Super Duper Tuesday Thread

[IrishWhiskey]

On the urging of Xerxes (and in the interest of keeping all the mudslinging in as confined a location as possible), the UNOFFICIAL Super Tuesday Thread.

Results so far:

Obama wins Colorado, Idaho, Georgia, Alaska, Kansas, Illinois, Delaware, Connecticut, Missouri, Minnesota, North Dakota, Alabama, Minnesota and those living abroad.
Clinton wins New York, New Mexico, New Jersey, Arizona, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Arkansas and CALIFORNIA.
Huckabee wins West Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas
McCain wins New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arizona and CALIFORNIA.
Romney wins Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah and Colorado.

I'll update with more later, and feel free to wildly predict that Ron Paul will sweep every primary, or anyone who votes for [candidate] is a Nazi.



The big three states handing out delegates are New York, Illinois and California. New York is solidly Hillary and McCain, Illinois will go to Obama and McCain, and California may be too close to call for both parties. Romney and Hillary were leading prior to the election, but polls have wildly diverged in predicted results.

There is a decent chance that despite the huge block of states voting, there will be no clear winner at the end of the night. In fact its nearly guarenteed no one will sow up the nomination, however its possible that one candidate could get enough unexpected wins to gain momentum.


Some interesting exit polling:
Of those who voted for Huckabee or Romney, about 80 percent identified themselves as conservative, according to the polls. Only 49 percent of McCain's voters said they were conservative, a sign that the Arizona senator's efforts over the last week to placate conservative voters has not paid off.

According to the exit polls, Obama and Clinton are essentially splitting those voters, with 47 percent going for Obama and 46 percent for Clinton.

[Sandman]

Obama winning GA was predicted with only 1% of the votes counted....Clinton is closing in.

[Troggles]

Obama was projected winner in GA before ANY votes were counted. Right now, seems those projections were right.

[Zanzibar]

I'm pretty sure that Georgia was called based on strong exit polling for Obama.

The big surprise is New Jersey, which was solidly in Clinton's camp until very recently. I still thought she'd pull it off, but I don't think so anymore.

[IrishWhiskey]

Obama winning GA was predicted with only 1% of the votes counted....Clinton is closing in.According to exit polling Obama captured 80% of the black vote, and the white vote is evenly split between him and Hillary. So she doesn't have much of a way of winning there.

[Xerxes]

I'm always urging threads.

[Sandman]

According to exit polling Obama captured 80% of the black vote, and the white vote is evenly split between him and Hillary. So she doesn't have much of a way of winning there.

I wasn't exit polled, I voted for Hillary.

[cp#]

I wasn't exit polled, I voted for Hillary.

God Damn you are fucking insane.

[jeffbax]

[UT Announcer]OBAMINATION![/UT Announcer]

We can hope :)

[Lord_Don]

God Damn you are fucking insane.

Quoted for truth.

[Tricky Thumb]

God Damn you are fucking insane.

Double-quoted for further truthiness.

[H2o Ninja]

I just got done polling in Illinois, best random college kid job ever. Get there at 5am, set up the touch screen machine and ballot box... Do tech support for nearly idiotproof machines, pack up at 7, and a cool $500 stipend is yours.

After checking the results at my ward, Obama seriously kicked arse.

[pearle]

The networks are claiming Clinton won Mass, not Obama.

[IrishWhiskey]

The networks are claiming Clinton won Mass, not Obama.My mistake. Feel free to let me know if I make any others during the night (which is quite likely). Some of them up there are also "projected" not "called" which means some shifts are possible, although unlikely.

[Ludoc]

I'm always urging threads.Don't be ashamed, those urges are a natural part of growing up.

[IrishWhiskey]

Updated. Looks Like California will still be a big deciding factor. And Romney has a long way to go.

[King Drewsky]

What the fuckabee? Mike Huckabee is sweeping the bible belt states and pulling in some fringe southern states as well. I really thought his campaign was over after not winning in South Carolina and a poor showing in Florida.

[Slack3r78]

According to exit polling Obama captured 80% of the black vote, and the white vote is evenly split between him and Hillary. So she doesn't have much of a way of winning there.

I live in one of (if not) the most consistently liberal counties in Georgia. We went 71% Obama.

[Sandman]

I live in one of (if not) the most consistently liberal counties in Georgia. We went 71% Obama.

My county went 68% Obama.

[walkstheplanes]

I've been hitting refresh over and over here:

http://news.google.com/?ned=us&topic=el

[Xerxes]

Following is from MSNBC:
Clinton’s Northeastern haul also included Massachusetts and New Jersey in addition to New York, according to NBC News’ projections from official returns and extensive exit-polling data. She also picked up victories in Arkansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee.

Obama bolstered his win in Illinois with victories in Georgia, Alabama, Minnesota, Connecticut, Delaware, Utah, Kansas, North Dakota and Idaho, NBC News projected.

[baggle]

Wow, with 10% of precincts reporting in California, 55% are for Clinton, 32% for Obama, 10% for Edwards (wtf?). Not looking good for Obama at this point. Also, on a county by county basis, I'm not sure if Clinton lost even a single county. More liberal counties went Obama, conservative counties went Clinton. Paradoxically, according to exit polls, gays, who tend to be more liberal, went Clinton.

edit: Just to clarify, by 'went Obama' I mean that it was at least a closer race in those counties. He didn't actually win any counties at all as of this posting.

[baggle]

As far as Republicans go, again with 10% currently reporting in California, McCain has 43%, Romney has 26%, Huckabee 12%, Giuliani 10%(wtf?), and Paul 4%.

Oh yeah, that's all according to CNN. Linkage for those interested: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#CA

[Xerxes]

Wow, with 10% of precincts reporting in California, 55% are for Clinton, 32% for Obama, 10% for Edwards (wtf?). Not looking good for Obama at this point. Also, on a county by county basis, I'm not sure if Clinton lost even a single county. More liberal counties went Obama, conservative counties went Clinton. Paradoxically, according to exit polls, gays, who tend to be more liberal, went Clinton.

Cause she looks like a boy? I kid I kid.

Obama just got Colorado according to MSNBC.

[Heretic Machine]

Just keep in mind... you really can't pull anything out of the democratic race tonight, with it so split. The delegates get split proportionally, and where Obama or Clinton win, it is often only by a narrow margin above the other, which means they'll each get nearly as many delegates as the other. I mean, maybe one of you can figure out how many delegates really come out of this for each of them, but I'm pretty much going to have to wait until the people over at CNN start doing actual work outside of the graphics department.

EDIT: Romney wins Montana, btw.

EDIT: Yeah, CNN is just going to say the same shit they've been saying for the past week, except they're going to pretend that it's news; "Wow, we were all talking about how it was going to end tonight, but it turned out to be an even split!" The more I watch this network, the more I understand the reason so many people have abandoned it in favor of Fox News... which is worse, but probably not as irritating.

[baggle]

Cause she looks like a boy? I kid I kid.

Obama just got Colorado according to MSNBC.

I dunno, my brother's girlfriend's sister (got that?) is a lesbian, but not so political, but I'll ask her about it the next time I talk to her. My guess is that the Clintons have a positive gay rights record, or something. Not sure about it.

[baggle]

Just keep in mind... you really can't pull anything out of the democratic race tonight, with it so split. The delegates get split proportionally, and where Obama or Clinton win, it is often only by a narrow margin above the other, which means they'll each get nearly as many delegates as the other. I mean, maybe one of you can figure out how many delegates really come out of this for each of them, but I'm pretty much going to have to wait until the people over at CNN start doing actual work outside of the graphics department.

EDIT: Romney wins Montana, btw.

True. From the looks of it right now, looks like the delegates for each are damn close. Luckily for Obama, over 10% of California voters were totally out of it, and voted for Edwards, and so Edwards' delegates will probably end up going to Obama instead of Clinton. Of course from what I understand, white males tended to favor Edwards, and white males favor Obama, so those people who voted for Edwards probably would've voted for Obama anyway.

[Slack3r78]

Becoming more and more annoyed with superdelegates.

True. From the looks of it right now, looks like the delegates for each are damn close. Luckily for Obama, over 10% of California voters were totally out of it, and voted for Edwards, and so Edwards' delegates will probably end up going to Obama instead of Clinton. Of course from what I understand, white males tended to favor Edwards, and white males favor Obama, so those people who voted for Edwards probably would've voted for Obama anyway.

The difference in total delegates at the moment is about 70. The difference in superdelegates is around 90. Do the math.

[Xerxes]

Wait? This guy is still in it?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Alan_Keyes.jpg/225px-Alan_Keyes.jpg

[Slack3r78]

Wow, Obama came back in Missouri. Looks like he's ahead by roughly 4000 votes with 97% reporting. He was trailing last I'd really looked.

[baggle]

ABC is saying Clinton is 55 delegates ahead of Obama, with Edwards having 41 delegates. Obama's campaign says,

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.

Where are you getting your numbers for superdelegates, Slack?

[Slack3r78]

Where are you getting your numbers for superdelegates, Slack?
CNN lists Clinton with 193 pledged superdelegates and Obama with 106.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

[Lord_Don]

Can superdelegates fly and see through walls?

[Heretic Machine]

CNN lists Clinton with 193 pledged superdelegates and Obama with 106.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

They still haven't counted most of the states Obama won, if you notice.

[fitbabits]

Holy fuck, are people really THIS stupid?

Honestly all these posters who think Obama is honest need to wake up. He is no different than any of the other politicians. The liberal media have hyped this guy and not challenged him enough. Do you know he is drug user/drug dealer. Do you know his so called vote against the war is nonsense, once he was in power and when his vote would have counted he voted to support the war. Do you know that he has taken donations from a slum lord now and before. Do you know he has ties to many lobbyists especially in the drug and insurance companies. Do you know he is father is from Kenya and part of a group that supports the raping of women? Do you know that his church is know to have racist attitudes to non-blacks, apparently in America it is ok to be racist to Asians. Do you know Obama is a racist, he called Hillary something of Punjab because many Indian-Americans vote for her. Do you think this man is honest? Do you think he stands for anything? One day he is for diplomacy with Pakistan, the next day he wants to bomb Pakistan. When are these facts going to be brought up in the media. Put this guy in power you have another Bush. Don't have much to say about McCain except he probably is the most arrogant snob I have ever seen. If Obama or McCain wins, kiss America goodbye. Oh by the way any of you who want to say I am a racist for not supporting the PC-Liberal candidate Obama, I am not white, I am a minority.

[baggle]

CNN lists Clinton with 193 pledged superdelegates and Obama with 106.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

Thanky. Here's the link to the ABC delegate count I was quoting, btw.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/delegates?ref=ipb

[Slack3r78]

Holy fuck, are people really THIS stupid?

Yes, they are.

[fitbabits]

Yes, they are.

I wonder if Scotland will take me back? :eek:

[Kagger]

Holy fuck, are people really THIS stupid?

This kinda stuff is why the electoral college was put in place.

[baggle]

Holy fuck, are people really THIS stupid?
Do you know he is father is from Kenya and part of a group that supports the raping of women?


Wow, zombies coming back from the dead and raping women, then starting groups that support the raping of women. His dad must've been a real badass in life to be such a maniac in death.

By the way, what is Obama's position on African zombie rapists?

[Heretic Machine]

Okay CNN, I don't need to see your hammed up Projection animation every two minutes; let's settle down with the cheese-ball graphics.

[baggle]

ABC News is reporting that Clinton has won California.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4243619&page=1

[Slack3r78]

ABC News is reporting that Clinton has won California.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4243619&page=1

Fortunately, the Dem race is strictly proportional. I'll wait to see what the delegate numbers ultimately look like.

[Heretic Machine]

ABC News is reporting that Clinton has won California.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4243619&page=1

Yeah, but by how much? It looks to me like she is going to get 55% of the vote, which means about half of the delegates are going to go to Obama and Edwards (which probably means that they'll shift over to Obama). Saying that a democrat "won" a state tonight is not useful, and is extremely misleading.

[Xerxes]

ABC News is reporting that Clinton has won California.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4243619&page=1

Oh hamburgers. :(

[baggle]

True that the delegates are mostly proportional to percentage of the popular vote, but the fact that Clinton 'won' California does still matter from the perspective that it won't be possible for Obama to come back and get a majority of delegates in the state.

[Xerxes]

What the hell? Ron Paul is from Texas? Not knowing that makes me laugh.

[Rafer]

This exit poll (http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/exitPoll.shtml?state=CA&race=P&jurisdiction=0&party=D) for California is interesting when you break it down by race. Asians seem to really like Hillary.

Are you:
Clinton Edwards Obama
White (53%) 43% 5% 49%
Black (7%) 16% 3% 81%
Hispanic/Latino (29%) 66% 1% 33%
Asian (8%) 73% 3% 25%
Other (3%) 43% 9% 47%

[Kalar]

This exit poll (http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/exitPoll.shtml?state=CA&race=P&jurisdiction=0&party=D) for California is interesting when you break it down by race. Asians seem to really like Hillary.

Are you:
Clinton Edwards Obama
White (53%) 43% 5% 49%
Black (7%) 16% 3% 81%
Hispanic/Latino (29%) 66% 1% 33%
Asian (8%) 73% 3% 25%
Other (3%) 43% 9% 47%


Or...

From my experience in life, it seems that alot of Asians hate blacks for some reason. Again. This is only my observation in life. Yes, I know it comes off as a stereotype, but whatever. Take it as you want. On a side not, I personaly don't understand how people could hate someone because of the colour of their skin/race/creed. Shit we're all human. One of the things I'll never understand I fear.

[baggle]

Or...

From my experience in life, it seems that alot of Asians hate blacks for some reason. Again. This is only my observation in life. Yes, I know it comes off as a stereotype, but whatever. Take it as you want. On a side not, I personaly don't understand how people could hate someone because of the colour of their skin/race/creed. Shit we're all human. One of the things I'll never understand I fear.

Mexicans, too.

Source: Mexican in-laws.

[IrishWhiskey]

Mexicans, too.

Source: Mexican in-laws.Yup, Hispanic vote was a big deal in California, and it went for Hillary.

I know the tendency is to simply see things in terms of race in this race (wait a minute...), but I suspect a lot of this has to do with values and history, and with Bill Clinton doing a lot for the Hispanic community in his term, Hillary had a lot to go of off.

Also, having correctly called California for Hillary (and predicted a lot of other Republican and Democratic races correctly) I will say that Hillary remains, as always, the frontrunner. Doesn't change the fact that the race is far from over yet. Except for the Republican side, where Romney has to be wondering what position he could get in a McCain administration.

[Evil Avatar]

Hillary takes California by a whopping 54%!!! Go Hilldog!

[Heretic Machine]

Yup, Hispanic vote was a big deal in California, and it went for Hillary.

I know the tendency is to simply see things in terms of race in this race (wait a minute...), but I suspect a lot of this has to do with values and history, and with Bill Clinton doing a lot for the Hispanic community in his term, Hillary had a lot to go of off.

Also, having correctly called California for Hillary (and predicted a lot of other Republican and Democratic races correctly) I will say that Hillary remains, as always, the frontrunner. Doesn't change the fact that the race is far from over yet. Except for the Republican side, where Romney has to be wondering what position he could get in a McCain administration.

Except that she just barely won California, and is probably going to get her ass handed to her in the upcoming primaries, which are set to heavily favor Obama.

EDIT: Obama is now predicted to edge out Clinton in Missouri.

[baggle]

Yup, Hispanic vote was a big deal in California, and it went for Hillary.

I know the tendency is to simply see things in terms of race in this race (wait a minute...), but I suspect a lot of this has to do with values and history, and with Bill Clinton doing a lot for the Hispanic community in his term, Hillary had a lot to go of off.

Also, having correctly called California for Hillary (and predicted a lot of other Republican and Democratic races correctly) I will say that Hillary remains, as always, the frontrunner. Doesn't change the fact that the race is far from over yet. Except for the Republican side, where Romney has to be wondering what position he could get in a McCain administration.

Yeah, you're right, Irish. There are a lot of Mexicans who don't care for blacks (and vice versa), but of Mexicans who actually vote, most of them probably are not racist like those who probably do not vote. I know a lot of Mexicans, both born in the US, and born in Mexico, and the vast majority of those born in the US are not racist like that. Of those born in Mexico, however, especially the older generations (I'm talking older than 30 here), there are probably a majority who don't trust blacks, at least among those Mexicans that I know.

As far as Romney goes, I have one thing to say: Ha Ha!

[Slack3r78]

How in the bloody hell does MO assign delegates?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MO

[baggle]

Except that she just barely won California, and is probably going to get her ass handed to her in the upcoming primaries, which are set to heavily favor Obama.

Just barely? She got 20% more of the vote than her second place competitor. That's not just winning, that's an ass-whooping. Also, more on topic re Hispanic voters, she got fully double the amount of Hispanic voters as Obama did.

I'm all for Obama, but let's be real here.

[Heretic Machine]

How in the bloody hell does MO assign delegates?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MO

That is the thing, you can win the popular vote in the state, and get less delegates. All of this "[Candidate] wins [state]" is practically meaningless without someone giving the actual numbers of delegates won. For example, I believe a person who wins L.A. in California gets a large portion of the California delegates, and Obama did well in L.A. So, can he win more delegates, if he takes Edwards' with his? Maybe, for all I know, no body is doing their job over at CNN. They tell me this, and then just go back to talking about the popular vote, which means nothing to me right now.

Just barely? She got 20% more of the vote than her second place competitor. That's not just winning, that's an ass-whooping. Also, more on topic re Hispanic voters, she got fully double the amount of Hispanic voters as Obama did.

I'm all for Obama, but let's be real here.

She got 55% of the vote. Where do you think the rest of those delegates are going to go?

[Slack3r78]

That is the thing, you can win the popular vote in the state, and get less delegates. All of this "[Candidate] wins [state]" is practically meaningless without someone giving the actual numbers of delegates won.
I just realized that that's only a fraction of MO's delegates represented. Maybe they've just not worked out whom's pledged to whom yet.

[IrishWhiskey]

Except that she just barely won California, and is probably going to get her ass handed to her in the upcoming primaries, which are set to heavily favor Obama.With 23% of precincts reporting, she's leading by 20%. This is much more favorable to her than even the most heavily Clinton favored polls. Missouri is.... nice. But California is what the momentum boiled down to, and she clearly won there.

And McCain sweeped Romney in the primaries, despite his low numbers among conservatives. This next election might be decided between whether the Republican base and moderates would turn out to vote against Hillary Clinton, or for a pro-choice, pro-immigration conservative. Because both have a lot of supporters, but turnout (and opposition turnout) will be key.

[Heretic Machine]

I just realized that that's only a fraction of MO's delegates represented. Maybe they've just not worked out whom's pledged to whom yet.

Well, according to CNN, he won the big population centers, and Hilary took most of the rest of the state. According to them, he could get more delegates than his portion of the popular vote would suggest, because of how the delegates are divided. But I don't know, because they say stuff like that briefly, and then they don't elaborate.

[baggle]

A county-by-county breakdown of California Democratic primary results: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/county/#val=CADEM6

Obama only won like 5 counties and tied for 1 so far. He lost by like 30% in Los Angeles county, but won by a few percent in San Francisco.

[Heretic Machine]

Apparently Romney is totally fucked in California, which I think is one of the few Republican states where the delegates get divided. They're saying he gets none from California.

[baggle]

Apparently Romney is totally fucked in California, which I think is one of the few Republican states where the delegates get divided. They're saying he gets none from California.
I was scared that my state would buy into his douche-appeal. Thank god people didn't. I can't stand that guy, and I guess other Californians can't either.

[midrael]

Ugh California. Hillary winning the nomination could totally inspire me not to participate in the coming election. :P Here's to hoping that Obama can somehow maintain some momentum after losing California.

Memphis was a crazy-house today. We had a tornado and storms rolling through while the polls were still open, so that was fun.

[baggle]

Ugh California. Hillary winning the nomination could totally inspire me not to participate in the coming election. :P Here's to hoping that Obama can somehow maintain some momentum after losing California.

Instead of not voting, just vote for McCain. Republicans in politics hate him just as much as they hate Hillary, if that's any consolation.

[IrishWhiskey]

Ugh California. Hillary winning the nomination could totally inspire me not to participate in the coming election. :P Here's to hoping that Obama can somehow maintain some momentum after losing California.Lets put it this way. At current delegate count:
Obama 841
Hillary: 837.

Hillary still has the momentum and has been the likely nominee from the beginning, but nothing was decided on the Democratic side from this. On the Republican side, McCain is more certain, but not yet completely certain.


Its more likely to be down to the wire this year than most years. Either way, looking across the entire field, I don't think there's a nominee as bad as George Bush. So that's something.

[Slack3r78]

Is there any precedent for super delegates jumping ship?

[Heretic Machine]

I was scared that my state would buy into his douche-appeal. Thank god people didn't. I can't stand that guy, and I guess other Californians can't either.

Yeah, but now Huckabee has a chance at winning the nomination. That is not a good thing. As I said in another topic, him winning the presidential race is a situation where rational people need to abandon ship ASAP. Hell, him getting this far has me seriously worried about the state of this country.

[midrael]

Instead of not voting, just vote for McCain. Republicans in politics hate him just as much as they hate Hillary, if that's any consolation.

I don't like McCain either, or I would be voting Republican. I consider myself pretty down the middle typically. I'd have no problem voting for a Republican candidate if there was one that appealed to me. The pro-war stances have really killed my support for them this go-round though.

[baggle]

Yeah, but now Huckabee has a chance at winning the nomination. That is not a good thing. As I said in another topic, him winning the presidential race is a situation where rational people need to abandon ship ASAP. Hell, him getting this far has me seriously worried about the state of this country.

Huckabee getting the nom would be the best possible thing that could happen to the Democratic ticket, IMHO.

[midrael]

Huckabee getting the nom would be the best possible thing that could happen to the Democratic ticket, IMHO.

That might be, but I'm not even sure I'd want to risk it!

[Heretic Machine]

That might be, but I'm not even sure I'd want to risk it!

Yeah, I'd rather have a strong McCain than a weak Huckabee winning the republican nomination. The sooner that lunatic asshat is out, the easier I'll sleep at night.

[baggle]

That might be, but I'm not even sure I'd want to risk it!
Yeah, it would be a really scary election night, that's for sure.

[Evil Avatar]

That is the thing, you can win the popular vote in the state, and get less delegates.

It depends on the state. Is California a "Winner Take All" state? Some states are.

Still, the last breakdown I saw on CNN stated that Hillary had 100% more Superdelegates than Obama does. That has to make a difference when it comes down to winning the nomination.

[Evil Avatar]

Huckabee getting the nom would be the best possible thing that could happen to the Democratic ticket, IMHO.

I said the exact same thing about Obama and the Republican ticket. LOL.

[Heretic Machine]

It depends on the state. Is California a "Winner Take All" state? Some states are.

Still, the last breakdown I saw on CNN stated that Hillary had 100% more Superdelegates than Obama does. That has to make a difference when it comes down to winning the nomination.

She has like 193, he has like 101 or something. What that counts for is pretty direct. And no, California isn't a winner-take-all-state on either side, I'm not sure that Democrats even have those.

[Rafer]

Is there any precedent for super delegates jumping ship?

They jumped ship on Howard Dean, he had more super delegates than John Kerry initially.

[Evil Avatar]

Is there any precedent for super delegates jumping ship?

No. And Hillary has 100% more Superdelegates than Obama does. I'm also not sure where the above numbers came from...

Current results are:

Hillary Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746)
Pledged: 468
Superdelegates: 193
Total: 661


Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1918)
Pledged: 444
Superdelegates: 106
Total: 550

Looks like a win for Hillary to me, but I'm not a Democrat so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[baggle]

I said the exact same thing about Obama and the Republican ticket. LOL.
That's also true, especially if McCain gets the nomination for the Republicans. If Huckabee gets the nomination, I'm expecting right-leaning independents everywhere to drop support for the Republican party and vote Democrat, no matter who the Democrat candidate is. If Obama wins the nomination, at least there is a possibility that he could win the general election. Of course it's not like I am going to be complaining if it gets down to Obama and McCain and McCain wins. Could be much worse.

[Heretic Machine]

No. And Hillary has 100% more Superdelegates than Obama does. I'm also not sure where the above numbers came from...

Current results are:

Hillary Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746)
Pledged: 468
Superdelegates: 193
Total: 661


Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1918)
Pledged: 444
Superdelegates: 106
Total: 550

Looks like a win for Hillary to me, but I'm not a Democrat so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Except that her big wins were all going to be tonight, and not all of them came through, or came through as well as she had hoped. Obama is stronger from here on out, states that he won tonight are supposedly very similar to the states coming up.

[Kagger]

Can someone explain a super delegate?

[Slack3r78]

Looks like a win for Hillary to me, but I'm not a Democrat so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

CNN isn't reporting all delegates at this point. They threw me off earlier by listing Hillary receiving roughly twice as many delegates in MO despite Obama pulling more votes there until I realized they were only reporting about a third of that state's delegates.

[Slack3r78]

Can someone explain a super delegate?

Basically it's a way to give party insiders some sway in the final result. It's a bit BS, IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

[baggle]

I just want to say, this is such an exciting primary. Haven't been so on the edge of my seat for a primary in a long time. Also, it is really cool having a field of candidates likely to get the nomination who actually don't suck. Obama, Hillary, McCain. It's all gravy baby.

[Heretic Machine]

Can someone explain a super delegate?

Basically, individuals who have heavy influence in the party (like former presidents) can become Super Delegates... and they basically get as much say in things as some states.

[Slack3r78]

It depends on the state. Is California a "Winner Take All" state? Some states are.
All Democratic primaries are proportional. Only the Republicans have winner takes all contests.

[Evil Avatar]

I just want to say, this is such an exciting primary. Haven't been so on the edge of my seat for a primary in a long time. Also, it is really cool having a field of candidates likely to get the nomination who actually don't suck. Obama, Hillary, McCain. It's all gravy baby.

We said the same thing during the Gore / Bush election and then Gore went on to indulge in copious amounts of stupid and put out a movie saying We're All Dooomed! (Insert Dr. Doom image.)

[Spectre-7]

I just got done polling in Illinois, best random college kid job ever. Get there at 5am, set up the touch screen machine and ballot box... Do tech support for nearly idiotproof machines, pack up at 7, and a cool $500 stipend is yours.

After checking the results at my ward, Obama seriously kicked arse.

$500?! Fuck. I was the head of my precinct here in California, and I'm only pulling down about $180, and that includes attending two mandatory training sessions.

[baggle]

We said the same thing during the Gore / Bush election and then Gore went on to indulge in copious amounts of stupid and put out a movie saying We're All Dooomed! (Insert Dr. Doom image.)

True that Al Gore is a jerkoff, but I never liked Al Gore anyway. He has always seemed so pompous, sort of like a Baldwin brother but without the talent. I like him less and less as time goes on, too. His recent Nobel thing took my dislike of him to another level, as well.

[IrishWhiskey]

We said the same thing during the Gore / Bush election and then Gore went on to indulge in copious amounts of stupid and put out a movie saying We're All Dooomed! (Insert Dr. Doom image.)Well, not so much "We're All Dooomed!" as much as "We Might All Be Dooomed Unless We Stop Being Freaking Morons". Which actually amounts to the same thing. Besides, does anyone really think Gore would have been a worse President than Bush?

[Slack3r78]

Besides, does anyone really think Gore would have been a worse President than Bush?
Miss Teen South Carolina?

[baggle]

Well, not so much "We're All Dooomed!" as much as "We Might All Be Dooomed Unless We Stop Being Freaking Morons". Which actually amounts to the same thing. Besides, does anyone really think Gore would have been a worse President than Bush?

I doubt he would've become quite the global warming advocate he has become if he would have won the presidency. If he were president, he wouldn't have needed the attention from an outside source.

[Heretic Machine]

Great, now CNN is talking about blogs again... This should be about as informative as their elaborate graphics.

[baggle]

Great, now CNN is talking about blogs again... This should be about as informative as their elaborate graphics.
I feel your pain. CNN and Fox News both totally suck. I completely quit TV news a few years ago now, and I haven't looked back. Every time I do catch some of it, at a restaurant or something, it reminds me why I stopped watching it.

[Xerxes]

Slate.com made me giggle.
Obama did well with African-Americans, men, the wealthy, those with college degrees, and liberal voters. Clinton continues to do well with women, older voters, Latinos, and those with less education and lower incomes.
And seems to agree with Perigon.
By several measures, Obama was the victor: He picked up 13 states to Clinton's eight, and he won more pledged delegates. This gives him additional momentum going into some promising-looking primaries over the next couple of weeks. The contests in the next two weeks in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., on Feb. 12 followed by Wisconsin and Hawaii on Feb. 19 all favor him. His $32 million fund-raising record in January shows that he will have more money than Clinton to wage a protracted campaign.

[cp#]

I am the Super Delegate. I voted Nader.

[IrishWhiskey]

I am the Super Delegate. I voted Nader.I am the Super Duper Delegate. I voted Gravel.

[Slack3r78]

I am Super Delegate.

[jeffbax]

I doubt he would've become quite the global warming advocate he has become if he would have won the presidency. If he were president, he wouldn't have needed the attention from an outside source.

Gore has been advocating for environmentalism since the 70s, I highly doubt he does this for mere attention :rolleyes:

[GrinR]

If Hillary takes CA, I'm going to laugh. It looks like McCain is the R I'll be backing (good, since I voted for that old bastard) and if it's him against that political black hole Hillary... well shit, FOUR MORE YEARS FOUR MORE YEARS!!

[baggle]

Gore has been advocating for environmentalism since the 70s, I highly doubt he does this for mere attention :rolleyes:

If he were to have merely advocated for the environment after his loss, he would still be "that guy who invented the internet". By saying, "OMFG THE SKY IS FALLING!!!," in a slick movie at a time when the population was receptive to such things, he got the Nobel Prize and tons of media love. He might only have the best intentions, and I am sure he does, but he can't dislike the attention or he wouldn't be doing things the ways he's doing them. But hey, I really doubt we're going to agree on this issue ;)

PS: awesome custom title. Tribes ftw

[Slack3r78]

If Hillary takes CA, I'm going to laugh.
Well, it's not that shocking given that she's been ahead in every poll there for months.

[IrishWhiskey]

If Hillary takes CA, I'm going to laugh. It looks like McCain is the R I'll be backing (good, since I voted for that old bastard) and if it's him against that political black hole Hillary... well shit, FOUR MORE YEARS FOUR MORE YEARS!!Hillary taking CA was a foregone conclusion for a long time. Besides didn't you hear Ann Coulter? Hillary is more conservative and pro-war than McCain. You must vote Hillary if you want to beat the Islamofascists!

[Heretic Machine]

Obama's goal tonight was to get within 100 delegates of Hilary; according to CNN's site he achieved this goal, 718-620. Things are looking good.

EDIT: Now 738-658. The gap is closing.

[DaXIthR]

The gap is closing.

Cot damn it! I love it when you talk politics-y.

[Heretic Machine]

I can't stop laughing at this page (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#57266)... the picture just goes so perfectly with the content.

[Wraith]

In Minnesota, though there are a few counties that haven't reported yet (84% reporting), Romney won by nearly 20%. Huckabee was pretty close to McCain's numbers, and Paul wasn't that far behind (one of the few states where he pulled in double-digit numbers).

Mitt Romney - 25,587 (41.5%)
John McCain - 13,474 (21.9%)
Mike Huckabee - 12,278 (19.9%)
Ron Paul - 9,662 (15.7%)

Looking at the NYTimes' results map (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/gopmap/index.html), the county map is pretty varied. Romney generally won big in counties with larger urban populations. All the counties around the Twin Cities, St. Cloud, Rochester, Duluth are red for Romney (even more noticeable on the margin of victory map for MN). Huckabee generally did best in more rural counties. Paul won in a few counties, and came in 2nd and 3rd in a number of others.

I'm surprised McCain didn't do better, especially with Governor Pawlenty campaigning for him. And surprised that Huckabee and Paul did as well as they did.

And Obama beat out Hillary by about 35%.

[Heretic Machine]

I feel your pain. CNN and Fox News both totally suck. I completely quit TV news a few years ago now, and I haven't looked back. Every time I do catch some of it, at a restaurant or something, it reminds me why I stopped watching it.

Dude... I'm watching it right now, and they're covering the storms from last night.. get this: What they're doing right now is showing me web pages from local news sites, Youtube-like videos embedded on the pages, and pictures they ripped off of Facebook. I wonder if they realize that I can browse fucking web pages myself?

This is the state of televised news in the 21st century.

[baggle]

Dude... I'm watching it right now, and they're covering the storms from last night.. get this: What they're doing right now is showing me web pages from local news sites, Youtube-like videos embedded on the pages, and pictures they ripped off of Facebook. I wonder if they realize that I can browse fucking web pages myself?

This is the state of televised news in the 21st century.
Yeah, that would be a pretty solid reminder right there.

What really did it for me was the fact that I read a lot of news, so I get my stories as straight from the source as possible, with as few middlemen as possible. On CNN/Fox News it ends up going through a ton of writers/producers/etc before the anchor gets ahold of it, and then the anchor is a flippin' idiot and screws it up more, so the story always ends up being wrong. It is amazing just how flat out wrong TV news is so much of the time, and how much of it you can catch if you're actually familiar with the original stories which they are reporting on. That's what really made me stop watching. Add to that the fact that the talking heads they feature are oftentimes quite out of touch (I've seen the talking heads on CNN refer to Putin as 'committed to democracy' quite recently), and my blood can't help but boil when I'm around it.

[Zanzibar]

If Hillary takes CA, I'm going to laugh. It looks like McCain is the R I'll be backing (good, since I voted for that old bastard) and if it's him against that political black hole Hillary... well shit, FOUR MORE YEARS FOUR MORE YEARS!!

Iraq will be an albatross (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) around his neck, along with the failed GOP policies (http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm) of the last seven years. Dems are energized (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120227156626046931.html?mod=special_page_campaig n2008_leftbox) to kick some GOP ass in November - the primaries yesterday drew between 2 and 3 times (http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/?d=ST) as many Dems and Republicans.

It's over, GrinR. Doesn't matter who runs. Hillary OR Obama will win this election going away.

[bKangy]

Obama takes a narrow delegate lead, Clinton has a slight popular majority in votes cast (0.2%). What a victory for Obama, he's annihilated the establishment and reportedly she's running on her own funding now.

[Zanzibar]

Where'd you get that info, bKangy? Seems like all of it was taken from Drudge.

Edit: Check out the last panel:

http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2008/02/06/020608-915x308-badreporter.gif

[baggle]

Obama takes a narrow delegate lead, Clinton has a slight popular majority in votes cast (0.2%). What a victory for Obama, he's annihilated the establishment and reportedly she's running on her own funding now.

I read that, too.

I wonder if the richies who fund her are going to smell blood in the water and stop giving so much, or if they are going to be doubly dedicated to handing over their cash?

[bKangy]

Where'd you get that info, bKangy?

Drudge has the votes:


TOTAL VOTES CAST
Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)
Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851)

CLINTONS MAY NOW BE USING THEIR OWN MONEY TO FINANCE HILLARY'S RUN... When asked if Clintons were dipping into their personal wealth, communications director Howard Wolfson said: 'I don't know'...Developing...

Admittedly it is a Drudge work, but she only raised $10 million in the last round and both candidates spent a shitload for Super Tuesday. Obama raised just over $32 mill in January, and if you consider that he spent most of that this cycle, it makes sense to imagine that Clinton is financially in trouble considering that the next set of states are Obama friendly if she had less to begin with and lower funding coming in.

and MSNBC and a load of blogs have called Obama with like 10 or less delegate lead total on Clinton.

[Zanzibar]

The day there's something printed on Drudge that doesn't rely on hearsay or insinuation to bash a Clinton, I'll eat my hat.

The delegate total is from yesterday's total, not overall, where she already had a lead. Plus the superdelegates are firmly in Hillary's camp. Plus, California's delegate count won't be known until Friday, but she did very well. I seriously doubt that Obama will have any kind of delegate lead. Talk to me after the caucuses next week.

[baggle]

Drudge might hate Hillary, but the man has sources, and he doesn't lie. His propaganda is more subtle; he cherry picks and then artfully positions stories of his choosing for the maximum effect.

As long as you keep this in mind, Drudge is an awesome source for breaking news.

[bKangy]

The delegate total is from yesterday's total, not overall, where she already had a lead. Plus the superdelegates are firmly in Hillary's camp. Plus, California's delegate count won't be known until Friday, but she did very well. I seriously doubt that Obama will have any kind of delegate lead. Talk to me after the caucuses next week.

No, as in, they're counting the results of the day as Obama favourable. While California isn't known yet, what I mean is that MSNBC etc are saying that Obama should get just slightly more than her based on current calculations. It could well change, but even then it'll give Clinton the narrowest of wins, or Obama a very slight up on his narrow win.

[Slack3r78]

Most reports I've seen are projecting Obama having a roughly 10 delegate lead coming out of yesterday's primaries. I remember seeing Tim Russert's name, in particular, attached to one of these reports. It's not just Drudge.

[joruussuun]

Interesting... MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22419475) is now showing Obama leading Clinton 838 to 834.

[Slack3r78]

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/clinton_loaned_herself_5m_in_j.php

hmmmm

[baggle]

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/clinton_loaned_herself_5m_in_j.php

hmmmm

I was just about to post exactly the same story, but from a different source. Verrrry interesting.

[Xerxes]

That'll do Obama. That'll do.

[IrishWhiskey]

Alright, now that mess is done with, time to wrap-up.

Democratic Results

Hillary [AZ, AR, CA, MA, NJ, NY, OK, TN]
Pros: Won California in a big way and won more delegates than Obama. Is looking more and more like the nominee. Even in states she dominated, there was record turn-out, suggesting its not just Obama bringing in new voters. Is most popular among the most reliable voting demographics.

Cons: Obama is still nipping at her heels, and despite Hilary being a better funded frontrunner, he still leads in the delegate count. This may have been her best opportunity to put him away, and that didn't happen.


Obama [AK, AL, CO, MI, CT, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MO, MN, ND, UT]
Pros: Won a number of Midwest/Southern states crossing racial and gender lines. Took several states expected to go for Hillary, including Missouri, and ended up with more delegates than Hillary. Depsite losing California, doesn't appear to have lost much momentum

Cons: Came into SuperTuesday riding several big wins and positive media coverage, and still couldn't top Hillary. Seems to have a problem winning over the Hispanic community in California and Illinois. Not many chances left to try and take the nomination from Hillary.


Republican Results

Huckabee [AL, AR, GA, TN, WV]
Pros: Outperformed expectations in a big way, helped keep Romney from winning many states (all the Republican candidates seem to hate Romney). Despite being an underdog, showed himself the dominant candidate in many Southern states.

Cons: He beat expectations because they were so low. Has little chance of getting the nomination, although could secure a VP slot. His primary effect now is to tear away conservative voters from Romney, helping McCain.

McCain [AZ, CA, CT, DE, IL, MO, NJ, NY, OK]
Pros: Has practically clinched the nomination, winning big moderates states (California, New York) as well as conservative ones (Oklahoma). His momentum is only getting bigger, and is far ahead in terms of delegates.

Cons: Still is getting very few voters from conservative Republicans, who are splitting their votes between Romney and Huckabee. In not one single primary yet has he won the majority of conservative voters. If Huckabee drops out, or joins Romney, could find himself completely at odds with the base. Getting the votes of independents and anti-war Republicans is great, until they realize he's the most pro-war candidate.

Romney [AK, CO, MA, MN, MT, ND, UT]
Pros: Remains a top choice of the party base. Took Massachusetts and Utah with huge margins.

Cons: Romney was the biggest loser of SuperTuesday, having failed to capture any states beyond the ones he was practically guarenteed. Huckabee did better than him in capturing many big conservative states, and McCain swept the rest. After investing millions of his own money in the race, may have to evaluate at what point to drop out.

[baggle]

Great writeup, Irish. Thanks for that.

Who knows how long Hillary will be the 'better funded frontrunner', though. Looks like she is running on fumes right now. I guess we'll see where she takes it in the next few days.

[Wraith]

Huckabee [AL, AR, GA, TN, WV]
...
Cons: He beat expectations because they were so low. Has little chance of getting the nomination, although could secure a VP slot. His primary effect now is to tear away conservative voters from Romney, helping McCain.http://www.cagle.com/working/080205/summers.jpg

[Zanzibar]

Hillary took Massachusetts, which was a huge defeat for the Kennedys and Kerry.

Those Obama supporters must be kicking themselves. Before yesterday, they were showing polls where Obama had matched Hillary in California and New Jersey and Massachusetts, yet she crushed Obama in all three. They set up expectations of an Obama landslide, yet it was a draw.

A month ago, if you had said Obama would pull the same number of delegates as Hillary from Super Tuesday, it would have been seen as a clear victory for Obama. But now, with all the positive media coverage of his momentum, now it seems like he's stalled.

She wants more debates because she's an excellent debater. He wants to avoid them because his weaknesses are on display. Very curious how they're going to respond to Hillary's challenge to debate once a week from now on.

[baggle]

She wants one debate a week? Why? I can only imagine it'd be for soundbites, because nobody would actually be watching them after the first or second.

[Telefrog]

I'm actually pretty surprised that Obama has had trouble with the hispanic vote. Surprised me.

[Heretic Machine]

She wants one debate a week? Why? I can only imagine it'd be for soundbites, because nobody would actually be watching them after the first or second.

According to CNN, it is because she simply doesn't have the money to advertise as well as she needs to in the upcoming states (especially since they favor Obama). He doesn't carry debates well, and on top of that, they don't cost her massive amounts of cash. If he refused to take part in the debates with her, she'd have ammunition to use against him.

Hillary took Massachusetts, which was a huge defeat for the Kennedys and Kerry.

Those Obama supporters must be kicking themselves. Before yesterday, they were showing polls where Obama had matched Hillary in California and New Jersey and Massachusetts, yet she crushed Obama in all three. They set up expectations of an Obama landslide, yet it was a draw.

A month ago, if you had said Obama would pull the same number of delegates as Hillary from Super Tuesday, it would have been seen as a clear victory for Obama. But now, with all the positive media coverage of his momentum, now it seems like he's stalled.

She wants more debates because she's an excellent debater. He wants to avoid them because his weaknesses are on display. Very curious how they're going to respond to Hillary's challenge to debate once a week from now on.

What world do you live in? Are the people in the Hilary camp really this delusional?

Let me clue you in: From Mass. Clinton pulled in 54 delegates... Obama got 37. That is your big win?

[Zanzibar]

According to CNN, it is because she simply doesn't have the money to advertise as well as she needs to in the upcoming states (especially since they favor Obama). He doesn't carry debates well, and on top of that, they don't cost her massive amounts of cash. If he refused to take part in the debates with her, she'd have ammunition to use against him.

He really doesn't have a lot of substance. He's all about lofty speeches about the good of mankind, but he's not a policy-wonk like Hillary is. Again, anyone who's seen her in the debates knows that she's a MUCH more informed candidate than he is. The best he's done is in the California debate, which is to say that he only 'lost by a moderate margin' instead of 'got his ass handed to him..again.'

[Telefrog]

According to CNN, it is because she simply doesn't have the money to advertise as well as she needs to in the upcoming states (especially since they favor Obama). He doesn't carry debates well, and on top of that, they don't cost her massive amounts of cash. If he refused to take part in the debates with her, she'd have ammunition to use against him.


As far as I understood it, this is exactly the situation. She debates rather well, and it would be very cheap airtime. Money is the main issue with her campaign right now. She had to loan her own campaign $5 million (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aUeFYJjx6Kl0&refer=home) last month.


Clinton's loan "shows the effect of the success of Obama's fundraising in January, which stretched the Clinton campaign's resources, and even then her campaign was unable to match him,'' said Anthony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.

[Zanzibar]

What world do you live in? Are the people in the Hilary camp really this delusional?

Let me clue you in: From Mass. Clinton pulled in 54 delegates... Obama got 37. That is your big win?

He lost by FIFTEEN PERCENTAGE POINTS in Massachusetts, after he got virtually the entire Massachusetts Democratic establishment behind him. How is that not a failure?

[torrefaction]

I'll have to agree. Hillary really wipes the floor with the other candidates on the Dem side. It's brutal. She'll have a significantly tougher time with McCain or Romney (Pleasenotromney), because it won't be two people on the same side fighting, but I'm curious to see how it goes down.

The debates to me are far more important than how much I like a candidate, or how well their commercials play. I've said it before,but Obama's campaign rests entirely on rhetoric and hot air. He can't hold up to the scrutiny that Hilary puts him under.

[GrinR]

GO HILLARY GO!!!

WOOP!!!!






fhdsukfheuifb2uy3guoffse

[Heretic Machine]

I'll have to agree. Hillary really wipes the floor with the other candidates on the Dem side. It's brutal. She'll have a significantly tougher time with McCain or Romney (Pleasenotromney), because it won't be two people on the same side fighting, but I'm curious to see how it goes down.

The debates to me are far more important than how much I like a candidate, or how well their commercials play. I've said it before,but Obama's campaign rests entirely on rhetoric and hot air. He can't hold up to the scrutiny that Hilary puts him under.

He has everything you need to know up on his website. As for debates, they're worthless. I've tried to watch them, but all it ever comes down to is a lot of say-nothing statements and cock waving; which, ironically, Hilary is really great at.

[baggle]

He really doesn't have a lot of substance. He's all about lofty speeches about the good of mankind, but he's not a policy-wonk like Hillary is. Again, anyone who's seen her in the debates knows that she's a MUCH more informed candidate than he is. The best he's done is in the California debate, which is to say that he only 'lost by a moderate margin' instead of 'got his ass handed to him..again.'

That's fine and dandy, and would certainly make me want to focus on debates if I were Hillary, as well. But one a week is a bit much.

[Heretic Machine]

He lost by FIFTEEN PERCENTAGE POINTS in Massachusetts, after he got virtually the entire Massachusetts Democratic establishment behind him. How is that not a failure?

First of all, real people don't give a rats ass about what Ted Kennedy says. Unless you're at an Obama rally to begin with, you probably aren't even going to hear it, if you'd even care to. And as I pointed out, Hilary got seventeen more delegates out of that state than Obama; considering the way she bombed in most states, that isn't exactly impressive. Not to mention that this was going to be her biggest night, and her only real chance to defeat Obama; from here on out her performance is only going to get worse, and his will only get better.

[Telefrog]

That's fine and dandy, and would certainly make me want to focus on debates if I were Hillary, as well. But one a week is a bit much.

Which is why, if he is smart, he will refuse or at last only agree to one near the end of the run.

[Slack3r78]

Eh? Most of the reports I've seen have Obama having pulled more delegates yesterday.

[baggle]

Which is why, if he is smart, he will refuse or at last only agree to one.

True that. However, it's a trap (!!11!) by Hillary, also. She knows he'll never agree to one debate a week. Who the hell would? Could Hillary even schedule in one debate per week if he accepted? However, when he declines, he is then 'afraid to face her' or 'afraid of debates' or whatever they end up painting it as. It's a lose-lose for Obama, I think, unless people are smart enough to see through it, which I am not entirely sure of, but who knows.

[Heretic Machine]

True that. However, it's a trap (!!11!) by Hillary, also. She knows he'll never agree to one debate a week. Who the hell would? Could Hillary even schedule in one debate per week if he accepted? However, when he declines, he is then 'afraid to face her' or 'afraid of debates' or whatever they end up painting it as. It's a lose-lose for Obama, I think, unless people are smart enough to see through it, which I am not entirely sure of, but who knows.

It depends entirely on how the media want to portray it. It's safe to assume that they'll say whatever sounds the most dramatic, so they'll probably go with the "he's a'sceeered!"

[Xerxes]

Eh? Most of the reports I've seen have Obama having pulled more delegates yesterday.

I know. I went to bed thinking he just didn't get enough, and woke up shocked.

[baggle]

Ouchie. Things are looking worse and worse for Mrs. Clinton. Drudge just posted a link to a story by Time which claims that some staff members are going without pay.
SOURCE: THEY HAVE “VOLUNTARILY CHOSEN TO WORK WITHOUT PAY THIS MONTH” AS PART OF CLINTON CASH CRUNCH AGAINST OBAMA MOOLA FACTORY.

Includes campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle.
http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/06/page-exclusive-some-clinton-senior-staff-working-without-pay/

Story is still developing, and that's all there is to it right now, but wow, I can't believe her campaign is so strapped for cash.

[IrishWhiskey]

Ouchie. Things are looking worse and worse for Mrs. Clinton. Drudge just posted a link to a story by Time which claims that some staff members are going without pay.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/06/page-exclusive-some-clinton-senior-staff-working-without-pay/

Story is still developing, and that's all there is to it right now, but wow, I can't believe her campaign is so strapped for cash.Clinton actually has more cash than Obama with more major donors left to tap, and isn't likely to go broke anytime soon. Campaigns often do this in all elections, saving some money to spend on advertising. Clinton spent a lot on major ad-buys before SuperTuesday, as did Obama. However the Obama campaign actually had to cut back some ad buys before the primaries, as they didn't have enough cash. So she's probably in a better financial position.

The debates thing is indeed about free media, and she seems to do a bit better than him in the debates, but there's also a good chance that this is going to become a tactic, as she portrays Obama as weak on issues by challenging him to more debates than one would reasonably do, and then calling him chicken if he refuses. The Democratic candidates have avoided a Fox News debate on the urgings of their supporters (and after the Republican debates I'm not surprised), however Hillary indicated she was willing to do one now. Which means he'll have to agree and alienate the base, or decline and appear timid.

Ultimately Obama did better than anyone could have expected him to a week or two ago, and if it seems like a disappointment, its only because the expectations were unrealistically high. On the other hand, a lot of people are starting to realize that Hillary is indeed the frontrunner, and all that positive media coverage for Obama doesn't change the fact she has a stronger campaign.

Romney is in no danger of going broke, however he's pouring more of his personal fortune into the race than any other candidate, meaning that if he realizes he isn't going to win, he's got a very good reason to drop out fast.


http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/020608DailyUpdateGraph2.gif

[Zanzibar]

Here's an article about Clinton's delegate lead:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080206/ap_on_el_pr/super_tuesday_delegates_51;_ylt=ApoCpr1qlUoMgpfhU8 y26__kbeRF

Says there's still 'outstanding' delegates to be awarded in Illinois and Georgia, which were strong Obama states, but it doesn't look like he'll overcome Hillary's lead.

Another reference here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/06/super.main/index.html

On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton comes away with about 41 percent of the delegates needed for the nomination while Sen. Barack Obama sits at 36 percent.

Fewer than 50 votes separate Obama and Clinton in New Mexico, with 98 percent of Tuesday's vote counted.

I'm guessing these include superdelegates.

[Tel Prydain]

I just don't understand the delegate system. It does my head in.

[nathansmart]

I just read this on another message board I go to:

Honestly, I couldn't have cared less about California. Yes, it's a huge state, but winning it won't help your campaign. Obama won all of the states to prove his point, that he is the best candidate to beat John McCain. With the exception of a couple, all of the states that Hillary won were Democrat states. Those are the states who won't really help you in the general election. Obama has shown that he has the most support in the state who voted for Bush and the like. Also, Obama took Delaware, which I think will show a similar pattern going down through the Mid-Atlantic region. Obama won the best states for his campaign, all Hillary showed was that she's just going to get the same old states that the Democrats always get.

IrishWhiskey - do you think that has any truth to it?

[pearle]

Clinton actually has more cash than Obama with more major donors left to tap, and isn't likely to go broke anytime soon.

But wouldn't Clinton's major donors be mostly maxed out by now?

Obama is still raking in the dough (over $7 million since Super Tuesday) and, in January, raised three times the amount she did. Most of Obama's supports are small donors who are probably not even close to reaching the donation limit.

I'm not sure I could state with confidence that Clinton is in a better financial situation.

Do you have a link to anywhere claiming Obama cut back on ad buys?

[Zanzibar]

I just read this on another message board I go to:

IrishWhiskey - do you think that has any truth to it?

Um...well, I'm not Irish, but I'll throw a comment in anyways.

Being that they're BOTH Democrats, I'm not sure what the comparison is. That she won't be able to win the 2004 red states? I doubt that, since the Democratic turnout is almost double that of the GOP. The GOP is demoralized.

Hillary won in the traditional Democratic strongholds, sure. She crushed Obama in all the heavily-populated states with the exception of Obama's home state of Illlinois. Florida, California, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts. She's ahead in Ohio by 23 as of a week ago (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html) and up by 20 in Pennsylvania (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html) as of two weeks ago. Plus she's still up in Texas, which has a sizeable number of Hispanic voters, which have gone strongly towards Hillary. Yes, Obama may close the gap, but it's not likely to change who wins. That means her delegate count will increase more than it is now, even if she loses all of the Potomac Primaries next week.

But the upshot is that the Democrats are energized, the GOP has McCain who is a MAJOR turn-off for the conservative base, which is what carried the 2000 and 2004 elections. When the conservative base is demoralized, they get the kind of drubbings we saw in 2006.

Here's (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-06-delegates_N.htm) an article on the Democratic delegate allocation process. There are quite a few superdelegates who are free to choose whomever they want, but historically they usually choose the candidate that won the state they represent. Since there are usually MANY more superdelegates from the larger states, Hillary has a significant lead among them, which will go up even more if she wins Texas, Ohio, Washington State, and Pennsylvania.

[baggle]

So it's looking more and more like Edwards is going to be kingmaker after all. Anybody know how many delegates he has at this point? Last time I looked I believe it was 41.

[bKangy]

Obama's going to take this, Clinton's running out of money and ways she can spin herself positively. Remember that Obama was down massively in the big states just a short time before Super Tuesday, yet whipped it back anyway? I believe in him to go and do it in Texas as well, and while he might not win it, I think it'll be the tightest of margins. This month is his, as well, as Washington State is reportedly very likely to caucus for Obama and I think that'll give him the non-Southern momentum to rocket forward on. The superdelegates will side with whichever candidate is winning the pledged delegates in a month or so, and I reckon it'll be Obama.

[baggle]

Another thing to keep in mind is that, in my opinion at least, it would be folly to think that California Mexicans = Texas (and other southwest states) Mexicans in terms of culture, attitude, etc. There are a lot of differences, and I'm not convinced that Hillary will have as easy a time with Latinos in Texas and other southwest states as she did with the California Latino vote.

[Xerxes]

Another thing to keep in mind is that, in my opinion at least, it would be folly to think that California Mexicans = Texas (and other southwest states) Mexicans in terms of culture, attitude, etc. There are a lot of differences, and I'm not convinced that Hillary will have as easy a time with Latinos in Texas and other southwest states as she did with the California Latino vote.

So our Mexicans aren't really Mexicans...
http://www.zonalibre.org/blog/imsomnio/archives/csi.jpg

[Johan]

Go Obama, go! (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/and-obama-wept.html)

*bows down*

[bKangy]

I think it's a shame that a politician with an overwhelmingly positive image and attitude and no skeletons in the closet that aren't confronted directly, that tries to speak to everyone is derided as cultish, but if you enjoy the school of Karl Rove politics, feel free to continue anyway.

[torrefaction]

I think it's a shame that a politician with an overwhelmingly positive image and attitude and no skeletons in the closet that aren't confronted directly, that tries to speak to everyone is derided as cultish, but if you enjoy the school of Karl Rove politics, feel free to continue anyway.

The problem is his lack of substance when speaking or debating. He doesn't hold up well in those environments, which is a bad sign for a politician.

[Johan]

...but if you enjoy the school of Karl Rove politics, feel free to continue anyway.

Got a problem with the article? Post a reply to ABC and GTF off my lawn.

[Heretic Machine]

The problem is his lack of substance when speaking or debating. He doesn't hold up well in those environments, which is a bad sign for a politician.

...In what way? These are not skills that he will need as president.

[torrefaction]

...In what way? These are not skills that he will need as president.

So he will never need to deliver state of the union addresses, or debate with foreign leaders?

I should be President!

[Wadmaasi]

...In what way? These are not skills that he will need as president.
His lack of substance is what was being pointed out as the problem, not his relative debating skills.

[Heretic Machine]

So he will never need to deliver state of the union addresses, or debate with foreign leaders?

I should be President!

Debating with foreign leaders doesn't take place on a stage, and it doesn't have the same sort of goals. From what people who have worked with him have said, he has been great at this sort of work through-out his career. As for the state of the union address... he can give a motivational speech better than most people, and that is really what it amounts to. It also isn't something I really look for in a president...

His lack of substance is what was being pointed out as the problem, not his relative debating skills.

Lack of substance in debates (which doesn't seem all that different from the other candidates, but whatever). As has already been pointed out, his policies are clearly thought out, and presented on his website. You're free to check it out anytime you like.

[Oxonian]

As for the state of the union address... he can give a motivational speech better than most people, and that is really what it amounts to. It also isn't something I really look for in a president...
Motivational speeches are fine, but the StoU and other Presidential speeches are much more than that. The President needs to frame issues in a way that is favorable to him and make his political opponents look bad in order to get his policies through. A classic example were the two federal government shutdowns in the mid-'90s. Both were caused when the Republican Congress and President Clinton could not agree on a budget. During the first shutdown, which was ended by a short-term compromise, public opinion was fairly divided over whether Clinton or the Republicans were primarily to blame. During the second shutdown, however, Clinton managed to successfully depict Newt Gingrich as petty and motivated by a personal animus against Clinton. This ultimately led to a fatal weakening of Gingrich's political base, and allowed Clinton to regain the dominance over federal policy which he had lost after the '94 election.

[nathansmart]

don't presidents have speech writers? I know Ben Stein was a speech writer for Nixon - I think.

[Wadmaasi]

Lack of substance in debates (which doesn't seem all that different from the other candidates, but whatever). As has already been pointed out, his policies are clearly thought out, and presented on his website. You're free to check it out anytime you like.
I'm not particularly anti-Obama, but I don't think you can write off lack of substance in debates with a casual wave of the "it's on the intertrons" wand. If he can't present, articulate, and defend his positions, are they really his? How well does he know them? How much does he believe them? I don't know, because he couldn't say.

With the caveat that the 1v1 debate is the only one I've watched (Dem or Repub), it's no surprise to me that Obama declined the series of debates that Clinton proposed. For someone who's oratory has been lauded, I was very underwhelmed by his performance. My wife (who's pro-Clinton) specifically mentioned that his speech at the last convention (which she saw from the floor) was spectacularly awesome, and she was surprised by his relative lack of efficacy and nebulous "substance." It was obvious that Clinton knew her shit, and not obvious that Obama knew his own.

[Heretic Machine]

I'm not particularly anti-Obama, but I don't think you can write off lack of substance in debates with a casual wave of the "it's on the intertrons" wand. If he can't present, articulate, and defend his positions, are they really his? How well does he know them? How much does he believe them? I don't know, because he couldn't say.

And again, I don't see the other candidates delivering more substance than he does in these same debates. Can anyone cite a specific example?

[Zanzibar]

And again, I don't see the other candidates delivering more substance than he does in these same debates. Can anyone cite a specific example?

Really? Hmm. I thought it was pretty obvious in watching both candidates that Hillary dealt with MUCH more specific plans on how to accomplish her vision. Lemme find a transcript of the debate and you can see.

Here it is. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/dem.debate.transcript/index.html) Unfortunately you gotta read it carefully to see the difference. If you just skim it, you'll miss a lot of detail that Hillary gives to each and every policy answer. A lot of Obama's responses are anecdotal about the people he's met on the campaign trail, etc etc.

[torrefaction]

And again, I don't see the other candidates delivering more substance than he does in these same debates. Can anyone cite a specific example?

Are you kidding? Just watch the New Hampshire debates, when they ask exactly what they'll do to solve the Iraq problem (I think some other stuff around this.)

Clinton outlayed a clear organized plan, while Obama waxed rhetorical about the need to get out and change for the most part.

[Xerxes]

I need youtube proof.

[Heretic Machine]

Really? Hmm. I thought it was pretty obvious in watching both candidates that Hillary dealt with MUCH more specific plans on how to accomplish her vision. Lemme find a transcript of the debate and you can see.

Here it is. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/dem.debate.transcript/index.html) Unfortunately you gotta read it carefully to see the difference. If you just skim it, you'll miss a lot of detail that Hillary gives to each and every policy answer. A lot of Obama's responses are anecdotal about the people he's met on the campaign trail, etc etc.

Cite something specific in there, I'm not reading that whole fucking thing just to prove a point on an internet forum.