home

Final Puerto Rico Results

Update: CNN now has 98% of vote in . Hillary has a 140,000 vote lead.

96% of the vote is in. Check the links for final updates. Right now:

  • Hillary: 254,482 votes, 68.38%
  • Obama: 117,651 votes, 31.62%

Hillary leads by about 137,000 votes.

Delegate analysis here. Turnout looks to be about 375,000 so far.

< Hillary's Puerto Rico Victory Speech | Huge Box Office Stats for "Sex and the City" Opening >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    So that makes... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:53:55 PM EST
    Clinton's national lead around 290,000, before we deal with the MI uncommitted, caucus estimates, or whether to count caucuses or primaries in states that had both.

    Sorry... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:54:35 PM EST
    Closer to 300,000 per RCP.

    Parent
    Excellent! (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:54:03 PM EST
    Thank you, Jeralyn!

    bittersweet (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:56:49 PM EST
    I was hoping for 200,000 vote difference so even skeptics would see her ahead in vote total.  But it was an excellent win, and she looked great.

    But on the upside, everyone seemed to be saying SDs were going to wait until Wednesday, at least.  The Obama camp had been floating the idea they would have enough SDs come out this weekend to put them over the top in MT Tuesday.  I guess it could still happen tomorrow, but the pundits, including DB seemed to be saying it would not happen until later in the week.  That is good for Clinton.

    Can we really trust DB? :) (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:00:30 PM EST
    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:00:58 PM EST
    Just another cry of wolf from the Obama camp.

    I am not surprised it was an intimidation tactic.

    Parent

    Not intimidation.. voter suppression. (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:09:19 PM EST
    Nothing keeps people home as much as the perception that 'the race is over'.

    It makes me sick.. actually. The MSM is not covering this at all like they should.

    Most egregious of all -- I find scant mention of the money being donated by Obama to the SD.. sorry it's really a pet peeve of mine, that the so-called change candidate and one that seeks to stop the influence / corruption that money has in our system is using the same old dollar based tactics to win the nomination!

    Parent

    Of course Obama (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:12:00 PM EST
    isn't for change. It's a bumper-sticker slogan, nothing more.

    I like to say his bumper sticker should read:

    "You have the change I'm looking for!"

    ;-)

    Parent

    Both of our Dem candidates have similar policy (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Newt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:39:55 PM EST
    positions, but a key difference between Obama and Clinton may be the vastly different effect they would have on the number of new Democrats we elect to replace Republican obstructionists in Congress.  Hillary Clinton is the GOP's main Get Out The Vote strategy, even more so than their anti-gay, anti-choice strategies have spurred their followers to vote in the past. Right wing voters don't just dislike her, they actively despise her!  Alternatively, new and reengaged voters motivated by Obama can help us elect 10-20 new Democrats in Congress.

    That has got to be on the minds of Dem party leadership.  Do we want to pass up the chance in a lifetime to finally clean house in Congress?  That's what Obama brings to the table.  Even if he loses the presidency, and I don't think he will, almost EVERY OTHER Democrat on the ticket WINS because the millions of  new and reengaged voters motivated by Obama can be checking Democrat, Democrat, Democrat everywhere on their ballot.  At some point the white, male middle class vote that everyone keeps saying will go to McCain is going to wake up and realize the impact of McSame on their wallets, their kids and their American way of life.

    I personally don't look to Barack Obama to make all the changes I hope for in this country's near future.  I look at him as an opportunity to make sweeping changes in Congress, if only because the Hillary-haters on the right might sit out the vote, and the Obama supporters will be at the polls voting down ticket like crazy.  I also think that the millions of new and reengaged voters will have expectations of progressive change, will demand transparency and integrity in our government, and will be mobilized and connected to effect that change.  That's what I see from the Yes We Can Movement. It's less about Obama and more about the rest of us who support him.

    Parent

    Consider this argument closely. (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by phat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:49:28 PM EST
    What evidence is there that Obama supporters vote down-ticket? There is some evidence that they do not vote for Democrats in down-ticket races. His base is not reliably Democratic. A large chunk of his base aren't even reliable voters.

    Clinton's base, however...

    Seriously, show me some evidence that Obama helps other down-ticket candidates. That's conventional wisdom, which is rarely wise.

    Parent

    Clinton's base doesn't seem reliably Democratic (none / 0) (#77)
    by Newt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:23:06 PM EST
    based on the willingness to vote for McCain I hear over and over from Hillary supporters.  Interestingly, I know hundreds of right wingers who voted for Hillary in the primaries, and I know of at least one who posts here on this list as a woman supporting her.  He is not.  And he will not vote for her if she wins the Dem nomination.  But he's shown me his comments in some of these threads and he and others are laughing their butts off at us for not being able to fight back against his candidate.

    Obama supporters will definitely vote down ticket. An ad with Obama next to the Democratic candidate of your choice will result in the firing of many, many Republicans.  No question.

    Yes Obama has negatives.  Absolutely.  I'm sure we'll see a horrible video of his wife tomorrow or Tuesday, just in time to rile up white voters in MT & FL who might have been thinking of voting for him.  But I've heard blacks angry about what they experience.  I have black people in my family.  I understand why whites are angry about reverse discrimination, and from what I can tell, Obama understands it also is sees it as part of the problem.  When they use Michele's words tomorrow to try to get people mad, and if the votes go her way Tuesday because many whites freak out when exposed to black anger, then all I can say is it's not win, it's simply the same old sneaky manipulation of voters that drove so many people away from politics.  

    But we're back now.  It's not just young voters, it's millions of reengaged citizens.  Again, this is more about us them him.  Clearly, the Clinton administration was good for a lot of you who are upper middle class.  It was NOT good for many others such as myself.  And if you want to be honest and ethical, you'll face the truth if your candidate wins Tuesday when she wouldn't have without the last minute videos we'll be seeing tomorrow.


    Parent

    Evidence. (none / 0) (#81)
    by phat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:33:40 PM EST
    Obama supporters will definitely vote down ticket. An ad with Obama next to the Democratic candidate of your choice will result in the firing of many, many Republicans.  No question.

    Use evidence to back that up! There is some question!

    There is evidence from Texas that Obama supporters did not vote down-ticket. And there will be evidence from other states, soon, too.

    You may be right, but you have to show me some evidence, not some faith-based argument. Are there numbers to show this?

    Find some and post them with your argument. Don't just assert something. This is a very serious discussion. It's very, very important. I cannot stress to you how important this is. I cannot take you seriously in this context without you showing me some evidence.

    If you know of someone who is trolling as a Clinton supporter you should probably bring that up to the people who run this board.

    Upper middle-class? Are you kidding me?

    Parent

    Interesting you should bring up Michelle (none / 0) (#88)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:30 PM EST
    As long as we're speculating about what Obama brings to the table ...

    If the video exists and is as bad as rumored, do you think Michelle would be an acceptable First Lady?

    Just genuinely curious how/if that sort of event would affect your vote?

    Parent

    I don't believe anything (none / 0) (#89)
    by phat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:57:19 PM EST
    Will change this person's faith in Obama.

    Parent
    Obama does not help other dem candidates (none / 0) (#83)
    by PennProgressive on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:35:36 PM EST
    Much of Obama's appeal is based  on unity with other party, GOP but not among the democrats. His continued criticism of Clinton years and consequently of Clinton's economic policy as well as praise for Ronald Reagan seem tto indicate  that he does not ccare who ccontrols the Congress, because he believes that  he can work with any one. So how  can he make a  strong case for a democratic candidate for Congress? The difference between HRC and OBAMA is that HRC will  fight for you.  and Obama? He does not want to count legitimate  state certified demacratic vote unless he can take  some that dooes not belong  to him.    

    Parent
    Don't forget (none / 0) (#93)
    by Newt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:30:07 PM EST
    that many, many of Obama's supporters are not young inexperienced voters.  The millions of REENGAGED Democrats are not posting on this blog or the Obamabot blogs.  

    Parent
    Re-engaged Obama supporters. (none / 0) (#96)
    by phat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:57:00 PM EST
    Can you show me that they're re-engaged Democrats? Are the voting for other Democrats?

    Show me some numbers, please.

    Parent

    Have you forwarded your information? (none / 0) (#98)
    by phat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:04:36 AM EST
    Have you told the admins of this blog the names of the people who are trolling here?

    I wouldn't expect you to.

    Parent

    Dems have to run ads (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:51:10 PM EST
    saying they don't know him. That really doesn't help down ticket, now does it?

    His negatives are as high as hers now. Something tells me he would inspire Repubs to come out and vote against him also. Now Clinton has won favor with some for her spirit and fight along with her clarity on issues that matter.

    New young voters are historically unreliable. And so far they haven't learned about voting down ticket. They are not voting for the party, they are voting for Obama, period.

    You may want to rethink/reevaluate. The picture has changed quite a bit since the race started. And I honestly think you might find that Hillary Haters are not the large voting block you believe they are. Do I dare say I don't think they number anywhere near the amount of supporters she has? :) She seems to be gaining in popularity and he seems to have peaked

    Parent

    My Hope and My Fear (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by santarita on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:53:01 PM EST
    My hope is that your vision comes true.  My fear is that Obama is not the new politician that you hope for and that he and his advisors will squander all of the good will that he has generated by playing the same old inside the beltway games.  I'd like to think that my fear is unfounded but I look at his advisors and I look at what he has done during the primaries and I find nothing to allay my fear.

    Parent
    And look at all (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Jeannie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:58:10 PM EST
    the Washington insiders that are backing him. Do you think they really want change in Washington? If you do, I have a bridge I want to sell you!

    Parent
    Newt, (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:57:04 PM EST
    you seem very enthusiastic, but I don't see many facts to support your assertions.

    Obama has mainly used his Senate seat to run for President. He is not nearly as progressive as HRC in his approach to policy. And Obama only seems to win when voter turnout is low. (Jeralyn posted on this a while ago.)

    I wish you good luck in your choice of candidates and hope that what you wish for comes to pass. Personally, I think it is much more likely to happen with HRC as the nominee.

    Parent

    I understand your enthusiasm (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:59:08 PM EST
    but you are missing a few very critical points.

    First off, there's no positive indication that young Obama voters are going to vote downticket Dem, and results from Texas showed that they were less likely to do so than Clinton voters.

    Second, you seem to think that Obama himself won't mobilize Republicans to vote against him. I think its rather likely that he will. Never underestimate the will of Republicans to demonize a Democrat in order to get out the vote.  His unfavorables are already higher than Clinton's are at this point.

    Obama has weaknesses with core Democratic voters. He isn't going to make that up with Republicans after the 527s get through with him. He has turned out to be just as divisive (or more so) than Clinton.

    And lastly, you are really in fantasyland if you think that white males are going to suddenly undergo a radical shift in voting patterns this year and shift to Obama. Its not going to happen. When Democrats win it is because they can will minority voters  by a large margin (including not just blacks bur Hispanics and others as well), AND get at least a small majority of white women. White men usually vote for the Republicans by significant margins. Obama can deliver the black vote but he's got weaknesses with Hispanics and real serious problems with white women. It's possible that he can win in November but not likely. If he does I suspect it will be because of reverse coat-tails.

     

    Parent

    I don't think that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:10:53 PM EST
    will help all that much down ticket. I live in the last bastion of Conservative Republican Congressional Districts in NYC, NY-13. In the last two GE's the district overwhelmingly voted for Bush. They have helped elect two Republican mayors and would vote again for Vito Fossella despite his foibles. However, the Republicans in the district voted overwhelmingly for HRC in both her Senate campaigns. The current trend, now that Fossella is out of the race, is that the Democrats have a good chance of taking the seat. The Republicans have nominated an unknown, power broker because all the other well known Republicans that were eligible backed out.
    Having lived in this borough for nearly all my life, and worked in the community, I'm certain that if Obama is at the top of the ticket, the voters here will vote for McCain and on his coat tails the Republican's will hold the congressional seat. Many of the voters here do not split their votes and they do not always vote in their best interest. There are many who are Regan Democrats and Obama does not get their votes. These folks like HRC because she has done a lot for them.
    And if your are looking for congressional reform if Obama is elected, I think you will be sadly disappointed. He is part of the Chicago Democratic Machine and has very little experience on the national level. He will have a very difficult time convincing the blue dog Democrats and the hard core Republicans to push his so-called progressive agenda.


    Parent
    You've got to be kidding me... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:12:28 PM EST
    You said:
    but a key difference between Obama and Clinton may be the vastly different effect they would have on the number of new Democrats we elect to replace Republican obstructionists in Congress.
     
    Yes, that's true - since there has been some analysis that shows Obama supporters not being too good at voting down-ticket.

    Hillary Clinton is the GOP's main Get Out The Vote strategy, even more so than their anti-gay, anti-choice strategies have spurred their followers to vote in the past.

    Do you seriously think that if Obama is the nominee, he will not be a lightning rod for the GOP GOTV strategy?  Seriously?  They can't wait to run against Obama - it's all they can do not to lick their chops and rub their hands together in anticipation.  I don't know where you have been lately, but Obama is going to be pathetically easy for the GOP to run against.

    Right wing voters don't just dislike her, they actively despise her!

    Problem is that a lot of actual Democrats feel that way about Obama, and he can't win without them.

    Alternatively, new and reengaged voters motivated by Obama can help us elect 10-20 new Democrats in Congress.

    Motivated by Obama?  What, this guy is now the Second Coming and is the only one who can elect down-ticket Dems?  Please - how do you explain that some Dems have already had to distance themselves from Obama?

    That has got to be on the minds of Dem party leadership.  Do we want to pass up the chance in a lifetime to finally clean house in Congress?  That's what Obama brings to the table.  Even if he loses the presidency, and I don't think he will, almost EVERY OTHER Democrat on the ticket WINS because the millions of  new and reengaged voters motivated by Obama can be checking Democrat, Democrat, Democrat everywhere on their ballot.  At some point the white, male middle class vote that everyone keeps saying will go to McCain is going to wake up and realize the impact of McSame on their wallets, their kids and their American way of life.

    I don't know what you are drinking or smoking, but this is not even close to being reality-based thinking.  Obama's presence is going to help clean up Congress?  How - will there be a laying on of hands?  Some magical transcendent light that will help people come to the truth that is Obama?  I hate to break it to you, but Obama does not and cannot claim ownership and responsibility for MILLIONS of energized voters.  Sure, there are some, but stop already with the hyperbole.  And unless and until you can guarantee that these new followers have even the slightest interest in Congress or down-ticket races, please stop with the overblown claims.

    I personally don't look to Barack Obama to make all the changes I hope for in this country's near future.

    That's good - because he isn't going to be making any, unless you consider chipping away at core Democratic principles to be the kind of change you want.

    I look at him as an opportunity to make sweeping changes in Congress, if only because the Hillary-haters on the right might sit out the vote, and the Obama supporters will be at the polls voting down ticket like crazy.  

    Please stop - you are embarrassing yourself.

    I also think that the millions of new and reengaged voters will have expectations of progressive change, will demand transparency and integrity in our government, and will be mobilized and connected to effect that change.

    They're expecting progessive change from Obama?  Only if you consider co-opting GOP talking points to be progressive - I don't.  Transparency in government?  Obama can't even be honest about who he takes money from and who did the real work on things he claims credit for.  Mobilized and connected?  Like he was to his subcommittee?  Yeah, that's just inspiring beyond belief.

    That's what I see from the Yes We Can Movement. It's less about Obama and more about the rest of us who support him.

    Less about Obama?  Better not tell him you feel that way - I think he expects that it is ALL about him.  

    And this "Yes We Can Movement?"  Sounds too much like Amway to me.

    Parent

    No kiddin' (none / 0) (#90)
    by Newt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:02:32 PM EST
    Umm,

    he will not be a lightning rod for the GOP GOTV strategy
    Obviously Obama will bear the brunt of GOP swift boat & misinformation tactics, I didn't imply otherwise.
    this guy is now the Second Coming  

    Nope, I didn't say that, in fact I said the opposite.
    a lot of actual Democrats feel that way about Obama,  
    As do Obama supporters about Hillary, I'm not measuring which are worse.  
    don't know what you are drinking or smoking, but this is not even close to being reality-based thinking.  
    I guess you can't disagree without insulting me.  
    Obama does not and cannot claim ownership and responsibility for MILLIONS of energized voters.  Sure, there are some, but stop already with the hyperbole.  
    I said reengaged, not energized.  Watching the Nyer ousted from the Rules Committee, I think we need much less energized dialogue.
    Please stop - you are embarrassing yourself.

    Again, my opinion is valid and there's no call to insult me when you disagree.
    Less about Obama?  Better not tell him you feel that way - I think he expects that it is ALL about him.  
    That's exactly what Obamabots say about Hillary.  
    "Yes We Can Movement?"  Sounds too much like Amway.  

    I'm not asking you to buy anything, I'm telling you what many people are feeling, thinking and doing.  
    BTW Jeralyn & BTD, what happened to the site policy about personal attacks?  Is it selectively applied?

    Parent
    Policy Positions (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:17:20 PM EST
    Most of Obama's policy positions are copies of HRC's. And she has hands down the better health care policy and the best chance of getting it through congress. Why would we want the copy when we can have the original?

    Parent
    It's a losing strategy to blow up the ... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:18:48 PM EST
    established democratic coalition in expectation of a new majority emerging from the wreckage with the help of new voter registration.

    Possible? Maybe. Likely? No.

    Parent

    Perfect bumper sticker :-) (none / 0) (#26)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:22:12 PM EST
    In hindsight, (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:12:58 PM EST
    I probably should have seen that one coming because it is about the fourth time they promised a SD swarmfest, but I thought because we are so near the end this time it might have been true. In any case, it does seem like a deliberate voter suppression tactic.

    Parent
    I think they're still trying (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:14:47 PM EST
    to get HRC to quit, too.

    A double whammy of voter suppression and intimidation.

    Feel the Unity!

    Parent

    Chicago politics, baby. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:16:16 PM EST
    Let the dead vote, but only one time per election. they cost less than the live early-and-often voters anyway.

    Not that ANY democrat would do this... /snark

    Parent

    The money aspect (none / 0) (#17)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:14:29 PM EST
    of the SD's bugs me too.  I have to wonder how much the people who declare late will get -- like Pelosi and DB.  

    I'm glad Hillary won today (not a shock) but I also wish more voters had gone to the polls.  

    Parent

    That's a very good margin, but how I wish it (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:58:28 PM EST
    had been a larger turnout.  You can't keep a good woman down...she trounced obama again.  And, I still believe she is not out of this race....

    GO HILLARY!!

    Denver (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:59:18 PM EST
    This is going to be an interesting Summer. With better than 2 months to the convention, there will be a lot of time for the SD's to contemplate their final decision. And a lot of time to take a closer look at Obama which may not be so good for him.

    RCP now counts FL by default (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by boredmpa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:07:47 PM EST
    But they still aren't counting MI and are still using the WA caucus (not the primary).

    They need to put a MI estimate up since they're doing that for everything else.  It's just dishonest to pretend it's a special case and not count clinton's votes in the total.  By not estimating it, they are making it look "unfair" and effectively encouraging it to not be used in totals.

    besides, estimating MI would force a discussion of WA caucus vs primary (since that would be the deciding factor)...and any sane person should know that the primary vote should count in a popular vote total.

    Well, Edison/Mitofsky had a pretty good day (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:07:57 PM EST
    Their exit poll was essentially on target.

    I had not seen that one (none / 0) (#12)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:11:09 PM EST
    the only poll I saw was 13% so I was really pleased.

    Parent
    Me either... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:12:43 PM EST
    I had no idea it would be such a blowout. :-)

    Parent
    99% in (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:13:59 PM EST
    99% now in....  I was hoping for 190k but this is a very good outcome...

    Clinton 260,993
    Obama 120,539

    140,454

    Isn't this better than some predicted (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:17:11 PM EST
    with a low turnout? She's def got the 2-1  :)

    Parent
    It's a muddled, mixed result (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:22:04 PM EST
    just like everything else in this process. . .

    Parent
    An excellent outcome. (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:20:10 PM EST
    My guess is that more turnout wouldn't have changed the margin quite as much, since more of the marginal voters would have supported Obama.

    It may be similar to the states that had both caucuses and primaries. In Washington, Idaho, and Nebraska, turnout was much higher for the primary than the caucus. Obama won all the caucuses by huge margins and the primaries by smaller margins. It turns out that the smaller margins in the primaries meant that the net vote difference was lower for primaries, despite the larger turnout.

    After being declared the presumptive nominee, Obama has now been waxed in three out of four primaries by 41, 35, and 36 points. Talk about a repudiation.

    Parent

    And then there was Texas ;) (none / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:23:06 PM EST
    Indiana (none / 0) (#30)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:24:28 PM EST
    Obama didn't win there even though he was expected to take it by 20%. HRC's victory was narrow but a victory none the less.

    Parent
    Does anybody have any info about polls (none / 0) (#38)
    by derridog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:26:30 PM EST
    for the last two primaries?

    Parent
    My stance on the popular vote: (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:21:15 PM EST
    too close to call. We'll know Wednesday morning.

    I wonder if that is why SDs are (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:33:38 PM EST
    waiting???

    Parent
    I think so (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:42:09 PM EST
    The SDs are waiting because they've seen the definite downward spiral of the Obama Campaign since his high-flying days in February and the strength and political smarts of the Clinton Campaign as she wins contests she's not only outspent in, but also told she has no way of winning even if she DOES win X State.

    They're seeing one candidate running weakly and needing to be propped up by the biased Powers That (Wanna)Be with ill-gotten delegates and Uncommited Voter percentages and another Candidate who just looks stronger and stronger despite the cacophony of cries for her to give up and drop out despite her obvious Electoral Strength.

    I also imagine they're looking at the candidate who actually HELPS those downticket Dems who support Candidate X or Y ... and I don't think it's Obama.

    Clinton was campaigning for Congresspeople in the Midwest as far back as the Summer of 2006 when she was in her OWN re-election campaign for Senate.  Obama seems to be more of a "scratch my back and I'll do yours later ... perhaps"-type of guy.

    Parent

    The Waiting Game (none / 0) (#69)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:06:05 PM EST
    Some SDs are waiting because they want to avoid angering the Clintons until the fight has already been settled. Others might not want to anger high dollar donors who are supporting the Clintons. And I suspect there are some SDs in very red states who don't want to be publicly associated with EITHER candidate. In short, they are risk averse in one way or other.

    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#79)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:27:08 PM EST
    I was going to say they don't want to anger the sweeties, but you said it better.

    Parent
    or maybe they just (none / 0) (#85)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:39:20 PM EST
    don't want to associate themselves with a man who seems intent on alienating those voters they'll need in November?

    If the SDs were in his pocket they way Obama claims they are, why would he not release them and save himself the humiliation of outspending Clinton and STILL getting his butt handed to him in a 30-something % loss?  

    I think he's being dishonest and what's actually happening is they're begging SDs not to bolt back to Clinton just yet.  Please, they insist, give us another chance.  We'll do better next time.

    Too little, too late, though.  After losing the majority of Dem Demographics and showing an astonishing ability to not only NOT get those groups we need in November but, instead, to anger and alienate them, I don't think they're going to stick around and circle the drain with him.

    If they're smart, they'll refund Barack's money and side with the obvious winner in this race:  Hillary Clinton.

    Parent

    This makes sense, Spike -- since (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:06:35 PM EST
    of course, as I recall, you have experience with this and are inside the Beltway, too?  Anyway . . . given your take on this, do you think that Pelosi, Reid, Dean, et al., really have the power to put the squeeze on big donors, red state pols, and such to make them come out even this week?  With the reasoning you give, I would think they might want to continue laying low for a while to come -- and that the donors, especially, don't need to kowtow to the party types who can make pols' lives miserable?

    Parent
    I agree... (none / 0) (#39)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:26:32 PM EST
    but at this point, shouldn't Obama be swamping HRC if he really is the peoples' choice?

    Even if she loses the popular vote by a small margin, which I don't think she will, I believe she has a very strong argument to the SD's.

    Parent

    I forget who the SD was, but a male (none / 0) (#46)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:36:40 PM EST
    said the SD's would have to consider giving her their support if she were to close the gap of "pledged delegates" to less than 100. I believe she's now at 87. The Clinton camp has a good argument that the pledged delegate count is a virtual tie.

    I'm sick of the news people claiming those SD votes are valid at this point in the race.


    Parent

    With Puerto Rico included (none / 0) (#61)
    by independent voter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:55:37 PM EST
    That's total delegates including supers (none / 0) (#68)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:04:58 PM EST
    Your link says he's 117 ahead on pledged delegates.

    Parent
    Not < 100 (none / 0) (#66)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:59:48 PM EST
    I believe Obama now holds a pledged delegate lead of about 120 and a superdelegate lead of about 40.

    Parent
    Another Way to Look At It (none / 0) (#76)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:21:56 PM EST
    Clinton needs 211 delegates to reach 2118. And there are only 250 delegates remaining -- 47 pledged and 203 superdelegates. So Clinton needs to get about 85% of all remaining delegates to reach the magic number. Obama, on the other hand, only needs about 55 delegates to reach 2118 -- only 22% of remaining delegates.

    Parent
    Green Papers reads (none / 0) (#87)
    by wurman on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:28 PM EST
    Link

    "Soft" (Pledged + Unpledged) Delegate Votes
    (FL, MI sanctioned)
    Need to Nominate    2,118.0
    B Obama                2,069.0
    H Clinton                1,914.5
    (available)                 237.0
    J Edwards                   13.5
    No Preference 0.0
    Total                     4,234.0

    Obama ahead by 155.

    Obama with 116 more pledged delegates

    Obama with 38.5 more superdelegates.

    Parent

    Rachael Maddow has (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:22:12 PM EST
    really, really gone down hill.  She kept talking about the Vanity Fair article about Bill.  I think it's amazing that three days before June 3 some article shows up about Bill that is supposed to be really critical about" who he has been hanging out with".  

    Speaking of which... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:24:44 PM EST
    remember when there were going to be all those horrible revelations after the Clinton tax returns came out? ............. crickets.

    Parent
    yeah...that was gonna tank (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:26:02 PM EST
    them cause the working stiffs would see how rich they were and run to Obama.  

    Parent
    I think this was to be expected (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:25:32 PM EST
    Obama's campaign has been pushing people to publish crap like this since before Iowa.  It was reported in the Politico back then.

    Same tactics were used in the IL senate race.


    Parent

    Time to cancel subscriptions (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:26:25 PM EST
    The article was written by Dee Dee Myers' husband!! Anonymous sources only.

    It's pathetic. Bill Clinton has sent them a very harsh response.

    I only wish I had a VF subscription I could cancel.

    I sure won't buy Dee Dee Myers' new book, either.


    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#78)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:25:37 PM EST
    Former New York Times

    Parent
    Let us see if a Clinton will (none / 0) (#94)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:36:51 PM EST
    get the same benefit of the doubt and the same questioning of the journalist that McCain got.  

    Parent
    You can not give Obama (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:26:11 PM EST
    votes from MI without screwing with democracy.  Say I'm an MI hillary supporter.  I may not have gone to the polls.  I know she'll win.  Obama and Edwards have withdrawn from the contest.  Say I vote uncommitted because I am just not sure who to vote for.  Ultimately, I may have chosen Hill if all the names were available.  This is a very dangerous precedent, giving uncommitted votes to any one candidate.  In a democracy, you count the votes you have, not the ones you think you might have.

    Heck, you may have gone in planning... (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:39:15 PM EST
    ... to vote for Edwards with Clinton a second choice.

    The DNC just took your vote and counted it for Obama. Then, then took half of it away.

    Parent

    According to CNN... (none / 0) (#19)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:15:25 PM EST
    "If all the primary results including Florida and Michigan are counted, but not the caucus votes, Clinton leads in the popular vote 17,461,845 to Obama's 17,244,762, according to CNN estimates.

    That number includes giving Obama all the "uncommitted" votes from Michigan."

    I can't figure out how that squares with the RCP numbers. Perhaps CNN has excluded all caucus states, not just the ones for which no firm numbers are given.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#27)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:22:42 PM EST
    it includes thw Washington primary instead of the caucus and even the Nebraska primary versus caucus? Just a guess. There are so many different scenarios floating around.

    Parent
    and Kos says this - (none / 0) (#33)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:24:56 PM EST
    >>>By the way, in the real popular vote, including Florida which the DNC now accepts, and excluding Michigan, which the DNC now rejects, and including the caucus states (which Clinton and her camp want to disenfranchise), the numbers currently are Obama +183,067

    Parent
    Hahaha (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:46:34 PM EST
    First they take Michigan voters' delegates, and then they take their votes too. Awesome.

    Then again, Markos is the one who thought 50/50 was fair, and apparently, lately, has been arguing for counting both the primaries and the caucuses in states that had both. So you get to vote twice if you're from Washington, but not at all if you're from Michigan.

    Parent

    Doesn't this mean that she has reduced the (none / 0) (#29)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:24:09 PM EST
    separation of pledged delegates to less than 100, just as one of the SD's said would have to be given serious consideration in making decisions because it is a virtual tie?

    This morning, there was a 110 pledged delegate difference, she just netted 23, so the difference should be 87.

    Right?


    pledged delegates (none / 0) (#55)
    by ibextati on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:48:09 PM EST
    This morning before PR primary Obama led by 137 pledged delegates. Now his lead is down to 116.

    Parent
    Popular Vote (none / 0) (#31)
    by fazel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:24:42 PM EST
    States not included in popular vote totals being cited by the Clinton campaign:

    • Alaska
    • Colorado
    • Hawaii
    • Idaho
    • Iowa
    • Kansas
    • Maine
    • Minnesota
    • Nebraska
    • Nevada
    • North Dakota
    • Washington
    • Wyoming

    and zero votes for MIchigan (technically, I think this is correct) and the Texas caucuses (also fair) as well. I am an Obama supporter, but I read this blog every day to keep up with what you folks are thinking. I understand your anger, I would be as angry if Obama was in Hillary's situation. But, isn't this a lot to leave out? Don't the votes in these states count?

    I think you are mistaken ... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:30:18 PM EST
    Go to RCP and look at the table.

    All the states are there with estimates for IA, NV, ME, and WA plus the uncomitted vote count from MI in a footnote.

    Parent

    And read the foot notes ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:42:29 PM EST
    Obama's totals go down by 50k if WA primary numbers are used and by another 10k if NE primary results are used. I don't think Obama wins the popular vote argument.

    I think RCP is doing us all a dis-service by reporting the totals as they are now doing. I'd rather see the default as including MI and FL, and if they want to report how Obama wins w/ minus MI -- they should report that separately.. not the way they are currently doing the totals.

    Just my opinion.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:51:18 PM EST
    The way the caucuses are organized and counted creates a big built in bias against Clinton.

    Tie = Decisive advantage Clinton

    Parent

    You are totally incorrect (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:34:21 PM EST
    No wonder we're angry.


    Parent
    Are all those caucus states? (none / 0) (#41)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:32:21 PM EST
    Caucus popular vote estimates are included (none / 0) (#43)
    by jfung79 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:34:48 PM EST
    in popular vote counts of other organizations where she is leading, regardless of whether you are correct or not that the Clinton campaign is excluding them in what it cites (which I doubt).

    Parent
    Do you have a link? (none / 0) (#44)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:35:25 PM EST
    I have all of the numbers from RCP, they include the states and estimates for the caucuses and I come very close to Clinton's numbers..

    Link?

    You might want to leave out understanding others 'anger' it's rather condescending and some of us aren't angry at all.

    Parent

    I didn't think... (none / 0) (#47)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:37:34 PM EST
    ... it was condescending in this case.

    I've read plenty of condescending stuff on other blogs by other people, but this one didn't rub me the wrong way.

    Parent

    Are you sure about that? (none / 0) (#45)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:36:25 PM EST
    RCP, as mentioned above, only excludes IA, ME, NV, and WA, because they don't have any vote tallies.

    That by itself is nutty--how can you now have any vote tallies at all?

    Parent

    TX primary numbers should be the standard (none / 0) (#50)
    by stxabuela on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:41:19 PM EST
    In order to have participated in the caucuses, one must have voted in the Democratic Primary.  

    Parent
    What about states that... (none / 0) (#53)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:43:56 PM EST
    ... had nonbinding primaries in addition to caucuses, such as WA, ID, and NE? In all of them turnout for the primaries was considerably higher than for the caucuses, but the caucuses were certainly the official contests (why would any state hold both in the first place?).

    I tend to think the primaries, being more inclusive, should be counted, but that could be argued both ways. Of course, in the case of Washington, the primary is the only official number we have.

    Parent

    Did they ever finish counting the (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:56:16 PM EST
    original caucus on primary day?

    Parent
    TX released some updated counts (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:09:29 PM EST
    ... just this week, but still horribly incomplete and non-transparent, and never will be completed.

    Parent
    Results never reported (none / 0) (#67)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:02:50 PM EST
    if they did?  Last I looked were still at 41% reporting  :-)

    The state convention is coming right up and we'll know the numbers afterward, but not before.

    By the way, what is the pledged delegate count anyway?  In this thread it's at 87, 116, or 155 depending on the poster.  Seems a totally unreliable number to me.


    Parent

    BTW.. what do Obama supporters think about MI (none / 0) (#57)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:49:47 PM EST
    Popular vote?

    Oh wait.. you want all uncommitted plus say .. oh 17,989 votes that were cast for Clinton? Go right ahead says Mm. Donna Brazile and the RBC!

    Anger is not a word I'd use loosely here.


    Parent

    Speaking for myself (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by s5 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:29:41 PM EST
    As an Obama supporter, my view is that his popular vote share for Michigan can be estimated by applying the exit polls to the vote for "uncommitted". Hillary gets her actual votes. This adds 173,664 votes to his total.

    There's also another wrinkle. We just discovered this weekend that were 30,000 write-in votes for Obama that were not counted for anything. I'm not sure what to think of those. I'd say that conservatively, 173,664 is Obama's low end of popular vote support, and about 205,000 on the high end.

    Which begs the question, is this estimate legitimate? I would say yes. The popular vote doesn't count, in the sense that the election is decided by delegates. But it does count in the sense that superdelegates might choose to base their decision on the popular vote. So saying that Obama "technically" had zero voter support in Michigan isn't going to convince any superdelegate of anything, especially since the popular vote technically doesn't exist for the purposes of the nomination. What matters is trying to come up with the most accurate idea of popular vote support using the information we have available. So to meet that goal, our only choice is to come up with a reasonable estimation.

    Parent

    I'm not sure I agree... (none / 0) (#84)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:39:04 PM EST
    ... but kudos for making a good faith argument.

    Parent
    Wow, he is the candidate of change. We no (none / 0) (#86)
    by my opinion on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:47:09 PM EST
    longer vote we just get "estimated votes".

    Parent
    Jeralyn/BTD -- tagging this (none / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:12:33 PM EST
    comment for deletion for completely incorrect info, with the claim that this data is not included, and before it causes further thread hijacking?

    Parent