On the Democratic side, everything seems to be basically playing out as expected. Since "as expected" involved Clinton winning bigger states than the ones Obama would win, she ought to emerge with a lead in delegates. But Obama seems to have poached Connecticut from her column and held it close in New Jersey, so the delegate count ought to remain well within reach unless Clinton pulls off some kind of blowout in California.
« Huckabee's Big Night | Main | Romney's Speech »
Democratic Ambiguity
05 Feb 2008 10:35 pm
Comments (25)
I agree with KobayashiMaru - Obama had a great night for him. I've said before the election, if he ends the night less than 100 delegates behind Clinton, he's in great shape (essentially a lead). Unless California results in a Clinton blowout, it's likely that he comes close to having an overall lead in delegates.
It's interesting how the press is covering the election. It seems like many of the TV pundits don't understand the delegate allocation system, and are covering the election as if it was a general: rack up the states with the largest number of people. In delegates and in total number of votes, it seems like Obama is having a great night, considering the hostile ground he was on.
"Since "as expected" involved Clinton winning bigger states than the ones Obama would win, she ought to emerge with a lead in delegates."
I think Obama is clearly winning tonight's delegate count, ex-California.
So perversely, he might have a razor lead in delegates when all is said and done.
Well, in theory, but I don't think so in practice. My understanding is that HRC's getting a big batch of delegates out of NY.
I suppose a lot depends on how the superdelegates/unpledged delegates go AND how the votes are apportioned, but Obama is racking up big victories in caucus states and holding it reasonably close in much of the Northeast. He is below 40% only in Tennessee and Oklahoma. Clinton, on the other hand, is below 40% in Georgia, Illinois, and all the caucus states of Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, and North Dakota.
Can we attribute Obama's big wins in caucus states to his ground organization? Certainly can't be the African-American vote.
One thing that shows up scrolling through all the states on CNN is that Obama is putting up margins bigger than Illinois/Georgia in all of the caucus states. They range from fairly blue (MN) to purple (CO) to bright red (KS, ND) but they are overwhelmingly white (or at least, in the case of CO, not black.)
Yeah, it has been acknowledged for weeks that Obama would be strong in the caucus states. But there is no natural reason for this, other than being a stronger candidate. It's not like Hillary was short on resources, or lacked the establishment help needed to build a caucus operation. How do you put a positive spin on getting less than a third of the vote in multiple states?
Hillary speaks before California closes, and Obama hasn't spoke yet. Do they know something we don't? Could just be that Obama has a central-time-zone HQ which allows him to keep his audience pumped later into the night, but if Hillary was expecting a CA win, it seems odd she'd give her speech before the polls close there.
That said, I'm probably reading too much into this and I still fully expect Hillary to take California by 5 or 6 points.
Can we attribute Obama's big wins in caucus states to his ground organization? Certainly can't be the African-American vote.
Let's hope it's not the Bradley effect.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=268328
Cuz those caucus states will have secret ballots come November.
"Well, in theory, but I don't think so in practice."
Your theory of the practice is faulty.
I'll bet you that Obama wins the ex-California delegate count tonight.
Is there a site that is doing the simple math of delegates for the state times the results? I don't care if it's accurate, I just want an estimate.
"Hillary speaks before California closes, and Obama hasn't spoke yet. Do they know something we don't? "
Yes. They know that a smart campaign holds the TV stage at 11pm Eastern.
I too noticed that Obama did way better in the caucus states. Is that because voting is public, not private--at least to some extent? Obama is clearly "the cool candidate" and one can sense, on sites like Matt, the huge amount of social pressure building to affirm him. So, not a Bradley effect, but maybe a sort of nerdish resistance to the cool kids when the ballot is secret.
"Is there a site that is doing the simple math of delegates for the state times the results? I don't care if it's accurate, I just want an estimate."
Wait two or three hours for a rudimentary picture, unless someone intrepid is doing intensive math on dKos or some such place.
I voted in the Minnesota caucus and the voting was done by secret paper ballot. I think the midwest caucus states have a higher turnout of young and highly educated voters.
It seems that through the whole campaign, Hillary wins things 53-44. Obama seems to win things 62-38. The MSM acts like a win is a win, but it isn't. Look back at supposedly Hillary wins in NH and NV, she really only picked up one more delegate between the two 'victories.'
California will be interesting as the other trend I see is Hillary doing best in the big Democratic machine states. The NE seems to be done, can she win in Louisiana? Washington seems to be the next big prize.
Yes. They know that a smart campaign holds the TV stage at 11pm Eastern.
If Obama comes away with wins in a majority of states and maybe gets the delegate win too, Hillary can talk anytime she likes tonight.
"can she win in Louisiana?"
Of course not. Racial demographics.
Well, I did silly math of results times delegates.
It was close enough for it to be a tie, with Obama having a very slight lead.
"Well, I did silly math of results times delegates."
You parsed by CD level results? Cuz that's the only way to have an idea of delegate allocation...
Chuck Todd on TV is predicting Obama 594, Clinton 546 at the end of the night. He thinks Obama's doing a bit better than expected in NY delegates.
Chuck Todd on TV is predicting Obama 594, Clinton 546 at the end of the night. He thinks Obama's doing a bit better than expected in NY delegates.
"Chuck Todd on TV is predicting Obama 594, Clinton 546 at the end of the night"
He thinks Edwards is going to win 700 delegates?
You parsed by CD level results? Cuz that's the only way to have an idea of delegate allocation...
Nope. State results times delegate count. It's obvious that it's completely inaccurate, but it was enough for me to feel that the results are going to be too close. And it kind of hammered home the point that reporting states and calling wins by states is really dumb for proportional primaries.
I guess I misunderstood. Maybe he meant states called so far.
Comments closed February 19, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Keep in mind too that Obama's blowouts -- IL and GA, for example -- seem to be in states with more delegates than those that HRC blew out. So perversely, he might have a razor lead in delegates when all is said and done.
Posted by KobayashiMaru | February 5, 2008 10:42 PM