Clinton 60, Obama 24
not much movement since last week.
Posted on May 12, 2008 11:18 AM
Should we really be surprised with no movement since last week? This was always going to be a huge blowout. In the same way that Virginia, D.C., and Maryland were always going to be Obama blowouts. I'm not surprised by this in the least.
It will be interesting to see what Hillary says in her victory speech. I fear it will include a lot of Florida, Michigan, popular vote, and all the way to the convention talk. I hope that I am proved wrong.
Posted on May 12, 2008 11:39 AM
I think Obama's going to do a little better than expected. And by that I mean crack 30%.
I think we've finally hit the point in the primary season where the remaining states don't really matter. And I'm not just saying that because Obama is about to get obliterated in WV and KY. He needs 17% of the remaining pledged delegates to lock a majority of pledged, and it's all but guaranteed to happen on May 20th in KY and OR. Over the weekend he took the superdelegate lead from Clinton, and I don't think that trend is going to slow even with his miserable showing in WV.
I actually think this is a sad thing. The competitiveness (or percieved competitiveness, as the math has pointed to an Obama victory ever since his February winning streak) has invigorated voters like nothing else. Interest, registration, and turnout have been incredible. Pollster, demconwatch.blogspot, and some other choice websites have been a pleasure to read for horserace and math junkies.
Posted on May 12, 2008 11:55 AM
Obama needs more delegates than he can win in Oregon and Kentucky... I know he is planning to declare victory.
What is sad is that the decision on Florida and Michigan delegates will not happen before May 31... and Puerto Rico still will be voting and they even have more delegates than Oregon.
I find Obama's cavalier attitude to be quite disturbing. This poll shows that in the general that 23% will vote for McCain if their candidate is not the nominee and 30% are undecided. That does not bode well for the Democrats.
So by my latest tally, Obama has written off West Virgina, Kentucky, Florida, Michigan, and Puerto Rico.... as well as the last two states to vote (Montana and South Dakota). Great job bringing everyone on board with his "new" politics.
Posted on May 12, 2008 12:31 PM
"So by my latest tally, Obama has written off West Virgina, Kentucky, Florida, Michigan, and Puerto Rico.... "
You do realize PR has no Electoral Votes, right? So yes, I sure hope Obama has written them off. The only campaign that hasn't is the one Mark Penn is a part of, you know, the guy who didn't realize the democratic party used proportional delegate splitting.
According to the Clinton campaign these days PR residents needs to have their voices heard... but caucus states, red states, small states... their voices don't count.
Either the Clinton camp wants everyone's voices heard or they don't. Their own supporters in Michigan offered up a solution and the Clinton camp turned it down. They don't want to settle anything because the more that gets settles the more clear it is that Obama is the presumptive nominee. The more "unclear" the more FUD can be spread and the more the Clinton campaign can attempt to damage Obama. It's a bit silly at this point.
Posted on May 12, 2008 1:00 PM
Yes, I know that Puerto Rico has no electoral votes, but I also realize that they are still U.S. citizens. Maybe more of that elitist attitude is exhibited when one ignores these people.
Nothing on Michigan or Florida gets settled until May 31 when the rules committee meets. Do not blame Clinton. It was Obama who did not want revotes, thus making sure this issue would drag on.
I do not recall Clinton calling victory ahead of any votes in caucus states, red states, or small states.
Posted on May 12, 2008 1:18 PM
You forget - the race was supposed to be over on Feb 5 - with Senator Clinton as the nominee.
So does that mean she was writing off all the post-Super Tuesday states? By your logic, sure looks like it.
Not to mention the "insult-40-states" Clinton strategy - "caucus states don't count, red states don't count, small states don't count..."
Who's the "disenfranchiser" now?
Just to clarify - Senator Obama will likely win the majority of pledged delegates on May 20 - you know, those selected by actual voters? But then, actual, common, ordinary voters count only when needed (FL/MI) but not always (see insult-40-state-strategy above).
It's all a matter of convenience. If She's the Chosen One, why even have a primary race?
Posted on May 12, 2008 1:32 PM
Out of context... Hillary was speaking about electoral votes AFTER these voters had already had their say in the primaries. Caucuses hardly reflect the way an entire state will vote. And she did not insult these states, because most are going to vote Republican anyway... and that was her point. She was correct in pointing out she will most probably win the states who have enough electoral votes (big states) to elect a Democrat.
Note: West Virginia counts. They have been a reliable Democratic state except for voting for Bush II. Gore and Kerry must have been too liberal for them... yet they overwhelming supported Carter (1980) and Clinton (1992, 1996).
Posted on May 12, 2008 2:00 PM
FYI... winning majority of pledged delegates is not the same as winning the nomination.
And as for your bashing Clinton and making false accusations about her.... that does not make sense. Yes, it does look like Obama will be getting enough delegates eventually to win the nomination, but denigrating Clinton will only help guarantee that her supporters in great number do not vote for Obama.
Obama (and his supporters) should be thinking about winning more support (not less) if he hopes to win the Presidency. Hillary's base would be a gold mine for him if he could win them over. Dismissing West Virginia, Kentucky, conservative white Democrats, and older voters will not get Obama his prize.
Posted on May 12, 2008 2:23 PM
Obama is spending time supporting the base that he may have alienated and frankly PR, WV, Kentucky is not the democratic base of this country. They aren't states in play and hell PR isn't even a state.
Posted on May 12, 2008 2:47 PM
"You do realize PR has no Electoral Votes, right?"
You do realize that the democratic nomination isn't won by electoral votes, right? else Clinton would have it locked up and Obama could go back doing nothing in the senate.
Maybe he could call the first meeting of the commitee he's headed for 3 years.
Posted on May 12, 2008 2:51 PM
Even if Florida and Michigan were seated with full delegates, Clinton would only net 55 delegates. Even if Obama only picked up 2/3s of the uncommitted 55 delegates in Michigan, she would net 91 delegates. She's currently 164 delegates behind in the pledged delegate count. That would leave her with a 73 pledged delegate gap that she's still not going to make up with the remaining primaries, even with blowouts in WV, KY, and PR.
Adding FL and MI to the mix now instead of May 31st would prevent Obama from having a pledged majority on May 20th, but not on June 3rd.
Clinton's only trump card in all of this was the large number of DNC superdelegates that were willing to support her. But not only has Obama taken her over on that front, but it would require the remaining superdelegates to vote against the clear will of the voters. A large portion of superdelegates have also already declared they'll support whoever takes the pledged delegate majority.
The only metric that the Clinton camp is still trying to rally around is popular vote, which is disengenous because 1) Obama's name was not on the ballot in MI and 2) She's not counting caucus states towards the popular vote. Coming up with a conservative estimate for the caucus states or stipulating that 2/3s of the uncommitted votes in MI go to Obama, and she's easily behind in popular vote as well.
Like I said above. I really enjoyed the race. It was exciting and engaging in a way that politics rarely is. And I think all the conflict has actually greatly helped the Dmes, not hurt. But it's over for anyone who can do math. I don't think Obama's being cavalier (espcially because he's rebuffed reporters asking about VP as premature), I think he's being pragmatic.
And finally, it's to Clinton's credit that Obama is going to wipe the floor with McCain in the general. Hillary is a far more formidable opponent, with better fundraising abilities and political infrastructure. McCain, aside from being on the wrong side of the issue on Iraq (regardless of my opinion, check the polls), is doing a miserable job of fundraising and doesn't have the grassroots and GOTV support of the evangelical right. Other polls have shown that people are more likely to vote for a black person or woman for president over someone of retirement age or older. Just like many wouldn't want to admit they refuse to vote for a black person or woman, there's going to be many that feel uncomfortable voting for someone so old, but don't want to admit it.
And this all pertains to the WV poll somehow I'm sure. :)
Posted on May 12, 2008 3:18 PM
I am not denigrating Senator Clinton. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy in your logic. And with words from her own campaign, not false accusations.
Sure, caucus states may not represent how a state will vote. However, activists play a prominent role in these caucuses - and guess who does the door-to-door GOTV efforts in each state? It definitely ain't the candidate.
Senator Obama is favored to win in SD and MT. Does that mean he's dissing them as well? No. It's just that he goes by the small-d democratic route of the contest - the nominee should be the one with the most pledged delegates, elected by ornery folk. The sooner the Democratic race is over, the sooner the GE fight can begin, and the more resources can be committed to that fight. Till now, Senator Obama has been fighting two battles - one against Senator Clinton, and another against Senator McCain. That strikes me as unfair, and the sooner that is righted, the better.
Finally, talking about not winning over the opposing candidate's supporters - I think Senator Clinton herself is doing a fine job of that with her I-am-the-most-electable-because-he's-Black arguments.
Posted on May 12, 2008 4:15 PM
BACK to the poll for a moment! ;-)
Who is Suffolks polling?? More people believe that Clinton will be the next president? than those that believe the Republican presumptive nominee or the Democratic "almost likely" nominee?
But more importantly.. the age groups are just wack.. and we dont see any crosstabs by age (or by anything else..)
18-35 9.0% 27.3%
36-65 64.0% 53.2%
66+ 27.0% 19.5%
I know the democratic electorate that turn out are typically older, but Obama's base of young people is significantly under-represented..
I'm just not buying it.. Clinton will win, and by a large margin, i just dont think it will quite be as big as everyone is predicting..
Posted on May 13, 2008 11:05 AM
@RS...By your reasoning... It is also not fair to McCain that he is fighting two battles against Obama and Hillary... I mean they have really gained up on John.
Posted on May 13, 2008 7:21 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
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.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
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