Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

March 4 Election Night Results

Topics: 2008 , Barack Obama , CBS , CNN , Exit Polls , Hillary Clinton , Mark Lindeman , MSNBC

Ok, another Tuesday night and another election night. Polls will close at 7:00 p.m. (Eastern). at 7:30 p.m. in Vermont and 9:00 p.m. in Rhode Island and Texas. Exit polls tabulations will be posted by the networks at these links:

Carrying on with our "live blogging" tradition, I'll post what seems relevant here on what we can learn from the non-leaked exit poll information tonight. Updates will follow in reverse chronological order -- all times Eastern.

11:32 - Using a far less sophisticated extrapolation, the current Ohio estimate looks to be 55% Clinton, 43% Obama. Quite a shift from the initial four point estimate.

11:25 - Mark Lindeman is signing off to get some sleep. I'll post what seems relevant, but for now, our estimate extrapolator is offline. Thanks for your help Mark!

11:11 - The tabulations for Vermont and Rhode Island have updated. Rhode Island's estimate now shows a 59% to 40% Clinton lead (was 51% to 48% before the update -- quite a shift). Vermont shows a 60% to 38% Obama lead.

10:05 - I'm going to be offline for about 30 minutes while I relocate. Until then, look for Lindeman's updates in the comments.

9:40 - Promoted from the comments, from my very able helper Mark Lindeman:

In case anyone is wondering, that wasn't a typo about RI. The exit poll tab, consistent with the early leak, shows a very close race -- but the networks have seen enough votes to make a call. It's not news that the exit polls have often (but not consistently) overstated Obama's performance.

9:37 - From the Texas Democratic crosstabs, a preliminary look at the other set of numbers I've been obsessing over for the last few days (numbers from 2004 and 2000, in that order, in parentheses):

  • 57% Female (52%)
  • 30% Latino (24%)
  • 19% African American (21%)
  • 16% Age 18-29 (9%)
  • 44% Age 18-44 (34%)
  • 55% Age: 18-50 (47%)
  • 13% Age: 65+ (19%)
  • 33% Independent/Republican (26%)
  • 43% College degree (37%)
  • 61% Income: $50K+ (49%)

One extra caution on Texas: From what I understand, the estimates are especially subject to change because they weighting on early vote vs election day vote, and the geographic mix (which helps determine the racial composition) really requires hard count to get right. And if that last sentence goes over your head, the point is, the numbers above are not set in stone.

9:21 - [Sorry this got garbled a few moments ago -- finishing the thought now]: Caro asks "Are the early votes (pre-election) included in the exits?" In Texas the exit pollsters would have conducted a telephone survey of early voters that they fold into the interviews conducted at polling places. They have done telephone interviews with early voters in Texas before. With the number of early votes cast in Ohio, I assume that an absentee vote telephone survey was conducted there as well, but I'm not certain.

9:10 - More estimates crunched by Mark Lindeman: In Rhode Island, Clinton 51%, Obama 48. Among Texas Republicans, McCain 49%, Huckabee 38%.

9:02 - The current cross-tab estimate for Texas shows 50% Clinton, 49% Obama. See the usual caveats below

7:45- From the Ohio Democratic crosstabs, a preliminary look at the numbers I've been obsessing over for the last few days (numbers from 2004 and 2000, in that order, in parentheses):

  • 59% Female (52%, 60%)
  • 19% African American (14%, 17%)
  • 15% Age 18-29 (9%, 8%)
  • 44% Age 18-44 (32%, 36%)
  • 54% Age: 18-50
  • 31% Independent/Republican (29%, 24%)
  • 37% College degree (37%, 27%)
  • 56% Income: $50K+ (49%, 45%)

Keep in mind that these numbers, like all in the current tabulations, are preliminary and will likely change over the course of the night.

7:35 - As polls close in Ohio, the posted tabulations show 52% Clinton, 48% Obama. Again (can't say this enough) these are preliminary estimates that will grow more accurate as the night wears on. See the 6:59 entry for caveats.

7:22 - Pollster reader Thatcher has reposted some leaked mid-day exit poll results found on Huffington Post. For those who want to speculate about the meaning of those numbers -- and that's everyone, right? -- I'd recommend my exit poll tips last posted on February 5 and especially the "comparable" leaked numbers posted at about this time that day. Bottom line: a percentage point or two in either direction on a mid-day exit poll doesn't mean much.

7:10 - A few minutes ago, MSNBC's Nora O'Donnell reported two key statistics from the very preliminary exit poll tabulations from Texas and Ohio. In Ohio, 22% of Democratic primary voters described themselves as independent and 10% as Republican, that compares to 24% and 2% respectively in 2004. In Texas, 24% in the early tabulations are independent and 10% Republican (which compares to 20% and 5% respectively in 2004). For what it's worth, the combined non-Democrat percentage in Ohio is 8 to 15 percentage points higher than any of the pre-election polls that released party ID results. In Texas, that number is on the high side of what public polls were showing.

7:00 - MSNBC projects Barack Obama the winner, but Keith Olbermann tells us that "we do not have a number" yet for Vermont. That's true -- they do not have a number they consider "air-worthy." However, they have posted preliminary cross-tabulations on the MSNBC web site, and those currently indicate an estimate of 64% for Obama, 34% for Clinton. See the caveat below -- these estimates are preliminary and will become more accurate as the evening progresses.

6:59 - Shortly after the polls close in each state, our friend Mark Lindeman will report the extrapolated overall vote estimate used to weight the exit poll cross-tabulations. These estimates begin as a mashup of pre-election polls and the interviews exit polls conducted at polling places and over the phone (with early voters) by the networks. These estimates improve, becoming more accurate over the course of the night. Click here for the usual caveats on how these numbers are derived and how they improve over the course of the evening.

 

Comments
Thatcher:

Early exit polling:

VT Obama - 67, Clinton - 33
OH Obama - 51, Clinton - 49
TX Obama - 50, Clinton - 49
RI Obama - 49, Clinton - 49
(from HuffPo)

And I've seen reports that Obama kept AA 83-16 and Clinton kept Hispanic 64-32.

____________________

Uri:

So both of the major primaries are decided by people who don't identify as democrats... Coming from another country (and not being allowed to vote here), I don't understand the rationale behind this system.

____________________

Adam G:

My personal belief is that all primaries should be open. If we're going to have a system as ridiculous as having two parties only, when in fact roughly a third of the country is independent, and likely a much higher percentage identifies with one of the two solely out of a lack of better options, we should not prevent these people from having a say on who the nominees will be. There's no reason our system has to be so bipolar...

____________________

Daniel T:

A loss for Clinton in OH would be much worse than a loss in Texas. OH is perceived as friendly territory for her and to lose there might very well spell the end of the campaign.

____________________

Daniel T:

Uri. Because party identification does not mean as much here in the US as it does in say, France. Have open primaries does allow for some mischief to go on; but it's our belief that it is better that people vote, period, than they vote for in a certain party. Now obviously not everybody agrees, so some states do hold closed primaries. But one thing remains true and that in every case the one person=one vote principal is upheld.

BTW, Adam. There is no such thing as a two party system as a legal matter. What we have is two major parties, and most of the minor parties serve as the "minor leagues". Anytime one of them gets some traction, one of the major parties adopts their platform and so ends the "threat". But there is no law that requires only two parties.

____________________

Daniel T:

Pollster.com - Site Temporarily Unavailable

Pollster.com is temporarily unavailable. Please check back soon.

For the last several days I get this error every time I post. My post is recorded but I always get this error screen.

/threadjack over.

____________________

Uri:

Since Hillary can't win the delegate count anyway, this is all essentially a game... but in this game, does she need to win just the primary or also the caucuses to say she won?

____________________

Daniel T:

Uri. Are you speaking of Texas? BTW, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Obama will be the nominee. It's looking a lot more likely but the race isn't over yet.

____________________

Thatcher:

Uri - we'll have the answer on the Texas primary tonight - the caucuses may take a couple of days - so for Clinton, the Texas primary is very important for the headlines/momentum tomorrow.

Mark - this is why the exit polls are so close, no? Because woman, young voters and non-dems all performed better than history - so it's which demo did better than the other in Ohio to see who wins. wow.

____________________

Thatcher:

Daniel T - It's not a foregone conclusion - but even if Hillary wins 60-40 in the rest of the states (including if MI and FL has to revote) after tonight - she will still be trailing Obama in the pledged delegates. For the most part, many super delegates are leaning toward the way their states have voted - so there would have to be something HUGE in order for Clinton to actually take the nomination at the convention.

*********Ohio will not start releasing results until after 9 pm eastern - Sec of State has gotten a judge to keep polls open in Sandusky County until then.

____________________

Daniel T:

Thatcher. I don't agree with that analysis. There is no common agreement on exactly how many delegates each one has and I have seen estimates that show the delegate count essentially tied. There is this big push to decide before the convention that I don't get. That's what the convention is there for.

I hope this posts. The site is eating my posts now, still getting the same errors, help.

____________________

Thatcher:

from MSNBC:

An Obama source emails First Read that the campaign is expecting turnout between 3.6 to 3.8 million in the Texas Democratic primary.

____________________

michael:

Daniel T, I rather think you are wrong. Americans have primaries because a broad swathe of the populace identifies with a party, making primaries feasible in the first place.

In Canada and Britain, for instance, party identification is much weaker. The Brits select leaders through caucus selection, and in Canada (where I'm from), only paid-up party members can vote to select delegates which select a leader. This almost always results in conventions (voting is not staggered so there is no momentum creating majorities), which are 1. exciting and 2. enable horse-trading/deal-making between candidates (the current Liberal party leader entered the convention in 4th).

Open primaries are a good thing in that they are better at producing leaders that can win moderates and, ultimately, the election. In Canada, however, when party hacks vote, they similarly tend to vote for establishment centrist candidates that can win in the election.

Real trouble happens when ideologically motivated primary voters force a party to lurch to the left or right. That is what led to the McGovern fiasco in 1972 (and almost led to Reagan being the Republican nominee in 1976 - which would have almost guaranteed defeat at the time).

____________________

Thatcher:

CNN just stated (I didn't know this) that part of Texas is in the Mountain time zone, so that means they won't release full exit polls until then - but they are releasing actual vote counts. SIGH.

____________________

Uri:

In my home country you have to be a party member for a while before the primary, which involves explicit mail registration, a payment of annual fees, and public disclosure. On the other hand, everyone's registered to vote in the national election, at a turnout typically higher than 80%.

Our system attempts to prevents situations where parties are "hijacked" by other parties.

____________________

Uri:

BTW, a threadjacking: MSNBC states that "Ballot shortages reported in 15 Ohio precincts; poll hours extended". Didn't Ohio go all-electronic? Just out of idle curiosity.

____________________

michael:

Thatcher, there are aout 1000 delegates (plus super-delegates) up for grabs. If Clinton won those 60-40 she would have a net gain of 200, and would lead Obama.

Of course about 400 of those delegates are being decided tonight, and it is very unlikely that they will go 60-40 for Clinton. If Clinton goes 60-40 (unlikely as well, but its your example) on the 659 post March 4th primaries, she would have a net gain of 132 delegates, essentially tying Obama.

Seating Florida is worth a net gain of 36 to Clinton (putting her ahead), seating Michigan and giving the undeclared to Obama gives Clinton a net gain of 23 to Clinton (those aren't exact as there are a bunch of relevant factors there).

Never mind the 363 super-delegates.

____________________

Caro Kennedy:

Are the early votes (pre-election) included in the exits? I'm seeing a lot of early hard votes in from Texas (going Obama's way) and wanted to know whether the nets included these early votes in the exits?

Thanks for the great work!

____________________

Caro Kennedy:

Are the early votes (pre-election) included in the exits? I'm seeing a lot of early hard votes in from Texas (going Obama's way) and wanted to know whether the nets included these early votes in the exits?

Thanks for the great work!

____________________

Thatcher:

Caro - the quick answer is no. Exit polls are only for those who voted in-person today.

The polls that noted people who already voted are as mixed as the exit polls right now ... some showed more for Clinton, some showed more for Obama, some showed dead even.

____________________

Thatcher:

A Huckabee senior aide tells NBC/National Journal that Huckabee tonight will congratulate McCain and will be in touch with the McCain campaign tomorrow from Little Rock to coordinate a concession.

____________________

Uri:

Speaking of early votes, when are they counted? Will the numbers tonight include them? Are they precounted? Are they counted after the regular votes?

And by the way, are caucus votes electronic or paper based?

____________________

Thatcher:

Uri -

They are supposed to be rolled into the numbers tonight ... however, California is still counting early votes from the Feb 5th primary. So....

____________________

Thatcher:

It is stated that the numbers showing in Texas on CNN for results are almost all the early vote totals. Just an FYI.

____________________

RS:

I have to believe that the Texas votes being reported by CNN are the early-votes. With just "1% of precincts" reporting, Senators Obama and Clinton have close to one million votes - out of an expected 3.3 million (according to a report in the NYT).
Am I right? :-)

____________________

Anonymous:

Uri,

Ohio went to touch screens then had an issue last year with a software glitch so this year the went back optical scanners.

You fillin the dot in dark ink or pencil and the paper ballot is scanned. Each machine has a zip drive type device which is then taken in for tabulation.

Just a quick note, the optical scanners (which they no longer use) cost 20 million just in Cleveland.


This new method met the expressed desire for a paper trail.

____________________

Thatcher:

Interesting link being done by the Burnt Orange Report (in Texas) ... they are tracking the vote totals by SD (which is how the delegates will be divied up in the primary) ... you can watch the progress of the delegate counts as the vote totals come in:

Web site: (don't forget to refresh)
http://www.burntorangereport.com/

Spreadsheet (don't forget to refresh)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJ0M6W5tNQCPLz7oU3-llfg

____________________

Thatcher:
____________________

Daniel T:

Holy Smokes. Huckabee is getting 40%!!! That's a huge problem for McCain. He's got to win Texas and for Huckabee to get 40% at this late date is a real slap in the face.

I am actually beginning to feel sorry for him. He's gonna get crushed.

____________________

michael:

Daniel T,
Huckabee is at 32%, and, moreover, the big cities (where McCain wins by a larger margin) are all at 0% reporting (that is also where Obama is going to catch up in Ohio). Considering that McCain barely campaigned, while Huckabee has been gunning for Texas since Super Tuesday, that isn't too bad a result.

Oh and... Huck just dropped out.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

In case anyone is wondering, that wasn't a typo about RI. The exit poll tab, consistent with the early leak, shows a very close race -- but the networks have seen enough votes to make a call. It's not news that the exit polls have often (but not consistently) overstated Obama's performance.

____________________

ruidh:

So, with proportional delegate allcation, does it even matter if it's 51/49 Clinton or 51/40 Obama?

____________________

Chandra:

Actual tallies in Ohio suggest a bigger Clinton victory while actual tallies in Texas suggest an Obama victory....the day ends 2-2....she drops out?

Exits in Texas on income suggest that Obama won.....

____________________

Daniel T:

Michael. Thanks for making my point for me. If Huckabee can do this much damage from the inside, think what Obama is going to do from the outside.

Too bad I don't like horror flicks otherwise I'd enjoy the show.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

In case anyone is wondering, that wasn't a typo about RI. The exit poll tab, consistent with the early leak, shows a very close race -- but the networks have seen enough votes to make a call. It's not news that the exit polls have often (but not consistently) overstated Obama's performance.

____________________

tom brady:

Daniel T:

I'm not sure I follow your logic? Damage? Huckabee threw everything into Texas, McCain did almost nothing and Huckabee got swamped. In case you forget, McCain was left for dead last fall. We Democrats ought not underestimate him.

____________________

illinoisindie:

Mcain is definitely not to be underestimated... he has democratic appeal 25% of HRC supporters said that they could vote for him in a GE and 10% of BO supporters said the same. Bad news for either candidate

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Sorry about the goofy time warp double-post -- my browser and pollster.com don't always play nice together.

In Ohio, Cuyahoga is beginning to arrive. It appears that early votes were posted first, and now votes by precinct are appearing. Clinton actually has a narrow lead in Cuya at this moment. At this time, her statewide lead is 119K votes and has continued to widen. I'm guessing that the pre-election polls will turn out to be pretty acccurate, but we'll see.

____________________

illinoisindie:

Cuyahoga county is 51-48 Clinton with a difference of only 1500 votes and less than 1% reporting... lets not jump the gun. I think thats cincinattis county right... which may be OBAMA country

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Not sure whether that was Kos, but the story is worth considering regardless.

illinoisindie, it's not that I'm predicting Cuya for Clinton -- I'm just trying to figure out where Obama makes up 120K votes. (That's Cleveland. Hamilton is Cincinnati.)

____________________

Amy:

Hi All,

I vote in Ohio & I've always voted on paper. Like most places, it depends on the county.

I really want them to release results for Hamilton county!

____________________

RRF:

I'm wondering-do the exit polls in any way account for the early voting in Texas?

____________________

Daniel T:

Because McCain can't get elected on the old folks vote. Look at the exit survey from Texas. McCain dominated Huckabee in the over 60 crowd. McCain ran neck and neck with Huckabee in the under 30 crowd. If you include Paul's totals, McCain actually lost the under 30 crowd. Yet this group made up about 1/3 of the voters. I don't doubt that 20% of Hillary's supporters will go for McCain. Many of her supporters are over 60 also, as the Ohio exit polls show.

All of this illustrates there is a significant generation gap. The problem is that not a single person from McCain's generation has ever won a presidential election. Moreover, throughout history, whenever there has been a tussle between older generations and younger generations, the younger set *always* wins. In 200 years there has no been an exception to that rule.

I have predicted and will continue to predict that McCain will lose 40-60 to whoever the Dems nominate. He is on the wrong side of history.

This is why Huckabee is doing so well and why it is a huge problem for McCain. These younger voters will not "suck it up for the good of the party." They will wander back to their jobs and back to school and bide their time, something the young have plenty of.

____________________

RS:

Mark L.:
CNN exit polls (are they all the same?) show Obama leading Clinton in Cuyahoga county 59-41, and also leading in northwestern Ohio (Toledo?) 55-44. Clinton leads only (but heavily) in northeastern Ohio 61-39.
Of course, I have no idea how big these leads will be or their proportion of the total vote...

____________________

michael:

Cincinatti is in Hamilton county, which is currently, with 2% of the vote reporting, 12,750-8389 for Obama.

That must contain some early voters or something, however... If you extrapolate those numbers to 100%, it would imply that there were over a million voters in Hamilton County (the population is 332,000).

____________________

Alan Snipes:

I don't see how Hillary can lose Ohio, even with a lot of the Obama vote not totally counted yet. However, more than 50% of the Ohio vote is counted.

In Texas-Hillary just took a small lead !
Maybe Obama should withdraw if he loses Texas as well as Ohio!

____________________

tony:

alan - networks have called ohio for clinton.

____________________

RS:

@Alan Snipes:
The "50%" figure is precincts reporting, not votes counted.
For example, in Cuyahoga (Cleveland) and Hamilton (Cincinnati) counties, only 2% of the precincts have reported so far - and I'd imagine these urban centers have a large fraction of the vote, probably more than 50%... Can anybody correct me with actual numbers on that?

____________________

Alan Snipes:

Yes, that is 50% of the preceints. Since my post, Ohio has been called for Hillary and she is cruising with 58% of the vote. It's not even close!
Given that most precincts have approximately the same number of voters means that more than half of the actual vote has been counted.

While Hillary will lose the Metropolitan areas, she will not lose by such a large margin to change the result given her commanding lead.
C'mon Texas!

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

@RS: not necessarily for a Democratic primary of high interest. But in the 2004 general, Cuya, Franklin (Columbus), and Hamilton combined for something like 1.6 million votes out of 5.6 million.

Ohio works harder than most states at equalizing precinct sizes (although not at equalizing the number of Democrats per precinct).

Given that the early vote was registered first, I'd assume Alan is right about over half the votes having been counted.

____________________

Tom Brady:

Ok, so the late polls accurately picked up on the surge to Clinton in Ohio (exit polls suggest she dominated among those who made up their minds in the last three days). It appears ARG was closest (of course, Clinton's lead may shrink as the metropolitan areas report in greater numbers). But what about Texas - were they correct in picking up late trends to her there? Exit polls look good for her so far....

____________________

Uri:

Any idea when the caucus votes start tallying or at least exit polls on that?

BTW: I'm watching the Obama speech and he's acting very different than the usual; he's still an incredibly effective speaker, but his charisma doesn't come through, he almost looks angry, not affable. Not sure if this is a new strategy towards continuing the fight.

____________________

richard pollara:

Mark: Just curious why it took the networks so long to call Ohio for Mrs. Clinton. Were the exit polls so different from the actual results? At about midnight Clinton leads by almost 250,000 votes with 80% reporting. It seems like she is headed for a substantial victory. What factors would cause the networks to hold off calling a race which looks like it will not be that close?

____________________

Andrew:

The caucus system is no different than a coup d'etat. It is a system that results extremely low turnout, and is no way to elect a nominee.

By 2012, let's wave arrivederci to the caucus system.

____________________

Thatcher:

It was just reported on MSNBC that the final Houston polling location just closed in the last 30 minutes. 2 hours after the official time there ... did they have that many people in line?

____________________

Uri:

Does anyone have exit poll numbers on the Jewish vote? CNN only clumps "all others".
Cleveland (the only OH area not fully in at this time) is highly AA, but also has about 80,000 jews (perhaps entire Metro). I'm wondering how the Farrakhan argument in the debate affected their vote, and whether this may indicate something about Jewish vote in PA (large population in Metro Philly and in Pgh).

____________________

Uri:

Does anyone have exit poll numbers on the Jewish vote? CNN only clumps "all others".
Cleveland (the only OH area not fully in at this time) is highly AA, but also has about 80,000 jews (perhaps entire Metro). I'm wondering how the Farrakhan argument in the debate affected their vote, and whether this may indicate something about Jewish vote in PA (large population in Metro Philly and in Pgh).

____________________

Lucas:


My math was correct..Tejas and Ohio are BIG wins for Hillary Clinton camp!

____________________

Cookie Roberts:

Any update on Obama's big state wins tonight?

LMFAO

____________________

Cookie Roberts:

Any update on Obama's big state wins?

____________________

Cookie Roberts:

Any update on Obama's big state wins?

____________________

Cookie Roberts:

Any update on Obama's big state wins?

____________________

Andrew S.in California:

Obama won Texas since this is just a race of delegates and not a popular vote race. That's his big state win.

But as annoying as it can be I do enjoy Hillary's over extended Hamlet-Like death. The Democrats will never let another Hubert Humphrey to exist to destroy the party. They will leave her to die, to sleep no more. Ah there's the rub!

____________________

Anonymous:

He won Texas? Oh that's rich Andrew.

Another fumble for Team Obama.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

@ richard p: although you were talking to the 'real' Mark, I don't think the delayed call in Ohio has much to do with the exits. (Rhode Island was called quickly although the exits apparently showed a very close race.) The problem in Ohio was that the big urban counties reported late, so there was no basis for a specific projection. If I were at a decision desk, I would prefer not to make my calls based on what-if scenarios, no matter how convincing.

The exits did provide some reason to think Obama had done better in metro areas than the vote counts support. (The first tab showed Obama up 18 or so in Cuyahoga; he appears to have won it by about 7. Of course we don't know what the raw data showed.) But I think the call would have come late even if there were no exit poll data.

@ Uri: there aren't enough Jewish respondents statewide to support an estimate. Based on the split between CD 10 and 11 in Cuyahoga, I assume that you are on to something, but it is hard to say much more without precinct-level returns. I guess we can say that if 2% Jewish is close to right, the effect on the outcome is likely to be minimal.

____________________

tom brady:

One thing that surprised me is the number of Latino independents - I assumed that a higher proportion of independents voting in Texas had to benefit Obama, but Latino independents were 6% of the vote and went for Clinton 56-41. I hadn't anticipated that in trying to project the outcome based on polling data..

____________________

tony:

looks like the lowest-performing pollsters were most accurate in predicting texas. arg, ppp, zogby, and insider advantage all called it within a few points...some were within just one point.

____________________

Breecer:


I was always so annoyed as a kid when the losing team would say, "next basket wins."


____________________

Andrew S.in California:

It's rich Mr. anonymous? I think its pretty clear that Obama will win more delegates from districting and the caucuses in Texas. He wins Texas as long as he continues his lead in the caucus results like he is now. Learn how the primary system works.

____________________

Macy:

Obama's not doing that well in the Texas caucus vote so far- nothing like he did before in other states. But even if he does win more delegates, he still will not be able to get the nomination on pledged delegates alone AND he will have lost the momentum. Then factor in that feeling the public hates... the one where the person who 'lost' the election actually 'wins', like Bush in 2000.

Obama may actually come out ahead, but what he has lost in good will and momentum will come back to haunt him.

____________________

Anonymous:

Why are the caucus results tickling in so slow? No updates since 3am...

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

It is pretty apparent that neither candidate will get enough pledged delegates to win. Hillary has said this won't go to the convention so where it exactly stops I don't know. I think she is vying to come out ahead in half way like Barak is now and stop the election based off of the person ahead. But I heard today she is trying to get Michigan and Florida counted which is truly despicable considering they all took an oath not to campaign there. If she does this and clinches the win she will show the bad sentiment you are talking about Macy and lose the General Election. She's certainly a firecracker and whether she wins or loses she'll go out with a bang and a fuss.

____________________

s.b.:

3am wow! I lasted until 2.

So, I have a serious question Mark.

When exit polls are wrong, and last night it seems they were all wrong in favour of obama, is there follow up to find out which demographic statistics are wrong in the survey.

For example was it whites or blacks who overestimated their support for him in the survey? Perhaps blacks who voted Clinton were les likely to want to take the survey.

So the support for Clinton among blacks could have been much higher. How do we know any of these cross references are accurate when the entire survey, in all states seems to have overstated Obama's support.

I believe and it is only a belief that blacks who support Clinton feel intimidated and don't take the survey. I think her support in the black community is higher, perhaps much higher.

____________________

Rasmus:

s.b,

I think that has to do with the precincts where the exit polls are taken.
I don�t know where that is, but I couold imagine that most exitpolls are collected in the cities, not in the 1000-vote counties.

Obama always wins the cities even when he loses the states, so the Exit polls are overestimating his support.
That�s my guess, don�t know if it�s true.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

I think this is pretty interesting. As we are watching delegates come in from Texas it's interesting to eyeball each's votes in the Senate Voting Districts which ultimately decide who gets delegates. I'd say its very close in that Clinton winning somewhere between 14-16 of the 31 voting districts. Look for yourself :)

http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/leg/features/0400_04/plans01188.html

____________________

Evan I:

Texas primary delegate allocation: as of 7:15 AM

Sen Obama 62
Sen Clinton 63

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJ0M6W5tNQCPLz7oU3-llfg

228 Texas Delegates at stake

126 "primary-chosen" delegates, allocated based on the results of votes cast on March 4.

42 at-large, "caucus-chosen" delegates that come up through the primary and county convention.

25 pledged "party delegates" allocated by the presidential preference of delegates attending the State convention.

35 unpledged "super delegates" -texas senate type not elite type

The 67 caucus delegate count signified by senate district 1 thru 31 are still being tabulated thus far

Sen Obama is winning SD 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25

Sen Clinton is winning SD 6, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

updated unofficial tabulated precinct caucus totals thus far can be viewed at the following link

http://precinctconventionresults.txdemocrats.org/election08district

____________________

stephen simon:

Just as an epitaph---please never put a Zogby poll up on the site ever again.

Cailifornia--he said Obama by 13, Hillary won by 10.

Ohio--he said Obama by 2, Hillary won by 12.

Zogby is either the worst pollster on the planet or totally in the bag for Obama. Either way, he should not even be considered reputable anymore.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

I didn't realize Evan I how well Obama has been polling in the senate districts. I thought for sure they'd be neck in neck.

____________________

Rasmus:

This election night is over, I think Clinton will gain about 20-25 delegates, but that�s it.

The most important thing is: THIS PRIMARIES WILL CHANGE NOTHING in the race.

Clinton talks so much about momentum, but that�s nonsense.

Sure, she broke Obama�s winning streak, but his momentum ended eihter way- maybe he would have got a new boost by winning 2 of 4 primaries, but his "February momentum" is over.

She won�t get momentum also- maybe for the next days, but that�s it.

The next primary is the Wyoming caucus- a midwest caucus, that reminds me of something-
Idaho (81-15), Utah (59-39, and that was a primary), Colorado (67-32).

That primaries were on 5th February, since then we saw the Obama momentum and we will see the backflash in the next four days equalizing his momentum- so the results won�t change much.

Best case for Clinton is 40-60, worst case 25-75, it will be something in between, I think.

Then, some days later, the Mississippi primary.
36% black population- more than Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana or Alabama have.
The AA-turnout in those states with an AA population of about 26-32% was 45-55%- so a conservative estimate would bring the AA-turnout in Mississippi to 50%, but it could be up to 60%.
On the other hand, the white population in states with a huge AA population supports CLinton more than whites in "white states" do.

So I ran six different models:
a) AA turnout 45%, breaks 75-25 Obama, whites 65-35 Clinton (unlikely worst-case Obama):
Obama 53%, Clinton 47%
b) AA turnout 45%, breaks 87-13 for Obama, whites 60-40 Clinton :
Obama 61%, Clinton 39%
c) AA turnout 52%, breaks 75-25 Obama, whites 65-35 Clinton
Obama 56%, Clinton 44%
d) AA turnout 52%, breaks 87-13 Obama, whites 60-40 Clinton
Obama 64%, Clinton 36%
e) AA turnout 58%, breaks 75-25 Obama, whites 65-35 Clinton
Obama 58%, Clinton 42%
f)AA turnout 58%, breaks 87-13 Obama, whites 60-40 CLinton (best-case scenario Obama, not so unlikely as a), but I think d) is most probable)
Obama 67%, Clinton 33%

So I see no way for Clinton to win either Wyoming or Mississippi, or even to tie there, and that will destroy any momentum she gains right now.

My prediction:
Wyoming: Obama 59%, Clinton 41%
Mississippi: Obama 65%, Clinton 34%

I am always overestimating Obama�s support, but It won�t be worse for him than winning Wyoming 55-45 and Mississippi 60-40.

Wyoming has 12 delegates at stake, breaking maybe 7-5, Mississippi 33, who could break 20-13. Obama could get about 10 delegates out of these primaries, restoring his delegate lead to 85 or so before PA votes.
And I don�t see PA split better than 55-45 for Clinton in the moment.

____________________

tom brady:

Rasmus, I wish it were so. Obama had the chance to kill the beast last night and let her escape. It's now up to the superdelegates - neither can win this without them - and she can play all the cards - Florida, Michigan, electability - that would have been rendered moot if he had just won the popular vote in at least one, and preferably both big states last night. A real missed opportunity. Sigh.

____________________

Evan I :

Andrew S -


Texas results-

Primary ended up being 65-61 (+4 delegates for Sen Clinton)

Caucus is at 52%-48% (37% reporting)


She just didn't get it done yesterday. She needed to pick up 70-30 margins in both Ohio and Texas, but instead ended up with much less, thereby netting a Grand total of around 10 delegates on the night after all is counted.

It seems the media is invested in seeing a long, drawn out nomination process (helps them sell ads, ratings, etc.)

I have yet to see anyone state the obvious. Perhaps over the next month, it will dawn on Sen Clinton that she will not win, she will not get a vp nod, and that her candidacy is over.

If somebody can show me a method (based on current polls) a scenario where Clinton can secure the nomination without the superdelegates over-ruling the people, please show it to me. Even if you throw in Florida and Michigan, she still can't do it. We all know that the superdelegates are not going to over-rule the pledged delegate total - that would be sure disaster for them come November. So perhaps that is why we are seeing this VP talk today from her. She is a smart woman - why waste millions and detract from the general election hopes of the democrats by prolonging this?

I'm sure her advisers see these sites like pollster.com. Perhaps the donors' money is there and they get a salary.....so therefore it goes on until the money runs out? Kinda sad really.......how many lives could have been made better with those millions she is about to waste on a doomed campaign.

____________________

Rasmus:

I don�t see the SD�s shifting to her.
In the end the popular vote will be almost equal, and he will have won more states and more delegates, and electability is not an issue, I think.
The SD�s are not so stupid to hear on Clinton�s propaganda that she will win the big states and Obama will lose them in the GE just because of the orimary results.

They know that a 52-42 (CA), 51-47 (TX), 54-44 (OH) and even a 57-40 homestate win for Clinton do NOT disqualify Obama to win there in the GE.
The races in the big states were open and competitive, and those in the smaller states were not.
When Obama can�t win OH or TX without Clintons latinos or poor white voters, so be it, but Clinton will also lose their without the educated whites and the AA�s- and they will move to the republicans or stay at home when Obama does not get the nomination because of the superdelegates.
2) I am sure that they know the GE-matchups and saw that Obama does better against McCain in the purple states. The GE is WTA, it does not matter if Clinton wins CA by 30% or Obama by 20%; it doesn�t matter if Clinton loses FL by 5% or Obama by 15%, but it matters if Obama wins Iowa and Virginia and Oregon or if Clinton loses that states. The superdelegates know that and I doubt that any superdelegates will go to Clinton �cause of "electability".

I even think that in the convention the superdelegate vote will go to Obama as well as the PD vote: Since SuperTuesday, Clintons superdelegate lead is shrinking from about 80 to little bit more than 40.
Yesterday and today we saw 4 endorsements: Clinton 0, Obama 4.
CNN is right, the superdelegate race will freeze, but not tilt to Clinton.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

I think many want Hillary to pull a Romney (exit the race) and we find she is pulling a Huckabee (lingering despite she has little to not chance); This is a legacy thing. Get the Clinton name out there to fight another day or possibly an important government seat. It certainly seems like the more you spend and raise the more you can go up in the DNC ladder. Look at Howard Dean, he made his name off of failure.

____________________

Bill:

At some point you Obama people need to realize that Hillary can't win and neither can Obama. The rules don't state that the one with the lead in PD wins. This will be up to the SD's and Hillary has a strong argument about the battle ground states. I'm just so tired how hearing about the PD count when we all know it's meaningless since nobody will get to the magic number.

____________________

s.b.:

This will be settled by Michigan and Florida.

____________________

Evan I:

BILL - WHAT?!?! You are delusional if you think the superdelegates will over-rule the pledged delegate total. That has to be one of the most stupid things I have ever read on this board.

HMMM, why have an election in the first place then?!!? Why not have all the superdelegates go into a room and decide the nomineee???

Let's see, I wonder what would happen if the superdelegates went into a room and over-ruled the pledged delegate lead that Obama has? You think ANY AAs or students would cross-over from Obama to vote for Hillary in the general election? NO and NO! It would be a certain landslide for McCain, dummy.

And your "argument" about battleground states is phenomenonally absurd. You mean like Missouri, Iowa, Virginia....those battleground states??? It doesn't matter that Clinton won NY or CA - those will never go Republican - ever.

However - Obama can turn many red states blue. Just look at the primary/caucus numbers. Virginia, Missouri, Iowa, Georgia and South Carolina are now in play.


s.b- HOW EXACTLY? Is she going to win Pennsylvania 90-10? NO. If they re-vote in Florida and Michigan with campaigning, then Obama will certainly increase his output from current (nonbinding) totals. So how exactly are Florida and Michigan going to settle anything in your fantasy scenario?

____________________

Evan I:

Primaries/Caucuses to date -


Obama - 27
Clinton - 14

I see her winning 2 more states, max.

Good luck arguing that you should be the nominee when your opponent doubled up your win total.


Not to mention beat you in Pledged delegates, and the popular vote, and has the edge in purple states, and does better against the republican nominee than you. Yup, good luck with that hillary!

____________________

nobodyforpresident:

What a great discussion.

____________________

Uri:

You know, the whole superdelegate argument is stupid. The pledge delegates don't represent the will of the people, the popular vote does. The caucuses, which do favour Obama (as we see in Texas), have very few people voting and then getting a disproportionate share of the delegates.

Consider the following:
In Alaska, Obama won 9 delegates by 302 voters. That comes down to 1/33 delegates per voter. In Washington state, he won 53 delegates by 21000 voters, that's about 1/400 delegates per voter. In Ohio, it took him a million voters to get 59 delegates.

Democracy means equal power per voter.

And anyway, the superdelegate system was in place long before this race began. They got power for a reason. There were no rules about them confirming the pledged delegate count.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

I don't argue that the superdelegate and delegate system is the best way to choose a nominee. I do know its the game we play now. I think the system is pretty dumb but its just as undemocratic to change how the game is being played during half-time.

____________________

Evan I:

Uri,

Why have an election then? Just have the superdelegates decide it. Is that the argument you are trying to make?


Yes, just like the electoral college in the general, the delegate system favors less populous states, otherwise California and New York would decide everything. Remember 2000, when Gore won the popular? I think it is un-Democratic too, but then again the US isn't a Democracy.

____________________

Bil:

Evan,

Show me the rule that states the one with the most PD's wins. Get your crayons and go find a good book to color.

____________________

Mary:

Geee, Bil, why have an election at all then? Why not have the superdelegates go into a room and decide who the nominee will be?


"Gimme a break!"


Btw, Hillary will NEVER be president. Live with it!

____________________

Evan I:

Bil, Go back to kindergarten and learn to add. Thanks.

____________________

Digital Purgatory:

Obama needs to win PA, badly.

He's probably going to lose by 15 there. She will overtake him in the popular vote with that. Florida and Michigan revotes will only add to the big states and popular vote totals she has.

Sorry. It's over for Obama. A lead in PDs does not guarantee a nomination. 2025 does.

Read below, if you can handle an opinion other than your own

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/6/105042/7901

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4353

____________________

Digital Purgatory:
____________________

darth:

I am a foreigner living in US and have no vote. I have seen worse number games in my country (India). I would invite the bloggers here to contribute to an interesting thought experiment: Let's say if the positions are reversed where Hillary leads in Delegate/Popular Vote/Number of States count. What will be the spin from Hillary, Obama and Media?

My two cents: Obama would have been snuffed out and would have been forced to call it a day. The underdog candidate he is, Hillary camp would have brought on such enormous pressure on every superdelegate/democrat leader around, and media would have played along.

What you guys think?

____________________

David T:

Digital-


Those articles are so full of BS that my eyes are bleeding! Like California or New York will EVER go RED! Pennsylvania will go blue too, so it is quite obvious that the author is a Clinton hack.

OBAMA has won more purple states than Clinton, in fact he may even turn North Carolina AND South Carolina BLUE!!!


Sorry, but Obama has a MUCH better chance in the general than Clinton. Conservatives will be foaming at the mouth to get out and vote her down. It is a joke to suggest otherwise.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR