home

The Upshot of Wyoming: Obama Gains Two Delegates

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:57:30 PM EST
Tags: Wyoming '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Washington Post reports on today's Wyomining caucuses:

With 100 percent of the vote in, Obama won 61 percent to 38 percent for Clinton. The victory netted Obama just two delegates (7 for Obama, 5 for Clinton).

The win was expected, as Obama has dominated most of the small-state caucuses during the nomination fight.

His 59 percent of the vote -- if it holds -- would be slightly under the sorts of vote totals Obama wracked up in caucuses in places like Alaska (74 percent), Kansas (70 percent), North Dakota (61 percent) and Idaho (79.5 percent). Of the remaining nine states left to vote, none will hold caucuses.

So, two delegates, a lesser margin than in several other of his caucus wins and there are no caucuses left. I doubt it will sway any superdelegates.

< Primary Number Crunching | Sunday Presidential Race Reading >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Upshot of Wyoming: Obama Gains Two Delegates | 61 comments (61 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama is as far ahead now as he was before Tuesday (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jcsf on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:08:17 AM EST
    Because of the Texas caucuses, this victory, and the final certification of California, which was an 8 point swing to Obama.
    Y'know, you said that before (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:17:06 AM EST
    about an 8-point swing, and I let it go, because . . . well, it's just so silly, so I thought you maybe just made a mistake or don't know how to state percentages.

    But don't do it a third time, or I'll have to explain it to you.


    Parent

    After certification, the delegate (none / 0) (#13)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:24:27 AM EST
    apportionment went from an esitmated 207-163 (+44) to 203-167 (+36), so Clinton's delegate victory was cut by 8, but Obama only picked up 4 delegates w/ certification.

    Parent
    If he gains +4 (none / 0) (#18)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:30:27 AM EST
    and she loses 4, then it's a difference of +8 for him.

    Parent
    For clarification (none / 0) (#24)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:36:41 AM EST
    it's +8 in relative terms rather than an absolute +8 gain.

    Parent
    Yeah, Cream is a stickler for such things. (none / 0) (#38)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:05:57 AM EST
    I like to try and make her happy when I can.

    It's an 8 delegate swing, not an 8 delegate pick-up. You are correct.

    Parent

    No more a stickler, halswoon (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:18:36 AM EST
    than the superdelegates will be.  They can tell the difference between percentages and delegates.

    And I really think you can, too, but I know you have fun playing dumb here.

    Parent

    Hey, did I not correctly identify (none / 0) (#45)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:29:02 AM EST
    the swing the person mentioned??

    I have fun when you call me dumb, 'cuz it lets me know you actually see me as a worthy adversary. You wouldn't waste your time on me otherwise.

    I respect you, too!

    ;o)

    Parent

    Yes, you did. So I do not call you (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:33:52 AM EST
    a "stickler," as it's hardly picky to point out that a swing in delegates is not a swing in "points," aka percentages.  It's just accuracy.

    And as noted, I didn't call out the poster the first time; others did.  But seeing it done again, and at the top of a thread, looks like trying to take it off-topic.

    As, sigh, I fear it did. :-)

    Parent

    CNN (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:10:22 AM EST
    has it as +3 for today (7-4) with another +1 coming at the state convention.  Obama also picked up +8 more delegates in CA today after the certification.

    Do you know the delegate total for CA? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:12:42 AM EST
    CNN still shows it +57 or +59 for Clinton. I can't remember which.

    Parent
    203-167 (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:25:47 AM EST
    Link.

    Parent
    I am a Hillary delegate to the (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:12:42 AM EST
    Washington State Country Convention in April - and I will do what I can to change Washington State from a caucus state to a primary state.

    How can a democratic party choose its nominee and at the same time doing everything they can to prevent thousands and thousands of democratic voters from voting??

    Our caucus was held on a Saturday at 1PM -- you had to be there at 12:30PM to be in line -- how many thousands of people were at the same time at work with no possibility of getting the the caucus??

    So when Hillary has a negative view of caucuses - I totally agree - it is un-american - it is un-democratic

    and this should be the last time we have to go through this scam

    Rules are rules - says Obama (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:48:03 AM EST
    If getting FL votes to count is like pulling teeth, I cannot imagine WA delegates being changed from caucuses to primary results.  Good luck.

    Parent
    My wife's an HRC delegate too (none / 0) (#44)
    by badger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:27:03 AM EST
    Ours is a Legislative District (LD) convention this year. I was a Dean delegate in 2004, but ducked out this year - the caucuses were very civil, but I think the convention might get ugly.

    The Obama delegates only have to stay with Obama for the first ballot - you can get them all to switch on the second :)


    Parent

    How likely is that? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Rainsong on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:10:56 AM EST
    badger: "The Obama delegates only have to stay with Obama for the first ballot - you can get them all to switch on the second :)"

    But, how likely is that to happen?
    I've been hanging too much on political blogs lately, making me very depressed, all saying that she can't win, and she'll lose heavily in PA :(

    Tho she did do better in Wyoming than I would have credited her to do, maybe sending Bill and Chelsea up early helped?  

    I might go back to watching re-runs of Battlestar Galactica instead.


    Parent

    Probably not very likely (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by badger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:34:02 AM EST
    Although in our caucus the support for either candidate wasn't nearly as intense as you find on the 'net. Our precinct discussed Obama and Clinton for probably an hour and it was a very friendly discussion with a lot of agreement - but at the end nobody changed their original vote (if one person had changed to Obama, Obama would have gotten one more delegate, because of the roundoff of votes to delegates).

    While I think it's unlikely, it is something to keep in mind - in most caucus states, the caucus only elects "pledged" delegates to the next level up convention (in our case legislative district). That convention elects delegates to the Congressional District convention, and they elect delegates to the state convention. The last ones are the ones who get to vote in Denver.

    If one of the candidates does something really stupid in the next few months - which also seems unlikely - the delegate counts could in theory change pretty drastically. They will change somewhat just due to rounding off votes to delegates or other factors, like people not showing up for conventions.


    Parent

    Ours was very close (none / 0) (#65)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:51:06 PM EST
    9 to 7 - or something like it for Hillary.

    One woman had a little speech about Obama - but no-one changed their votes - it was over in 10 minutes

    Parent

    I am realistic (none / 0) (#64)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:49:01 PM EST
    however - and to get the great majority of Obama voters to switch is likely going to be a tall order.

    But I shall do my very best -- Washington for Hillary :)

    Parent

    Good bye caucuses and hello democracy! (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:13:53 AM EST
    I'm extremely happy to see that charade end. Can anyone enlighten me as to which of the primaries, beside MI, is an open primary?

    Here's a list of open vs closed. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:20:44 AM EST
    I can't vouch  for this site though. North Carolina is closed so that's good.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:27:12 AM EST


    Parent
    Kentucky is also closed and West VA is open (none / 0) (#12)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:24:10 AM EST
    to Democrats and unaffiliated but not Republicans if I read that right.

    Parent
    MyDD lists NC as a "modified" primary (none / 0) (#28)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:44:09 AM EST
    Link

    DemocraticUnderground calls it semi-open.

    Best I can tell from wiki NC would function essentially like our primary here in GA.

    The way it works is when you show up to vote, the poll workers ask whether you want a Dem or GOP ballot. There is no party registration, but you are tracked by which primary you voted in.

    Obama won GA going away...

    Parent

    Yeah, according to Congressional (none / 0) (#33)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:54:50 AM EST
    Quarterly, it's open to Democrats and Unaffiliated, no Republicans.

    Parent
    Ok. That's more like semi-closed. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:03:27 AM EST
    Weird. I saw like 4 different categorizations for NC. I'll go with CQ, though. They're pros.

    That's not like GA after all.

    Thanks for the update.


    Parent

    But the demographics look very similar to (none / 0) (#39)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:09:01 AM EST
    Georgia based on the 2004 voting percentages. It does look like a good state for Obama though female votes outnumber males by 18%!

    Parent
    Hopefully a lot of those are black women! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:26:22 AM EST
    The state is also 51-49 female, so maybe a bunch of indy men will show up since McCain is not a factor.

    The state is about 22% black, and the % with a degree is close to the nat'l average.

    It's a lot more like GA than TN, which I like to see.

    I'll hope all goes well for Obama. You hope all goes well for Clinton.

    In the end, hopefully we can come together and beat McCain.

    ;o)

    Parent

    You don't have to worry about me. I'm a (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:31:16 AM EST
    proud Democrat and I'll vote for the winner without a doubt.

    Parent
    I knew I liked you. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:38:26 AM EST
    Add that to our UT connection as something we have in common.

    With all the talk from the Clintons this week about a joint ticket, I'm wondering if she's not trying to prepare her supporters for her to prop up Obama and be his VP. I mean, with his lead, I don't see him saying, "Well, okay, you can be president."

    But if she and Bill took him under their wing, which I would love to see, that would still be a near unstoppable team, as President Clinton said today.


    Parent

    I think they are working the SD's in case she (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:49:28 AM EST
    wins the popular vote. If he wins and she accepts and truly feels genuine about it, that would make me feel better. I'd really rather have her in the Senate though if she loses. She can get more done so I don't see her benefiting from the VP role. Obama, if he lost, would benefit because of the "experience" factor. Assuming a Clinton Presidency would be successful which is always a risk for the VP.

    See you guys tomorrow. I just realized we lost an our and I was already tired. :)

    Parent

    Oh, and if you're interested (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:41:30 AM EST
    I just went to the census site to get all that demo info.

    Parent
    And it's asinine (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:19:46 AM EST
    to assume that anyone who complains about caucuses only started after Clinton lost, as so many Obama supporters seem to do.

    Therfore, this blog is honorable (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:32:13 AM EST


    I know that BTD has preached against (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:35:30 AM EST
    caucuses for years.

    The Obama narrative (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:00:12 AM EST
    I remember, it seems like a long time ago, when the debates started and HRC was on top, she would always make her position against the Republicans and not against the other candidates.  But the other candidates would attack her.  It during the SC election, that she began attacking Obama, and he used the race card against the Clintons.  I know that's not what most Obama supporters believe, but that's the truth.  Now the Obama people, don't like the attacks, but it's too late.  The genie is out of the bottle.

    The problem is you just throw (none / 0) (#54)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:50:42 AM EST
    something out there like that without offering a single shred of support.

    The Clintons said things that offended a lot of black people. Some black people weren't offended. One of Obama's SC workers wrote a memo, which was leaked, and then he blasted Plouffe and Axelrod and told them that wasn't cool.

    When those other candidates attacked her, she accused them of ganging up on the girl. You may not like it, but it's true. She also preemptively blamed her loss in Iowa on sexism.

    It amazes me that Sen. Clinton has brought up discrimination over and over, yet that's okay. President Clinton says something hurtful (Obama will win SC b/c he's black), and she is perceived as discounting Dr. King, but it's Obama who is race-baiting.

    That is just unbelievable. And on top of all that, it is us Obama supporters who are called delusional!!!

    WTF??

    Parent

    Hurtful? (none / 0) (#57)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:24:18 AM EST
    He must have his feelings hurt a lot, since all of the pundits routinely say he'll win in a state with a large black vote. As a friend of mine said, we're allowed to say Obama won South Carolina because of his race, it's just Bill Clinton who's not allowed to say it.

    Do you really think he won 85 percent of the black vote because they all just happen to agree with his policies? There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying the black vote is a natural constituency for him. It's just common sense. You can bet that if Hillary had won 85 percent of the black vote, that's all anyone would be talking about, and the Obama camp would be trying to figure out how he lost his base.

    Obama has managed to perpetuate the theme that Bill was being racist in his Jesse Jacksaon remarks, so I guess good for him. But there are certain things that are shameful, and branding your opponent as a racist is one of them. Saying he liked Ronald Reagan is not.

    Parent

    It wasn't Obama's feelings that were hurt. (none / 0) (#62)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:43:06 PM EST
    It was the black community's. And feel free to minimize their feelings if you wish. The fact remains that Clinton went from winning the majority of blacks to getting about 10-15%. A lot of that is b/c black people realized he was a legitimate contender; the rest is b/c they got offended by the Clintons. Right or wrong, that is what happened.

    The same goes for women. If they see sexism, it's hard to argue with them. I may think it's just a major candidate getting critiqued or attacked b/c of their strength, but if women think it's b/c she is a woman, then perception becomes reality.

    Now, you have no problem pointing out his "natural constituency" but the idea that Clinton won NH b/c she's white is playing the race card. I'm afraid you cannot have it both ways.

    Calling Obama a sexist has to be deplored if you're gonna call him shameful for playing a supposed race card. Again, you can't have it both ways. Either each is fighting a tough race, or each is bigoted and prejudiced.

    Parent

    I don't think it's fair to say (none / 0) (#59)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:41:46 AM EST
    Obama 'played the race-card' and duped the Clinton campaign into saying stupid stuff.  But I think it's also unfounded to say the Clinton campaign coordinated a Southern strategy.  The Obama SC memo was IMO pretty bad, including as it did a bunch of clearly non-racist quotes (like Bill's about Nelson Mandela).  The tenor of that memo and for instance, another comment by his campaign, about the Clintons putting people in boxes and meeting with Latinos in their homes, makes me a little cynical toward the Obama campaign when it comes to racial politics or post-racial politics.  I don't think they played the race card but I think they're certainly not above making political gains from it.  And many of our finest talking heads made a mockery of journalism by running away with the fairytale and MLK comments.  The fairytale comment esp. was distorted and that's not Bill Clinton's fault.  

    As far as the Clinton campaign and sexism goes...that seems to me like a whole different thing.  Openly sexist comments have been all over the place during this election.  Obama himself has been relatively free of them.  Clinton has taken a different tack from Obama in the assertive way she presents herself as someone who is making history.  But then again I think she saw this election as a fight to show that a woman could be Commander in Chief (that was in a NY Times article somewhere recently).  And the climate of public opinion is very direct about gender differences.  Lawrence Summers?  Imagine the president of Harvard saying something like that about racial differences.  Of course "The Bell Curve" is still believed by some (idiots).  

    Parent

    I don't think either candidate is above (none / 0) (#63)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:52:43 PM EST
    benefiting from the missteps of their opponent, be they racial or otherwise. Clinton clearly didn't go as far as she could defending his Christianity: "not as far as I know?" Why not say, "I've had Bible study with Obama, and he's a strong and committed Christian?" The answer is b/c she's not above benefiting from his troubles.

    Was the fairy tale comment far from racist? Yes, but again, if the black community or the press is gonna blow it up, Obama is not gonna dig in the trenches for Clinton. It's not his job.

    Pointing out he would win SC b/c of blacks was wrong. Period. It's just as bad as saying she won NH b/c she's white. It's ridiculous. Last fall, she had a 20 point lead among blacks. What changed? Well, when Obama won IA, a lot of blacks' eyes were opened to the fact that he is not a Sharpton or Jackson, someone running on a platform of "blackness." Then, President Clinton offended Rep. Clyburn, who was neutral at the time. That led to a major shift, one that the Clintons' downplaying of has only led to it growing. When a white person is seen as dismissing the feelings of blacks, there is going to be a backlash.

    It's the same with women, particularly white women. Post-NH, it was not the Bradley Effect that was seen as the primary factor; it was that white women perceived Sen. Clinton may be on her way out of the race, so they showed en masse to support her. They have stayed with her throughout the race, again helping her stave off Obama in TX.

    I wish the campaign could have been run w/o all the race and gender talk, but that is not realistic. We may be ready to elect a woman or a black man, but it is still going to be a fight, and an ongoing discussion in this country.

    Both candidates will take whatever profits that conversation provides them.

    Parent

    It depends (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by badger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:35:21 AM EST
    I like caucuses, because in our area it's about the only way you find out you're not the only Dem in town (and the Dem Party meetings are a huge waste of time). They're nice social events.

    But as a barometer of state-wide Democratic preference, they're demonstrably not accurate at all. WA State has a primary and a caucus - the caucus was 2:1 Obama, while the primary was nearly even (as was polling leading up to the primary). In Texas, the discrepancy was even greater.

    Based on that, I think I can objectively state that caucuses are not a good indication of the "will of the people" or of Democrats.

    Now you provide some evidence that demonstrates they are so we don't think you favor caucuses just because they're the only way Obama can win more delegates than Clinton in a lot of states.

    She should have contested more of these (none / 0) (#1)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:03:53 AM EST
    red state caucuses. I think BTD is right about Mississippi. She'll lose but break even or even win the delegates. Maybe then, the Obama supporters will see our point. Alabama was the same way but it got buried in the Super Tuesday coverage.

    I thought so too, (none / 0) (#16)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:27:11 AM EST
    but apparently Obama ended up with 2 more delegates, 27-25.

    Parent
    I can't get your link to work. That's (none / 0) (#21)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:34:03 AM EST
    interesting though. I just read yesterday that it was a tie. It sure takes a long time to figure these allocations out doesn't it?

    Parent
    Try this one. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:00:49 AM EST
    I might have messed up before.

    All these different delegate counts are ridiculous. I can find places saying Obama's total lead is anywhere from 130 to 99. It's nerve-racking.

    How 'bout them Vols? Hope they keep it up!!

    Parent

    Oh me too Halstoon. I have whiplash from (none / 0) (#40)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:12:03 AM EST
    switching from the computer to the TV to keep up with my two passions. I'm so thankful that there are no primaries during March Madness. I can't wait even though the Vols traditionally let me down. Though they came close last year.

    Parent
    That OSU game broke my heart last year. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:34:37 AM EST
    I was going through an awful thing that week, too, and could have used a big win there.

    My dad is a huge UK fan, so I hope they manage to get into the dance. Maybe they'll crush Florida tomorrow. BTD is a gator; it'd be nice to gloat over him if they get left off the dance floor.

    I'll be glad when this thing ends, honestly. I have always loved politics, but I've become completely obsessed. I haven't even watched Law & Order this year; sometimes it's days before my TV is not on CNN or Fox.

    At least after Tuesday we get a nice break, like you said. Perhaps after a breather we can all go back to being on the same team.

    Parent

    I heard an expert on a sports talk show and he (none / 0) (#52)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:42:48 AM EST
    thinks Kentucky makes it on SEC play. I think they need to win a few tournament games (as long as they aren't playing the Vols). Yeah, both OSU games were heart breakers. Two losses by a total of three points.

    I'm also ready for a break and basketball will help a lot. This has gotten too intense. Next time, I'm going to not care so much who wins the primary and just go all out for the general.

    Night everyone.

    Parent

    Sniglet (none / 0) (#6)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:13:51 AM EST
    I think I just came up with a new term: caucushamockery.  

    What do you guys think?

    How can different news outlets have all these various delegate counts, makes no sense.  

    Texas election and caucuses (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:26:44 AM EST
    There was a positive from the TX election because better than WA, it demonstrated how caucuses are undemocratic.  All open voting is easy to game.  Also the small number of voters is not necessarily representative of the whole population.

    Parent
    I hope the WY win (none / 0) (#22)
    by mg7505 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:34:32 AM EST
    doesn't sway any superdelegates. Question for someone who knows the math: if Obama keeps his current lead (pledged+supers) through the last primary, and assuming no more supers pledge before then, will he have clinched it? Or will the supers still have to decide?

    He can't win it without the SD's short of a (none / 0) (#25)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:38:04 AM EST
    miracle. Neither can Clinton. Your example is already including SD's by the way.

    Parent
    Sorry... (none / 0) (#27)
    by mg7505 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:42:54 AM EST
    ...I meant to ask if the remaining unpledged SDs will have to decide.

    Parent
    The big question (none / 0) (#29)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:47:29 AM EST
    is whether they would decide to support the winner in pledged delegates or decide to overturn them.

    The SDs will end up pushing the nominee over the edge, but, unless the contest goes to the convention, they will probably vote as an overwhelming majority.

    Parent

    Then yes. I think it is mathematically possible (none / 0) (#31)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:48:37 AM EST
    for either to pull it out without SD's but very unlikely.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#55)
    by muffie on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:09:10 AM EST

    He would have to win roughly 75% of the remaining pledged delegates to avoid sending it to the SD's.  That's not going to happen.

    Parent
    If you only want votes (none / 0) (#37)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:03:28 AM EST
    from "your select" people at caucuses and it is not against your ethics to prevent thousands of people from voting - then that is your business

    but i do not have the stomach for that kind of top down "selection"

    So is Obama of the people - and for the people - or just of the select - that is your choice.

    I just firmly believe that everyone should have an opportunity to vote

    You obviously do not.....

    Upcoming open and closed primaries (none / 0) (#41)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:13:27 AM EST
    Most of the upcoming primaries are closed.  The open primaries are:

    May IN, WV
    June MT

    I'm happy that all the other red states will have closed primaries.  HRC needs to court those states and win them.

    She could win MT (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:08:06 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm thrilled for the state of Wyoming (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:07:34 PM EST
    and the attention that they got due to this.  It is reason for some in Wyoming to think about becoming more politically involved.  And congrats to Obama.  I'm not thrilled with the caucus system but by the existing system being used Obama carried the state and congrats.

    The Upshot of Wyoming: Obama Gains Two Delegates | 61 comments (61 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment