« Defending Political Journalists | Main | An "Attack" On The Church » Obama Picks Up A Net Of 10 Delegates15 Mar 2008 10:46 pm That's 10 delegates from Iowa, now. So that means that Hillary Clinton, as of today, needs an extra 10 superdelegates... or an extra 10 pledged delegates... well, all the permutations are evidence. Again, Hillary Clinton earned nine net delegates in Ohio. Comments (66)
I wonder if Hillary flip-flopping on FL and MI after the early states voted has just officially come back to bite HIllary in the rear end. Karma: it's a wonderful thing. 
Yup. And I might add, after a pretty appalling few days in the media. His speech today in Indy, btw, was brilliant in its response to Wright (and, implicitly, Ferraro). He's the real deal.
It's 10PM Iowa time and I'm back from my county convention. Obama supporters brought so many delegates and alternates to Linn county (second largest county in Iowa) that not all of them could be seated. As a Democrat going to county conventions since 1984 this is the first time not all could be seated.
I thought Obama was against superdelegates not respecting the will of voters? And now Iowa delegates are so blatantly ignoring the will of January 3rd??! and these are the delegates that were supposed to represent the voters, not even superdelegates!!
Ron, that's a silly comment. Edwards (who I supported) isn't in the race. His delegates are free to move however they'd like.
Superdelegates! It is time to euthanize the thrashing animal that is the Clinton campaign. Trust me, Hillary will wipe her brow and thank you personally.
ron, also keep in mind that Obama got around 33% "popular votes" in the caucus than did Clinton. It's only because of curious caucusities that he ended up with only one more delegate than her. And that she ended up with one more than Edwards, despite Edwards outshowing her.
ron, also keep in mind that Obama got around 33% more "popular votes" in the caucus than did Clinton. It's only because of curious caucusities that he ended up with only one more delegate than her. And that she ended up with one more than Edwards, despite Edwards outshowing her.
... aside from which, the "will of the voters" in Iowa was pretty clear, you know?
Ron - Organization, organization, organization.
Once again, can anyone confirm a net gain of 10 for Obama? I have come to trust Marc's analysis, but as an Iowa Democrat for Obama, I never thought the net gain could be that many.
Evidently there's not a lot of fear about the Wright story, perhaps because Obama has handled it so magnificently. That Indiana speech reminded me of why I'm supporting him and why I switched from Clinton.
Yes, as it now stands, Obama would get 25, Clinton 14 and Edwards 6. The Green Papers churned out the numbers by district here. However, these numbers could change when the district conventions convene, on April 26.
Steve, Not sure if this answers your question, but I think Marc is saying a "gain" of 5 delegates = a 10 delgate net gain in the chase. Say Obama and HRC each had 100 delegates. Obama gains one more delegate, so the score is 101 to 99. Then HRC need two delegates to catch up. So, here a 5 or 6 delegate pick-up, requires 10 or 12 delegates to catch up.
Clinton trying to delay process in Texas- I've got a feeling this isn't going to play very well with the folks down there....
The value of any Edwards' endorsement dropped by about 40% today.
John D. - It's +10 because Obama was +9 (from 16 to 25) in the county conventions, Clinton was -1 (from 15 to 14). Edwards was -8 (from 14 to 6).
The failure of the Clinton campaign to realize the importance of the proportional delegate system is complete. Spin works great on low-information voters but in the end the Obama campaign knew the system and worked it to perfection.
Hey, cajun, how about you post a link that actually works?
If counting and working and reworking votes to build support is a political skill that will help get health reform passed, then I think Iowa indicates Barack Obama would be much more effective than Hillary Clinton. What good are "experience" and "fight" if Clinton can't make good use of them.
Claude - Thanks for the link. I'm sorry but I cannot believe Hillary actually went down one based on today's county conventions. I'd love it to be true, but I can't believe it.
The Clinton Campaign was architectured on the politics of the 1990s: Bundlers who brought in wads of checks from individuals who attend events and drop a couple of thousand (maximum) a piece. Then it is about pandering to all the interest groups that are a permanent presence in the party: the gays, unions, and you name it. OBammBamm came in with a radically different strategy based on his appeal to the center and to things that unite, rather than divide us. Perhaps one of the most brilliant innovations is events where the 'donation' is a petty sum of $25 or so --- making politics finally open to people who can't donate 4 figure sums. On top of this, OBammBamm's people understood the delegate math, and know the futility of competing in large primaries that basically need name recognition and media buys. I have to say, on top of all this, OBammBamm is an incredibly good politician that connects with his audience better than Bill Clinton. Hillbilly is not only without her husband's gifts, but a personality that simply turns off a lot of voters. Add this with her virtually closed clique of campaign staff, mostly staffed by women that have worked with her forever who are handed tough jobs regardless of whether they are qualified, and you have someone who proved she cannot assemble a good team in the event she becomes President. I have my reservations about OBammBamm, or the thought of McCain fries, but I have to say, OBammBamm is an extraordinary talent. Period. Besides, he is a Harvard man, as I am! Yes we can!
Or maybe not: From NBC's Chuck Todd That would mean obama was up 7 on Hillary in state where she came in third. That would be 2 less than Hillary netted in Ohio a state where obama came in last. Anyway keep trying ambinder.
Besides the sheer weight of the numbers, Hillary has another problem-- As the steady trickle of delegates move into the Obama column, it becomes harder for the superdelegates to hand the nomination to Hillary. IMHO we are at a point where the proper question to ask is not whether Hillary still has some mathematical chance to win, but rather, how could she possibly win without fracturing the Democratic Party?
Hadenough -
That would be 2 less than Hillary netted in Ohio a state where obama came in last. Anyway keep trying ambinder. Posted by hadenough | March 16, 2008 12:21 AM It seems hadenough is not only a tool, but a blunt tool. If anyone came in last in Ohio, it was Gravel. But why should facts bother a Hillary-troll?
Hadenough, By the way, he also picked up a net of 3 more in California (HRC got 2 and BHO got 5). That's 13 new delegates for the day. Not bad following arguably the toughest day in the campaign.
Claude B. -- Thanks for the help with the numbers. That is amazing.
wait...hear that? It's the sweet, sweet sound of Mark Penn and Harold Ickes's heads exploding simultaneously. Wolfson likely already delaminated after both the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times declared themselves satisfied with Obama's discussion of Rezko. Lots of great stuff in the transcript, esp. the "lens" part.
Iowa cancels out Ohio plus one. I love it!
In response to hadenough, Chuck Todd posted on First Read at 7:17 pm while Marc posted at 10:46. When copying and pasting, hadenough must have forgotten to mention the time difference. In turn, Marc had the most recent information and thus more than likely the best estimate. Not only that, everyone can look at the delegate breakdown for themselves if they would like. Visit the Iowa Democratic Party's website, or just click here: http://www.iowademocrats.us/draftconventionresults.pdf Some interesting things to note about the breakdown from today's county conventions. As far as raw numbers are concerned, Hillary won more delegates in only 7 counties, with her margin of victory usually between 1 or 2 delegates (except for Pottawattamie county where she did very well). Delegate ties between Obama and Clinton occurred in 14 counties. Thus, Senator Obama won outright the remaining 78 counties. Impressive to say the least. Obama won 51.96% of the total delegates allotted, while Clinton won 32.08% and 15.52% remained with Edwards. 0.44% were uncomitted. I really don't know how the national convention delegates themselves are apportioned, but maybe these percentages come into play when people make their estimates. I really can't say. However, interesting aspects to think about nonetheless.
Obama's chickens will come home to roost. Or, keeping with the "chicken" cliches, don't count your chickens before they hatch! The superdelegates are going to keep thinking about how unelectible Obama is, and then vote for Hillary.
Thanks Grinnellian -
An interesting observation found in the comments section over at Al Giordano's blog: "To put everything into context, if you add all the results and adjustments from March 4th until now, Obama is 15 pledged delegates better off than he was the day before Texas and Ohio, (i.e. the ‘firewall’ states)."
People are referring to a speech in "Indy" (usually used to refer to Indianapolis)... did you mean the one in Plainview, Indiana?
D, a question: Why do you call him OBammBamm? Just curious.
Insert Tracy Morgan from tonight's "Satuday Night Live" (because I know some of you won't like the whole quote...)
I tellya, this is a YouTube year...
The superdelegates are going to keep thinking about how unelectible Obama is, and then vote for Hillary. Okay Elizabeth, please explain how the young, brilliant, charismatic, inspirational, movement candidate who is leading in all meaningful metrics against the establishment candidate with the huge political machine behind her as well as a husband and main surrogate who was a very popular former president, is "unelectible" [sic]. He even polls well against McCain nationally. So if you don't have reasons to back up your statement, then it is merely a vacuous and ignorant ad hominem statement. Otherwise, one might wonder if by "unelectable" you actually mean "black". So please clarify. You see, I am trying to imagine any of the other previous Democratic candidates - or Hillary herself for that matter - being in the same situation at this stage in the campaign as is Obama and am wondering if you would say the same about any of them as hypothetical frontrunners. No, I think the superdelegates are going to consider how if they vote for Hillary against the clear will of the voters, there won't be much of a Democratic party left for her to lead.
"The superdelegates are going to keep thinking about how unelectible Obama is, and then vote for Hillary." They will think about it, and will look at such informations: http://www.gallup.com/poll/104986/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Leads-Clinton-50-44.aspx The conclusion draws itself.
Isn't interesting that Edwards delegates still broke for Obama even after the Wright controversy.
firebrand: Bamm Bamm Rubble is kind of like him: Young, handsome, and very electable. Not like those retread tires from old pickup trucks like McCain Fries and Hillbilly. BTW, I have this cute visual of Super delegate Al Gore thinking that OBammBamm is 'not electable' and then deciding to overturn the people's verdict kind of like how Florida did it to him.... and vote against OBamBam. Then it turns out that OBammBamm loses the nomination by one delegate vote on the convention floor, setting off a Supreme Court challenge demanding a recount.... Poor old Gore, I think he would have wished he let Hillbilly run in 2000. Imagine, its 10am on 9/11... and President Hillbilly is visiting a class, and the secret service agent comes in and whispers in her ear (not sweet nothings), "The World Trade Center have been hit by a terrorist attack". Who would you have wanted to deal with 9/11, GW Bushman or Hillbilly? Now, THAT is a hard choice.
Just as an aside, I kinda think "all the permutations are evidence" sounds a bit like DeLillo. Delightful.
Steve K. This is just idle speculation. I have no particular insights into Iowa or how their delegates are apportioned. Perhaps the reason she gained in percentage, but still lost a delegate was that her gain was not evenly distributed by congressional district. Maybe she gained a little in a lot of districts but not enough to gain any delegates, then lost really big in one district, losing one delegate.
Elizabeth, At some point, Clinton runs out of uncommitted Superdelegates to rescue her - there aren't that many left (267 last time I counted). If you add up all the pledged delegates and committed superdelegates, then use one of the multiple delegate projections for the remaining primaries floating around, you'll find that Clinton would have to convince approximately 80% of the remaining superdelegates to get the nomination, compared to around 35% of them for Obama. Any time that Obama outperforms the projections, gets another superdelegate, or gains more delegates from previous contests, Clinton gets closer to the point where it becomes impossible for her to land enough superdelegate votes. It's just not going to happen short of a complete Obama collapse.
Mark: You just don't get it! Hillbilly's victory is inevitable. All she has to do is to get the delegates who mistakenly committed to OBammBamm to exercise their right to change their mind just before the vote, and she will get overwhelming support to win. If she can't do that, I hear that there is a backup plan where a bunch of working class whites will be hired to form a uniformed guard surrounding the convention hall, and they will simply not allow anyone that is not for Hillbilly (elected delegate and super delegate) into the convention hall to vote. Why, this trick worked in 1933 and it will work again in 2008. Hillbilly's victory is inevitable.
Elizbeth - Read the NY Times article in today's paper...Superdelgates favor following the will of the people. Expect Obama to tie the Superdelegate numbers of Clinton by April 22nd. Expect them to break for Obama big time May 6th after he wins N.C. and Indiana - and Clinton can no longer catch up on any metric. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?hp
Hillary's loss of a delegate came from the 5th District, where she had been projected to win 2 of its 4 delegates.
I find that people who can't spell "electable" correctly generally lack credibility as political analysts.
Buyer's remorse anyone?
Obama's chickens will come home to roost. Or, keeping with the "chicken" cliches, don't count your chickens before they hatch! The superdelegates are going to keep thinking about how unelectible Obama is, and then vote for Hillary. Posted by elizabeth | March 16, 2008 1:38 AM
By the sane token it's a two edged sword. Clinton and her tactics don't make her all that electable. Now time to give you something that as a Clinton supporter you might not like FACTS! I shall give then to you none the less. Charlie Crist and nafta... She’s counting on Florida and Ohio as being “swing states” they aren't. I know people who live in live in Florida. Gov. Crist has put a great deal of effort and been largely successful in straightening out the mess Jeb Bush left. His approval rating is 70%+ kind of locks up that "Swing state" into a red state. Then factor in that McCain has taken a much stronger anti-nafta stand than either Democratic candidate. It just so happens that Obama has a very good chance of flipping the Beltway and the Carolina's and maybe even some western states. What the old school thinkers in the Democratic Party almost always fail to notice is that the Republican Party hasn't been consistently winning in the GE, by winning “The Big States”. The Republicans have consistently won by winning lots of smaller states. Flipping the smaller but often times two digit Red States not only gets your side votes it cost the other side votes. The American Public is better informed than in any election before this. Senator Clinton has only proven that she can get the support of the Democratic Party establishment, win big delegate states that are already firmly in the Democratic camp and Like it or not Clinton can't get the democratic nomination without fracturing the party, her tactics haven't done so already. Anyone who honestly believe that she's going to be able to unify the county is looking at the world through Clinton colored glasses... The status quo of four more years of bitterly partisan politics will do just as much if not more damage than four more years with a Republican in the Oval office.
Oh be nice, morzer. It could be worst, they could have spelled it erectable. Why do I get this deep dark feeling that Hillbilly is a real threat to her working class white male constituency because she is going to be a quota queen? Look at her campaign staff --- it has virtually every minority and interest group in the Democratic party represented from the beginning. The catch is that it looks so obviously engineered and rigged that it also lacks credibility. As James Watt might have said, "I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple...." That is going to be the Hillbilly administration. Every nit will be represented, and none except her close circle of aides will have any power. It will be a tighter circle than Bush/Cheney/Rove. Look at her slogan: "Yes she will". Jarwohl, mein Fuhrer Hillbilly. Once an interest group gets their 'rep' who is a loyal slave, that group can run off and not bother her until it is time to hit them up for the re-election. They can be safely ignored because they are 'represented'. Face it, Hillbilly cannot promise anything credible to the rust belt whites --- they are losing their jobs for a whole lot of reasons that Hillbilly can do nothing about. As for the promise to renegotiate NAFTA --- go try it, and the Canadians and Mexicans will mug the US. Hillbilly, you need to go not because you are losing the mandate of the people. You need to go because you represent a politics, a time, a way of doing things that is obsolete. You could have tried to run in 2004 against longer odds, but you chose not to. Your time is past. Do the right thing, and help the new generation come to power, and be revered as a party elder. The alternative is to be remembered as the candidate that destroyed the Democratic party on her way to a failed nomination. Listen to Al Gore's concession speech. It came from the heart. It also proved that there is life after a defeat. Listen to the people. Listen to your instincts. Do the right thing.
Actually, looking at the numbers, my "buyer's remorse" comment doesn't particularly apply here as most of Obama's gains came from consolidating Edwards' support. But it does show the complete lack of ability of Hillary Clinton to expand her appeal to those outside of what I'd consider her core constituency. And this failure is stunning in the face of the horrible news cycle Obama found himself in the past couple days. Solid pickups for Obama and possibly a real harbinger for the party as a whole (barring FL and MI revotes).
For those who think they have Reverend Wright's complete number based on the snippets taken from a few of his sermons subjected to the churn of talk TV, and who want to pretend to even a semblance of an open mind, I refer you to the entire text of his Audacity of Hope sermon, now posted on A. Sullivan's site at http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html#more
D, that word nice you like so much, I do not think it means what you think it means. Or were you just peddling bullshit on a slow Sunday morning? Anyone who babbles as you do, about quota queens, slaves, Nazi themes, and the whole sordid set of paranoid fantasies you have about the Clintons, clearly needs to take a mental health break. I find Clinton an unconvincing candidate, but that doesn't make me go into a poor man's riff on Republican trailer-trash themes. Grow up, forget the old scandals, and start talking politics like a Democrat. I want Obama to win because he offers something positive, rather than the relentless negativity of the Clinton campaign. That's a debate worth having, and one that might bring some progress. Your immature fantasies don't remotely come close.
D, why do I imagine you spend your time polishing your collection of old Ron Paul newsletters? Is it a) because you fear minorities b) because you have a Nazi obsession c) because you sound like a rightwing nutjob pretending to be a Democrat? Inquiring minds want to know
Hillary Clinton has a big problem getting men to vote for her. So far this has not been a problem for her, since the Democratic primary electorate is majority female, by a 55/45 ratio. However, this will not be the case in the general. It's amazing to me that the first viable woman contender for the presidency is losing in a party which is predominantly made up of women. And she's losing to a black man in a party which has only about 13% black men.
Hpwdy friends! Please, don't fall into Hillary's trap.
D, I have to salute you. You are unique in your trollish incoherence. You have achieved a miracle - next to you, robert ethan looks lucid, terse and witty.
I am not a Democrat nor a Republican. I also have not decided whether McCain or Obama will be the better leader. A lot can happen between now and November. But the decision as to whether it is McCain or Clinton I have made. (For those who just started watching... all I have done is to take the politics of the past and used it back on Clinton.... That is the product of 3am ads) Ron Paul? Oh, isn't he in the same party as Clinton?
D, you are the most self-refuting troll I have encountered in years. Please, go on. You provide amusement to us all, and a negative model for impressionable children.
the youtube link's not working, but you can watch tracy morgan on SNL here (registration req'd): http://www.hulu.com/watch/13834/saturday-night-live-update-tracey-morgan
Mike, thank you for explaining the delegate math. Though, I imagine Iowa would be particularly bad for Clinton given her about face on MI/FL ("That stuff I said in September through January? I was lying") and general trashing of their beloved caucuses post-election.
I would like to say that I think MSNBC's Chuck Todd is probably the best delegate counter out there and he makes a confusing subject such as delegate apportionment pretty manageable and easier to understand. He posted again on First Read this morning and it gives the best summary of the Iowa breakdown. Follow the link for the whole post, but I'll put the essentials here. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/ (It's the second post as of right now) "Statewide: Obama won 52%, Clinton 32% and Edwards 16%. There are 16 delegates split up proportionately with Obama nabbing 8 delegates to Clinton's 5 and Edwards' 3. Cong. District 1 (6 delegates): Obama won 54% to Clinton's 31% and Edwards' 14% (no viability). Obama won these delegates 4-2. Cong. District 2 (7 delegates): Obama won 51% to Clinton's 30% to Edwards' 19%. Obama won these delegates 4-2-1 Cong. District 5 (4 delegates): Obama won 47% to Clinton's 37% and Edwards' 15%. Obama won these delegates 2-1-1. As Mike pointed out earlier, I think it was the 5th District (ironically enough, that's Rep. Steve King's district) where Hillary lost her delegate.
This is the other reason the Obama campaign ran so hard in the caucus states -- they are the closest to 'winner take all' states in the Democratic primary. And they had been planning for a nasty trench war, probably since December 2006.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
"All the permutations are evidence."
I have no idea what that means, but it sounds nice. Is it a line from a Dan Brown novel?
Posted by lampwick | March 15, 2008 10:57 PM