« Clinton Finds A Donor Base | Main | Bush On Obama » Also, Louisiana09 Feb 2008 11:15 pm So -- Obama has now won 10 caucuses and nine primaries. Clinton's won 9 primaries and 2 caucuses. The Obama campaign estimates that Obama's current pledged delegate lead is 72 after tonight. Also: since we're counting, Obama has raised money from 350,000 people since the beginning of the year. Comments (38)
5 victories tonight for Obama.... http://www.politicalinaction.com/2008/02/5-victories-for-barack-obama-tonight.html 
Obama picked up 45 pledged delegates today too, halving that so called super delegate deficit.
If you win by 30 points or so (many of Obama's margins have been that big) you get more than a net of 0 or 1 pledged delegate. Just saying...
But caucuses don't count. And states with large African-American votes don't count. And besides Obama has so much more money. Also, somebody said something about Chelsea and a pimp. So, all in all, it's just what was to be expected, and there's no news here. Love,
Good post Paul....what do we call tonight.."the night of the killing" or "the night of the culling".....'cos what we have seen tonight is what we call a big slaughtering...THIS IS SPARTA!!!!! Blood on the streets of virgin islands...90-10%
Re: That win in the Virgin Islands: (Marc, don't you need to ask the Atlantic to send you on a follow-up survey there for research?? I mean, it's rough, but the beaches might have all the political answers, or maybe just mai-tais!)
While not trying to dilute the sufferings of people during the 2nd world war and the mass murder of the sudanese and people in eastern Europe in recent memory.....lets suffice to say that HRC was absolutely murdered in todays elections.
While not trying to dilute the sufferings of people during the 2nd world war and the mass murder of the sudanese and people in eastern Europe in recent memory.....lets suffice to say that HRC was absolutely murdered in todays elections.
While not trying to dilute the sufferings of people during the 2nd world war and the mass murder of the sudanese and people in eastern Europe in recent memory.....lets suffice to say that HRC was absolutely murdered in todays elections.
Marc...didn't you mean to type "Obama has now won 10 caucuses and 9 primaries" instead of spelling out "nine"...just for the sake of consistency. Or was it just too uncomfortable for you to do a straight up 19 to 11 comparison? If so, I get it...maybe you're subconsciously looking for ways to dull the pain of Obama's decisive victory tally. ;-)
CAUCUSES DON'T COUNT! What is tomorrow's message?
Ouch, Mr. Ambinder. This last post makes you look bad. Seriously, in sentence construction and the perceptions therein. 9 versus nine? That's silly. If you can Twitter and make sense, surely you can do that here as well. If you harbor a favorite, just say it. This nonsensical objectivity that so many people in your position try to uphold ultimately just makes y'all look foolish. Make a stand. It's okay.
New Mark Penn spin on tonight's results: It's only a flesh wound!
DTM: Please take a look at every contest so far and the delegates allocated. The difference in delegates being 0 or 1 has occurred maybe twice out of over 30 contests.
Obama supporters, do not gloat here tonight. We have work to do in the next few weeks. Obama needs momentum, so if you support him, take some time on Sunday and Monday to phone bank from your home and not beat up on Marc. He needs a break. And on wednesday, make sure to donate to the campaign.
No, what we call tonight is a SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE!
hey KC, not to get off-topic, but the 'nine' vs '9' is a standard element of style (courtesy E.B. White) and probably something to which Marc adheres; no conspiracy there. as for other conspiracies, I would just say to my fellow Obama supporters; let's tone it down a notch. We got a good guy on our hands, but let's not look for some evil HRC narrative in every turn of events for the next few months.
I agree with swarty and miked98 - as an Obama supporter, tonight was a great night, but there is still work to be done. Demonizing Hillary does not contribute to that effort. People who read blogs like this have heard all the stories and have made up their own minds by now. Intraparty warfare doesn't help anyone. Instead, sign up to make phone calls to supporters on Obama's website, call friends and family and ask them to support Obama, donate time and money, etc.
Yeah, and the Obama campaign estimated a 100 delegate lead after February 5. They lie constantly and shamelessly. CNN says Hillary has the lead in delegates after tonight still, and so does Real Clear Politics. Not that the MSM outlets don't lie as well, but at least not as blatantly and consistently as the Obama campaign.
Obama wins a lot of cruddy little backwater states. He always has. Hillary obliterates those with the big states that count. She always will. Also Hillary DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE MOST AGRESSIVELY RACIST SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION for her victories. She can hold her head high in that regard. Nor does she depend on THE MOST AGRESSIVELY MISOGYNISTIC SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION. The QUASI RELIGIOUS CULT FIGURE has full support from those who vote BASED ONLY ON RACE. He can be proud of that fact, I'm sure.
I'm a liar.
Time was, a Democrat could think about winning Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas, to say nothing of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa in a national election. It seems pretty clear that the people in those states are more interested in one candidate over the other (except for Arkansas ;-) It seems to me that Obama is better than Clinton for downticket races in those red/blue border states. I don't understand why national electability isn't a bigger concern for Democrats in '08, particularly if the GOP candidate is a so-called "Straight Talker" with a penchant for charming independents.
I keep hearing about how the Clintons win where it counts...those big states. Surely they must be the better candidate if they can carry those huge blocks of land. Take a gander at ALL the numbers so far: Super Tuesday Clinton: 50.2% (7,427,942) **Clinton wins this category by 57,919 http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/super_tuesday_the_most_interes.html
Overall primary vote Obama wins this category by 159,133 Total States won 19 primaries 10 caucuses Earned delegates Obama wins this category by 31 Superdelegates **Clinton wins this category by 92 So the Clintons, by focusing on the big states has managed to win the super Tuesday popular vote by 57,000 and the unearned superdelegates by 92...and THAT'S IT. So please...someone tell me why they are showing they are winning? Data site: Delegate data site:
I'd hate to stick my neck out on this, but I have to say I wouldn't be surprised if Obama wins Maine, too, and by a big margin. The Bangor rally was absolutely amazing -- an incredibly energetic and varied crowd. Lots of working class families with their kids, along with college students, long-time Democratic activists (including older women who are on school boards and party committees). The volunteer firefighters were there, cheering Obama. Those who think that the Maine Governor's endorsement would matter don't know Maine politics. Not only is he pretty unpopular these days, Maine's independent, Yankee traditions make endorsements unimportant. You have a population that votes in very high numbers and they don't follow what leaders tell them to do. The feeling in the two camps tells the tale. Clinton people tell you that they want a woman president and that she has experience, but there is no energy or passion in their voices. Obama supporters are energized. They have been working the state for weeks. Clinton had more appearances in the state, but they came after virtually no organizing. There will probably be mobs at the caucuses and this favors Obama. You never know in Maine and Lewiston may end up swinging it to Clinton. But I suspect that if she wins, it will be a narrow one.
The momentum is real. Obama will win Maine by a solid margin.
Hello, Marc, commenters- On the Democratic side, Obama will have a great deal of momentum after this Tuesday. After his three victories on Saturday the 9th, he will likely sweep the Potomac/Chesapeake (depending on which geographical expression is more acccurate) primaries on Tuesday the 12th. These wins will continue to fuel his free media coverage and will also permit him to increase his already substantial lead in $$$...
Shilling is probably frowned upon, but what the hey: The best site I've seen for election reporting is the Field. Al Giordano is an amazing reporter and a very smart fella. He's had to stop his blog because they've run out of money. Check out the site and then maybe give him a donation if you'd like it to continue. It's here: http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/ He beats Marc's reporting all to hell. Sorry bout that, Marc.
I suggest the Robert Ethan fellow read this before he starts throwing down the ALL CAPS arguments http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Look at this man's (Obama) organization! Brilliant! It is my opinion, that it says a lot about how he would be as President. Give the guy some credit- he has done what no one thought anyone (black or white) could do. That is - go up and win against the Clintons! Amazing. She thought she was inevitable and didn't need to work that hard, she didn't need the little guy, she depended on her big donors. He had the judgement to know it was going to be tough and a fight. He did what people thought was going to be impossible! Ahh... the audacity of hope.
I wanted to add another comment from Maine, partially in agreement and partially in disagreement with Sue above. On the one hand, that is absolutely spot-on correct about endorsements, they only matter locally and the Governor's office isn't local enough for people to care. Also, we're an extremely hard state to judge, for example the results of voting on statewide ballot initiatives are often the opposite of what polling predicts and by wide margins. My take is that Mainers tend to stay on the fence and make up their mind relatively late in the game. This thing really could be anyone's, and getting 5,000 people at a rally in northern Maine is an INCREDIBLE accomplishment. That said, I think Clinton has a huge amount of support in rural Maine, and not just from the groups that have been stereotypically cast as her supporters. Many rural Mainers who identify as Democrats were furious at how HRC was treated during the Clinton era, and to them this is an opportunity to put things right and reward her for being the target of so much vitriol over the years. My point is that they're not new voters, or re-energized voters who are part of the Obama wave, they're long-term, committed Democrats who have a lot of familiarity and affection for HRC as a standard-bearer. To them, it's "her turn" not out of entitlement but out of perseverance and character. So that's my subjective take on what happens going into the Maine primary. And just to disclose, I'm a Independent Obama supporter.
Marc, Doesn't Clinton have to win Wisconsin? I mean, we're potentially talking about three weeks of "Obama Wins X" headlines. Three weeks of him on the cable nets in front of screaming, huge crowds with people talking about his recent victories. In order for her to win both OH and TX (and she needs both), she has to win something and Maine doesn't count like Wisconsin. Has she focused on the state at all? I know ARG puts her up, but ARG is infamously bad for their methodology this campaign season.
"How was it, Galbraith asked, that Speer knew his Germans were losing? It was, Speer replied, because the glorious victories of the Fatherland grew ever closer to Berlin."
>Obama wins a lot of cruddy little backwater states. He always has. Hillary obliterates those with the big states that count. She always will.> Uh huh. Illinois, Washington, Minnesota, and Connecticut - backwaters all, right? Interesting how none of the Clinton supporters are able to mention the fact that she's BARELY winning some states where she had 20 point leads a few months ago. Meanwhile, Obama's margin in Illinois was better than 2:1 against her, while her margin in HER home state was nowhere near that spread. What does that tell you about where the momentum is headed?
I apologize if my original post at the top was unclear. Of course it is possible to come out of a contest with a lot more than a net pledged delegate advantage of one. But that doesn't happen just because you "won" the state (and in fact, as we saw in Nevada, the person with the net advantage in pledged delegates may not even have "won" the state). Rather, to get a bigger advantage you have to win more delegates in the congressional districts, or make the threshhold for winning additional delegates statewide, or both. As I noted, all "winning" the state gets you on its own is maybe one pledged delegate (and then only if an odd number of delegates are being split statewide). In other words, my point is that people accustomed to winner-take-all contests seem to be having a hard time understanding that "winning" a state really isn't that important per se. Again, that is because just "winning" the state, without more, isn't enough to get a significant net delegate advantage coming out of the state. Oh, and a final thought: and this limited advantage to "winning" a state doesn't increase just because the state is bigger and has more delegates at stake. Again, to actually get substantially more of those delegates, you either have to win more delegates in the districts or meet the relevant threshholds for more delegates statewide or both. I know some people get this, but I still see a lot of other people doing things like talking about how important it would be to "win" big states like Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Again, for those contests to make a significant difference in pledged delegates, someone will need to do more than just barely win them.
Doesn't Clinton have to win Wisconsin? I mean, we're potentially talking about three weeks of "Obama Wins X" headlines. No, Clinton does not have to win Wisconsin. If she takes merely 40% of the pledged delegates in March, April and May contests (of course, she could and probably will do better than that), Obama would arrive in Denver hundreds of votes shy of a majority -- and would need to pretty much get all of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to get himself over the top on the first ballot. Now, it's possible nearly all the remaining uncommitted superdelegates will gravitate to the pledged delegate winner under such circumstances. But don't bet on it, especially if Hillary does better tha 40% of the remaining. I mean, Obama hasn't yet won a big primary state (other than his home state) except for heavily African-American Georgia. Indeed, the average margin of victory for Clinton in these (by my count)four states has been around twelve points. Even if Hillary wins Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvannia by only half this margin, and wins the other, smaller, demographically comparable primaries, Obama will arrive in Denver with only a very modest lead in pledged delegates, and quite possibly a modest deficit in the popular vote. He'll also have demonstrated very little ability to lock down the blue state base, by losing to Hillary something like two to nine in the largest Democratic primaries. Under such circumstances I doubt he'll take the nod without a fight. Indeed, I doubt he'll take it at all with Florida and Michigan still unaccounted for. My guess is that Clinton still wins this thing, because of her strength with superdelegates.
At this point, I am highly amused by all the posts I have seen which boil down to something like, "If you hold aside all the various contests Obama has won, Obama hasn't done very well so far."
"My guess is that Clinton still wins this thing, because of her strength with superdelegates." Sad.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
At some point people need to wrap their head around the fact that the prize for "winning" a particular caucus or primary is somewhere between zero and one pledged delegates.
Posted by DTM | February 9, 2008 11:30 PM