Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island go to Hillary Clinton. Ten points in Ohio, 19 points in Rhode Island and about three points in Texas (with more delegates from the caucus to come which Obama is leading). All in all it was certainly a good night for Clinton...or was it?
Since we are down to the nitty gritty in this campaign and there are no winner take-all states (thank god for proportional democracy) her big night turns out could be a one delegate win. Seriously, check the numbers:
Vermont (15 delegates) Barack got 60 percent of the vote
9 - Obama
6 - Clinton
Rhode Island (21 delegates) Hillary got 59% of the vote
12 - Clinton
8- Obama
Texas (primary) link (126 delegates) 51% for Clinton
64 - Clinton
62 - Obama
These are estimates and could go up for Obama because of the African-American vote
Texas (caucus - 67 delegates not near final)
37 -Obama
30 - Clinton
total
99 - Obama
94 - Clinton
Ohio - 54% for Clinton - Results
73- Clinton
68 - Obama
That is a split of Clinton - 185 and Obama 184. Amazing. Mrs. Clinton certainly has bragging rights, but she did not win anything. Obama surely will make this up in Wyoming and Mississippi. According to both campaigns Obama entered last night with a 159 pledged delegate lead. So, the lead is now 158?
One thing that is true today is Obama needs to react to the negative barrage of attacks on all fronts he received over the last week. Seven weeks of this and he could be seriously down for the count. His campaign needs to react.
Update: Clinton's win may be up to ten delegates, still very modest.
9 comments:
Yes and no. It didn't do much for Clinton in terms of the delegate count. But one of the public radio reporters last night made the astute observation that the lead up to last night was not about numbers, it was about momentum. And Hillary did gain some momentum from her wins last night.
What does momentum do when there is no possible way you can win the delegates?
And I agree the momentum of Obama was stopped, but what momentum does she have? They are going to Wyoming and Mississippi next with Pennsylvania in seven weeks.
yep, she's got a math problem with the pldeged delegates. but, it is also a factual statement that neither of them can win without super delegates.
i guess we view the race differently. since i will be happy to see either of them take the office, i am enjoying the competitive race. i also love it when voters defy pundit and pollster expectations. it makes me hopeful that the voters do still have some power.
and i have to quote our friend from Daily Kos (who you turned me on to):"And what's the debate about between Obama and Clinton? Health care. Iraq. Jobs. The sort of thing that can only help us long term. ...Obama has to prove that he can bounce back from such setbacks. He's had a mostly charmed political life. A little political adversity is important. Hillary Clinton and her team responded well to her painful losing streak. Now let's see how the Obama team bounces back."
these are two quality canidiates and they are only helping voters think on their feet. and that also can only help us long term.
geez i have to start spell checking my postings! sorry for the typos.
So, at the end of the day if Obama is winning by 100 delegates (most likely situation) and is winning in states, winning in delegates, and winning in popular vote because superdelegates can overtake that would be ok with you?
I can tell you it would not be ok with Obama supporters. And I have been a reluctant Obama supporter, but this kind of politics, the kind that is all about the establishment is what peeves most people about politics and turns people off.
Secondly, what pundits did she defy? She was supposed to win Ohio, she was supposed to win Texas...she did what she had to do. The states were tailor made for her.
And if you are o.k. with fearmongering (the commercial in Ohio with the ringing phone) which is a Republican tactic, blackening Obama's face, a disgusting tactic, and throwing every piece of crap his way, then you are right, but I am not ok with that.
I agree Barack has to withstand some hits and in my mind he has withstood much more than Hillary has withstood until now. Where are her tax records, her white house records? How come the press does not ask her about that?
If Hillary wins this thing fair and square, fine and dandy - I will support her in her leading the party, but if she tries to take it from Obama, then it is a bastardization of democracy. And people will be so angry there is no way McCain can lose.
Winning is one thing, but attacking a fellow democrat's ability to lead, smear campaigns about him maybe being muslim, circulating photos of him in Muslim headress and the other fearmongering...that is not my type of politics, not for the democrats anyway.
john, dear friend, i love your passion. so let's first focus on what we agree about, if there is anything.
the superdelegate system sucks. it is the progeny of another sucky system, the electoral college. so at baseline, we are starting with a "bastardization of democracy." agreed?
well then we both must agree that those are what we are stuck with, for now. they aren't going to change between now and november 4.
so, the answer to your first question is, yes, the scenario you describe is OK with me, in the current circumstances. if hillary goes on to win Pennsylvania and ultimately makes a persuasive argument something akin to, "i won California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and i can do it again and nobody wins the presidency without those and barack can't win them", then that's a legitimate argument. it may not win and barack will have equally good countervailing arguments. superdelegates have already gone from hillary to barack and vice versa.
there is waxing and waning in the media tide. there was a time when hillary seemed like the sure thing. then the media tide turned and helped bolster the genuine excitement and momentum of barack's campaign. she was definitely wounded going into yesterday's contests and many commentators were zeroing in on her weaknesses. but the campaign obviously still has a lot of support.
i am not ok with fear mongering. if someone on her campaign released those photos, then i hope that person got canned. she said in the last debate that she had no knowledge of those photos coming from her campaign, and barack, in a moment that scored huge points from me, diplomatically said he took her on his word. the whole incident weighed in his favor, and i might add he looked so cute in the traditional garb. but i digress. a few months ago you were riled up about barack aligning himself with anti-gay ministry, but you have obviously forgiven him for that, or looked past it. and there are always things that need to be forgiven, or at least acknowledged and set aside, before one pulls the lever. i voted for bill clinton over bob dole in 1996 even though i was really pissed about DOMA.
i don't think the commercial about the 3am phone call was fear mongering. i think it genuinely sold what the campaign thinks is her strong point, experience. if that was "Rovian", then they are both guilty. i watched the two back to back on SG. barack's commercial was the same exact commercial except selling one of his strong points, knowing enough to oppose the war in iraq. both are legit arguments to sell the candidates. just because you highlight strengths and point out flaws, it doesn't make it Rovian. just like if somebody does something second, it does not make it less Rovian. (barack's commercial went on the air so shortly after hillary's, it is possible that many voters saw his first, in which case he would have been perceived as the Rovian instigator.)
this thing is far from over and mccain, clinton, and obama are all due for much more scrutiny: hillary not releasing her records until after (if) she receives the nomination may only help her shoot herself in the foot; mccain backtracking on his past positions to appease conservatives may earn him the "flip-flopper" award; etc, etc.
yes, john, these types of politics are not my type of politics. in fact, politics are not my type of politics. so maybe, we can try to cull the best out of a messy situation and focus more on reform that will help make the situation better in the future.
agreed?
I guess agreed my dear Glory, I can only say for myself I do not believe Barack has crossed "that" line. I believe Hillary has, is and will...there are things that just go beyond the pale for me. She does, as did Gore as did Bill Clinton for me...
reform, yes I think Hillary is a smidgen better than McCain. I think with Barack we get something different, not perfect, but something worth fighting for. Mrs. Clinton is more of the same and I just cannot support it.
Most likely I may come around and vote for her is she is the nominee. But, I will neither be excited about it, nore will I help in getting her elected.
I think politics may be over for me as far as Presidential elections. It is always the same, the insurgent captures the imagination and then is trashed by the establishment.
And to be clear, I was not trying to put you in a corner with your position...it just would not be ok with me if the person leading in delegates does not get the nomination. I would feel the same if it were Hillary leading...Superdelegates should not be trumping the people - ever.
Another thing if Florida and Michigan are agreed upon to have new primaries and she wins those and can continue her road to victory she can do that, but just sitting the delegates when there were no contests is outrageous.
But, to answer. Agreed.
XO!
I don't know how any Democrat can enjoy watching Hillary and Barack tear each other down and spend money like crazy while McCain sits back and evaluates which attacks work better. We keep finding ways to lose elections... cheated in '00, nominated a sure loser in '04, and now, self-destruction.
Post a Comment