A look by the states

A battle of the titans; look at the states taken by each campaign thus far:

Obama:  AL, AK, CO, CT, GA, DE, ID, IL, KS, MN, UT, ND, MO, SC, IA

Clinton: AZ, AR, CA, MA, NJ, ND, OK, TN, NY, FL, MI, NV, NH

Clinton also takes American Samoa (ha), and NM is still outstanding. 29 states down; 21 to go, plus a few stragglers from abroad...

But delegates, lets talk delegates tomorrow...

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

115 Comments

Re: A look by the states

So that sure beats the 7 that you thought Barack was going to get right? Possibly doubling that I think is doing pretty well.  Maybe even over performing. Will you give him credit?

by recusancy 2008-02-05 08:16PM | 0 recs
Obama won more states

when he was suppose to win only 3 of them.  Amazing!!!

by puma 2008-02-05 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won more states

Amazing will be when Clinton makes her victory speech at the Convention.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-05 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won more states

what utter crap!

do you think people here werent paying attention?

stop the stupid juvenile lying huh?

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-05 09:31PM | 0 recs
Been wanting to say this all night

Bill Clinton for First Lady!!  (sorry feel better now)

by jelyfish 2008-02-05 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Don't laugh at American Samoa! My question is: which kind of Girl Scout cookie do they most favor?

by bowiegeek 2008-02-05 08:17PM | 0 recs
I just bought some girl scout cookies

from a neighbor, and they stopped calling them samoas! I forgot what they call that cookie now.

by desmoinesdem 2008-02-05 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I just bought some girl scout cookies

Carmel de-lites or something like that.

by Vox Populi 2008-02-05 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I just bought some girl scout cookies

WTF

by bowiegeek 2008-02-05 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Don't ever knock America Samoa, Jerome.

The exit polls showed "Virgin Volcano Sacrifices" as their #1 concern, shortly ahead of "Economy" and "Immigration."

by ChrisR 2008-02-05 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

From my back of the envelope calculation, Hillary got about a million more votes today.  Hard to call it exactly because of the caucus states.

by Steve M 2008-02-05 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Thanks.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-05 08:19PM | 0 recs
This Just In

MSNBC calls the universe for Obama.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-05 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

If Obama is ahead in delegates tomorrow, will you say that he's the victor of Super Tuesday?

by Kal 2008-02-05 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Wait for California... so far big win for Hillary.

by jelyfish 2008-02-05 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Obama appears to be making up a lot of the gap.

by tunesmith 2008-02-05 09:28PM | 0 recs
Shouldn't you at *least* put an asterisk...

...next to MI and FL?

FL you could make an argument for her winning (semi) fair & square, but not MI...

by Brainwrap 2008-02-05 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I want that Hillary press release crowing about her Missouri win.  Obama 49, Clinton 48!

The rest of this month's contests all favor Obama.  Clinton can't wait that long--that's what killed Giuliani.  The request for several more debates was shrewd on her part since it effectively stalls and runs out the clock, which favors her.

It's only 10:20pm on the West Coast--plenty of discussion hours left!

Obama will win my state--WA--easily this Saturday.

by Sandwich Repairman 2008-02-05 08:21PM | 0 recs
Very funny!

I want to see this!

by puma 2008-02-05 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Could you provide a link to the WA state democratic caucus

by kyee7k 2008-02-05 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Sure: http://www.wa-democrats.org/caucusinfo

Which district are you in?  I'm in the 43rd.  OBAMA COUNTRY!!!  :D

by Sandwich Repairman 2008-02-05 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

District 2

by kyee7k 2008-02-05 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I have a friend at work from Roy.

http://www.2ndlegislativewa.com/

by Sandwich Repairman 2008-02-05 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Lets figure out who advertises on MSNBC and start a boycott.

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-05 08:23PM | 0 recs
Talking delegates tonight

Taking numbers from various sources, tonight only, Clinton 433, Obama 328. Still missing 300+ from CA, 81 from IL, 53 from NY, 51 from MO, and so one.

NBC basically thinks it will be close to a tie, 840/840/

by msn1 2008-02-05 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Talking delegates tonight

For Obama a tie is a win.  I should go looking for some ripe comments from a few months ago mocking and deriding Obama based on early polling.  Pride cometh before the fall.  We have done very well, methinks.    Eh, Howard Dean?  Thanks for blazing the trail for us.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-02-05 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Talking delegates tonight

Chuck Todd was just saying about 847-847, but that's before the superdelegates.  I heard Sen. Boxer will endorse Clinton since she won CA.  But more recently Obama has been doing with superdelegates.  Clinton should maintain a narrow lead because of them for the next couple days.  But I think this weekend Obama will gain ground on her.

by Sandwich Repairman 2008-02-05 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Michigan and Florida still don't matter.

Nice predictions, btw.

by Colin Kalmbacher 2008-02-05 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

MI and FL do matter!  They will be represented at the convention.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-05 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

exit poll in NM had it as an OBama win. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/02/hillary_wins_california. php

by mecarr 2008-02-05 08:27PM | 0 recs
Clinton wins hands down

She won all of the diverse big states.

Obama rolled up delegates in the caucus red states and the deep red south.

The gap in CA is stunning.

She wins.

It will go on, and the next contests are good for Obama, but she will win the debates, and it seems she will carry the big states.

She wins.

CA was critical.

by MediaFreeze 2008-02-05 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins hands down

How have the debates affected anything thus far?  Other than Hillary's debacle in Philadelphia, I don't think they've done squat.  More people go to caucuses than watch them.  Debates 112-117 won't change many minds.

by Sandwich Repairman 2008-02-05 08:40PM | 0 recs
Obama ought to

agree to no more than two debates... and I'd try to get away with one.

With the favorable schedule in front of him and a huge money advantage -- he ought to just bleed her dry.   No free media for HRC.

He needs to start playing the like teh front runner.  The front runner doesn't come running every time the challenger wants to debate... the front runner says the frontrunner will have to check the schedule.

by zonk 2008-02-05 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama ought to

Well, that strategy will sure convince all of us that Obama's "new politics" is something other than a frothy marketing ploy.

by InigoMontoya 2008-02-06 06:23AM | 0 recs
Riiiiggghhhhtttt

Because no way Obama can carry CA, NY, MA, and NJ in the general election, right?

by zonk 2008-02-05 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Riiiiggghhhhtttt

But Hillary won them. When did non-democrats start choosing who will run for the Democratic nomination? Are we discounting self-identified democrats now? Do we think their preference doesn't matter?

by hctb 2008-02-05 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins hands down

Why did this comment deserve a TR? Please explain, Sandwich Repairman.

by Denny Crane 2008-02-05 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Nobody can explain to me how you can win the Democratic nomination when you lose:

-CALI
-NY
-NJ
-MASS

by bdog 2008-02-05 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Hang around and you will see.  Politics is all about good strategy.  Honestly, as recently as a month or two ago how did you rate his chances to holding her to a delegate tie today?  Honestly?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-02-05 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

By winning most of the others lol

by Vox Populi 2008-02-05 08:32PM | 0 recs
She was suppose to win those states

Did HRC win any states that she wasn't suppose to win?  Nope.

Did Obama?  Yep:  He wasn't suppose to win Connecticut or Missouri and he did.

by puma 2008-02-05 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: She was suppose to win those states

Connecticut was called for Obama by many and Missouri was widely regarded as a close race either way.  

Whereas, if you read the press and the polls, Hillary was headed for disaster in California and Massachusetts.  LOL.

by InigoMontoya 2008-02-05 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

So you want to nominate the Dem candidate based on caucuses in states where we won't win:

Utah
Idaho
Alaska
Kansas

by bdog 2008-02-05 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I want to nominate based on the principle of one person, one vote.  Is there a problem with that principle?  Maybe Clinton can't win red or purple states, but Obama can.

by Sandwich Repairman 2008-02-05 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I think you're a little light on the mayo.  There's no way in hell that a Democrat in 2008 will carry Alaska, Utah, North Dakota, or Kansas.  

Fwiw, look at Obama's impressive win on high turnout in Georgia...and then look at the total Republican vote.  I swear, Georgia is trending to be one of the five most Republican states in the country.

by InigoMontoya 2008-02-05 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Georgia is about the only and strongest Republican-trending state, yes.

I am light on the mayo indeed.  1) I have high cholesterol.  2) I'm Jewish; I eat mustard.

Five specific states notwithstanding, Obama clearly puts more red/purple states in play than Clinton.  She'd struggle to hold onto some blue ones like WI and MN.  Obama's vote ceiling is much higher than Clinton's.  Far more Americans, fairly or not, rational or not, will NEVER cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton.

Clinton can win 49-48.  Obama can win 55-45 or 53-47.

by Sandwich Repairman 2008-02-05 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Apparently over 6 million Americans didn't get the memo.  

by atomic garden 2008-02-05 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Obama is more likely to lose 55-45.   He reminds me of a cross between Jimmy Carter (politically naive) and George McGovern (inspiring passion...among a minority).

by InigoMontoya 2008-02-06 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

One person, one vote?  It's pretty clear who's ahead by that measure.

by Steve M 2008-02-05 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

"Hey Curly, ya kill anyone today?"

"Day ain't over yet."

by Sandwich Repairman 2008-02-05 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Ummm...Arkansas, Tennesse, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona?????????

by bdog 2008-02-05 08:47PM | 0 recs
New Mexico?

Is that a different New Mexico from the one that's still toss-up - but with Obama leading by a few votes?

by zonk 2008-02-05 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Arkansas-- the state that could have given us  8 years of Gore if only Gore if he got 10K more dems to the polls..  

by hctb 2008-02-05 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

One person one vote?  Clinton won the vote total tonight by a huge amount, yet the delegate total will be more or less tied, because Obama picked up large numbers of delegates from small turnout caucus states that discriminate against workers and caregivers.  I would be very pleased if this were settled on a one person one vote principle.

by markjay 2008-02-05 08:57PM | 0 recs
Wait till

2016 and propose new DNC convention rules, I guess.

by zonk 2008-02-05 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

So would I, in a fair process.  I'm not a DNC member.  I don't make the rules.  If I did, we'd never have this many states voting at once in a nominating contest.

by Sandwich Repairman 2008-02-05 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

This has got to be the dumbest argument out there.  Dennis Kucinich would win NY, CA, MA, and IL as the Democratic nominee. Any Democrat would.  That Obama lost most of those states in the primary has no relevance to the general.  At least he would have some crossover appeal in states where we traditionally don't perform well.

by rfahey22 2008-02-05 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

So the idea is that he wins no matter what right? I'm still confused about that. He wins more states, he wins. He wins more delegates, he wins. Clinton is nominated for the Presidency, somehow, he'll still be the winner right?

lol Much like Kos, it's funny that know California was a guaranteed Clinton victory. Not what y'all were chirping yesterday as you quoted Zogby.

by atomic garden 2008-02-05 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I was just answering the question of how it's possible to win the nomination without CA and the other states mentioned.  The person above me tried to dismiss Obama's delegates because they came from states we may not be able to win in the general, and I pointed out that that argument is completely nonsensical.

Whoever "wins" tonight is for the media and campaigns to decide.  I've never quoted Zogby, so I have no idea what you're talking about on that front.

by rfahey22 2008-02-05 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Uhh I think we need Missouri. I think we need Iowa. Colorado, etc...

And 80% in one state and it's Idaho. Wow.

by Progressive America 2008-02-05 08:36PM | 0 recs
Because

those are all Democratic gimmes in November?

by zonk 2008-02-05 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

How can you possibly add FL and MI to your Clinton total.  All that counts are Delegates and those delegates won't be seated.  Any play for them is clearly an attempt to change the rules of the game to suit the results you want to achieve.

The Ends DO NOT justify the means.  We're not Republicans.  Play by the rules.

by GregSF 2008-02-05 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

MI and FL did play by the rules.  They wanted a stake in the early nominating process, and they will be seated.  In the end, it will be these institutional advantages that will ultimately give Hillary the nomination.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-05 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Boy, that's fair.

by rfahey22 2008-02-05 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

They traded media attention for their delegates.

Stupid, imho, but their right.

by scvmws 2008-02-05 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I don't care what candidate you favor, the DNC has to abandon this ridiculous proportional allocation of delegates.  IMO, winner takes all should be the way it goes.

by CVDem 2008-02-05 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I strongly disagree.

by Vox Populi 2008-02-05 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

One of my rare moments of agreement with Vox Populi (I beg your forgiveness, VP).   I like the idea of modified proportional allocation, where a 15 percent threshold gets you something but if you win the district/state, you get the advantage...no splitting a CD 2/2 on a 55-45 vote.

by InigoMontoya 2008-02-05 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

For future contests, we could give every district an odd number of delegates -- or, assign districts with an even number of delegates (x-1)  whole votes and 2 half votes.

by scvmws 2008-02-05 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I thought of that after I posted last night, a large part of the problem would be addressed by just having an odd number of delegates per CD.   You're never going to get perfectly proportional results.  

But, imho, a victory should be rewarded with an edge in delegates, not a tie.

by InigoMontoya 2008-02-06 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

How about a straight proportional allocation? Why do we need a threshold at all? The crazy CD allocation is just awful. It makes no sense that votes in other CDs count for more (or less) than mine.

by LakersFan 2008-02-05 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Wouldn't you then have to increase the amount of delegates to make them conform more to the popular vote?  If a state has 10 delegates and a candidate gets 65% of the vote, does the candidate get 6 delegates or 7?  Do you increase the delegates to 100, so that the candidate then gets 65?

by rfahey22 2008-02-05 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I suppose you'd need to do that in smaller states. I live in CA and with all our delegates, I think we could handle the fractions with straight proportional.

by LakersFan 2008-02-05 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

They are trying to account for the packing of democrats in certain areas. Some argue this is particularly important for minority-maj districts.

by hctb 2008-02-05 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I don't see how that makes a difference. If it was proportional, it wouldn't matter if Democrats were more packed in certain areas. It seems to me, it's a way to reward the voters in CDs that regularly turn-out to vote.

by LakersFan 2008-02-05 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I don't agree, I think it should be proportional allocation, but if a candidate gets 50% of more, it should be winner-take-all.

by RJEvans 2008-02-05 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Interesting idea.

by danIA 2008-02-05 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I just find it ludicrous in two instances so far:

Iowa, Obama wins by 8% and beats HRC by 1 delegate

Nevada, HRC wins by 8%, and loses by 1 delegate.

How about % of delegates based on % of vote?

by CVDem 2008-02-05 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Thank you for that brilliant insight.

Not.

by cswartout 2008-02-05 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

The compressed, front-loaded process is already skewed in favor of establishment candidates.  We're Democrats; we don't nominate someone just because it's their "turn" a la Bob Dole.  What we need is a rotating regional primary system that runs from March to June and doesn't put Iowa and New Hampshire in front of everyone else.

by Sandwich Repairman 2008-02-05 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I did some quick math. Among primary states ONLY, the popular vote for all the races since NH to now is:

Clinton: 7,129,124
Obama: 6,555,883

Of course, votes are still being counted in CA and NM. Caucus states, there are no popular vote numbers, but we could estimate.

by RJEvans 2008-02-05 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I think Obama's performance tonite has to be measured in the context of the expectations.  Clinton has been a solid front-runner for months, had tons of money, has a famous husband, has greater name recognition....  she had all the structural advantages.

Looking at tonite's numbers (Obama won 13 or 14 states and took a slight lead in delegates), his prospects are a lot brighter than hers, and he is on an upward trajectory, while she loses ground every day.

by global yokel 2008-02-05 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Oh, yeah, I agree about the expectations:  all the press, all the polls about the incredible, inexorable Obama "Mo", complete with the blessing of Saint Ted Kennedy and Maria Shriver.

Feh.  

I expect Obama to continue to do well in caucus states.  (N.B., I've always disliked the caucus process, no matter how fascinating DesMoinesDem makes it sounds.  They're fundamentally anti-democratic, giving disproportionate power to small, passionate and well-organized groups over broader metrics of support.

However, in Texas and Ohio, sayonara to Obama.   Maryland and Virginia may be narrow victories one way or the other, certainly nothing definitive.

And I must get me sister in-law in Seattle to attend the caucuses...she's pro-Hillary.

by InigoMontoya 2008-02-05 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I agree and I also live in Iowa.  My father refused to participate in the MN caucus because he couldn't just cast his ballot and leave.  I am convinced that less people participate in caucuses.

by CVDem 2008-02-05 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Actually, MN uses a presidential preference ballot.

It is not a caucus for President.  You go to the caucus location, you cast your ballot and leave.

by rcipw 2008-02-05 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Seattle is Obama country.  There are about 25 Obama buttons and bumper stickers here for each Hillary one.  He's raised more money here than Clinton.  He's ahead of her in the polls here by double digits.  My non-political customers are overwhelmingly caucusing for Obama.  I have an old Jewish lady who comes in almost every night to rant about Hillary.  Tell your sister in law to do something more worthwhile.

by Sandwich Repairman 2008-02-05 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

SR, there are a lot more Obama stickers and buttons in California than Hillary stickers/buttons.   From the fact that I haven't seen a single Hillary bumper sticker, should I conclude that Obama is going to rout Hillary here in California?  Oh...wait....

But you're right.   I'll advise my Seattle-area sister in-law to not only caucus but to lobby her peers to go caucus as well.

by InigoMontoya 2008-02-06 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

We are way past the point of thinking about expectations and moral victories.  Over half the states have voted.

by Steve M 2008-02-05 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Clinton has 16 + years of favors being called in. She is the closest thing we could have to an incumbent. She has MASSIVE institutional support.  Name recognition that Muhammad Ali would envy.

And Obama is fighting her every step of the way.

The question is will the gloves come off so he can draw sharper distinctions or will he wait because the terrain favors him the next few weeks.

This is a political fight that none of us has ever seen. I'm rooting for Obama but I am enjoying all of the back and forth.

Tomorrow is a new day. I can't wait.

by cswartout 2008-02-05 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Yeah, well, that will what yall kept saying about California and it didn't happen.  California has a message for Oprah- "Oprah, go back home to Chicago and take Obama with you!"

by reasonwarrior 2008-02-05 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Counting states is silly. Counting vote margins is something else.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-05 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Clinton wins popular vote according to CNN. 49% to 48%.

by RJEvans 2008-02-05 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Don't forget Obama's 100% wall-to-wall positive media coverage that he has had for about 4 weeks.

Don't forget the Kennedy "magic".

Don't forget Oprah?

In NJ, MASS and CALI, Hillary stopped Obama cold.

by bdog 2008-02-05 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Losing leads of 20+% over a couple of weeks isn't her stopping anyone cold.  At best, she held on by her fingernails...

Let's revisit how "cold" he is in a week - after 3 caucuses and the Chesapeake Bay Primaries.

by SKI 2008-02-05 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

So winning Mass by 15% is holding by your fingernails???  Hmm...interesting.

by bdog 2008-02-05 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

I am not looking forward to a drawn out campaign. Its not good for the party. Maybe when the republicans are still deciding their nominee its good, but McCain is pretty much the nominee and won't be long untill he starts to criticize our party. Lets hope the nomination is settled quickly.

by werd2406 2008-02-05 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Here is spin: Obama has 80%+ positive media coverage according to recent study, compared to Clinton which is less than 50% and he was only able to "tie" Clinton in the delegate race and lose in the popular vote? Clinton has proven she has sustainability.

by RJEvans 2008-02-05 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Thank you.  This is an excellent test of mettle for the first female president....

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-05 08:42PM | 0 recs
From Kos

New Mexico: 28% of precincts reporting.

Clinton   51%    
Obama     42%    

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-05 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: From Kos

Check again. It's now tied with 38% reporting.

by DPW 2008-02-05 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: From Kos

Actually, Obama is up by about 500 votes.

by DPW 2008-02-05 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

It's currently tied at 38% reporting. Exit polls look good for Obama, but I've been given little reason to trust them so far.

by DPW 2008-02-05 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

When 20% were reporting, Clinton was leading 51-42, so the trend is looking really good fro Obama there.

by Nautilator 2008-02-05 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Back in 2000, Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college lost more states. Then, Kos had a fit. Bush stole the election people claimed!

Today, Hillary won the popular vote, but lost more states. Then, Kos calls Obama victorious. He touts the 13 vs 8 story even claiming that California no longer matters as a result.

Wow! Only Kos can contradict himself like that.

Are these people hypocrites or what?

by 1986dude 2008-02-05 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Well that is Obama central so they would say he wins no matter what.  I'm sure the Hillary campaign may not be thrilled but are happy with their numbers tonight.

by reasonwarrior 2008-02-05 08:53PM | 0 recs
I'd say

relieved.

by zonk 2008-02-05 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Your comparison is off.  People claimed that Bush stole the election because of the vote in Florida, which would have swung that state's electoral votes to Gore.  There was less protest about the nationwide popular vote.  After all, how much energy was devoted to cleaning up the elections process, as opposed to eliminating the electoral college?

In any event, I don't think you can get as much traction out of the popular vote in the primaries as you seem to believe.  Each state's rules are different - open primaries, closed primaries, caucuses that involve horse-trading, straight-up elections, etc.  You can't just look at the raw numbers and say that they tell the whole story.

by rfahey22 2008-02-05 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Did Hillary mention the environment in her speech tonight?

by Piuma 2008-02-05 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Wow, my vote in NC in May might really count this year!  Of course, my wife and I will just cancel each other out.  2 of my 3 kids are also on the Obama bandwagon, but sadly none of them can vote yet!

by NC State Dem 2008-02-05 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Uhh...Jerome, you have North Dakota in the Clinton column....whoops!

by ArkansasLib 2008-02-05 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Actually he has ND in BOTH lists.  Double oops.

by SKI 2008-02-05 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

They counted the absentees first in Cali... San Bernadino County, for example, shows over 30000 votes (11% for Edwards) with no precincts reporting. The absentees favor Hillary big time. In some of the big counties Obama is making up big ground when todays results come in (San Fran, Santa Barbara) although in others he's not. Clinton's definitely in great shape but this won't be the huge blowout it looked like it might.

by Benicio 2008-02-05 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Santa Barbara is not a big county.

by LakersFan 2008-02-05 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

Chuck Todd just pointed to WI as MI. Sorry. that is funny.

by hctb 2008-02-05 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: A look by the states

A "whole bunch of beer-drinking Democrats"?  What the hell kind of demographic is that supposed to be?  I almost feel insulted.

by rfahey22 2008-02-05 09:38PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads