4.50pm. CNN calls Texas for Clinton. Her lead is back to 51-48 with 75 per cent reporting.
4.42pm. Still 50-48 in Texas with 69 per cent reporting, but the trend on raw figures is nudging gently back to Cllinton. We also have 5 per cent of the caucuses reporting with Obama leading 56-44; no idea what to make of this.
4.12pm. Only just noticed how great the New York Times’ graphical maps are. Run your pointer over Texas and note how a lot of the big counties in the Obama-voting cities have a very low count.
4.08pm. … and her lead his now back to 50-48 with 63 per cent reporting.
4.08pm. CNN analyst says most of Clinton’s strong areas in Texas are “in”; if Obama’s early 60-40 lead in Houston holds up, it will apparently be enough to put him ahead, although he stresses that won’t definitely happen.
4.02pm. Clinton has gained another point in Texas, leading 51-48 with 58 per cent reporting.
3.27pm. Been away from my post for a bit. Clinton has claimed victory in Ohio and is currently delivering a speech making it very clear she’s not about to withdraw. Clinton leads 50-48 in Texas with 46 per cent reporting.
2.46pm. Now 51 per cent of precincts in Ohio and Clinton’s lead has in fact widened a little, to 57-41.
2.33pm. Clinton has caught up with Obama in Texas with 20 per cent of precincts reporting: now 49-all. Her lead is only narrowing slightly in Ohio, now at 56-42 with 47 per cent reporting.
2.14pm. Clinton still leads 57-41 in Ohio with 35 per cent of precincts reporting. Talk in comments suggests a 50-50 result in Cleveland, which I gather was expected to be good for Obama.
2.08pm. Interviewee on Fox Radio notes that Rhode Island exit polls were way out, pointing to a close result when it has actually been a big win for Clinton.
1.50pm. 21 per cent of precincts in Ohio now reporting and Clinton’s earlier lead is almost intact – now 59-39. Texas count has edged up to 6 per cent and Obama’s earlier lead has steadily been whittled away, now down to 51-49.
1.36pm. Clinton still leads 60-38 in Ohio with 14 per cent of precincts reporting.
1.31pm. Claude in comments points out another factor in Ohio being the extension of voting in some counties where Obama is expected to do well.
1.28pm. CNN calls Rhode Island for Clinton, her first win since Super Tuesday.
1.28pm. Al in comments notes no precincts are in from the Ohio cities of Columbus and Cleveland, the former being an Obama-friendly college town.
1.23pm. Huckabee announcing withdrawal. Clinton leads 60-38 in Ohio with 6 per cent counted, but this is presumably with Clinton-friendly areas reporting.
1.10pm. Fox reports that Mike Huckabee has confirmed he will withdraw, but says there are “conflicting reports”.
1.04pm. Obama campaign reportedly feeling upbeat about Ohio, the bad weather having diminished the turnout from older Democrats who favour Clinton. Fox gives McCain a clean sweep of Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island.
1.03pm. McCain by all accounts now has enough delegates to secure the nomination.
1.01pm. Via Kevin Rennie, an explanation of the Texas system from New Republic.
12.45pm. I’ve had my eye off the ball for the last 45 minutes. Obama has an early 56-44 lead in Texas, but these are big city precincts where he is expected to do well. I’m not going to pretend to be on top of the Texan primaries-plus-caucuses system: perhaps somebody who is can provide a brief explanation in comments.
11.55am. Exit polls point to a “tight race” in Rhode Island.
11.40am. CBS News reporting a very high turnout by Hispanics in Texas and low turnout of African-Americans, boding well for Clinton.
11.30am (Australian EST). Polls have just closed in Ohio, and Fox News has immediately called Ohio for John McCain but predicted a close result between Clinton and Obama. Vermont is being called for Obama and McCain.
1,628 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 28 29 [30] 31 32 … 33 » Show All
“she earned her doctorate with a thesis on Marxist community activism I think. Obama’s I think is an ‘honorary’ doctorate, and he spent most of his legal career as an academic. ”
Both Clinton and Obama have law degrees. Clinton wrote an undergraduate thesis on leftist organiser Saul Alinsky. I assume this is what you are talking about.
15 of Clinton’s 35 years of experience were spent as a corporate lawyer. 7 on the board of Wal-Mart.
Oh Geez KR – dont tell me you referred to the Scots as ‘Pommies’!
As for UK tabloids – they are a match for our own – and both reflect their owner.
Rain – when you continue to spout your partisan rubbish, I’m sure others also take great offence at your blatant lies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama#Early_life_and_career
KR @ 1424
‘kick the old codger’
…incoming from zoom…
I think both campaigns really need to starting thinking of an end strategy that does not destroy the party. They need to both get together and agree on what constitutes a win and agree to drop out if the other meets this criteria. This might mean another super Tuesday with Florida and Michigan – but they have to spell out what would be a win and agree to stick to it. Leaving it to delegate math or the super delegates will be a disaster.
If they can’t agree on an end game, then the DNC has to have a Plan B. If the convention is deadlocked or is looking to be a blood bath, with both candidates too ‘bruised’ to beat McCain – they need to look elsewhere and dump the both of them.
Vice President Al Gore for Plan B.
Rain,
Great post. It seems when you go looking for Obama’s record there is is less that meets the eye. Probably the most under qualified person to ever run for POTUS.
It seems some here will always go the punch when facts not to their liking are aired.
Perhaps Obama and Laura can run a joint ticket.
GG
Perhaps you might want to revisit US history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_previous_executive_experience
John Ryan, are you suggesting the DNC dump the votes of all their primaries/caucuses and start again?
“Dear Democrat voter,
We at the DNC would like to thank you for your recent involvement in the nomination process. We have decided, however, that your choice seriously sucks and we’re going to nominate Al Gore instead. We don’t care that noone has voted for him or that he doesn’t actually WANT to be nominated. We have confidence he will do as he’s told once the electrodes are attached.
We have a set for each of you too.
Love and kisses
DNC”
I think they’re stuck with BHO and HRC. There is no plan B.
Or maybe Hillary could run a ticket with John McCain as VP.
1454
codger
crikey, a slip of the proverbial knee, er, tongue!
GG, the difference between the two arguments, of which you only want to see one, seems to be that support of Clinton entails mudslinging at an opponent who has outmanuevered her, and ignoring other facts presented.
For mine – I have been a supporter of Hillary’s for many years. And so have many others supporting Obama over her. I think this article is a fair summing of the thinking: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-grahamesmith/the-monster-a-loyal-clin_b_90632.html.
On experience, this is worth a look: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=280103.
“As if often the case in politics, reality is cloudier than spin. Barack Obama started as a community organizer in 1985, at the age of 23. He’s 46 now. That gives him 23 years of so-called “experience,” working as an organizer, president of Harvard Law Review, civil rights attorney, constitutional law professor, state senator and US Senator.
Both of these candidates have accomplished a tremendous amount in their lives and overcome a remarkable amount of adversity. The “experience” argument is a wash. Can we talk about something else now?”
Clinton is now at endgame. Her tactics seem to have been counting on a win, throwing everything at Obama, then offering him VP. He hasn’t blinked. Again, it’s over.
Growler, from NBC:
One of the biggest signs of Obama’s momentum since February 5 has been all the superdelegates he’s picked since then. According to our count, Obama has added 43 to his superdelegate total after Super Tuesday, while Clinton has lost six. In fact, even after Clinton’s wins in Ohio and Texas, it’s worth noting that the Clinton campaign hasn’t publicly announced a new superdelegate since February 7 (that person was Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas).
Overall, per NBC’s count, Clinton has a 254-215 superdelegate lead over Obama.
So you’re trying to tell me that a guy who’s got 215 party heavies already vouching for him, plus the popular vote and the most pledged delegates is not fit for POTUS?
Take a look at the current incumbent, then a look at Barack Obama, and tell me why.
Go on! LOL
Dear All,
I have been forced by the threat of legal action to refrain from referring to Hillary as “The Monster” or “il Monstro”. The Monster Antidefamation League has written to me complaining that their monster constituents take umbrage at being compared to Hillary Clinton. I would also like to take this opportunity to apologise to any monsters I may have offended by making such an offensive comment.
You reckon that the following quote might apply to anyone on this site.
“If anyone doubts that Obama’s supporters engage in cult-like behavior, try pointing out that they engage in cult-like behavior. Apparently fealty so permeates Obama’s hardcore base that not only are they glad to produce creepy, propagandistic tributes, but they’re also more than happy to delve into insane justifications of same.”
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjMxMDFkOTM5YjQ0ZGZkOGYxNDhiY2YwZDhiY2Q5NjE=
“Obama’s hardcore base”. An Australian amateur pseph site! Brilliant!
Team, you’ve been uncovered. Cut back on the ‘creepy propagandistic tributes’ immediately.
I think you can look at which side is behaving in a more delusional manner.
If Obama was behind in pledged delegates and popular vote, I’d be saying for him to drop out for the good of the Democrats.
Meanwhile Hillary supporters on this page alone, have a displayed an inability to understand maths or recite accurate facts.
Geez GG-
there’s a surprise! A Clinton supporter bagging supporters of Obama.
I have no doubt that both Dem candidates ( and even more so McCain) have their share of nutter supporters, as well as those who are endowed with exactly 4 braincells- but that doesn’t mean that most of their supporters are stupid. (except mcCain’s – and that now includes Hillary.)
as for being cult-like: sheer projection my friend. It appears to me the Clinton supporters that are completely blinded by her status, and will brook no criticism of her, no matter what she does.
1461
Pancho
That HuffPost article makes ‘alien monster’ look, well, almost endearing:
She’s proven that she cares more about “Hillary” than “unity.” More about defeating Obama than defeating the Republicans. She’s become a political suicide-bomber, happy to blow herself to bits — as long as she takes everyone else with her.
…a “political suicide bomber”! Wow, by that standard ‘alien monster’ is a complement! LOL
1463
It’s too late Dio. I am breaching confidence by telling you this, but Monsters Inc have engaged me to prepare a defamation action against you based on the comparisons made between their members and one Hillary R Clinton.
Flee the jurisdiction Dio! Flee!
(The big blue guy is particularly fierce)
You didn’t answer my question Growler!
What’s up? Run out of growls? LOL
Pancho,
I agree, Obama’s support here is all a bit like “synchronised swimming”. It embraces all the characteristics of fitness, art and holding your breath, but in the end is of no lasting import and leaves everyone wondering WTF it is all about.
1469
Ferny Grover
yeah, but Mike Wakowski is quite cute and funny. Maybe Hillary could try for that big one-eyed look! LOL
OK Growler, I’ll put it to you one more time:
So you’re trying to tell me that a guy who’s got 215 party heavies already vouching for him, plus the popular vote and the most pledged delegates is not fit for POTUS?
Take a look at the current incumbent, then a look at Barack Obama, and tell me why.
Go on! LOL
JR *nodding*, might need to have another look at Nader too, though he wont start his campaign as an “alternative” until their summer
Maybe thats what Edwards is waiting around keeping a low-profile for, a possible “compromise” candidate?
.
But my reading of the DNC rules, is that the super-dels are charged with voting as to their conscience, not to be ‘rubber-stampers’ and they do not have to vote with popular vote or delegate leads, or any other form of convoluted maths, if they don’t choose to.
.
If the people can vote as they wish, why can’t the super-dels?
.
Its just that most of the time, the primary system (no matter how stupid or non-representative) shows a clear front-runner by this point in the primary calendar, and its all a moot point and a non-issue most election years. But this time they may have to do their job, applying the Wisdom of Solomon I guess. As some mentioned in the article above, a few are hoping that it will be all clear by the end of the primary season, and they won’t have to end up being the deciders after all.
.
Look at one bright side, its good training and practice in diplomacy in Party leadership resolving a dispute.
.
GG @ 1471, THAT one’s worth a chuckle.
But why not wait to see what the lasting import of the guy is, and acknowledge that, of what is left, he’s the second best choice for you rather than the slagging?
KR,
Your question was about super delegates (I think). If you read Rain’s excellent post you will find an up to date poll showing a swing back to Hillary. There will be months of ebb and flow unless Obama realises he can’t win in November and makes a deal to allow him to compete at some time in the future (when he will hopefully have a track record).
Whilst Hillary may not be a “monster”. I think we can clearly establish GG as a “troll”
Ferny
Just why was Billary so upset by the “il Mostro” comment? There was a famous serial killer in Florence called “il Mostro” who was the basis of the character “Hannibal Lecter”. The Clintons visited Florence on many occasions. The real killer was never caught. Join the dots people, join the dots…
Actually, that analysis is on a par with the comment “if Laura Bush did have a third of Hillary’s intelligence, or proven record, she would beat Obama as a POTUS.”
Sorry GG, all SD momentum is heading to Obama. And I am basing this on http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/superdelegate-history-tracker.html, and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Superdelegate_Transparency_Project, not Rain’s informative postings.
1476 -GG
Obviously you are not even reading KR’s post, let alone Rain’s.
The question was about super delegates so you refer to a poll relating to North Carolina.
And the poll shows what we all expect, which is an Obama win in North Carolina.
Growler-
” Obama’s support here is all a bit like “synchronised swimming”. It embraces all the characteristics of fitness, art and holding your breath, but in the end is of no lasting import and leaves everyone wondering WTF it is all about.”
something I have noticed, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but while many of us are fullsome in oun criticism of Hillary as a candidate for many good reasons, we do not attack her supporters. And yet adam, you and several others keep running with the line that we are all vacuous airheads who have no reasons for supporting Obama other than that he is popular and/or a good public speaker and that we are happily sucked in by this trivia with no capacity for analysis or judgement beyond it.
Insulting, my friend.
Crumbs GG – for such an obvious loser Obama does a helluva convincing impersonation of a winner. He even comes with his own massive ensemble of voters, delegates and SDs.
But it’s obvious he can’t win in November.
Ferny -
they’re all blinded by the light and have no effing idea about anything,. That’s why they support him – otherwise if they showed any intelligence they would support the squeaky-clean represenative of all that has gone before, Mrs Hillary Clinton. Such fools.
Sorry GG, not nearly a good enough duck and weave and dodge of the question.
Essentially, your claim is that BHO is not qualified to be POTUS because you don’t consider his ‘experience’ adequate.
My argument is that he’s actually winning this contest, on all the relevent metrics, and is catching up to Clinton on Supers as well.
So if all those voters and all those Supers think he’s capable, (and you cannot leave out a comparison with the twice elected doofus they currently have), how do you claim is he isn’t ‘qualified’ to be Prez?
Sorry, but the facts make your argument look more like a statement of your personal opinion rather than something with any substance.
Yes Jen, that’s what the world needs – more of the same – in a dress!
1481
Jen
I think you’ve nailed it Jen.
asanque,
My little breakfast, when you or anyone else can point to Obama’s 2025 delegates in the bag (not maybes, not morally, not hopefully) that is when you have a case.
The NC poll demonstrates what anyone not wearing ron’s “rose coloured glasses” would say, that there is a comeback by Hillary at this time. Time will tell whether this is the “Big Mo” that will sweep her into office.
As Rain wrote earlier, “But my reading of the DNC rules, is that the super-dels are charged with voting as to their conscience, not to be ‘rubber-stampers’ and they do not have to vote with popular vote or delegate leads, or any other form of convoluted maths, if they don’t choose to.”
1487 – GG
When making your case on NC, you might want to go to the latest polls and look at the average.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nc/north_carolina_democratic_primary-275.html
Hillary is within 8.8% in NC, her momentum is really kicking in.
And the super-delegates can vote any way they want to, which is true. However, if the super delegates override the popular vote and the pledged delegates, prepare for all out anarchy.
GG @ 1487 – That’s not the argument that Clinton was running when she led in SDs by 224-127 on 10 Feb. It was all about ‘inevitability’ and her lead. Now that lead is all but gone, SDs are not locked in? Those that have decided are largely locked in. It is not an easy process to decide, nominate, then stump for that person, as most have been doing. That can be seen by the minority who have moved after locking in (is it 4 or 6 of the 450 – and all to Obama btw). You might want to mount the argument that Hillary can win 75% of what is left, but those who have chosen are pretty much out of the game right now.
jen,
There is a part in the Bible where Jesus says ” He who is without sin can cast the first stone”.
Could I humbly advise that you go back through your personal comments on candidates and other contributors. Your martyr routine is not particularly well founded in fact.
Get over yourself for goodness sake.
As Pancho says,
” That’s not the argument that Clinton was running when she led in SDs by 224-127 on 10 Feb. It was all about ‘inevitability’ and her lead. Now that lead is all but gone..”
can any of the Hillary supporters here explain why?
GG -
not trying to be a martyr – just wanting a better argument other than that we are all deluded.
I think we are giving more substantial rationales for why Hillary isn’t our first choice.
BTW-
“Could I humbly advise that you go back through your personal comments on candidates and other contributors. Your martyr routine is not particularly well founded in fact.”
That’s fair GG. But all I’m saying is that seems taht the main line against Obama is that we don’t get him. Whereas I am happy to slag off at Hillary herself for her many shortcomings. (And if she gets the nom. I’ll be hoping she wins)
jen,
“deluded” and “vacuuous airhead” are your words not mine. So you own them! Don’t project them on to me. I am not responsible for how you feel.
Jen, if Hillary gets the nod I will lose interest. Regardless of who wins the Presidency, there would be a different shingle out the front but it might as well be the same management in place.
Trouble is, I fancy that many Americans will lose interest too.
GG -
OK. but you get my drift.
Fair cop GG – your points at 1464 and 1471 made exactly those points, if not in so many words. Personally, I found them sort of funny, but it’s a bit disingenuous to deny intent.
‘characteristics of fitness, art and holding your breath, but in the end is of no lasting import and leaves everyone wondering WTF it is all about’ was the giveaway for me.
Hello Kiddies, cant leave you guys alone for a morning and an afternoon before you guys start tearing each oher apart. Like i said yesterday, why? why? why? so many effing questions (from jen, Pancho, KR, LOL etc).
Obama will lose because he will lose the politics. DGAF about the maths, because near the Black Hole, where the gravity pull is so great, the numbers are never absolute. it will evaporate by the gravitational pull. Obama is no match for the Clintons. He will lose. The sooner he accepts the offer he cannot refuse, the better.
ILL Jen, ILL…
old, kicked…limps off…hey Dio ‘monster mash’ know a good bush lawyer…
GG @1471
“Obama’s support here is all a bit like “synchronised swimming”.
vacuous, insubstantial, trivial – all reasonable deductions from a comparison to synchronised swwimming – unless you have a deep respect for this sport that I’m not aware of.
Pages: « 1 … 28 29 [30] 31 32 … 33 » Show All