Incidentally, an hour or so ago I did some quick-and-dirty math by adding up all the delegates from states where we had the full count, and the popular vote margin multiplied by the total delegates for states where we don't, and came out with a 3.92 delegate advantage for Clinton. Out of 1681. Can't get much closer than that. Since then, California has narrowed from a 13 point spread to 10.

---

by: illissius @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:11:06 AM CST

So no deadlock? (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for best reporting on the web.

---

by: aiko @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:14:53 AM CST

Wake up Chris! and get posting! (4.00 / 1)

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:29:54 AM CST

voters and delegates (0.00 / 0)

It will be interesting to see how Chris's 'pledged delegates' argument evolves if Clinton ends up narrowly ahead. But one thing that is clear after Super Tuesday is that Clinton is far ahead in terms of votes. She won significantly, 10% or more, in the large states she won, in the large states Obama won the margins were narrow, he nets 300k votes between NY and IL, the home state contest. It will be hard to tell how the votes break down in the smaller caucus states, but the delegate totals probably overstate the popular vote gap.

Winning the popular vote will be a powerful argument to the Gore 2000 Democratic party.

---

by: souvarine @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:54:58 AM CST

Sorry all wrong. (4.00 / 1)

Clinton won one state by 60% or more, Obama won several with 60% and several with over 70% of the vote.

Obama won most states and most delegates states.

Further states look very very good for Obama, there is no way HRC can catch up.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:17:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not really (0.00 / 0)

A quick calculation, with over 95% of the vote counted pretty much everywhere:

Clinton - 7,350,349 votes
Obama - 7,295,723 votes

It isn't clear what to do with the caucus numbers, so this is just treating the 'state delegate' counts reported by CNN as the vote totals. This is probably unfair to Obama, as each of those state delegates represents more than one vote. Now, the counterbalance to that is that there may be some precincts where Clinton didn't reach eligibility, and thus gets zero state delegates despite getting some "votes". Still, on balance this probably underestimates the number of people who supported Obama on Tuesday.

In any case, it is quite clear that even the popular vote total was extremely, extremely close: < 60,000 out of a total of perhaps 15 million votes cast (since the numbers above don't reflect the ~5% that Edwards and Uncommitted got).

---

by: Tim Sackton @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:31:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama Wins most delegates, most states. Victory (0.00 / 0)

And there is angry talk about California "Decline to State" voters being ripped off for various reasons. Obama was big with DtS so that could push higher.

But Time has this -Obama 845 Clinton 836 and NBC has Obama 841 to 839 Clinton, so the fact is its no tie as Todd at mydd is saying, and it certainly doesn't go to Hillary.

HRC lost super, there will be slew of endorsements over the next few days or even hours to convince her, it's time to concede.

It's time to rally round the new candidate. Rally round and argue about a Veep.

I still say that Gore is the best choice to go for the win.
He will take it as a coronation(of service), he will lend a ton of cred to the race (not that its needed) he is vetted (winning the vote for President will do that), he has a brilliant mind unlike many politicians, he seems to be without ego now, and without self consciousness, it brings an almost Camelot aura to the ticket, he can handle the environment from Cheney's "enhanced" VP office, and it just sends a message of sanity. "America was lost, we're back now." ("Gore? Wow they are serious about change.")

It will seem like a huge, HUGE, selfless act from Gore. To be denied the presidency by tricks, to have the country ruined by those tricks and their perps, and then for Gore to be willing just to serve. "Gore because he wants to serve."

Because this isn't just about Obama, its "yes We can."

And because I want the same policies and drive and commitment to change to continue, if, god forbid, anything should happen to this wonderful leader.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:14:39 AM CST

Expectations and delegates (4.00 / 1)

I think Obama had a good night and outperformed expectations in some places.  But what really helped him is that the media underestimated how much more effectively caucuses could deliver disproportionate delegate counts.  Looking at the actual results, the idea of Clinton winning by 100 or more pledged delegates is actually pretty laughable.  It would have have required a total landslide.

So to be fair, I don't think its reasonable to talk up the "some people were saying he could lose by 100" without acknowledging that those opinions appear to have been based on pretty faulty assumptions, given what everybody knew a few days ago about how voters were breaking.

I think Obama has the advantage but I still don't really see a clear path for him.  He could quite possibly sweep the next two weeks, or only lose Maine.  Clinton will probably make the biggest stand in Wisconsin.  But even if he does that, if he can't translate that momentum into a victory in Ohio or Texas, he may be in trouble.  The apparent importance yesterday of local and state machines in places like MA, IL, CA, and NJ makes me think that it will be tough for him in PA, even with lots of time to organize and barnstorm.  And if Obama can't win one of the big three, the most likely scenario is one in which pledged delegates are basically a wash, but Clinton has better connections with supers and the FL+MI card still to play.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

---

by: FuzzyDunlop @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:28:17 AM CST

Agree (0.00 / 0)

I think this is right, although I wonder what that Florida/Michigan card really is.  Honestly, if they try to change the rules in the middle of the game there should be a mutiny within the party.  I'm not sure they can push it very far.  But I'm very concerned about OH/TX/PA which would seem to be great states for Clinton.  He needs to keep the money pouring in (which is why I gave more this morning), but he then needs to translate that into wins in difficult states.

---

by: charliet @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:55:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Colorado Update (0.00 / 0)

Colorado has 55 delegates selected in the caucuses. It might not be formalized until the county conventions March 8th, or perhaps later.

If I understand the process correctly, 36 delegates are selected district-by-district, and the other 19 by the statewide caucus vote. Super delegates are 16 more.

I already looked at the district delegates. I didn't have exact numbers, so there was some eyeballing of the county map involved.

Obama won the Colorado 67 to 32. If that is applied to the remaining 19 delegates, he gets 13 and Clinton 6.

New totals:
- 35 Obama
- 20 Clinton
- 16 Superdelegates

The Colorado political establishment is likely to go strongly for Obama, so I bet Clinton evens things up a lot by the end.

---

by: MetaData @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:48:29 AM CST

Obama won a path to the nomination (0.00 / 0)

Obama has a clear path now, through the favorable territory in February and topping it off with wins in Texas and Ohio on March 4th.

He definitely has the big momentum coming off of tonight. With no states that are objectively pro-Clinton coming up in the next few weeks, it's tough to see how Clinton can stop Obama. She'll make her last stand in Texas, but if she can't stop him there, she'll soon drop out.

---

by: Kal @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:56:26 AM CST

That's a path (0.00 / 0)

But winning in TX and/or OH won't be easy for him.

The last Texas poll (a few days ago) had Clinton +10.  A poll in Ohio in late January had Clinton +23.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

---

by: FuzzyDunlop @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:28:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Clinton was favored there last month (0.00 / 0)

But we'll get a clearer picture of the race in TX and OH once we get some post-2/5 polling.

Keep in mind too that it is very likely that Obama will win state after state this month. That has to result in some good press.

---

by: Kal @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:48:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I want to believe this is true (0.00 / 0)

but I'm still shaking my head at last night's atrocious MSM coverage. I fear that if initial polls show HRC significantly up in Ohio and Texas then all we will hear is the uphill climb that Obama has to do against Her Magnificence.

---

by: Matt H @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:27:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama's not so hot on the issues (0.00 / 0)

If I were Obama, I'd be very concerned about the next debate. Not only is Clinton encyclopedic in her knowledge of policy, but her positions are more progressive than Obama's and more "in your face" vis a vis the domestic mush of John McCain (we'll be hearing more and more about him from the Clinton camp).  If Hillary decides to aggresively expose Obama's glaring weaknesses on health care, social security and the economy, he could be in for a long night.

---

by: Upstate Dem @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:57:31 AM CST

Definitely Obama's night (0.00 / 0)

I think the overall sentiment can be summed up by the statement that Obama had a good night--slightly short of great, but with the way the upcoming schedule is looking he could be on a multi state winning streak before we get to Ohio and Texas (DC, VA, MD, WA, LA, HI, WS etc etc) so that tide of momentum should help him close the gap. His fundraising advantage can be put to good use flooding the airwaves in Ohio and TExas for a month as well. So I think there is definitely a clearer path to the nomination for Obama than for Clinton and therefore the night of Super Tuesday must be judged as an Obama victory. Interesting to note as well that the Intrade market has swung to him this morning.  

---

by: sam44 @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:45:23 AM CST