So much for Obama 's early momentum. What happened to the exit polls that had Obama winning Mass., New Jersey?

Super Tuesday liveblog
http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | February 5, 2008 9:25 PM

For the love of goodness stop with that crazy font sizes/types/layouts.

Posted by chris | February 5, 2008 9:40 PM

obviously it's ridiculous to pay attention to any of the exit poll data at all today. we should be especially careful of reading into the demographic information in them--just like the overall vote means nothing in the exit polls, neither do the breakdowns.

Posted by alex | February 5, 2008 9:41 PM

Are those really delagate counts or just how many delegates are represented by those states. Since returns aren't in yet, I can't believe they're actual delegate counts.

Posted by pls | February 5, 2008 9:46 PM

For someone who claims familiarity with the election process, those are pretty misleading delegate counts on the dem side, don't you think? Since the delegates are awarded proportionally?

Its impossible to project based on current numbers since, even if you account for the proportional allocation, demographics might make results tighter or farther apart than they already are.

Posted by Mark S | February 5, 2008 9:50 PM

Wow, just got back from caucusing in Kansas. Just an amazing experience. The poor volunteers from the Democratic Party were just overwhelmed. They had ten volunteers anticipating 500 people. The news account said there were 2000 people, and I'd say there were probably even more than that.

Our room was about 75% for Obama, no real surprise since its a more affluent area and he seems to do better in affluent areas. But it was really exciting to see so many Democrats, and to hear from so many former Republicans pissed off enough to switch parties.

I haven't ever felt this proud to be a Democrat.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | February 5, 2008 9:57 PM

Marc, if those aren't actual delegate counts at the CD level (and I don't understand how they could be), could you stop posting them...it is seriously confusing to your readers. If they *are* actual delegate counts, can you point us to your source?

Posted by Bklyn | February 5, 2008 10:15 PM

Yes, those delegate counts are meaningless (for the Democrats) as they assume the winner of each state takes them all. Take them down.

The breakdown of county results in NY and NJ (as reported on cnn.com) make it as clear as day: The Latino vote is killing Obama. A very bad omen for California.

Posted by Eric | February 5, 2008 10:17 PM

Bklyn - Thank you! I don't know how any of these delegate counts can be accurate quite yet. In fact, I don't know how the delegate breakdown can be known until much later.

Also - do these delegate breakdowns include previous primaries? Do they include superdelegates? Or are they only the delegates won tonight?

Posted by Nate | February 5, 2008 10:19 PM

Obama is dominating north of 36 30'! He's doing really well in Kansas, Minnesota, and Idaho etc. Those haven't been added to the delegate totals yet. This will be interesting. I can't tell if Clinton will continue to outperform the exit polls in the West as she did in the East.

Posted by Robert | February 5, 2008 10:24 PM

Marc,

Assuming these are raw, unapportioned state totals, your use of these Dem delegate figures is both misleading and unprofessional.

Posted by marcj | February 5, 2008 10:32 PM

Barack's camp says they are ahead --

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Bermans_count_606534.html

Posted by David | February 5, 2008 10:48 PM

I am so proud of Obama. Even though the CT chapter of NOW unleashed an 11th hour attack email on him on his pro-choice position, he still won the state. Way to go O!

It also looks like he'll get at least 1/2 the 22 states, which is great because he'll keep it even with Clinton.

I hope he wins CA.

So much for the Bradley Effect. Everyone was so quick to pigeonhole him, and he has proved everyone wrong. Obama is winning white majority states all over the map - and by WIDE margins.

Obama 08.

Posted by sue | February 5, 2008 10:51 PM

That "delegate count" is, I think, a half-assed attempt to avoid "calling" states as if this were the electoral college. As if a shoestring lead in the overall vote in any particular state has any real impact on the delegate count.

I've learned one thing reading the comments to this blog: the "author" is an idiot and the readers are better informed. Also, the author doesn't read the comments. Too busy "twittering" or getting spun, I guess.

Posted by Paul | February 5, 2008 10:52 PM

probably should adjust the #'s above since the democrats distribute proportionally.

per Ben Smith at Politico...

Berman's count: 606-534

David Plouffe, on a conference call just now, offered the Obama campaign's estimate of where they stand at this moment in terms of delegates.

"We are, in terms of delegates, ahead currently: about 606 to 534, in terms of pledged delegates awarded tonight," he said.

The Obama campaign's delegate guy, Jeff Berman, caught and corrected the inaccurate early reports of Nevada's delegate count, so they've got credibility on this count.

Plouffe cited wide margins in Kansas and Minnesota, as well as the fact that Obama had a larger margin in Illinois than Clinton did in New York.

Posted by platter17 | February 5, 2008 10:53 PM

I voted for HRC. Sorry, I had to support my girl friend. I accepted her views. Towards the end, I felt Obama was arrogant. Towards the end, I found HRC strong, ready, and someone who has taken a lot of bull-shit from press, GOP, etc.

Posted by eorse | February 5, 2008 11:01 PM

I meant to say I accepted my friend's views in support of HRC.

Posted by eorse | February 5, 2008 11:03 PM

Massachusets native Michael Whouley TOOK DOWN THE KENNEDY CLAN IN THEIR HOME STATE!

Hot ****ing Dog!

Posted by robert ethan | February 5, 2008 11:04 PM

In my Colorado caucus precinct, about 98% white people, Obama 127, Clinton 26. 5 delegates for Obama to 1 delegate for Clinton sent to the state process.

Obama is going to make some serious delegate ground in the caucus states. He's just killing in them.
I think it shows he has the greater ability to inspire people to participate...as caucuses require a greater time commitment and effort.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 5, 2008 11:10 PM

robert ethan -

A week and a half ago, the polls had Clinton beating Obama by 37 points in MA. The final result was that she beat him by 16 - 17 points.

He made up 20% in less than two weeks. Ted Kennedy just endorsed Obama barely a week ago. Wiping out 20 pts of her lead and helping him win a ton load of delegates in that state, was amazing. If they had another week, the result would have been even better.

Posted by sue | February 5, 2008 11:12 PM

My back of the envelope calculation so far tonight is roughly Obama=612, Clinton=566. That's going purely on reported percentages so far; I'm not so much of a masochist as to attempt to break it down by district. A lot is going to hinge on California, obviously, but I suspect it's going to be pretty much a split decision at the end of the night.

Posted by EarBucket | February 5, 2008 11:20 PM

"Obama may win more delegates, but Clinton will win many more vote"

Thanks for the Clinton spin again Marc. LOL

Everyone (including the Clinton campaign) knows this is about delegates. They may spin it otherwise now, but they're not fooling anyone with any credibility.

Posted by Mike | February 5, 2008 11:45 PM

"Everyone (including the Clinton campaign) knows this is about delegates. They may spin it otherwise now, but they're not fooling anyone with any credibility."

So true Mike. Our system is not about one vote one voice--if it were we'd be on year 8 of Gore. The delegate count is what matters and as far as I can tell, it's too early to say, except that it's close ad we're in for a long fight.

Posted by Lucy | February 6, 2008 12:03 AM

"PLOUFFE!" you're a frog again!

LOL - Midnight just struck in Cali for the INVETERATE LIARS OF THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN. Not to mention their Republican shill pollster John Zogby and all of the MAINSTREAM MEDIA WITH THEIR HEADS UP OBAMA'S COLON.

Burn in Hell, you frauds.

Posted by robert ethan | February 6, 2008 12:06 AM

OMG - I think MSNBC called MO for Hillary earlier, now Obama is ahead by 3200 votes with 94% reporting!

Without MO, Obama has already won 11 states, and now it looks like he will win AK as well for 12.

If he wins MO as well, that's 13 of the 22 states!

He is right up there in the delegate count and he has already won 13/22 states. He has already done amazing.

A few days ago, the Clinton camp laughed at Obama's strategy to focus on small states in addition to the big ones. Little did they realize that in addition to running up the delegate count, he also wanted to ensure that at the end of the night he had as many or MORE states on his win list as hers, and he’s done it.

Yippee!

Posted by sue | February 6, 2008 12:13 AM

Yes, HRC gets CA. I am happy. My friend is super happy. I was for Obama until a week ago, when his arrogance and the media treatment of HRC as a woman candidate was disgusting. The bloggers are not happy at her husband, but are taking out on her. I find this double-standard. the essay on Obama in Vanity Fair had all the criticism of him accurate now. I am for HRC. All the way.

Posted by eorse | February 6, 2008 12:14 AM

These results are fascinating. The margins for both Obama and Clinton are much larger than I thought they would be across the board. TN, OK and AR clearly like HRC from her Little Rock days, while NJ, NY, MA and CA are flexing the party machine's mind-bending muscle to get people in line behind the establishment candidate.

Every other state except AZ (which HRC blowout I cannot explain in any principled way) and CT (a narrow Obama win) have gone strongly for Obama. This group includes both heavily white and heavily black states, North and South, East and West... but outside Illinois, no really big states.

PA (where Delaware bodes well but the Governor, who is popular in Philly, endorsed HRC) and OH (also a mixed bunch) will be very interesting cases.

Also, are people still voting for Edwards, or are all those votes from absentee ballots? He's taking a significant chunk, especially in California.

Posted by Tim | February 6, 2008 12:30 AM

Obama 12 states, Hillary 8 states, more red state victories, and probably an advantage in delegates for Obama too.

Clinton won the Big Enchilada, more big states overall, and the popular vote overall.

I don't see any obvious spin advantage for either, really, just on the results tonight.

The next month will be fascinating.

Obama has overcome much greater odds, however, given that he doesn't have the name-brand going for him, and that he's been the underdog for more than a year.

Hillary has to find a way to beat Obama in pledged delegates if she wants to be the nominee. Obama supporters will scream bloody murder and abandon her in the general if she somehow slimes through only on undemocratic superdelegates.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 6, 2008 12:32 AM

robert ethan, it's people like you that make everyone else want to vote for Barack. Hell, I'd vote for an overripe banana over Hillary just to make sure assholes like you are marginalized in our politics.

Posted by firebrand | February 6, 2008 12:54 AM

Marc -- It's totally irresponsible of you to say Hillary will win "many more votes." At this point, the national popular vote is a difference of 100,000 in a vote of 10 million -- that's less than a 1% difference. Maybe the California results will make it 2%. Meanwhile, Obama will win more delegates and more states.

Posted by michael | February 6, 2008 12:58 AM

Hillary has to find a way to beat Obama in pledged delegates if she wants to be the nominee. Obama supporters will scream bloody murder and abandon her in the general if she somehow slimes through only on undemocratic superdelegates.

You're not wrong on that.

But it's looking increasingly like superdelegates are her only chance. Obama came in today with a lead in pledged delegates and extended that lead. He's likely to sweep through the rest of the month. I don't see where Hillary gains ground on his delegate count, particularly given their respective financial situations. On a tactical level, today probably comes out a wash. But in terms of its impact on the overall campaign, Hillary is in a bad place.

Posted by J.B. | February 6, 2008 1:01 AM

Wait a minute, eorse, don't give me this crap that "your girl" is fighting the power somehow. She IS the power. There is absolutely nothing appealing about her as a presidential candidate, especially if we are talking about "change". Nothing.

The two arguments for her have been that she has (1) "experience" (as an opportunist political wife? pretty unfeminist and unprogressive generally) and (2) some murky knowledge of DC realpolitik that people suppose the editor-in-cheif of the Harvard F-ing Law Review will be too dense to understand (presumably because such know-how is acquired hereditarily or through slow corruption?). These are completely ridiculous arguments and, typically for the Clintons, they are used to obscure the following substantive points:

1. Obama has shown solid judgment on foreign and domestic issues throughout his career, while Hillary has not.

2. Obama has more legislative experience now than Bill Clinton had when he started this mess in 1992.

3. Obama is charismatic and has united people to make real, positive changes in laws that affect people's lives. Hillary has not (with the notable exception that she spent her Senate terms in NY procuring impressive amounts of pork for New York Democrats' pet causes, i.e., special interests - that is not a skill I desire in the chief executive).

4. Most importantly, as Fallows and others have pointed out, Obama is believable because he actually acts on his professed beliefs. Hillary is not and does not.

You do no service to women or men by putting her in the general election to the exclusion of someone who might actually do a good job.

Posted by Tim | February 6, 2008 1:04 AM

I'm sponsoring a resolution to send Robert Ethan to Gitmo.

Posted by Coltrane | February 6, 2008 1:12 AM

Squeal you sewer rats. I'm going to dance a jig on your empty heads when this is over.

Posted by robert ethan | February 6, 2008 1:29 AM

It looks like Obama won NM as well - that's 14 of the 22 states. Here's the report from TPM:

*******

Exit Poll Shows Possible Obama Win In New Mexico
By Eric Kleefeld - February 6, 2008, 1:22AM

One of the last contests to report tonight is the New Mexico Democratic caucus, which has 26 pledged delegates up for grabs. The first thing to understand is that this really isn't a caucus — it's more like a party-run primary, with voters stopping by polling locations, voting by secret ballot and then taking off. So with the voting all over and done with, let's take a look at ... the exit poll.

The numbers show Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama splitting women at 47% each, with Obama beating Hillary among men 53%-39%. Crunching the numbers, this seems to point to a six-point win by Obama. We'll find out later if this holds out in the actual results. But as it is, Obama might just have another state to put on his list of wins for the night.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/exit_poll_shows_possible_obama.php#comments

******

Obama has done an outstanding job. When you think about it, he had to focus on IA, NH, NV, and SC for the last year. He only started advertising in the Feb. 5th states within the last 3 weeks (some of them in the last 2 weeks). He was a virtual unknown in all these states and was able to close the gap in nearly two dozen states and win 14 of them in that short amount of time. He has also kept the delegate count pretty close. It isn’t over yet, but this is outstanding.

Posted by sue | February 6, 2008 1:49 AM

McCain is going to take all 170 of California's delegates. He's winning in every single congressional district, by at least 10 points in most of them. California used to be winner-take-all statewide, and changed to WTA by district, but the change won't make any difference this time around.

Posted by Anthony | February 6, 2008 3:12 AM

Tim- you area funny boy: eorse says she got off the bandwagon because of arrogance and so you battle her personal judgement with your arrogance. Do you win a lot of arguments telling people they are full of crap? bragging about obama being law review?
She's not the first person to say Obama is a neophyte is she? do you just get louder evertime you hear what other people find to be true for them?

Next you will argue that obama is twice the wioman that hillary is.

Hillary must be charismatic to some of us because we love her and her campaign so and find Obama just so-so.

Posted by Michael C. | February 6, 2008 7:46 AM