Obama wins. That's fairly expected. Of course when the dust settles we're going to be most concerned with the delegate counts.
UPDATE: Chuck Todd says Obama may have gotten as much as a 35 delegate advantage out of Georgia.
« The Trouble With Cool | Main | Georgia GOP »
Georgia
05 Feb 2008 07:02 pm
Comments (39)
The exit poll numbers on Drudge look pretty good for Obama, no?
Now if he got those numbers among the white vote and the age groups, Hillary's well and truly fucked.
My back of the envelope calculation suggests around a 30 point win for Obama in Georgia statewide, which is good news for his chances of picking up extra delegates in the CDs.
The exit polls looked pretty good for Kerry too, I think they had him winning Ohio and Penn.
Al, very good looking numbers for Obama, but do the exit poll numbers include the probably large amount of absentee ballots cast before Clinton's support began to erode? Could skew the results somewhat.
From what I understand, HRC needs to break a 15% margin in black districts or Obama gets extra districts.
Go....Bama!!!!
You're right Michael.
Obama really needed to have a big lead in the exit polls to have a chance in states like California or Massachusetts. He didn't get it. He's going to lose.
Given that people still have two or more hours left to vote in several states, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in those particular exit polls.
It's a big win indeed in GA -- 86-13:
"In the first win of what is expected to be a long night, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., defeated Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in Georgia, a key Southern state, winning 86 percent to Clinton's 13 percent, according to preliminary exit poll results."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4243619&page=1
Remember that exit polls have margins of error just like normal polls. Can't read them exactly.
otto - that margin is for the black vote, not overall. You're right though, it DOES look like a larger-than-expected blowout. Not sure if that'll translate to the rest of the contests tonight, but leaked exit polls certainly make me think so.
A good start....
Come on California!!
Thanks for the correction.
CNN's complete Georgia Exit Poll details
Bottom line: Obama tied or won every category listed, with two exceptions: white folks 45 or older, and people in general 60 or older - though the latter appears to be entirely an effect of support for Clinton among whites being even stronger among the oldest white voters.
A good state for Obama, and it may be interesting to see how the strong results reported four hours before PST polls close might impact west coast voting - although that could cut either way.
Still TONS of time left for voting in California.
As it was in South Carolina, I would expect a late surge of younger Obama voters, who tend not to vote first thing in the morning.
This "evening surge" will likely be counteracted by Clinton's supposed lead in the mail-in votes. At the same time, it's not like mail in ballots came out months ago, only two weeks ago.
What a night!
President Obama would be a disaster for the State of Israel. I suspect that the israel bashers on this blog like Mr. otto, Mr. Williams, Mr. Hack, Mr. RKU, Mr. Saifedean, Mr. Reality Man, etc. are rooting hard for him.
http://web.israelinsider.com/views/12616.htm
A telling excerpt indicating the number of Israel bashers amongst Senator Obamas' advisers.
"Obama has appointed ardent critics of Israel as his foreign policy advisors. They include:
* Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser;
* Robert Malley, a relentless apologist for Yasser Arafat;
* Samantha Power, who has also called for the elimination of foreign aid to Israel and its redirection to "Palestine".
Among the conservatives Obama has said he may call upon to advise him are (according to an interview Obama gave in the February 4, 2008 issue of Newsweek) Senators Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel, possibly the most anti-Israel figures among Senate Republicans."
Ah yes, absentee ballots, the hidden enemy of democracy. Back in my Tucson days, the Democrats were torn between the hope of broadening their base (motor-voter) and fear of Republican double-dipping snowbirds.
Here in Hawaii, the GOP fears the union hall where the rank and file are presumably "assisted" in filling out their mail-in ballots.
I'm still not sold on the idea that it's a public good to go out of our way enabling otherwise ambulatory people who can't be bothered to get off their ass for an hour to vote. With as much trouble as we've had over the years keeping elections clean when then action is out in the open where we can keep an eye on it, the idea of ballots appearing out of nowhere via USPS or TCP/IP continues to give me the willies.
SLC, I try to tolerate or ignore the trolls, but just for this highly tense time, could you please go play outside? Preferably in traffic?
On the other hand, for anyone not reading TPM (unlikely to be many of you, though their servers are getting hit hard), here is Josh Marshall's digest of early "second wave" exit poll results:
GA: C- 25.5, O - 75
CT: C - 45, O - 52.2
IL: C - 29.1, O - 69.6
AL: C - 37, O - 59.6
DE: C - 41.9, O - 55.6
MA: C - 47.3, O - 49.8
MO: C - 45.1, O - 49.8
TN: C - 51.6, O - 41.1
NY: C - 55.6, O - 42.2
NJ: C - 47, O - 52.2
AR: C - 71.2, O - 25.5
OK: C - 60.5, O - 30.4
AZ: C - 44.8, O - 50.5
These below are first wave ...
NM: C - 45.6, O - 51.8
UT: C - 39.9, O - 60.1
CA: C - 49.6, O - 46.3
SLC, your post doesn't constitute an argument. It's a scare tactic. One step above a whisper campaign.
CarpetMuncher- while the ballots were only sent out two weeks ago, Clinton still had a double digit lead there two weeks ago, Obama's only closed the gap in the last few days. If half the ballots were absentees, you'd expect Obama to have to win same-day votes by a roughly equal margin to be able to win California, no? And exit polls indicate a slim win for Clinton even among these voters.
I'm no pollster, I have no idea if there's a discrepancy between total poll support and support among early voters. But as I read these numbers, Obama is unlikely to win the Golden State.
SLC,
Even Marty Peretz isn't worried about Obama, so just how far right of an Pro isreal loon are you?
I'm sorry, but why did israel get mentioned here? I mean, no to put too fine a point on it, but this isn't a giving a shit about israel thread.
Obama might be bad for Netanyahu, but he is not bad for Israel.
One of the many things I admire about him is that he has the ability to scare the most partisan, yet still get the endorsements of the NY Sun, the NY Post, and Marty Peretz, which is a really neat trick.
And I'm sure some of the people SLC listed hate Obama for just that too.
Obama will be good for America, good for Israel and good for almost everyone else.
Erik k, gerontion -- please do not feed the trolls.
Based on SLC's posts, he's probably a support of Avigdor and Yisrael Beiteinu. So even Bibi wouldn't like him too much.
Re Ryan S, Eric k, SoCalJustice, Michael T. Sweeney,
A man (or woman) is known by the company he/she keeps. The article I linked to listed several individuals whose attitude toward the State of Israel is, to put it delicately, less then friendly. All of these individuals are either foreign policy advisers to Senator Obama or are Republicans he claims to respect.
Re Warren Terra
Since this isn't Mr. Terras' blog, he is hereby invited to stick his comment where the sun don't shine.
Re Greg
Actually, I consider Mr. Lieberman to be rather naive relative to his views on the Fakestinians. He seems to feel that a full court effort to improve the economic conditions in the PA will somehow result in making a peaceful solution feasible. Unfortunately, the fact is that the Fakestinians don't want to improve their economic condition. They just want to continue their war against the State of Israel.
HRC is now at 39 at intrade. Purely as a betting man, that's tempting odds.
http://www.intrade.com//?request_operation=main&request_type=action&checkHomePage=true#
SLC, You are proving how much of a loon you are by your links:
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser
Yeah that peace with Egypt thing sure was a disaster for Isreal.
The article you linked too is a joke, they spin Samantha Powers quotes into pretzels to make her look anti-Isreal.
The bottom line is the difference between Clinton and Obama on Isreal is probably less than the difference between them on Health care.
Ryan, SoCalJustice, Greg - do not feed the trolls.
Eric K - don't make me warn you a third time :)
Come on we gotta kill time some how and poking them with a stick can be fun:-)
We shouldn't assume that California mail ballot voting will reflect early polling data.
I'll point to the California Field Poll, which shows an even split between Obama and Clinton among mail ballot voters. [http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2264.pdf (go to Table 3 on page 4)]
I have a theory that people who voted by mail don't reflect the polling data at the time they sent their ballots because they did their homework before voting. It's clear that Obama's support grows as people learn more about him.
Re Erik k
1. James Earl Carter, the worst president in American history (although to be fair, he will probably be surpassed in this regard by the current incumbent), has distinguished himself after leaving the presidency by publishing an anti-Israel book and refusing to defend his views in a public forum. Carter is a yellow bellied coward.
2. The so-called peace treaty engineered by Carter is operative only because he bribed the two parties to the tune of some 5.3 billion/year between them to behave themselves.
Re Michael T. Sweeney
Mr. Sweeney is hereby invited to take a long walk on a short pier.
"I suspect that the israel bashers on this blog like Mr. otto, Mr. Williams, Mr. Hack, Mr. RKU, Mr. Saifedean, Mr. Reality Man, etc. are rooting hard for him."
Moron.
I'm an anarchist. I don't "root hard" for politicians.
And Obama panders to Israel nearly as much as Clinton. He just doesn't convince the "exterminate the Palestinians" crowd like you that he does, as the Haaretz article I've mentioned before proves.
Giuliani was Israel's top pick! The biggest nut in the US! Guaranteed "War to Exterminate All Muslims!"
Awwww, poor SLC! Giuliani ain't even involved any more!
Clinton was second, though! You're still in the running for an Iran AND Pakistan war! It'll just take a little longer...
"Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" McCain was a disappointing third! But if he wins, you'll get your Iran and Pakistan wars in the first year of his administration! Guaranteed!
Obama was dead last. But if he wins, you'll have to wait maybe a year or two to get your Iran and Pakistan wars. Just hang in there! I know you have patience!
Well, I'm a Zionist, but I do think it says something about the state of US foreign policy today that the biggest issue in the GA goes for Obama thread is how it affects Israel.
That was only because the SLC troll popped in.
"Don't feed the trolls" is a good idea, but let's face it, Georgia wasn't that exciting. Everybody's waiting on the more important states like California.
Re Richard Steven Hack
Well, I expected this blogs favorite bank robber to pop up with his usual lack of intelligence. Actually, the only things Mr. Hack is good for is sticking a gun in a bank tellers' face and bending over for the brothers in the slammer.
Comments closed February 19, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
And they called it right away. That, I'd think indicates at LEAST a 15% margin. Exit polls indicate he got 43% of the white vote as well, including a majority of the young white vote, and 49% of the 40-65ish.
Posted by Michael T Sweeney | February 5, 2008 7:09 PM