Because with Edwards out of the race, I voted for Obama.
PAD
141 comments on “My Super Tuesday Prediction for New York”
So, what finally tipped you over to his side?
I voted for Obama too.
I looked at the positions of Obama, Clinton, and Paul, and while I was extremely pìššëd at some of their positions, Clinton outraged me a bit more, and some aspects of Ron Paul’s record just shocked me.
Clinton lost me when she used a bûllšhìŧ slippery slope argument in which she envisions taxpayers paying for KKK or jihad schools. I was also shocked that whereas they’re both for laws against flag-burning, Ron Paul, who I thought was a strict Constitutionalist, actually introduced a friggin’ bill for it. McCain’s support for staying in Iraq lost him my vote, and there’s no way I’m voting for a creationist like Romney into office.
I also liked Obama’s open-minded and egalitarian view on religion, which is derived from his anthropologist mother taking him to Christian churches, Shinto shrines, Buddhist temples, and Muslim mosques in his youth, and educating him alongside children of other religions in a public school.
Edwards’ slimy actions as a lawyer didn’t endear him to me, I don’t care how many writers or unions he cozies up to.
Just being pragmatic. For a year I’ve been concerned that Hillary Clinton is not electable. I’ve seen nothing in the intervening months to change my mind. And if it comes down to Clinton v. McCain, I think she’ll get slaughtered. I’m not sure Obama stands much more of a chance, but I think he’s got a better one than Clinton.
PAD
I voted absentee weeks ago. My first write-in vote ever for Albert Gore, Jr. I will, of course hold my nose and vote for Hillary or Barack in November. However, I could not bring myself to do so in the primary.
Odd but perceptive note on CNN just now…
“I wonder how much the Giant’s parade affected voting patterns in NYC…”
I’d vote for Obama too, but I have to hope he wins the Democratic nomination first. Ahh, the joys of being an independent.
Ack. To clarify, the comment about Clinton above envisioning wacky schools was in regard to her opposition to school vouchers. That got lost in editing.
I admit, I didn’t vote today. I was in meetings/class until 8:40, and had the choice to eat for the first time in 6 hours, or vote. But, I’m fine with this, because I don’t really care which Democrat is nominated – they both have huge (very nearly fatal) flaws, as far as I’m concerned… and I’d still vote for either of them over anyone else. So, dinner won.
Look on the bright side, PAD. The democratic primaries aren’t all or nothing. Even if Clinton wins the state, your vote will still contribute to how many delegates Obama gets.
That’s actually frustrating me a little with CNN’s webpage coverage. They’re listing wins and losses as if that’s what matters. But I can look at the totals and see that a lot of Hillary’s second place finishes are very close, while Obama’s second places finishes are mostly by bigger margins. We could easily see one candidate “win” more states but end up with less delegates total. What I want is a running delegate count, not a state count.
Pull out the crucifixes and holy water, I voted in the Republican primary.
However,I truly feel that no matter which two candidates make it to November, they’ll be far better options than the Bush v. Kerry option we had 4 years ago. So if (and probably, when) a Democrat gets elected into office this November, I’ll begrudgingly stand behind him or her knowing there’s somebody competent in control.
Okay, I had to check a few news sites, but I found what I wanted.
I’ll make a prediction now. At the end of the day, the Democratic nomination still won’t be remotely clear. We might not see either Obama or Hillary drop at until the last state holds its primary.
And now I’m confused.
Was I wrong about the Democratic primary not being all-or-nothing? MSNBC is calling New York for Hillary and they seem to be giving her all the delegates. I’m missing something.
Clinton gets Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. New York I saw coming. NJ I was 50/50 on but leaning towards Clinton. Massachusetts I didn’t see going her way. I guess John Kerry and Teddy & clan don’t have the stroke in their home state that they used to have and that the pundits played them up as still having.
The exit polls had people thinking that it was an Obama blowout. Now the actual results are showing Hillary coming out ahead more often than not.
had this been the actual election we’d no doubt be hearing about how this was evidence of a fix. Can we all just admit now that exit polls have become scarcely worth the value of a monkey with a dart board?
It’s increasingly likely that the Superdelegates will decide the nominee for the Democrats, in which case I would think that Hillary is at an advantage. Momentum seems to be on Obama’s side–is there enough time for him to capitalize on it?
” Can we all just admit now that exit polls have become scarcely worth the value of a monkey with a dart board?”
I don’t know about that. I’m up and down on the issue of Keith Olbermann’s credibility sometimes, but he’s been doing something lately that actually works and makes sense. After the Iowa fiasco, he started to refer to something that he was calling “The Keith Number” on a poll. This is the combined numbers of the margin of error and the number of undecideds. His reasoning behind the creation of this qualifier was the theory that the polls weren’t as wrong as the reporting of the polls was. He stated that, just as one example, almost every Obama “win” that turned into a Hillary win was right if you added a majority of the poll’s undecided number to Hillary’s.
I went back and looked up a lot of those polls. He was right. Sometimes the actual win was her number and the undecided number added together exactly. Now, that does make polls in close races harder to deoend on, but it hardly invalidates the polls. All it does is remind you that there is an unpredictability factor beyond the margin of error and that you should not just look at those top two numbers.
MSNBC projects Hil as the winner.
They also made a good point…Hillary is winning all the states that she has no chance to win in November, and McCain is doing likewise. Obama and Romney are doing better in states that are likely to actually go for their parties. Could be a weird general election.
Can we all just admit now that exit polls have become scarcely worth the value of a monkey with a dart board?
Every election, it disgusts me that these ‘news channels’ are calling a state or race for one candidate or another, and they’ve barely started counting the ballots yet.
Instead of being so impatient and getting it wrong, I’d rather they hold back and get it right.
But don’t suggest that to the news channels. 🙂
“MSNBC projects Hil as the winner.”
Do you mean they’re projecting her the winner in New York? I don’t see anything where they project her as a general winner.
Official…Obama wins the Minnesota caucus. Not sure if its a suprise by many but I think it shows again that the white folks in fly over country do not have a problem voting for a black candidate.
or apparently Mitt Romney either though only about 17% reporting in
Man this is going to be one interesting race…
Not sure if its a suprise by many but I think it shows again that the white folks in fly over country do not have a problem voting for a black candidate.
Well, white voter in Minnesota isn’t necessarily the same as white voter in Missouri or further south. For example, I distinctly recall a number of people questioning voters in southern Iowa after the vote there went Clinton, Edwards, Obama (and having lived in that part of Iowa, yes, there is a fair share of racism).
Unfortunately, there’s a good chance that race will have an impact upon the nomination, and it favors Clinton: whether it’s whites who won’t vote for Obama, or Hispanics who won’t vote for Obama.
Although, the exit polls appear to be showing that perhaps things aren’t as bad as some like myself fear: the Hispanics appear to be voting for Obama in greater numbers than expected, and while Obama is getting an overwhelming amount of the black vote, it isn’t absolute as well.
Sometimes the actual win was her number and the undecided number added together exactly. Now, that does make polls in close races harder to depend on, but it hardly invalidates the polls. All it does is remind you that there is an unpredictability factor beyond the margin of error and that you should not just look at those top two numbers.
But you’d have to believe that ALL the undecideds actually voted for one candidate…seems unlikely. And what possible use is any poll that, in addition to the margin of error, also can add everyone that’s undecided? That would give a 16 point plus or minus in one of the CNN polls I just saw. What good is that?They might as well just come out and say “As far as we can tell, Obama may be about to beat Clinton in a landslide, lose in a landslide, win in a close election, lose in a close election or tie her. Keep watching for further news!”
The polls have been all over the place the last few days. I hope they at least have the integrity to admit that (some) of them just plain got it wrong and not resort to the old “A sudden massive movement toward the eventual winner that showed up in our polls right after our last published one” routine that some have used to explain discrepancies in the past.
It may just be that poll taking has become too difficult to do in our modern world, for reasons I’m not sure of. But at least I hope people will stop seeing exit poll errors as proof of some conspiracy when their candidate doesn’t win.
I figured out why the MSNBC delegate totals were confusing me. Even though they’re calling winners in a lot of states, they’re not counting the delegates until the final results are in. That’s why the numbers are still so low.
Clinton is the only candidate who loses to the Republicans no matter what. I cannot imagine how people could be so misguided as to vote for her. If she ends up the Democratic candidate, Republicans will come out of the woodwork to vote AGAINST her rather than for their candidate.
I for one, a typical democratic voter, will stay home rather than vote for another 8 years of sniping about the 1960s that won’t even win (and even if she wins would not have the ability to pull people together to make change in any way).
The Democratic nomination is going to be a dog-fight until the end. I don’t think Clinton expected this, but with Edwards out now, it appears a good 2/3 of those people are voting for Obama. Clinton was expecting those 2/3 or more to swing her way. More men are definitely voting for Obama, but, surprisingly, it seems the women are nearly split down the middle.
I predict that the Democratic Convention is going to be one of the most interesting Convention in decades. Neither Clinton or Obama will have enough delegates going into it to garner the nomination, so one will need to give. And neither will. So this is going to be one hëll of a fight. One I suspect Clinton is going to lose… She’s far too devisive and she won’t even attempt to “play” nice which will turn people off more and more.
Oh, and I voted for Obama, by the way. I truly believe he will be our next President. Not because I want him to be, but because I think the American public might finally be wising up and begining to vote intelligently!
I cannot imagine how people could be so misguided as to vote for her.
She’s getting a lot of support. And yet, she’s lost a ton of ground to Obama over the last couple of months.
Still, a comment from another board:
“It is pretty dámņ funny. I have to say it, despite absolutely NO ONE who will come forward and say they like HRC, she does very well. She’s everyone target, yet they can’t put her away. This shows the true power of being White in America.”
I think this guy may be right, sad as that is to say about this country.
“Oh, and I voted for Obama, by the way. I truly believe he will be our next President. Not because I want him to be, but because I think the American public might finally be wising up and begining to vote intelligently!”
Kevin, I think the rest of your post is spot-on, (re: about this being a potentially historic DNC and nomination) but this above quote really makes no sense. It almost sounds like you’re saying that a vote for Obama is a de facto method of making you an intelligent voter. Yet, you state that your primary reason for voting for Obama for President is not because you want him to be President–The whole point of this event! That, my friend, would not (on its face) be seen by some as an act of an intelligent voter.
I mean no offense, but the statement strikes me as counterintuitive in some ways.
Romney was standing next to Rick Santorum. I wasn’t a Romney supporter before, but working with Santorum, even in the slightest, lowers my opinion of him massively.
”It is pretty dámņ funny. I have to say it, despite absolutely NO ONE who will come forward and say they like HRC, she does very well. She’s everyone target, yet they can’t put her away. This shows the true power of being White in America.”
”I think this guy may be right, sad as that is to say about this country.”
And then again, he may be completely off his rocker. Obama’s first big “surprise” win was in “white-bread, corn fed” Iowa. Obama won the vote and won a majority of the white voters. In every vote so far, whites have been coming out in strong numbers for Obama.
” I have to say it, despite absolutely NO ONE who will come forward and say they like HRC, she does very well.”
See, that’s the first problem with the analysis. Watch the TV lately? Been to any local rallies lately? Actually looked around at some of the early yard sign fanatics’ lawns? LOTS OF PEOPLE are very openly saying that they like Hillary. Lots of others are saying that they’re only lukewarm to her, but that they think that she’s the better candidate and the better shot at taking on Mitt or McCain.
I know that ten minutes of exposure to the media will pretty much make you walk away thinking that America feels that Hillary is a witch, the Anti-Christ or the Devil herself, but reality says otherwise. And this is the same media mind you that said that McCain was done for and over with months ago, had Rudy as the inevitable Republican opponent of the inevitable Hillary ticket, knew for a fact that Al Gore was really going to run in 2008 and made lots other predictions that have just gone completely goofy.
The Clinton brand still has legs in this country no matter what Fox News would like to report. Hillary has a whole hëll of a lot of very public supporters and endorsements out there. To try and say that most Americans would rather vote for someone they despise then vote for a black man in this day and age is not only inaccurate; it’s down right insulting.
Man I’ll tell you, Obama sure knows how to speak.
Im convinced that he’s the candidate and probably our next President and Im voting Republican.
Obama’s first big “surprise” win was in “white-bread, corn fed” Iowa. Obama won the vote and won a majority of the white voters.
FWIW, to win Iowa you have to win a majority of white voters, because whites are still far and away the majority in Iowa.
And no, I don’t think Iowa is nearly as racist (or as ášš-backwards) as many people make the state out to be. I should know, I lived most of my life in or a good stone’s throw away from Iowa. Yeah, there are the racists as there are anywhere, and, as I mentioned with my previous post, I think there are a few more of them in the southern tier of the state than other places, but I don’t see Obama’s win there as a shock.
And Clinton and McCain just nabbed California.
No surprise there.
Although don’t let that keep the media from talking about how it’s a “huge” win for Clinton.
Were there any surprises actually in Clinton’s favor tonight?
I don’t even think it makes sense for the news agencies to say Clinton “won” California. She’ll get 190 delegates, Obama will get 130. She got more, but it’s not like crossing a finish line in a foot race, where second place isn’t worth anything.
Posted by Linus
I for one, a typical democratic voter, will stay home rather than vote for another 8 years of sniping about the 1960s that won’t even win (and even if she wins would not have the ability to pull people together to make change in any way).
Excuse me – what language is this? It *looks* like English, but…
“It is pretty dámņ funny. I have to say it, despite absolutely NO ONE who will come forward and say they like HRC, she does very well. She’s everyone target, yet they can’t put her away. This shows the true power of being White in America.”
Craig, this guy is full of it. Being white didn’t help out John Edwards much. When all is said and done it is very possible that Obama will actually end up with more delegates than Hillary, despite her wins in the big states. And Hillary would probably be losing badly if it weren’t for her strength in the Hispanic vote. So the the claims that yesterday showed the inevitability of White Power seems ridiculous. Time is moving on, even if some folks can’t see it.
But at least that’s arguable. The statement that absolutely no one will come forward and say they support Hillary could only come from someone living in a bubble.
I predict that the Democratic Convention is going to be one of the most interesting Convention in decades. Neither Clinton or Obama will have enough delegates going into it to garner the nomination, so one will need to give. And neither will. So this is going to be one hëll of a fight. One I suspect Clinton is going to lose… She’s far too devisive and she won’t even attempt to “play” nice which will turn people off more and more.
I think you’re right about the convention bt if it comes down to that I would think that Hillary and company would have an advantage over Obama. A brokered convention ends up being a lot of wheeling and dealing in smoke filled rooms. Hillary has a lot of powerful people in her corner who can make a lot of promises.
Now the one result that I had not thought likely is the possibility of them running together. Reportedly they hate each other (take that with a grain of salt, though it seems clear there is no great love lost). But if Obama loses out to Hillary despite being virtually tied (or even slightly ahead in pledged delegates) she would have no choice but to offer it to him. Would he take it? Or respectfully decline, knowing that if she loses he is in excellent position for 2012? (And he’d be running against an aged McCain).
Now if Obama pulls off the victory…somehow I think he would not be under the same pressure to pick her as VP and I’m also not sure she’d take it anyway.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…what a great election!
Kevin, I think the rest of your post is spot-on, (re: about this being a potentially historic DNC and nomination) but this above quote really makes no sense. It almost sounds like you’re saying that a vote for Obama is a de facto method of making you an intelligent voter. Yet, you state that your primary reason for voting for Obama for President is not because you want him to be President–The whole point of this event! That, my friend, would not (on its face) be seen by some as an act of an intelligent voter.
I mean no offense, but the statement strikes me as counterintuitive in some ways.
Not what I intended when I wrote that out. Basically, I think people are finally beginning to see through all the bullcrap and are using their heads for a change. They’re not just voting for the Republican or the Democrat because that’s their party or they’re not voting for whomever is in the lead, they’re thinking about who is right for them. In MY case, it’s Obama.
Expect to see some major spinning coming from both campaigns today.
Obama. But I can´t vote there.
PAD: “Just being pragmatic. For a year I’ve been concerned that Hillary Clinton is not electable. I’ve seen nothing in the intervening months to change my mind. And if it comes down to Clinton v. McCain, I think she’ll get slaughtered. I’m not sure Obama stands much more of a chance, but I think he’s got a better one than Clinton.”
I totally agree with your assessment, Peter.
Well, right now the count is in Clinton’s favor.
Clinton: 582
Obama: 485
The other side of this game is looking a lot less like a real race.
So the the claims that yesterday showed the inevitability of White Power seems ridiculous.
True. It just seems hard, at least for me, to completely discount when you look at *some* of the numbers.
Obviously, many other numbers are pointing in Obama’s favor.
Either way, as PAD said, Clinton just continues to come across as unelectable, and it seems like a lot of people agree with that sentiment.
Expect to see some major spinning coming from both campaigns today.
The spin began last night, with Clinton’s rep trying to claim that they won some states they didn’t expect to… yeah, right.
Well, if this helps PAD’s argument any, I’m a third-party voter who typically leans Libertarian.
I’m going to caucus for Obama on Saturday, going to vote for him in the primary on the 19th (even though it doesn’t matter if I vote in the primary in terms of delegates), and I’d vote for him in November.
OTOH, if Hillary’s the November candidate, you couldn’t pay me enough to vote for her. I can’t imagine myself voting for a Republican, but I certainly wouldn’t vote for her. I sincerely doubt I’m the only person who feels that way.
The thing is, some of you probably don’t spend much time on conservative sites. If you did, you’d uo your estimation of Hillary’s chances in the fall. McCain is not beloved by many rank and file republicans–the kind of folks you need for a real get out the vote effort.
Just look at the number of votes cast in these primaries–the Democrats vastly outnumber the Republicans. True, it’s not nearly as exciting a race but if I were McCain I’d worry about the lack of passion out there.
I doubt that McCain can raise as much money as Hillary and Bill can.
Add it all up and there’s no way I see Hillary getting anything like crushed in the election. If anything, she starts out with it being hers to lose. Now, I’ve been amazed at how poorly she’s done with Obama so she may well lose it but if I had to put money down on Hillary vs McCain I’d bet that it’s a replay of Clinton vs Dole.
It is pretty dámņ funny. I have to say it, despite absolutely NO ONE who will come forward and say they like HRC, she does very well. She’s everyone target, yet they can’t put her away. This shows the true power of being White in America.
Plenty of us like her. If I had been able to vote in the Democratic primary, I would have chosen her. It’s not that I don’t like Obama; but I prefer her and would be more comfortable with her in charge in a time of war – and let’s face it, Bush will be keeping us in Iraq until the end of time.
As for it being solely a “race” race, I couldn’t disagree more. We’re also looking at gender discrimination.
Just recently a study came out that people prefer male bosses to female. (I’ll try to find the web address later) Undoubtedly, that has got to spill over to politics. After all, being the president is the ultimate “boss” position.
I think Bill M’s got the right of it. There is are a large number of Right Wing pundits who appear to despise McCain. Ann Coulter has said that she prefers Hillary Clinton to John McCain and I think that she was only half-joking. Rush Limbaugh has said that if McCain wins the GOP nomination that he’d rather McCain lose and I sure he was being serious. I’m sure because he expects Hillary Clinton the come out on top on the Dem side, and having her in the Whitehouse would be a godsend for his radio show. He does so much better when he’s attacking someone in power instead of acting as an apologist for Bush. He’s about to come on right now and I think I may listen to the meltdown he’s about to have over McCain’s victory, yesterday. OTOH, Rush Limbaugh supporting a Clinton for anthing may be on of the signs of the Apocalypse…
I don’t have a strong leaning either way – both Clinton and Obama have aspects I’m less than thrilled with – but I refuse to make any decisions based on anything other than who I want. 2004 had a lot of concern about “electability” and look how that turned out.
The thing is, some of you probably don’t spend much time on conservative sites.
Actually, that quote I used came from a fairly conservative site. As I’ve also said, most on that site tend to think that you put Clinton vs McCain, and McCain wins, even if they don’t like McCain.
Then there’s the simple factor of people voting the party line, no matter who the candidates are.
In looking at some other info, it looks like the super delegates are probably going to decide the nomination for the Dems, which is a scary thing imo.
[b]FWIW, to win Iowa you have to win a majority of white voters, because whites are still far and away the majority in Iowa.[/b]
I liked one of Leno’s lines the night after the Iowa caucus – to the effect that Obama got x% of the white vote, x% of the female vote, “and 100% of the Iowa black vote – a guy named Larry.”
I would love to caucus for Obama this weekend, but unfortunately, I have to attend a meeting that’s vital for my financial future. Since I can cross party lines in the primary in Washington (just have to sign an oath that I haven’t voted or caucused for the other party), I may use this opportunity to vote on the Republican side, against Huckabee. (As long as the nominee isn’t Huckabee, I could live with it, although Romney wouldn’t be my first choice as President either.)
Mulligan is spot on target here. I do listen to and watch punditry from both sides and I can honestly say that the rightwing hatred of the idea of a McCain candidacy is equal to, if not greater than, the leftwing discomfort of a Clinton candidacy. The constant theme that I keep hearing this last week from the pundits and their callers/writers/bloggers is that “liberal” John McCain is going to screw the country up and cause the go-along-to-get-along Republicans in Congress to fall in line in favor of really bad ideas. Since this means taking a hit, and this is dámņëd near an exact quote of what I’ve heard several dozen times now, they would rather not vote or even vote Hillary in so that so that it’s the Democrats who take the hard political hit by the midterms and 2012 rather then the Republicans.
The long held belief that Hillary will inspire hoards of rabid right-wingers to come streaming out of every nook and cranny to vote against her might be right with some candidates. However, it’s very possible that McCain will nullify that effect if not outright reverse it. You also have to remember something about McCain and his relationship with the most rabid rightwing conservatives and the NeoCons. John McCain has been portrayed as (and is still seen as) as traitor to the cause, the party and the very foundations of “conservatism” as it’s defined by these people. McCain has been the hated backstabber of Bush, conservative principles, decency and Reaganism for the last eight years.
You can’t attack someone with that level of venom and bile for eight years and then suddenly forget that. Even in politics. Now, some may swallow their hate and pull the lever for McCain, but many more won’t. Many don’t even see him as being the legitimate frontrunner. He’s only there because of all the moderates, Dems and libs that snuck into their Republican primaries and sabotaged the Republican’s nomination process with the help of the eager Liberal Mainstream Media arm of the Clinton Machine.
Is Hillary much beloved by everyone on the Left? Hëll no. But McCain is flat out despised by many factions on the Right. If they’re both their party’s nominee… Well, it’s going to be a fun election year.
• 
So, what finally tipped you over to his side?
I voted for Obama too.
I looked at the positions of Obama, Clinton, and Paul, and while I was extremely pìššëd at some of their positions, Clinton outraged me a bit more, and some aspects of Ron Paul’s record just shocked me.
Clinton lost me when she used a bûllšhìŧ slippery slope argument in which she envisions taxpayers paying for KKK or jihad schools. I was also shocked that whereas they’re both for laws against flag-burning, Ron Paul, who I thought was a strict Constitutionalist, actually introduced a friggin’ bill for it. McCain’s support for staying in Iraq lost him my vote, and there’s no way I’m voting for a creationist like Romney into office.
I also liked Obama’s open-minded and egalitarian view on religion, which is derived from his anthropologist mother taking him to Christian churches, Shinto shrines, Buddhist temples, and Muslim mosques in his youth, and educating him alongside children of other religions in a public school.
Edwards’ slimy actions as a lawyer didn’t endear him to me, I don’t care how many writers or unions he cozies up to.
Just being pragmatic. For a year I’ve been concerned that Hillary Clinton is not electable. I’ve seen nothing in the intervening months to change my mind. And if it comes down to Clinton v. McCain, I think she’ll get slaughtered. I’m not sure Obama stands much more of a chance, but I think he’s got a better one than Clinton.
PAD
I voted absentee weeks ago. My first write-in vote ever for Albert Gore, Jr. I will, of course hold my nose and vote for Hillary or Barack in November. However, I could not bring myself to do so in the primary.
Odd but perceptive note on CNN just now…
“I wonder how much the Giant’s parade affected voting patterns in NYC…”
I’d vote for Obama too, but I have to hope he wins the Democratic nomination first. Ahh, the joys of being an independent.
Ack. To clarify, the comment about Clinton above envisioning wacky schools was in regard to her opposition to school vouchers. That got lost in editing.
I admit, I didn’t vote today. I was in meetings/class until 8:40, and had the choice to eat for the first time in 6 hours, or vote. But, I’m fine with this, because I don’t really care which Democrat is nominated – they both have huge (very nearly fatal) flaws, as far as I’m concerned… and I’d still vote for either of them over anyone else. So, dinner won.
Look on the bright side, PAD. The democratic primaries aren’t all or nothing. Even if Clinton wins the state, your vote will still contribute to how many delegates Obama gets.
That’s actually frustrating me a little with CNN’s webpage coverage. They’re listing wins and losses as if that’s what matters. But I can look at the totals and see that a lot of Hillary’s second place finishes are very close, while Obama’s second places finishes are mostly by bigger margins. We could easily see one candidate “win” more states but end up with less delegates total. What I want is a running delegate count, not a state count.
Pull out the crucifixes and holy water, I voted in the Republican primary.
However,I truly feel that no matter which two candidates make it to November, they’ll be far better options than the Bush v. Kerry option we had 4 years ago. So if (and probably, when) a Democrat gets elected into office this November, I’ll begrudgingly stand behind him or her knowing there’s somebody competent in control.
Okay, I had to check a few news sites, but I found what I wanted.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22997326/
A running total of delegates won.
I’ll make a prediction now. At the end of the day, the Democratic nomination still won’t be remotely clear. We might not see either Obama or Hillary drop at until the last state holds its primary.
And now I’m confused.
Was I wrong about the Democratic primary not being all-or-nothing? MSNBC is calling New York for Hillary and they seem to be giving her all the delegates. I’m missing something.
Clinton gets Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. New York I saw coming. NJ I was 50/50 on but leaning towards Clinton. Massachusetts I didn’t see going her way. I guess John Kerry and Teddy & clan don’t have the stroke in their home state that they used to have and that the pundits played them up as still having.
The exit polls had people thinking that it was an Obama blowout. Now the actual results are showing Hillary coming out ahead more often than not.
had this been the actual election we’d no doubt be hearing about how this was evidence of a fix. Can we all just admit now that exit polls have become scarcely worth the value of a monkey with a dart board?
It’s increasingly likely that the Superdelegates will decide the nominee for the Democrats, in which case I would think that Hillary is at an advantage. Momentum seems to be on Obama’s side–is there enough time for him to capitalize on it?
” Can we all just admit now that exit polls have become scarcely worth the value of a monkey with a dart board?”
I don’t know about that. I’m up and down on the issue of Keith Olbermann’s credibility sometimes, but he’s been doing something lately that actually works and makes sense. After the Iowa fiasco, he started to refer to something that he was calling “The Keith Number” on a poll. This is the combined numbers of the margin of error and the number of undecideds. His reasoning behind the creation of this qualifier was the theory that the polls weren’t as wrong as the reporting of the polls was. He stated that, just as one example, almost every Obama “win” that turned into a Hillary win was right if you added a majority of the poll’s undecided number to Hillary’s.
I went back and looked up a lot of those polls. He was right. Sometimes the actual win was her number and the undecided number added together exactly. Now, that does make polls in close races harder to deoend on, but it hardly invalidates the polls. All it does is remind you that there is an unpredictability factor beyond the margin of error and that you should not just look at those top two numbers.
MSNBC projects Hil as the winner.
They also made a good point…Hillary is winning all the states that she has no chance to win in November, and McCain is doing likewise. Obama and Romney are doing better in states that are likely to actually go for their parties. Could be a weird general election.
Can we all just admit now that exit polls have become scarcely worth the value of a monkey with a dart board?
Every election, it disgusts me that these ‘news channels’ are calling a state or race for one candidate or another, and they’ve barely started counting the ballots yet.
Instead of being so impatient and getting it wrong, I’d rather they hold back and get it right.
But don’t suggest that to the news channels. 🙂
“MSNBC projects Hil as the winner.”
Do you mean they’re projecting her the winner in New York? I don’t see anything where they project her as a general winner.
Official…Obama wins the Minnesota caucus. Not sure if its a suprise by many but I think it shows again that the white folks in fly over country do not have a problem voting for a black candidate.
or apparently Mitt Romney either though only about 17% reporting in
Man this is going to be one interesting race…
Not sure if its a suprise by many but I think it shows again that the white folks in fly over country do not have a problem voting for a black candidate.
Well, white voter in Minnesota isn’t necessarily the same as white voter in Missouri or further south. For example, I distinctly recall a number of people questioning voters in southern Iowa after the vote there went Clinton, Edwards, Obama (and having lived in that part of Iowa, yes, there is a fair share of racism).
Unfortunately, there’s a good chance that race will have an impact upon the nomination, and it favors Clinton: whether it’s whites who won’t vote for Obama, or Hispanics who won’t vote for Obama.
Although, the exit polls appear to be showing that perhaps things aren’t as bad as some like myself fear: the Hispanics appear to be voting for Obama in greater numbers than expected, and while Obama is getting an overwhelming amount of the black vote, it isn’t absolute as well.
Sometimes the actual win was her number and the undecided number added together exactly. Now, that does make polls in close races harder to depend on, but it hardly invalidates the polls. All it does is remind you that there is an unpredictability factor beyond the margin of error and that you should not just look at those top two numbers.
But you’d have to believe that ALL the undecideds actually voted for one candidate…seems unlikely. And what possible use is any poll that, in addition to the margin of error, also can add everyone that’s undecided? That would give a 16 point plus or minus in one of the CNN polls I just saw. What good is that?They might as well just come out and say “As far as we can tell, Obama may be about to beat Clinton in a landslide, lose in a landslide, win in a close election, lose in a close election or tie her. Keep watching for further news!”
The polls have been all over the place the last few days. I hope they at least have the integrity to admit that (some) of them just plain got it wrong and not resort to the old “A sudden massive movement toward the eventual winner that showed up in our polls right after our last published one” routine that some have used to explain discrepancies in the past.
It may just be that poll taking has become too difficult to do in our modern world, for reasons I’m not sure of. But at least I hope people will stop seeing exit poll errors as proof of some conspiracy when their candidate doesn’t win.
I figured out why the MSNBC delegate totals were confusing me. Even though they’re calling winners in a lot of states, they’re not counting the delegates until the final results are in. That’s why the numbers are still so low.
Clinton is the only candidate who loses to the Republicans no matter what. I cannot imagine how people could be so misguided as to vote for her. If she ends up the Democratic candidate, Republicans will come out of the woodwork to vote AGAINST her rather than for their candidate.
I for one, a typical democratic voter, will stay home rather than vote for another 8 years of sniping about the 1960s that won’t even win (and even if she wins would not have the ability to pull people together to make change in any way).
The Democratic nomination is going to be a dog-fight until the end. I don’t think Clinton expected this, but with Edwards out now, it appears a good 2/3 of those people are voting for Obama. Clinton was expecting those 2/3 or more to swing her way. More men are definitely voting for Obama, but, surprisingly, it seems the women are nearly split down the middle.
I predict that the Democratic Convention is going to be one of the most interesting Convention in decades. Neither Clinton or Obama will have enough delegates going into it to garner the nomination, so one will need to give. And neither will. So this is going to be one hëll of a fight. One I suspect Clinton is going to lose… She’s far too devisive and she won’t even attempt to “play” nice which will turn people off more and more.
Oh, and I voted for Obama, by the way. I truly believe he will be our next President. Not because I want him to be, but because I think the American public might finally be wising up and begining to vote intelligently!
I cannot imagine how people could be so misguided as to vote for her.
She’s getting a lot of support. And yet, she’s lost a ton of ground to Obama over the last couple of months.
Still, a comment from another board:
“It is pretty dámņ funny. I have to say it, despite absolutely NO ONE who will come forward and say they like HRC, she does very well. She’s everyone target, yet they can’t put her away. This shows the true power of being White in America.”
I think this guy may be right, sad as that is to say about this country.
“Oh, and I voted for Obama, by the way. I truly believe he will be our next President. Not because I want him to be, but because I think the American public might finally be wising up and begining to vote intelligently!”
Kevin, I think the rest of your post is spot-on, (re: about this being a potentially historic DNC and nomination) but this above quote really makes no sense. It almost sounds like you’re saying that a vote for Obama is a de facto method of making you an intelligent voter. Yet, you state that your primary reason for voting for Obama for President is not because you want him to be President–The whole point of this event! That, my friend, would not (on its face) be seen by some as an act of an intelligent voter.
I mean no offense, but the statement strikes me as counterintuitive in some ways.
Romney was standing next to Rick Santorum. I wasn’t a Romney supporter before, but working with Santorum, even in the slightest, lowers my opinion of him massively.
”It is pretty dámņ funny. I have to say it, despite absolutely NO ONE who will come forward and say they like HRC, she does very well. She’s everyone target, yet they can’t put her away. This shows the true power of being White in America.”
”I think this guy may be right, sad as that is to say about this country.”
And then again, he may be completely off his rocker. Obama’s first big “surprise” win was in “white-bread, corn fed” Iowa. Obama won the vote and won a majority of the white voters. In every vote so far, whites have been coming out in strong numbers for Obama.
” I have to say it, despite absolutely NO ONE who will come forward and say they like HRC, she does very well.”
See, that’s the first problem with the analysis. Watch the TV lately? Been to any local rallies lately? Actually looked around at some of the early yard sign fanatics’ lawns? LOTS OF PEOPLE are very openly saying that they like Hillary. Lots of others are saying that they’re only lukewarm to her, but that they think that she’s the better candidate and the better shot at taking on Mitt or McCain.
I know that ten minutes of exposure to the media will pretty much make you walk away thinking that America feels that Hillary is a witch, the Anti-Christ or the Devil herself, but reality says otherwise. And this is the same media mind you that said that McCain was done for and over with months ago, had Rudy as the inevitable Republican opponent of the inevitable Hillary ticket, knew for a fact that Al Gore was really going to run in 2008 and made lots other predictions that have just gone completely goofy.
The Clinton brand still has legs in this country no matter what Fox News would like to report. Hillary has a whole hëll of a lot of very public supporters and endorsements out there. To try and say that most Americans would rather vote for someone they despise then vote for a black man in this day and age is not only inaccurate; it’s down right insulting.
Man I’ll tell you, Obama sure knows how to speak.
Im convinced that he’s the candidate and probably our next President and Im voting Republican.
Obama’s first big “surprise” win was in “white-bread, corn fed” Iowa. Obama won the vote and won a majority of the white voters.
FWIW, to win Iowa you have to win a majority of white voters, because whites are still far and away the majority in Iowa.
And no, I don’t think Iowa is nearly as racist (or as ášš-backwards) as many people make the state out to be. I should know, I lived most of my life in or a good stone’s throw away from Iowa. Yeah, there are the racists as there are anywhere, and, as I mentioned with my previous post, I think there are a few more of them in the southern tier of the state than other places, but I don’t see Obama’s win there as a shock.
And Clinton and McCain just nabbed California.
No surprise there.
Although don’t let that keep the media from talking about how it’s a “huge” win for Clinton.
Were there any surprises actually in Clinton’s favor tonight?
I don’t even think it makes sense for the news agencies to say Clinton “won” California. She’ll get 190 delegates, Obama will get 130. She got more, but it’s not like crossing a finish line in a foot race, where second place isn’t worth anything.
Posted by Linus
I for one, a typical democratic voter, will stay home rather than vote for another 8 years of sniping about the 1960s that won’t even win (and even if she wins would not have the ability to pull people together to make change in any way).
Excuse me – what language is this? It *looks* like English, but…
“It is pretty dámņ funny. I have to say it, despite absolutely NO ONE who will come forward and say they like HRC, she does very well. She’s everyone target, yet they can’t put her away. This shows the true power of being White in America.”
Craig, this guy is full of it. Being white didn’t help out John Edwards much. When all is said and done it is very possible that Obama will actually end up with more delegates than Hillary, despite her wins in the big states. And Hillary would probably be losing badly if it weren’t for her strength in the Hispanic vote. So the the claims that yesterday showed the inevitability of White Power seems ridiculous. Time is moving on, even if some folks can’t see it.
But at least that’s arguable. The statement that absolutely no one will come forward and say they support Hillary could only come from someone living in a bubble.
I predict that the Democratic Convention is going to be one of the most interesting Convention in decades. Neither Clinton or Obama will have enough delegates going into it to garner the nomination, so one will need to give. And neither will. So this is going to be one hëll of a fight. One I suspect Clinton is going to lose… She’s far too devisive and she won’t even attempt to “play” nice which will turn people off more and more.
I think you’re right about the convention bt if it comes down to that I would think that Hillary and company would have an advantage over Obama. A brokered convention ends up being a lot of wheeling and dealing in smoke filled rooms. Hillary has a lot of powerful people in her corner who can make a lot of promises.
Now the one result that I had not thought likely is the possibility of them running together. Reportedly they hate each other (take that with a grain of salt, though it seems clear there is no great love lost). But if Obama loses out to Hillary despite being virtually tied (or even slightly ahead in pledged delegates) she would have no choice but to offer it to him. Would he take it? Or respectfully decline, knowing that if she loses he is in excellent position for 2012? (And he’d be running against an aged McCain).
Now if Obama pulls off the victory…somehow I think he would not be under the same pressure to pick her as VP and I’m also not sure she’d take it anyway.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…what a great election!
Kevin, I think the rest of your post is spot-on, (re: about this being a potentially historic DNC and nomination) but this above quote really makes no sense. It almost sounds like you’re saying that a vote for Obama is a de facto method of making you an intelligent voter. Yet, you state that your primary reason for voting for Obama for President is not because you want him to be President–The whole point of this event! That, my friend, would not (on its face) be seen by some as an act of an intelligent voter.
I mean no offense, but the statement strikes me as counterintuitive in some ways.
Not what I intended when I wrote that out. Basically, I think people are finally beginning to see through all the bullcrap and are using their heads for a change. They’re not just voting for the Republican or the Democrat because that’s their party or they’re not voting for whomever is in the lead, they’re thinking about who is right for them. In MY case, it’s Obama.
Depending on who is counting it looks like Obama may well have won more delegates last night: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html
Expect to see some major spinning coming from both campaigns today.
Obama. But I can´t vote there.
PAD: “Just being pragmatic. For a year I’ve been concerned that Hillary Clinton is not electable. I’ve seen nothing in the intervening months to change my mind. And if it comes down to Clinton v. McCain, I think she’ll get slaughtered. I’m not sure Obama stands much more of a chance, but I think he’s got a better one than Clinton.”
I totally agree with your assessment, Peter.
Well, right now the count is in Clinton’s favor.
Clinton: 582
Obama: 485
The other side of this game is looking a lot less like a real race.
McCain: 516
Romney: 207
Huckabee: 142
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22419475
So the the claims that yesterday showed the inevitability of White Power seems ridiculous.
True. It just seems hard, at least for me, to completely discount when you look at *some* of the numbers.
Obviously, many other numbers are pointing in Obama’s favor.
Either way, as PAD said, Clinton just continues to come across as unelectable, and it seems like a lot of people agree with that sentiment.
Expect to see some major spinning coming from both campaigns today.
The spin began last night, with Clinton’s rep trying to claim that they won some states they didn’t expect to… yeah, right.
Well, if this helps PAD’s argument any, I’m a third-party voter who typically leans Libertarian.
I’m going to caucus for Obama on Saturday, going to vote for him in the primary on the 19th (even though it doesn’t matter if I vote in the primary in terms of delegates), and I’d vote for him in November.
OTOH, if Hillary’s the November candidate, you couldn’t pay me enough to vote for her. I can’t imagine myself voting for a Republican, but I certainly wouldn’t vote for her. I sincerely doubt I’m the only person who feels that way.
The thing is, some of you probably don’t spend much time on conservative sites. If you did, you’d uo your estimation of Hillary’s chances in the fall. McCain is not beloved by many rank and file republicans–the kind of folks you need for a real get out the vote effort.
Just look at the number of votes cast in these primaries–the Democrats vastly outnumber the Republicans. True, it’s not nearly as exciting a race but if I were McCain I’d worry about the lack of passion out there.
I doubt that McCain can raise as much money as Hillary and Bill can.
Add it all up and there’s no way I see Hillary getting anything like crushed in the election. If anything, she starts out with it being hers to lose. Now, I’ve been amazed at how poorly she’s done with Obama so she may well lose it but if I had to put money down on Hillary vs McCain I’d bet that it’s a replay of Clinton vs Dole.
It is pretty dámņ funny. I have to say it, despite absolutely NO ONE who will come forward and say they like HRC, she does very well. She’s everyone target, yet they can’t put her away. This shows the true power of being White in America.
Plenty of us like her. If I had been able to vote in the Democratic primary, I would have chosen her. It’s not that I don’t like Obama; but I prefer her and would be more comfortable with her in charge in a time of war – and let’s face it, Bush will be keeping us in Iraq until the end of time.
As for it being solely a “race” race, I couldn’t disagree more. We’re also looking at gender discrimination.
Just recently a study came out that people prefer male bosses to female. (I’ll try to find the web address later) Undoubtedly, that has got to spill over to politics. After all, being the president is the ultimate “boss” position.
I think Bill M’s got the right of it. There is are a large number of Right Wing pundits who appear to despise McCain. Ann Coulter has said that she prefers Hillary Clinton to John McCain and I think that she was only half-joking. Rush Limbaugh has said that if McCain wins the GOP nomination that he’d rather McCain lose and I sure he was being serious. I’m sure because he expects Hillary Clinton the come out on top on the Dem side, and having her in the Whitehouse would be a godsend for his radio show. He does so much better when he’s attacking someone in power instead of acting as an apologist for Bush. He’s about to come on right now and I think I may listen to the meltdown he’s about to have over McCain’s victory, yesterday. OTOH, Rush Limbaugh supporting a Clinton for anthing may be on of the signs of the Apocalypse…
I don’t have a strong leaning either way – both Clinton and Obama have aspects I’m less than thrilled with – but I refuse to make any decisions based on anything other than who I want. 2004 had a lot of concern about “electability” and look how that turned out.
The thing is, some of you probably don’t spend much time on conservative sites.
Actually, that quote I used came from a fairly conservative site. As I’ve also said, most on that site tend to think that you put Clinton vs McCain, and McCain wins, even if they don’t like McCain.
Then there’s the simple factor of people voting the party line, no matter who the candidates are.
In looking at some other info, it looks like the super delegates are probably going to decide the nomination for the Dems, which is a scary thing imo.
[b]FWIW, to win Iowa you have to win a majority of white voters, because whites are still far and away the majority in Iowa.[/b]
I liked one of Leno’s lines the night after the Iowa caucus – to the effect that Obama got x% of the white vote, x% of the female vote, “and 100% of the Iowa black vote – a guy named Larry.”
I would love to caucus for Obama this weekend, but unfortunately, I have to attend a meeting that’s vital for my financial future. Since I can cross party lines in the primary in Washington (just have to sign an oath that I haven’t voted or caucused for the other party), I may use this opportunity to vote on the Republican side, against Huckabee. (As long as the nominee isn’t Huckabee, I could live with it, although Romney wouldn’t be my first choice as President either.)
Mulligan is spot on target here. I do listen to and watch punditry from both sides and I can honestly say that the rightwing hatred of the idea of a McCain candidacy is equal to, if not greater than, the leftwing discomfort of a Clinton candidacy. The constant theme that I keep hearing this last week from the pundits and their callers/writers/bloggers is that “liberal” John McCain is going to screw the country up and cause the go-along-to-get-along Republicans in Congress to fall in line in favor of really bad ideas. Since this means taking a hit, and this is dámņëd near an exact quote of what I’ve heard several dozen times now, they would rather not vote or even vote Hillary in so that so that it’s the Democrats who take the hard political hit by the midterms and 2012 rather then the Republicans.
The long held belief that Hillary will inspire hoards of rabid right-wingers to come streaming out of every nook and cranny to vote against her might be right with some candidates. However, it’s very possible that McCain will nullify that effect if not outright reverse it. You also have to remember something about McCain and his relationship with the most rabid rightwing conservatives and the NeoCons. John McCain has been portrayed as (and is still seen as) as traitor to the cause, the party and the very foundations of “conservatism” as it’s defined by these people. McCain has been the hated backstabber of Bush, conservative principles, decency and Reaganism for the last eight years.
You can’t attack someone with that level of venom and bile for eight years and then suddenly forget that. Even in politics. Now, some may swallow their hate and pull the lever for McCain, but many more won’t. Many don’t even see him as being the legitimate frontrunner. He’s only there because of all the moderates, Dems and libs that snuck into their Republican primaries and sabotaged the Republican’s nomination process with the help of the eager Liberal Mainstream Media arm of the Clinton Machine.
Is Hillary much beloved by everyone on the Left? Hëll no. But McCain is flat out despised by many factions on the Right. If they’re both their party’s nominee… Well, it’s going to be a fun election year.