home

Final California Delegate Numbers Out

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:45:00 AM EST
Tags: California '08, Hillary Clinton (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

An astonishing 9 million people voted in California's Feb. 5 primary.

Late Saturday, the state Democratic Party announced the final votes had been tabulated. Results:

Hillary Rodham Clinton won 204 delegates and Barack Obama won 166 delegates.

In the popular vote, Clinton beat Obama by 8 points. She received 51.5 percent to his 43.2 percent.

9 million total voters, 4.7 or more million of them Dems , 8% more of whom voted for Hillary ...that's a lot of votes.

< Iowa Caucuses vs. Iowa County Assembly Totals | Pelosi: The Voters Do Not Matter >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Final California Delegate Numbers Out | 68 comments (68 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Cal went for Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:38:42 AM EST
    the same way a lot of places went for Clinton early on. She was the best-known candidate. Obama was relatively unknown. A lot of people voted early for Clinton. Some people who would have voted for Obama when Edwards dropped out had already voted.

    Nevertheless, Clinton won the state. I don't know what the vote would be today, I suspect that Obama would close the gap like he's done in every other state since Super Tuesday. No matter. Whoever is the Dem candidate will win Cali.

    And Ohio and Texas went for Clinton, the same way (none / 0) (#65)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    a lot of places went for Clinton later on. The fact is, late deciders in California broke for Clinton. I really have trouble with this notion that Obama would win every election if he only had enough time. I really think this stems from the fact that a lot of Obama supporters consider Hillary to somehow be an illegitimate candidate, as evidenced by the many references to her "low information" supporters. Many Obama people just can't fathom how a voter who knew what he or she was doing would prefer Hillary over him.

    The notion that Hillary had some huge name recognition factor by Super Tuesday is unsupported by reality. How is it that he only had low name recognition in the states that he lost? There had been many debates, tons of news coverage and he had scored several impressive victories, not to mention the breathless media covergae of his rallies. There was speculation that Super Tuesday could be the end of Hillary, but now we're supposed to believe that Obama was some plucky underdog? I don't buy it.

    Hillary started the campaign with much higher name recognition, and a big lead in the polls. But polls that far out are extremely unreliable, and Obama proved to be an attractive candidate and good campaigner. All credit to him for tightening up the polls, but many Obama supporters seem to think the polls are on some infinite trend line that would eventually lead to him getting 100 percent of the vote, if we only wait long enough.

    Parent

    My goodness (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:22:51 AM EST
    A strange world indeed where getting 400,000 more votes than the other candidate counts as a win.

    Not exactly 8% of 9 million (none / 0) (#1)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:15:41 AM EST
    One has to remember that there were other candidates in the ballot that received significant percentages because many people in CA vote by mail.  Some of them may have voted before the candidates dropped out, or some may have voted on February 5 for other than HRC or Obama to make a statement.

    Any way I just visited the Secretary of State website and calculated the difference between HRC and Obama to be 431500 votes, or about 5% of 9 million.

    http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/pres/dem/59.htm

    For one thing, you're linking (none / 0) (#6)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:45:03 AM EST
    to the stats on election night.  Many votes had to be counted since, as you say -- so they would not be in the election-night number, right?  Can you link to/do the math for the updated numbers reported now?

    Parent
    Results as of 3/4 (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:21:02 AM EST
    The site says results as of 3/4, not the night of the election....

    Parent
    It is 8% (none / 0) (#8)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:50:19 AM EST
    of a smaller number.  The total in the CA Web site for the dem primary is 4,882,620 votes.  Is the 9 million total for both democrat and republican primaries?

    Parent
    The total for both parties is 7720221 (none / 0) (#10)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:04:24 AM EST
    Not sure where the 9 million is coming from.  The results for other contests don't make up for the difference.  The original 9m reference web site isn't working for me.

    Parent
    Numerous articles cite 9 million (none / 0) (#12)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:07:43 AM EST
    Including the one linked in the post:

    "Secretary of State Debra Bowen says just over 9 million voters cast ballots, the most ever in a California primary."

    Parent

    It looks like 9m is a total for all parties (none / 0) (#14)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:17:49 AM EST
    And even after adding all third parties there are quite a few missing to get to 9m.  Perhaps the state web site has not been updated yet or perhaps there were a significant numebr of people that didn't vote on any presidential primary.

    Parent
    I imagine Jeralyn... (none / 0) (#27)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:25:58 AM EST
    ...will be taking down this clearly false number.

    And still, no matter how many popular votes Clinton got in California, she's still down overall.

    And Obama increased his overall delegate count this week with the addition of 7 Edwards' delegates from Ohio.

    Does anyone here really think that she is going to overtake Obama in pledged delegates AND popular vote?  If she can't do one or the other, she has no chance of becoming the nominee.

    Parent

    And he has NO CHANCE NOW (none / 0) (#33)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:54:57 AM EST
    to win the general. If anyone thinks middle America independents will vote for him they are deluding themselves. (the 527's will destroy him)

    Parent
    Uhm Yes, in fact I do (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:44:52 AM EST
    Florida and Michigan will count and she will be ahead. You can pretend they don't exist but Iowa will not win the White House. Watch how the Super Delegates run from him now that we know a little more about some of his supporters. They don't want to be associated with corruption or racism .

    Parent
    yes I will (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:50:47 AM EST
    make that clear, thanks.

    Parent
    There were many ballot initiatives (none / 0) (#30)
    by Blue Neponset on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:29:25 AM EST
    Some people must have decided to vote on the ballot initiatives without voting in any of the primaries.  

    Parent
    Oh wait, I thought Obama was going (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:37:45 AM EST
    to close it up in CA.  Wha happened?  

    Yes, Edwards was on the CA Dem. primary ballot, even though he dropped out a short time before.

    The bizarre part of this... (none / 0) (#13)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:09:48 AM EST
    ...is that Obama actually increased his delegate count from CA from 161 to 166...

    Parent
    Of course. Both increased. Uncounted ballots (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:43:27 AM EST
    went to more than one candidate.

    Parent
    Double bubble issue? (none / 0) (#35)
    by ineedalife on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:04:01 AM EST
    Didn't the Obama camp convince the SoS to count hundreds of thousands of independent ballots that were initially ruled defective because both bubbles weren't filled out?

    Parent
    Congrats (none / 0) (#4)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:39:03 AM EST
    Congratulations to Hillary Clinton for her considerable net delegate gain and her share of the big turnout.

    (Although frankly the big turnout in the Dem primaries has had little to do with any Democrats, except maybe in their role as enablers of the Bushists, which both Clinton and Obama have been active in.)

    You don't think the high turn out (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:45:00 AM EST
    nos. this primary season signify an anybody but the Republican for Pres. movement?  I do note an extensive anti-Iraq war protest today--outside the U.S.

    Parent
    More confused... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:45:40 AM EST
    I look at the RCP numbers I don't understand them:
    they have Obama with about 2.1M votes and Clinton with about 2.5M (that's like 4.6 M only...)
    Then they have Clinton with 203 delegates and Obama with 167.

    9 million votes in total... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Blue Neponset on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:26:34 AM EST
    ...4.8 million of those people voted in the Democratic primary.  The rest of the votes were from Republicans voting in the Repub primary and people who didn't in the primary but did vote on ballot initiatives.  

    Parent
    thanks, I've made the correction (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:49:18 AM EST
    it was 9 million total, 4.8 million Dems in primary.

    Parent
    Nine million votes (none / 0) (#9)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:53:15 AM EST
    It's not that astonishing. One eighth+ of all Americans live in California, more than 33 million (and the Census always undercounts us).  Twenty percent of all American business is done in California and we produce about 25% of all tax revenue (and the Feds spend it and give us 15% back).    If California was an independent country we'd be the sixth largest economy in the world--like France.

    The Obama campaign was simply overwhelmed by the size of California both in population and geographically.  They really didn't understand until about ten days before the election that there was more to the state than L.A. and S.F.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#11)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:07:11 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure they just hung out by the Hollywood sign and then zipped up to SF for a chowder bread bowl.

    Do you seriously think that any national campaign would be that dense?

    Parent

    They may not be dense (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:39:27 AM EST
    But they did get smoked.


    Parent
    Clearly Cali doesn't have enough hip, young people (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:31:38 AM EST
    You know, typical BO supporters.

    Parent
    We gotta ship some of the creative class (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:46:19 AM EST
    to California from Iowa, Mississippi, and other states just hoggin' more than their fair share, clearly.

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:27:41 AM EST
    She shots - She scores a ten pointer (I allocate points by MO Blue rules not by any known game)

    Parent
    MO Blue gives me some (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:41:30 AM EST
    March Madness points.  Excellent.  (I hang with a Hoosier, plus we just got home from a weekend in NY near Madison Square Garden, so I'm ready for some serious hoops talk for weeks now.  Go Wisconsin!)

    Parent
    Heh, Creative Class (none / 0) (#50)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:50:54 AM EST
    Lemme know when those places do any software.

    Parent
    Evidently they were (none / 0) (#48)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:46:11 AM EST
    The Obama campaign only opened field offices in Sacramento and Fresno 10 days before the election.  They didn't carry the Central Valley at all as they seemed to just find out about it right before the election.  There's 1.3 million people in Sacramento County alone.  There's one million people in Fresno County.  The Obama folks seemed to be flabbergasted at the size of the job.  They were fortunate that Edwards folded when he did or they wouldn't have won the North Coastal Counties by one and two percent.

    In my city the Obama campaign opened an office behind a nail salon at a strip mall 12 miles from downtown 10 days before the election.

    Parent

    The thing is, Obama didn't (none / 0) (#34)
    by tree on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:00:33 AM EST
    do that well in Los Angeles County. In fact Clinton won by a larger margin there than she won statewide. Los Angeles County made up over one quarter(29% to be more exact) of the Democratic voters in California, and they gave Clinton the county by approximately 178,000 votes(a 55-42 county margin, better than the 52-43 state margin). That's 40% of her statewide margin total.

    Obama won handily in San Francisco, but its much smaller.

    Parent

    In fact (none / 0) (#36)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:22:04 AM EST
    Obama did very well in a lot of the northern rural counties (some of which have relatively few people).  His campaign made a strong effort to get endorsements from all of the small-town papers.

    Parent
    Yeah, he won Alpine County (none / 0) (#49)
    by rolfyboy6 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:49:27 AM EST
    with it's 500 registered voters.  If Edwards had stayed in he wouldn't have won most of the North Coastal Counties.  In Sonoma and Mendocino Counties the backwoods vote that had been Edwards' went for Obama.

    Parent
    That 11 in a row (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:38:17 AM EST
    What was the vote totals in those states?

    Anyone out there know?

    Doesn't matter anyways (none / 0) (#17)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:05:23 AM EST
    VA, WI and WA would never go blue in the GE.  And even if they did, they're all full of the latte-sipping, imported car-driving liberals we don't want in the Democratic party.

    Parent
    Now, now, now... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Fredster on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:21:05 AM EST
    VA, WI and WA would never go blue in the GE.  And even if they did, they're all full of the latte-sipping, imported car-driving liberals we don't want in the Democratic party.

    Now don't go getting all snarky and such.  Everybody is pretty civil here although I bet there's a lot of teeth-grinding at the keyboards.  Don't let this place become like Daily K  (don't even want to "say" it).  ;-)


    Parent

    My question (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:31:17 AM EST
    Was pretty specific.


    Parent
    Numbers (none / 0) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:58:43 AM EST
    I have numbers... some aren't current.  I need to go back to greenpapers and RCP.  I don't have WA

    State         Clinton      Obama          
    Washington  
    Louisiana  136925.00    220632.00   
    nebraska     12445.00    26126.00   
    Maine           0.00         0.00   
    virgin il       0.00         0.00
    virginia    349766.00    627820.00   
    MARYLAND     314211.00    532665.00
    DC           29470.00    93386.00
    DEMS ABROAD  7501.00    15214.00
    WISCONSIN    452795.00    646007.00
    hawaii       8835.00    28347.00

    Difference if these are correct....878,249

    Parent

    WI & WA might go blue, depending. (none / 0) (#20)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:11:05 AM EST
    the only way VA is going blue is if NVA is severed from the rest of it. SC isn't going blue in your lifetime either.

    edgar, i haven't a clue. i suspect the total of those 11 states doesn't equal CA though. strictly speculation mind you.

    Well (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:21:18 AM EST
    That was the point.

    Clinton wins CA by 800,000 votes

    But Obama wins 11 states in a row by, let's say, on average, 70,000 votes each.  800,000 > 770,000.

    You know.

    If someone can give me a list of those 11 states, I think I can take it from there.


    Parent

    mmmm (none / 0) (#26)
    by Rainsong on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:25:20 AM EST
    If someone can give me a list of those 11 states, I think I can take it from there.

    Feb 9 Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska
    Feb 10 Maine
    Feb 12 Virginia, MD and DC
    Feb 19 Hawaii, Wisconsin
    (Think I missed a couple)

    But a re-do on the math doesn't help,
    Obama always wins, that's the rules :(

    Parent

    The Numbers (none / 0) (#32)
    by ROK on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:51:49 AM EST
    Every possible pro-Clinton number scenario still gives Obama a lead (pop. vote, del count, state etc...). I'm not thrilled how this whole thing has turned out, but I'm not intentionally looking the other way.
     

    Parent
    And look at those margins. (none / 0) (#38)
    by zzyzx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:56:53 AM EST
    We don't have ME or WA but look at the non-caucus states listed

    LA + 83,707
    VA +278,054
    MD +218,454
    WI +192,897

    All of those gains in the hugely populated state of California were more than wiped out in just VA and MD.  

    Parent

    Numbers are lower (none / 0) (#31)
    by tree on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:38:39 AM EST
    Clinton beat Obama by approximately 430,000 votes, with slightly under 4,900,000 votes in the Democratic primary. The rest of the 9 million voters voted in the Republican primary, and the lesser party primaries.

    Parent
    The problem with this sort of argument is... (none / 0) (#37)
    by zzyzx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:52:50 AM EST
    Illinois.

    Clinton picked up a net 427,184 votes in CA and 317,477 in New York.   That's 744,661 votes.  Pretty impressive for just two states.

    There's just one thing.  Obama netted 650,304 votes in Illinois.  That almost singlehandedly wiped out Clinton's two biggest wins.  The thing about Obama is that when he wins, he tends to win by wide margins.  

    Obama managed to net more votes in Georgia than Clinton did in New York.  That's how she ended up here; when the contest isn't winner take all, you can't write off states or you'll lose delegates that can't be picked up later.  Big margins are a killer.

    Parent

    I think this story needs an update (none / 0) (#25)
    by Blue Neponset on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:23:55 AM EST
    9 million people didn't vote in the Democratic primary, 4,882,620 people did.  link  As a result, Senator Clinton won the race by 431,481
    votes.

    Jeralyn didn't say Dem primary (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:14:09 AM EST
    -- she said primary.  Btw, this is how it's always stated; does everyone here who just discovered that demand retractions from their newspapers, too?

    Parent
    Good point, but (none / 0) (#41)
    by tree on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:20:14 AM EST
    Jeralyn also wrote about "8% of 9 million", as if that was the total net advantage for Clinton. That's what's wrong with the post.

    Parent
    No, but (none / 0) (#42)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:23:12 AM EST
    by writing '8% of 9 million' in the last sentence Jeralyn clearly believes that 9 million voted in the Dem primary alone.

    Parent
    Jeralyn certianly deserves the benefit... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Blue Neponset on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:31:04 AM EST
    ..of the doubt.  But I would hope she makes her opinion a bit clearer because right now the post is confusing.  

    Parent
    Just google the stats (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:38:17 AM EST
    for ourselves, and it's not confusing at all.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, is the link OK? (none / 0) (#39)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:03:11 AM EST
    The link doesn't work for me.  

    SUSA and poll question (none / 0) (#43)
    by smott on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:23:47 AM EST
    ....gang I have a question about the nat'l polls, and SUSA in particular since they've been so accurate up 'til now...

    Do these polls take turnout into account?

    Ex) Let's an OH GE election poll shows McCain narrowly beating either BO or HRC say 51-49...

    Are they just polling equal nbrs of reg'd Dems and Repubs?
    BEcause if so, and the Dem turnout in Nov buries the Repub by a factor of 2 or something, then that small margin for McCain gets completely blown away.

    Does anyone have more info on this?  I keep hoping that a lot of "close" polls are kind of moot because the Dem turnout is going to be historically huge...

    I don't think Dem (none / 0) (#66)
    by sas on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:52:21 PM EST
    turnout will be huge.

    There will be alot of Dems who stay home because their candidate is not on the ballot.

    Parent

    come on (none / 0) (#69)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:51:31 PM EST
    How many Hillary supporters (except for bigots who would never vote for a black) in Ohio really would support John McCain or stay home because they will think that she was "cheated" of the nomination that was rightfully hers because the superdelegates didn't roll her way?

    Parent
    Jon Swift has a post up this mornin about Hillary (none / 0) (#44)
    by Angel on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:30:10 AM EST
    supporters deserting DKos.
    A great take on the attitudes of BO supporters.  Worth the time to read, IMO.
    Very funny (none / 0) (#46)
    by tree on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:43:15 AM EST
    Thanks. The man writes great satire.

    Parent
    Lets see (none / 0) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:25:42 AM EST
    After Wisconsin etc, the alleged momentum should have resulted in a wipe out of Hillary.  20 to 30% losses.  Obviously, the Democratic voters are not convinced.  So, you can argue about delegates, a few votes here or there, recounts, but it's clear:  There is no mandate for Obama.  He cannot close the deal.  I

    f he is such a winner, why is he struggling to get Republicans to register as Democrats.  You can call it whatever you want but now the party and the candidates have to do something to keep the Democratic momentum and they are not.  

    Obama's tactical mistake was taking the democratic base for granted and pandering to his "manufactured coalition".  

    Exactly (none / 0) (#52)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:29:06 AM EST
    Obama's tactical mistake was taking the democratic base for granted and pandering to his "manufactured coalition".  

    I think he firmly believes that he can go back and rebuild that burned bridge.  It is laughable to think that he is doing all the stupid things Kerry did (and his supporters are helping the narrative by calling Clinton supporters "elderly women, low-information voters and the working poor" as if that's three strikes) and will still have a chance in the ge.

    The biggest problem O will have if he gets the nom is that he will not have an energetic ex-president cheering him along.  Clinton will probably find that he has pressing foundation matters in Africa when O wants him to stump for him.  And I would not blame him a bit.

    Parent

    Contrary to popular belief (none / 0) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:35:38 AM EST
    Obama had to destroy the Clinton's to create the "coalition" since it is based on Hillary hate and Clinton alleged racism.   Along with destroying the Clinton's he and his supporters destroyed the Clinton voter.  

     Now, how will he and his coalition ask for support from the "racist" Hillary voters?  How will he tell the "lizard brained" (Arianna's descriptor of Ohio and Texas voters) voters, the low information voters that he values them?  How now will the Clinton supporter not be the okie doked bamboozler?  Words...words.  

     

    Parent

    Probably the same way... (none / 0) (#54)
    by zzyzx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:01:23 AM EST
    ...Clinton will ask for supporters from the "unimportant" states if she gets the nomination.  Her camp has dismissed me in three different ways - I'm from Washington State, I drive a Prius, and I've been known to wear Birkenstocks - but come November, if she's the nominee I'd vote for her.

    Parent
    equivalency? (none / 0) (#68)
    by tree on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:27:01 PM EST
    Some of the equivalencies that get thrown around don't make sense. "Wearing Birkenstocks", "driving a Prius" is as much a put-down as being called "lizard-brained"? I don't see it.  

    Parent
    Hear, hear (none / 0) (#61)
    by sas on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:47:38 AM EST
    After all the vitriol against Hillary, how can they honestly expect her voters to support him?

    Parent
    I really (none / 0) (#67)
    by sas on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:56:40 PM EST
    resent the fact that the Obama supporters say awful things about Clinton and her supporters, and then expect them to come back in the fall and support him?

    Also he says her supporters will support him, but he's not sure if his supporters will support her?

    Stupid, amatuerish comments by Obama...the voters do not like to be taken for granted.

    Parent

    Elizabeth's health was NOT a factor (none / 0) (#56)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:21:01 AM EST


    Final California Delegate Numbers Out | 68 comments (68 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment