Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Politics Government

Clinton Takes Ohio, Texas; McCain Seals The Deal 898

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the are-we-primarily-over-yet dept.
You can read it pretty much anywhere, but Clinton took Ohio and Texas meaning that the democratic primaries are far from over. Unlike the Dems, McCain has locked his nomination for the Republicans by breaking the 1,191 delegates necessary. So there it is. Talk amongst yourselves.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Clinton Takes Ohio, Texas; McCain Seals The Deal

Comments Filter:
  • by Adult film producer (866485) <van@i2pmail.org> on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @09:53AM (#22648540)
    she left the state with fewer delegates.. I'm trying to understand what a "win" means in this race.
    • by AoT (107216) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:01AM (#22648636) Homepage Journal
      It means that she won the popular vote, which is translated by the media into a win these days. Obama is set to win the caucuses. What this is really is the media finally turning on Obama. From Russert's vile line of questioning about Farrakhan, "Why won't you say that you would stab him in the face, huh?" He would never have asked Kerry about the endorsement from LaRouche, yet he feels the need to act like Farrakhan actually matters.
    • by callistra.moonshadow (956717) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:08AM (#22648734) Journal
      Well, Texas has a caucus. She took the primary but Obama took more in the caucus which is a smaller percentage of the delegates. As to her actually *winning* one must wonder if Rush Limbaugh may have contributed to Republicans cross-voting just to up the contention between Clinton and Obmana and further muddy the outcome for the Dems. --cally
      • by Shotgun (30919) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:32AM (#22649052)
        one must wonder if Rush Limbaugh may have contributed

        I just have to wonder if Limbaugh's advice is counterproductive.

        From what I've seen in this election cycle, more than any other is that people are basically led around by the talking heads on TV. The will vote for whoever is getting the most press. With the Republican nomination cynched by McCain, the only thing that will be in the news will be Obama/Clinton. Come November, people will be saying, "McCain? Who is that?"

        It isn't a matter of the media reporting badly about McCain. It is a matter of them simply overtly shutting him out of the news coverage altogether, like they did with Paul, Kucinich and later Huckabee. The talking-head, 24-hour news cycle is an extremely powerful tool that amounts to free political adds for whoever the network controllers consider a "front-runner", whether that be Giovanni or Thompson. Having Obama/Clinton being the "news of the day" for the next few months will not help McCain.

        • by Valdrax (32670) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @11:53AM (#22650262)

          With the Republican nomination cynched by McCain, the only thing that will be in the news will be Obama/Clinton. Come November, people will be saying, "McCain? Who is that?"
          I actually volunteered to assist a candidate in an election in 2006 that followed an acrimonious primary, and I guarantee you that this is in fact *good* for McCain. With the two candidates beginning to bring out the knives against each other (especially in the form of Clinton's reprehensible scare ads), they are both turning off their base and giving ammunition to the other side. Clinton's tactics are straight out of Republican campaign history, and she's already framing her arguments in terms of "Obama can't win against McCain on issues of national security." (i.e. She's running the Republican's campaign for them in case Obama wins, ensuring a Pyrrhic victory if she wins.)

          I saw the effects of this in 2006 when the two candidates did their absolute best to turn voters away from the other candidate. The end result after the primary was a lot of people who were so burned by the attack ads, that they refused to aid the winning candidate against the opposition with campaign donations. (Many also refused to vote in the upcoming election, but most said that they'd hold their nose and vote for our candidate but that they intended to donate money to other members of the party in other elections.)

          The net result: A landslide victory for the opposition as the candidate who won the primary was never able to reenergize the party base and unable to match the opposition's funding afterwards. Our candidate tried to run on issues and on the corruption of our opponent, and the opposition ran on personality and won hands down after the sour note left by the primary.

          If voters are left saying, "Who's McCain?" then that's not necessarily a good thing if all they can remember about Clinton or Obama is months of attack ads. Brand recognition isn't a good thing when the product's tainted.
        • by vitaflo (20507) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @01:09PM (#22651508) Homepage
          I just have to wonder if Limbaugh's advice is counterproductive.

          It's not counterproductive for Rush. He's salivating for a Clinton presidency, as it means ratings for his show go through the roof for the next 4 years.
      • by JudgeFurious (455868) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @11:02AM (#22649446)
        Where I work I've spoken to 6 different dedicated Republicans who said they also voted for Clinton on the Democrate side. They all agreed that they did so for no other reason than that they'd rather face her than Obama in the general election.

          I usually vote Republican but after the last 8 years under GWB (I confess that I voted for him the first time. Who knew he was going to turn into "Big Bubba" on us?) I am so disappointed in the right that I'm actively searching for a Democrat to support. I like Obama and I'm voting for him in the general election if he gets the nomination. If he doesn't I'm going to go ahead and throw my vote behind McCain. I know several people who feel the same way I do, in particular my wife. She's a lifetime Democrat but she swears that if Hillary gets the nomination she's voting for McCain.

          I can't believe the Democrats will be stupid enough to run Hillary. She's the one candidate that the Republicans will pull together to keep out of the White House. Obama's pulling in Independents and liberal minded Republicans (yes, we exist). Hillary will send us all into McCain's camp.
        • by mdf356 (774923) <mdf356@nosPAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:01PM (#22654222) Homepage
          Texas democrats knew Bush'd turn out to be a terrible president.

          I don't know why no one much talks about coattails -- if Obama is the nominee then a lot of dems will get into Senate, House, and state offices. If Clinton is the nominee then a lot more Republicans will show up just to vote against her. That's why I don't understand why more of the superdelegates aren't behind Obama -- the coattails are amazing there.
  • Nash Equilibrium (Score:4, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @09:57AM (#22648590) Journal
    Clinton and Obama continue to fight over who's winning the Democratic nomination and meanwhile they become uglier as they turn on each other. Reminds me of Nash equilibrium [wikipedia.org]:

    In game theory, the Nash equilibrium (named after John Forbes Nash, who proposed it) is a solution concept of a game involving two or more players, in which no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy unilaterally. If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium.
    I cringe every time I hear either of them say something even mildly attacking the other--couldn't they agree to just stick to their own personal views and rely on those to win the nomination? But I guess that's politics.

    It never ceases to amuse me how McCain supporters will paint Clinton & Obama as hardcore Democrats and call McCain a moderate conservative while Clinton & Obama supporters paint McCain as a hardcore Republican and argue their candidate being a moderate liberal. Because they know the moderate will garner the most votes. I guess one thing they're split on should be the war though if McCain's smart, he'll promise to remain strong in our fight yet distance himself from Bush's attitude towards it (somehow).

    I keep hearing people telling me that I shouldn't worry, that everyone's fed up with the war and it's time for a change--there's no way the Democrats could lose this one! Unfortunately, it's shaping up to be all too much like the last election which left me pretty dissappointed, especially in retrospect. Well, at least Clinton & Obama aren't as stoic, wealthy and lifeless as Kerry was. One thing's for sure, I would gladly welcome McCain over Bush as president any day even if people call him a maverick senator.
    • Re:Nash Equilibrium (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Da Fokka (94074) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:11AM (#22648770) Homepage
      The reason negative campaigning is used so much is basically because it works, no matter how much people hate it. Negative emotions tend to be more salient than positive emotions. In Dutch there is a saying 'Vertrouwen komt te voet en gaat te paard', which can be roughly translated as 'Trust arrives in little steps but leaves with large strides'. Politicians have to make a lot of good impressions to counteract a single bad impression.

      I agree with your assessment that the Democrats will have a real challenge, regardless of the candidate they choose. McCain does not really suffer from the huge impopularity of president Bush as much as the other republican candidates (bar Ron Paul) would have. He's got some character, everyone from left to right has to respect a guy who survived five years of torture. And the republicans can start organizing while the Democrats are in disarray. I'm really rooting for Obama but it looks like there will be no Democratic candidate until the convention.

  • by Himring (646324) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @09:59AM (#22648618) Homepage Journal
    vote pedro....

  • by MistaE (776169) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:00AM (#22648624) Homepage
    I voted for Kodos.
  • by JustASlashDotGuy (905444) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:01AM (#22648642)
    Now that McCain has clinched the nod, expect all those that would have voted for McCain 'when it mattered' to now vote for Clinton when possible. Clinton is by far the easier candidate to beat and everyone knows it. It's very possible the republicans are what helped Clinton win in the Texas primary.

    We will now see McCain attacking Obama, Clinton attacking Obama, and republicans voting for Clinton all at once. I hope Obama is up for the fight.

    • by Pizaz (594643) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:08AM (#22648742)
      the good news is that in Pennsylvania they have a closed primary. Only Democrats can vote for other Democrats. Unfortunately in Texas and Ohio, they had open primaries. I'm hoping the media will pick up on these stories because it's important that people understand what's going on.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dattaway (3088)
      Clinton and McCain are like the frat brothers Bush and Kerry. Its a scorecard power players really like.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cfulmer (3166)
      Don't forget the press, which until now has pretty much given him a free ride. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/press-gives-obama-a-rougher-ride-over-free-trade-and-chicago-politics-791347.html [independent.co.uk]

      I'm not at all certain that Obama is the tougher candidate to beat -- he's looked good so far, but that's partially because the press hasn't been hounding him. That's beginning to change.

      The bigger problem for both of them is that they both have to keep left to win the primary, delaying their inevita
      • by sentientbrendan (316150) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @11:15AM (#22649674)
        >I'm not at all certain that Obama is the tougher candidate to beat
        >-- he's looked good so far, but that's partially because the press
        >hasn't been hounding him. That's beginning to change.

        Obama's strength in beating Mccain is tactical in nature and has nothing to do with "how the press is treating him."

        Obama and Hilary are extremely similar candidates in that they both have very little experience compared to Mccain; however, Obama has a number of strong points that work well in a general election.

        1. He delivers better speeches than either candidate. (btw, It's ridiculous Hilary deprecates this considering what an important skill this is for a head of state).
        2. He has strong appeal to centrist voters which are typically Mccain's base. Without the centrist voters, Mccain has to rely entirely on the party base which has already made moves to desert him.
        3. He appeals to the young vote, and so is likely to bring more total voters into the democratic side, many of whom despise Hilary over her stance over net neutrality, video game censorship, and general hostility towards the baby boomer generation. In contrast, Hilary's elderly party regulars voting for her in the primary can be counted on to show up at the polls no matter what democratic candidate ends up in the general election.
        4. He's demonstrated that he can raise way more money than any other candidate out there, and has run a much better organized campaign than Hilary, despite all of her claimed political experience.
        5. He can honestly say he was opposed to the war from day one. Hilary on the other hand is going to get *nailed* for flip flopping in the general election the same way it happened in the 2004 election. After all, if the war was a mistake, it was *her* mistake, and that is not an endorsement for presidency.

        Hilary complains that the media went after her more harshly than Obama in part because she is a genuinely weak candidate with lots of points to attack her on. If this were any year other than 2008, when the general election may just be handed to the democrats, no one would take her candidacy seriously. She's just not that strong.
        • by Notquitecajun (1073646) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @11:24AM (#22649838)
          In the short run, those centrist voters may swing to Obama, but when it comes out that he is further left than McCain is right - which is true - they will be heading to McCain in droves. Americans are center-right as a rule, NOT center-left. The youth vote is ALWAYS overrated - it hasn't made an impact since JFK, and was hardly one then because he may not have won without LBJ on board, and a questionable result in Illinois which Nixon didn't pursue.
  • by Pizaz (594643) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:05AM (#22648698)
    There's plenty of evidence that in both Texas and Ohio, Republicans are voting for Hillary in order to "bloody Obama" politically. Rush Limbaugh has been urging his listeners to do that for weeks. http://www.middletownjournal.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/03/04/mj030408switchweb.html [middletownjournal.com] Similar stories are coming in about Ohio. The political machine is starting to conspire against Obama from both sides. But I still believe that Obama will win the nomination because Hillary has a math problem. http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240 [newsweek.com] But the feeling of dread comes from the notion that even if she loses the delegate count, that she'll still be able to pull out a victory via her usual shenanigans. She's going to fight to have Michigan and Florida's delegates seated even though in Michigan for instance, Barack's name wasnt even on the ballot.
  • Lest ye forget (Score:3, Informative)

    by drsmall17 (1240792) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:08AM (#22648738) Homepage
    Umm, did you all forget that Ron Paul is still running in the race as Republican?? McCain has sealed nothing yet..
  • Good for Clinton (Score:3, Interesting)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:09AM (#22648752)
    ...bad for the party. While Clinton and Obama continue to squabble and waste $ fighting each other, McCain will have months to raise money and slowly pound away at both of them (using their own attacks against one another for ammunition). The smart thing to do right now would be for Obama and Clinton to form a unified ticket (with either Obama or Hillary as vice president), but they're both too ambitious and proud for that (typical hyper-ambitious) politicians.

    Sometimes I really hate being a Democrat. Sitting back and watching party leaders who seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory time and time again can make you want to weep.

  • by Average (648) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:11AM (#22648774)
    The nifty thing for Obama, is that he is far enough ahead in pledged delegates that he still doesn't have to go sharply negative. Notice the things he hasn't talked about. Tax returns? Bill's last minute pardons (against the advice of the Justice Department, but for people who paid consulting fees to Hillary's brothers)? Kazakhstan? Clinton library donors? Lincoln bedroom guest list? Norman Hsu? Trying to win the nomination without getting these matters in the mainstream media is a kindness to the Democratic Party that the superdelegates would be blind to ignore.

    The only question left is Florida and Michigan. Particularly the latter. If she manages to seat her Michigan delegates and none for Obama (since he wasn't on the ballot), I will be disappointed if Detroit doesn't take to the streets.
  • by Dekortage (697532) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:12AM (#22648790) Homepage

    TFA: In the Texas primary, [Clinton] won with 51 pecent of the vote compared to 48 percent for Obama.

    3% is winning the state? Remember that Democratic state delegates are divided up by vote percentages, unlike the Republican "winner take all" delegate process. So Clinton's win in Texas is fairly thin, and frankly a poor showing after all the money and campaigning she's spent lately in a state that was always considered an automatic win for her.

  • by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:14AM (#22648814) Homepage Journal
    Politics continues to sicken me, although not more than before. I'll even go so far as to say that I'm less sickened that I was in the past, because I now place the blame on where it should be placed: on the voters.

    I don't vote (actually, I anti-vote, writing my own name in where possible). Voting is an act that provides the PTB a simple request from the voter: "Lead me as you think I should be led." I don't need a leader. My life is in my hands, as are the lives of my family. Instead of spending out of control, we save. Instead of relying on insurance for regular medical visits, we pay cash on the barrel and pay a low insurance premium just for emergencies. We eat healthy, exercise, and try to stay in shape so as not to need expensive medical visits and medication that many of our friends take (and want discounts for). Rather than being angered by people that are different from ourselves, we travel the world every year and meet those that the PTB say are our enemies. Most of the time they are people not so different from ourselves.

    The country demands a leader, and they'll get one. Individuals, even the most pious and charitable, generally look out for themselves first. A leader is no different. A leader generally doesn't listen to those that he/she leads. A leader may only have said position for a few years, but will always be thinking about what they will do after their leadership position is over. In some situations, the most egomaniacal leaders may be thinking about how history will support their positions and actions.

    The surprise to me is that we United States citizens believe we need a leader, at least in government. The Constitution doesn't give the President power to lead, only to execute the laws which we wanted put in place; equitable laws that infringe on everyone equally, rather than giving preferential treatment to the few at the cost of the many (or vice versa). The President is not the Commander-in-Chief until Congress actively declares war. We declared war in WW2, but since then, we have not had a legal CiC. The President is not there to save the economy, or even care about the economy, because economic issues are the domain of Congress, or even more preferably the States. The President isn't supposed to take positions on what he or she will support or wants to do, because the President merely reviews signed bills and their Constitutionality, and only then making the decision to support future execution of said bills into law if the bills mass Constitutional muster. Most don't.

    It is sad when people demand a leader, but are too fearful of being leaders themselves. This is why I am disgusted -- not with politics -- but with you voters who have your head so far up your rears that you think your leader can lead me. I'll be forced to follow.
    • by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:21AM (#22648904)
      "The President is not there to save the economy, or even care about the economy, because economic issues are the domain of Congress, or even more preferably the States."

      Unfortunately, the public is never going to get this through their thick skulls as long as they thing their candidate will set up a system whereby they are able to get things slightly cheaper at other people's expenses. Everyone thinks they'll cheat the system but they're only cheating themselves as long as they let the government have its fingers in the economy.
  • by downix (84795) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:16AM (#22648836) Homepage
    The economy is tanking due to the Republicans. Whomever the next president will be is about to oversee the greatest collapse we've seen since the Great Depression, as the only thing shoring up our economy at the moment is over $600 billion of loaned capitol which is going to baloon to $2 trillion by years end at the current pace. If I were a strategist, I would throw the election, to let the Republicans take it, and watch as everything collapses around them.

    Alternatively, put forth the strongest dream-team, a Regan/Bush 1980 style team. Idealist speechgiver as the main ticket, the strong and reasoned seasoned senate veteran in the VP chair. Push forward using the collapsing economy as your footprint. Forget the war, people don't think of war when they're worried about their jobs! It's the economy stupid!
  • Expected it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cryptoluddite (658517) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:16AM (#22648842)
    The media was playing it up as Clinton's "last chance", so naturally that will energize people who are emotionally involved with that candidate and get them out to vote... just like in New Hampshire, where women came out strong for their candidate.

    Personally, I find the level of racism and sexism involved in propping up Clinton's campaign disgusting. I'd like to think of Democrats as above and beyond that. If you look at the facts, Obama is a better speaker, more motivational, more liked overseas, less divisive. Obama has more experience in public service, he's made better decisions, and he's more likely to win against McCain. He's run a more organized and effective campaign. So given that he pretty much outclasses her in every way as a candidate, you have to ask yourself why people are voting for Clinton, and is it right.

    Some people say that Obama is benefiting from being half-black by winning the black vote 10:1. I don't think that's really true, I think he'd be winning the other groups that much if not for the factors working against him. For instance, the Hispanic community has historically been at odds with African Americans. And whites and women, obviously, have a bias for a white woman. It seems to me that by merit he should be winning close to that ratio among most groups.
  • Looking Forward.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tetrahedrassface (675645) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:18AM (#22648860) Journal
    Pennsylvania on April 22. If Clinton can take Pennsylvania then she will most likely get the nomination. :=)
    It is about time Obama had to face some of the issues instead of a free media pass. What is all this change he keeps carping on? All talk and no substance. His campaign is staffed by some seriously questionable folks as well. So remember.. Pennsylvania on April 22'nd folks.
    • Re:Looking Forward.. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Zephyr14z (907494) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @12:20PM (#22650680)
      Have you actually listened to any of his speeches, or just seen 5-second clips on the evening news? Both speeches I've seen in person have been very heavy on substance, and not just empty rhetoric. It does seem to be a common misconception, perpetrated by the clinton campaign, that he doesn't actually address issues, but it's just flat-out not true. Don't just parrot what you hear, do a little of your own research.
    • by BlackCobra43 (596714) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @01:02PM (#22651390)
      Unles she wins it by a 99-to-1 margin, no, she won't get the nomination. In fact, unless she gets 72-25 wins in every single primary left, she won`t get the nomination. That is, assuming Obama's super-delegates aren't bought out by Clintonites.
  • by MikeRT (947531) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:21AM (#22648918) Homepage
    At a minimum we'll lose by either having a cranky old geezer who likes to throw his weight around in office through wars and limits on the Bill of Rights. The flipside is that we will end up with two tax-and-spend leftists who are both weak on civil liberties.

    Those of us who remember the Clinton years from a civil liberties side remember that it was only less bad that the Bush years because the Clintons didn't have the convenient excuse of terrorism. OKC doesn't count because they dismantled the group responsible for that without much effort. McVeigh did not have the sort of connections that justified making him into the sort of boogeyman that Bin Laden could be.

    I for one am sick and tired of hearing about change from everyone. No one is proposing change, unless by change you mean making us worse off than we already are. Here's a thought for all three: real change would be running on a campaign to severely limit the ability of the federal government to tax and regulate American citizens' lives instead of coming up with grandiose policies for spending our money and telling us what to do.

    As I said, we'll lose no matter who wins, short of all three of these candidates dropping dead and Ron Paul being the last man standing with appeal to both sides.
  • by WindBourne (631190) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:36AM (#22649100) Journal
    While I believe that Gore was winnable, kerry never stood a chance. Dean did, according to polls of the time. Now, the polls show Obama will beat McCain handily, while Clinton has just an even chance (in fact, may actually lose). Yet, these dems vote for Clinton. If Obama wins, I hope that he realizes how close things are and pushes to change election laws that favor a 2 party system. We need to be multi-party system. It is the only way that we can prevent our nation from being hijacked by ppl W. or Clinton.
  • Delegate Math (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gailin (138488) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:39AM (#22649138) Homepage
    This was shamelessly copied from this post:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751 [dailykos.com]

    This assumes that Hillary somehow magically wins by 10% in every race. Which is NOT going to happen unless Barack gets caught with a dead girl or live boy.

    After today, there are 10 states left, plus Guam and Puerto Rico.

    Number of 3 delegate districts left: 1
    Number of 4 delegate districts left: 19 (including all 8 in Puerto Rico)
    Number of 5 delegate districts left: 21
    Number of 6 delegate districts left: 14
    Number of 7 delegate districts left: 10
    Number of 8 delegate districts left: 1
    Number of 9 delegate districts left: 3
    Number of 10 delegate districts left: 1 (Montana)

    Setting aside Guam with its 4 delegates, there are 11 delegate apportionments based on statewide popular vote totals.

    Wyoming - 5 statewide
    South Dakota - 6 statewide
    Montana - 6 statewide
    West Virginia - 10 statewide
    Mississippi - 11 statewide
    Kentucky - 17 statewide
    Oregon - 18 statewide
    Puerto Rico - 19 islandwide
    Indiana - 25 statewide
    North Carolina - 38 statewide
    Pennsylvania - 55 statewide

    In order to cross all thresholds except the initial break that give you a +2 delegate swing, you need to win by an extra 200/X%, where X = the number of total delegates at stake. Let's see how this works by easy example - West Virginia and its 10 statewide delegates. 200/10 = 20%. To go from 5-5 to 6-4 there you have to win by over 10% (55-45). But to get ANOTHER +2 you need to add 20% to your win and win by 30% (65-35).

    To work through one more example, Indiana and its 25. You start with someone winning 13-12. To get an additional +2 swing (ie, 14-11), you have to win by 200/25%, or 8% even. 54-46 + 1 vote is a 14-11 split. You can also calculate this way: 13.5/25 = .5400. 14.5/25 = .5800 (58-42 is a 16% win).

    So, let's look at if Clinton wins every statewide total by 10%:

    Wyoming +1
    South Dakota 0
    Montana 0
    West Virginia +1, giving her the +1 vote benefit of the doubt.
    Mississippi +1
    Kentucky +1
    Oregon +2
    Puerto Rico +1
    Indiana +3
    North Carolina +4
    Pennsylvania +5

    Total +19 delegates.

    Do you see how totally impossible it is, and how completely significant Obama's South Carolina and February blowouts were? Remember, Obama beat Clinton by 8% in Iowa (a huge win) and netted only 1 extra pledged delegate.

    Now, let's assume, in a very unsurgical way, that this 10% is exactly the margin in all the congressional districts.

    1 3-delegate district: +1
    19 4-delegate districts: 0
    21 5-delegate districts: +21
    14 6-delegate districts: 0
    10 7-delegate districts: +10
    1 8-delegate district: 0
    3 9-delegate districts: +3
    1 10-delegate district: +1, let's give her the 1 extra vote benefit of the doubt.

    Total +36 delegates

    Overall total +55 delegates.

    And it probably is +58, see below.

    Obama currently leads by 160 pledged delegates.
  • by Mark_in_Brazil (537925) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:42AM (#22649180)
    The Obama campaign appears to be much better organized than the Clinton campaign. Clinton tried to run an "inevitability" campaign like Bush did in the Republican primaries in 2000. When that didn't work as well as expected for Clinton, it really looked like they weren't ready with any kind of backup plan. Also, Hillary Clinton is still following the strategy that allowed Bill Clinton to win the presidency twice: ignore huge parts of the country, take others for granted, and focus on a few "swing" states to get the minimum amount of votes to win. Obama's team appears to have understood the rules of the primaries and caucuses better than Clinton's, which is surprising, given how much Clinton plays up her experience as a Senator, an activist, and yes, as the wife of Bill Clinton. I can't imagine how they could not know how Texas's apportionment of delegates works, and yet they claim they didn't. While Clinton won the popular vote in three of four states (Rhode Island, Texas, and Ohio, but not Vermont), Rhode Island and Vermont basically canceled each other out (each was a blowout and both states have few delegates). Clinton won the popular vote in Texas and Ohio, but the final delegate count will be either a very small (single-digit) number of net delegates going to Clinton or even possibly Obama padding his three-digit lead by a few more delegates.
    Obama's campaign ran hard and organized even in the states where he was way ahead. The result was blowout victories, which makes a difference in the primaries, because the apportionment of delegates depends on the margin of victory. Clinton scored one blowout yesterday and was blown out in another state, so the net effect is probably about 1 net delegate for Clinton. In the bigger states, Clinton scored two narrow victories, and in Texas, the combined primary-caucus may end up giving Obama a net win in delegates.
    Clinton's campaign has tried to change the rules during the contest more than once, which is really lame. There's talk that the Clinton campaign will now sue over the nature of the Texas caucus-primary, but they had the same access to the rules as the Obama campaign did. They just seem not to have planned as well.
    Obama appears to be more of a party-builder, like Howard Dean and his "50 State Strategy." While moron pundits like Paul Begala derided paying party workers to "pick their noses" in places like Montana and Mississippi, Dean set up the structure not only for the Democrats' retaking both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections, but also for extending their majorities and making gains in the state legislatures nationwide. Obama seems to have embraced that strategy, and it would make a difference in places like Texas, where Rick Noriega could have a chance of unseating Senator Cornyn if the presidential candidate doesn't ignore the state, and at the very least the Democrats could force the Republicans to spend money to defend what previously would have been considered a very safe seat. Clinton's campaign, as recently as last week, when it thought she might lose in Texas, was saying that "Texas does not figure into the electoral calculus of a Democratic (Presidential) candidate." That is a ridiculously narrow view, and since so many of Hillary's advisors and consultants also worked for Bill, I wonder if the Clintons' philosophy is responsible for the fact that Bill Clinton managed to win the White House, but then the Democrats almost immediately lost control of both houses of Congress, setting the stage for the Bush presidency, when White House power was basically unchecked by a Congress all too willing to let Bush and Cheney do whatever they wanted. Including taking a surplus and making it into record deficits. Oh, and a multi-trillion dollar war that destabilized the region and created more terrorists by making bin Laden and his ilk look really smart as the US government acted just as al Qaeda and others said it would.

    Here's the thing: I'm pushing 40, and Bill Clinton was far and away the best president of
  • Fraud - AGAIN! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by swordgeek (112599) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @12:10PM (#22650540) Journal
    So after hearing about Clinton winning Texas and Ohio (and Rhode Island, for that matter), the second thing I read about the crazy pre-election election that seems so popular in the US right now was this article:
    http://www.click2houston.com/news/15492166/detail.html [click2houston.com]

    Seems that someone "helped" seniors register to vote, and then filed absentee ballots in their names.

    Thing is, every election, every vote, every ballot that happens in the US seems to be tainted by fraud of some sort. Identity theft, ballot stuffing, turning away voters, rigged machines, middle-of-the-night changes to the law, you name it--it's all going on, and seems to be going on all the time. The worst part is that it hardly ever raises an eyebrow from the voting public or the media. In this example, there is solid evidence of election fraud, and it's getting a few column-inches on a local website. Why isn't this on the front page of the Houston Chronicle?

    Don't you people even CARE about the failure of your democracy anymore?

Any given program, when running, is obsolete.

Working...