Last night was a win for the Democratic party. I thought that both candidates’ victory speeches sounded like the speeches of primary winners, ready to reach out to the unenrolled voters of the country. The Republicans, on the other hand, sounded like they were still looking for more knives to stick in each other’s back.
<
p>From the long perspective, the pundits expected Clinton to wrap up the race last night; she didn’t. From the short perspective, the Obama supporters clearly expected a major breakthrough last night; it didn’t come. We’re left with the most even race in my memory since Reagan-Ford back in 1976.
<
p>In Massachusetts, the split was pretty predictable. I don’t think that either campaign mobilized enough effort to really change the results.
All that energy. All that positive press. All those revival-like rallies with all those celebrities and all those establishement politicians calling for change. And Obama is in the race, but he’s behind.
<
p>I continue to think there are a lot of folks voting Clinton, but laying low about it. Why else the polls only days ago showing Obama so close in Massachusetts and exit polls in California last night showing the state would be competitive, when both end up being comfortable victories for Clinton?
<
p>Stephonopolous was breaking it down on GMA this morning and said women broke for Hillary. He called women her “last line of defense.” Can a candidate leading in delegate counts going in and coming out of last night have need for the “last line” of defense? And can 50%+ of the electorate be considered a “last line of defense?”
<
p>Obamamentum: Sometimes there doesn’t seem to be enough there there.
anthonysays
…problem with starting a phenomenon as opposed to a platform. Obama may attract 20,000 people to a single rally but how many of those people are there because they support his politics and intend to vote for him and how many are there so they can say they were at the “rock concert” and have bragging right when this is talked about in 20 years? I venture to guess that there are a lot of people (especially in college towns) that go to the rallies that can’t vote there in the first place, a number of people who aren’t going to vote no matter what, a number of people who don’t intend to vote for Obama but aren’t going to say so, and then those who are truly loyal Obama supporters. From the way votes are coming down it appears that in some circumstances those who can’t or won’t vote for him are a significant number of these rally goers.
hrs-kevinsays
that people who go to Obama rallys vote in any lower proportion than those who go to Clinton rallys. The fact is that as large as Obama’s rallys have been, the people who attend them still represent a tiny minority of the state’s population, so I don’t think you can draw much of a conclusion based on vote totals.
anthonysays
…for exaple that a significant number of the people at Obama’s rallies in NH were from MA. The media reported as such.
<
p>There are also a lot of students in Boston who turned out who can’t vote here because they never registered. Of this I am also certain because I spend a lot of time with college students and almost across the board they haven’t bothered to register here if they are not from here.
<
p>My whole point is conjecture, of course, but I stand by it. Even his actual under 40 numbers don’t conform to the phenomenon.
stomvsays
that Obama rally attendees don’t vote in as large a percentage in the state the rally is held or overall?
<
p>If all those Obamaniacs from MA at the NH rally voted in MA instead of NH, then what’s the difference, so to speak?
laurelsays
that a lot of people are undecided and so go to an obama rally to check him out, give him a fair hearing. but they don’t hear enough of what they’re looking for – the concrete. and so, they decide to vote for clinton. i think that many people are predisposed to like obama, so these are votes for him to lose. whereas the press, etc have set up clinton as a female devil incarnate, so she has to earn people’s respect. and she seems to do that quite well when they give her that same fair hearing that they give obama.
p>Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns emerged from Super Tuesday with bragging rights. Clinton trounced Obama in Massachusetts, 56 percent to 41 percent. It was a thrashing that almost matched the one he gave her in South Carolina. She had been ahead in polls in the state, but for the last week, Barack Obama has had about the best press imaginable there. He was being compared often to JFK by Kennedy family members, who did everything but play touch football with him on the lawn. Obama also had the support of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.
lanugosays
As an Obama supporter I am disappointed by the vote in Mass. I didn’t think he’d win it but thought he’d get a little closer than he did.
<
p>When you look at the map, Obama was not able to break out of liberal cities and affluent suburbs and small towns of western mass. His map looks a lot like Shannon O’Brien’s in her loss to Romney in 2002 or Bob Reich in losing the primary for governor in 2002 – pinned to liberal cities and affluent suburbs. And in certain places where Obama won, like Newton, it was only by a hair. Clinton did well in those places with older voters (lots of grey hairs in liberal towns like Brookline, which she was very competitive in) and got enough liberals to keep the tally honest there while racking up in more moderate communities.
<
p>Obama lost big in places like Peabody and Quincy among more moderate and modest-mean dems. The crushing in those places was mostly by women as exit polls say he drew with white men in Massachusetts, but lost white women big time. And women vote more so you do the math.
<
p>What does it all say and mean? Who knows. The coalitions each candidate has built nationally with Clinton’s (white women, lower educated, lower income, Hispanics) versus Obama’s (blacks, higher-educated, liberals and rural voters and white men) are interesting and seem to be hardening – not good news for party unity. The candidate who can break free from these chains should win the nomination or just grind the other down in a war of attrition with the size of the coalition making the difference.
<
p>It remains Clinton’s race to lose. Her coalition at this point is just bigger. Obama will have to pull off a big state sometime or go down eventually I think. Pulling out Connecticut last night shows he can break out in a place that was hard core Clinton territory but the northeast won’t now be where the race is won.
<
p>All roads lead to Texas and Ohio on March 4th as the next big crunch point. Interesting states both with certain dynamics that could favour either/or. Clinton should start ahead in both places given her name. Obama has to rack up wins through Feb to keep momentum and then pull off an upset in one of both of those big states. Ties won’t be good enough eventually, as the leader stays the leader with ties. Given the proportional distribution of votes, it is also hard come back that is why Obama keeping the delegate totals close (well within 100) is so important.
<
p>Given Obama’s loss in Mass is there any read-across to the Patrick coalition and his fortunes? Maybe some, but Patrick won’t be running against a Clinton in 2010 and Patrick has been pretty moderate in his policy proposals. If anything, the Obama loss shows the continued popularity of the Clinton brand in Mass., Hillary’s own competence as someone seen as ready for the job, her appeal to women and the fact that endorsements by big names don’t do much beyond get some great headlines. This is not a loss for Patrick, Kennedy or anyone else – machines don’t exist and people choose for themselves.
mojomansays
I’ve won. Decisively. This proves that the voters want Change.
<
p>(Cue Bowie theme song)
<
p>Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes…
Turn & face the strain
Ch-ch-Changes
<
p>Now it’s time to take a morning after victory lap around the blogs!
McCain’s not a theocrat, but he knows that even though most of the hardline conservatives will end up holding their noses and voting for him anyway, having Huckabee in his corner helps his image with them, and will boost turnout somewhat. And Huckabee basically shivved Romney for him, last night.
nomad943says
Now I have to go out and get me a new signature line and some different bumper stickers ..
I’ve been hearing that that Ralph Nader fellow is going to give it another go this time around …
“Not a dime of difference between them” …
“two sides of the same coin” …
Hmm, I suppose I could listen to some more of that … Better than pretending to swallow any of the garbage being floated elsewhere ..
Is it time for another teary moment yet? BAhhhhhhh!
willsays
Once again, the pollsters would have us believe they got stymied by those crazy Kalifornia voters who pulled a massive Clinton switcheroo at the last possible moment. Just like New Hampshire. Americans are racist and won’t confess it to us on the phone, don’t ya know.
<
p>I have trouble believing that. I think the pollsters ought to have their work very closely reviewed, in light of two hallucinatory predictions of a Barack double-digit victory in key states. Who exactly are these folks talking to? Is there a regulatory or self-policing body for polling outfits? The potential for a tainted analysis is simply too great to ignore.
goldsteingonewildsays
Your desire to say “racist voters” is the opposite of what actually happened.
<
p>California: Survey USA had Clinton 52, Obama 42 in its last 2 polls.
California Actual: Clinton 52, Obama 42
<
p>MA: Survey USA had Clinton 56, Obama 39.
MA Actual: Clinton 56, Obama 41.
<
p>MO: Survey USA had Clinton 54, Obama 43.
MO Actual: Obama 49, Clinton 48.
<
p>In fact, Obama EXCEEDED his poll numbers in many states. In others, HRC exceeded her numbers.
<
p>There’s a Bradley effect and a reverse-Bradley effect, plus a hard-to-model turnout issue, plus an electorate that increasingly decides in last 48 hours.
sethjpsays
Will wasn’t saying that Americans are racist. He was saying that this is what the pollsters will be saying as an excuse. Hence the “won’t confess it to us on the phone [my emphasis].”
<
p>BTW, I’m with you on the general accuracy of the polls. But one of them — Zogby was it? — has a lot of explaiing to do. Blowing it by more than 20 points is pretty inexcusable.
stomvsays
willsays
You are right, I did say “pollsters” when I really meant, in my mind, a limited number of outfits, not an entire industry, that screwed up. I am questioning whether their “screw ups” are possibly within the bounds of what can be called a professional poll that is worthy of being released to the public, or that can reasonably be called a valid sampling of opinion. And if not, whether there should be professional repercussions, as would be the case in many other professions.
<
p>I can’t figure out what you’re talking about with the “racist voters” remark or your “Bradley effect and reverse-Bradley effect” remark.
<
p>If the electorate increasingly decides in the last 48 hours–which is an unfounded claim on your part–then the poll isn’t worth anything and shouldn’t be published. Those margin-of-error figures are supposed to mean something.
laurelsays
they probably will lose revenue by getting fewer commissions.
willsays
Perhaps I should have said “official professional repercussions.” People in some careers have to worry about having their license to practice revoked, or otherwise being “officially” chastised via a meaningful authority.
<
p>It’s probably dreaming, but I would be comforted to think that such a fate awaited Mr. Zogby and whoever else was in on this (the poll I linked to was co-credited with two major news organizations)
laurelsays
but the reality in our country is that “the marketplace” is elevated to the level of judge and jury. sad but true.
hoyapaulsays
Despite all the spin, I really don’t see how anyone can look at the results and not declare pretty much an exact tie. Sure it’s better for Obama than 2 weeks ago, and sure Clinton won the big prive in CA.
<
p>But the fact is that on just about every measure — states won, total delegates, and even overall popular vote — they tied.
<
p>The prospect of a ticket just became much brighter. It may be one of the situtations that if this drags on too long, the party basically forces that option on the candidates.
mojomansays
you mean a shared ticket, which I would be happy with, if only because it means we’re through the primary cycle.
<
p>If there is actually talk of a McCain/Huckabee ticket, then why not one for the blue team?
Although I suppose the closer Dem analogy would be Hillary/Edwards or Obama/Edwards, and Edwards has already stated that he wouldn’t accept the number two spot, so on it goes.
I just pulled some numbers from here and added them up. I didn’t bother to differentiate elections from caucuses because I have other (paying) work to do, so my vote tallies are bogus and under-weight the caucus states, but I don’t think a more refined summary would be much different.
<
p>As of right now, for yesterday’s events I get:
<
p>Votes:
<
p>Obama 7,283,806 49.8%
Clinton 7,331,192 50.2%
<
p>Delegates:
<
p>Obama 593 49.2%
Clinton 612 50.8%
<
p>So it was indeed a close day. Given the huge amount of delegates still up for grabs, I don’t know how to consider this anything other than a tie.
<
p>If you want HRC to win, it’s easy to spin this as Obama couldn’t break through despite all the endorsements, music videos, etc., and now he’s going to wither away.
<
p>If you want Obama to win, you look at graphs like this http://www.pollster.com/08-US-… and you have to like the trend.
<
p>It’s going to be interesting. I just pray the two campaigns can keep things relatively clean, although I’m not optimistic.
hrs-kevinsays
It is not really important who “won” which state or even which county. It is the delegate count that matters, and it is going to be a while yet before we find out exactly what happened there.
<
p>If Obama ended up picking up more delegates on the day than Clinton, as his campaign claims, then I think that would count as a clear victory for Obama and should help him continue his momentum, especially since the next couple of states are expected to be good ones for him. Going forward the key for each campaign will be to continue to win endorsements and to continue to raise enough money to fund campaign operations. Who knows what will happen in endorsements, but given that Obama has many more donors to go back to than Clinton does, I think he probably has at least a slight advantage in fund raising.
<
p>I have to see that seeing both Clinton and Obama do well yesterday in various states increased my desire to see them on the same ticket in November whatever happens.
<
p>Regardless of the final details, if yesterday was political “groundhog day” then, at least for the Democrats, it is pretty clear that we are in for at least six weeks more of campaigning.
<
p>As a final note, I would have to think that Romney’s kids must not be too happy to see their dad continue to burn through their inheritance!
anthonysays
…quite a bit who won which state. Obama is not winning the “big” states while Clinton is. If he does not win Texas or Ohio it will be very hard to convince the super delegates (who will likely decide who gets the nomination) that he can win the general election. Clinton is already leading in the super delegate count.
But the big states that Obama didn’t win are quite Democratic- I have a hard time believing he’d lose CA and NY in the general election. So his losses there have almost no implications for the general election. Same with IL (though looking at the 2004 results I suppose IL could go red with Hillary vs. McCain; pure conjecture on my part).
<
p>By my count, I have the delegate counts for yesterday’s events at:
<
p>Obama 593 49.2%
Clinton 612 50.8%
<
p>with not all results in as of 10:30am. That sure seems close to me. Hillary won a few of the bigger states by moderate margins, and got clobbered in a bunch of small to medium states (plus Illinois). Pretty much a wash.
<
p>But I agree that it does matter somewhat who wins in TX or Ohio, though you also have to consider whether those primaries are open or closed, etc.
<
p>The short view is that Hillary still has the edge, and did not succumb to the recent wave of Obama-ism. But I don’t know that said wave isn’t still building.
anthonysays
…because perception doesn’t matter at all in politics. Every pundit from both sides of the aisle is in agreement about this. The big states matter significantly.
I find myself unable to follow your train of thought except for the last sentence.
<
p>Yeah, I agree that perceptions matter, but what perceptions are we talking about?
<
p>Also, I think we’ve seen enough times that pundits are wrong about as often as not.
<
p>Let’s talk big states, ordered by total delegates (here’s a good reference on the primaries). Yes, I am engaging in punditry:
<
p>CA: A big win for Hillary; last went R in the general in 1988, when Dukakis got 48% of the vote.
NY: Blue all the way in Nov, regardless.
TX: Last went D in 1976, 51% for Carter. Still, will be interesting.
PA: Arguably the most interesting big state, but primary is in late April, and is closed.
IL: BO home field advantage. D since 88, when the Duke got 48+%.
OH: The battle is joined; please count the votes correctly!
NC: Very late. Clinton was close in ’92.
NJ: Fairly close in ’04; strong for Gore in ’00; Clinton barely got it in ’92 (easy in ’96). So HRC win may matter.
MA: D all the way in ’08.
VA: Last D to win was LBJ, but Clinton came close. Given Webb victory, a battleground.
GA: Clinton barely won in ’92, lost in ’96; this is an outside change for the D’s.
<
p>So: we have Hillary with a big win in CA that has an outside chance of being competitive, and a medium win in NJ which leans to the Democrats. Barack’s big win in Georgia suggests he could take that state.
<
p>But if you want to talk big states, it’s VA on 2/12 and OH on 3/4, and maybe PA on 4/22. While Clinton’s victory in CA was big, I’d hardly categorically say Obama can’t win in big states. It’s still too early. And no, MI and FL don’t count.
chrisosays
I know there were no delegates at stake, but it was a level playing field, 1.4 million voters went to the polls, and Hillary won by a huge margin. It’s interesting how often Obama supporters will cite unreliable opinion polls, but dismiss the results of actual voters casting actual ballots.
and thus was not like a ‘real’ election. The candidate with greater name recognition has an incumbent-like advantage. I couldn’t find any name recognition data for FL, but I’m guessing First Lady > freshman Senator from IL.
<
p>I think Hillary supporters are treading into very dangerous ground when making an electability argument.
<
p>What opinion poll did I cite? It’s clear for reasons far beyond my understanding that polls are particularly unreliable right now.
anthonysays
…thing I can say then is wait and see. The super delegates are lining up behind Clinton. If Obama does not take either Texas or Ohio he will not get the nomination.
Those are big states with ~400 delegates between them.
<
p>According to RealClearPolitics, , Hillary’s delegate advantage is equal to her advantage in superdelegates (+/-).
<
p>Here’s my prediction: If the super delegates end up being the deciding factor for the nomination (i.e. if Obama ends up with more assigned delegates, but loses due to the superdelegate gap), hello President McCain.
p>Mayer adds that he doesn’t think the super delegates would go against the popular will. If Obama wins more contests by the time of the convention, “The super delegates aren’t going to say, ‘Tough, Barack, we’re going the other way.'”
p>Looks like MD and VA on 2/21 and OH and TX on March 4th are ones to watch.
hrs-kevinsays
How many Republican votes did Clinton win in those states? Is there any reason to believe that Democrats won’t vote for Obama in those states in the general election? How many superdelegates do you know personally? How do you know what motivates them?
<
p>I think that Obama will need to win or tie Texas and/or Ohio but not because he needs to impress superdelegates but because he needs to win pledged delegates.
anthonysays
…that Clinton already is ahead with super delegates and that everybody talks about the importance of big states except where HRC is concerned. It was all about CA until he didn’t take it???
<
p>Puleez.
<
p>He needs Texas or Ohio or his best hope is VP.
hrs-kevinsays
I did not say that big states don’t matter.
<
p>I was just stating that (a) I don’t think that anyone’s victory in any of these states is a good predictor of how they will do in these states in November and that (b) I don’t think that superdelegates are going to be especially impressed by these wins on either side and (c) that I have no reason to believe you have any special insight into what motivates superdelegates.
<
p>As I said, I agree that Obama needs to do well in Texas and Ohio because those are large states with a lot of delegates to give out.
As a final note, I would have to think that Romney’s kids must not be too happy to see their dad continue to burn through their inheritance!
<
p>…Romney’s relatively young age and unquestionable business acumen would indicate that, should he remain in the private sector, he can make it all back and more.
<
p>I rather doubt that his kids are too concerned about it.
laurelsays
he’ll be 61 next year. it took him his whole adult life to amass that loot. and now the economy is tanking. i hope for theor sake that he set aside “untouchable” money for his family, so that he is not dipping into their financial security. although, why they shouldn’t work like everyone else…
p>However, one of his sons (Matt) was a friend of a friend in high school. He appeared as “Hunter #2” in a video we shot for Latin class (the story of Actaeon) c. 1989. I still have the video.
<
p>He was a total straight arrow (no caffeine, etc.; a good Mormon) and an extremely nice kid. I had no idea that his family was rich and powerful until many years later; he sure didn’t act like it. Quite the opposite.
<
p>I think the Romney kids will be fine either way. A little inherited wealth is a nice safety cushion; too much is almost always extremely corrosive. I speak from experience on this topic.
mr-punchsays
The combination of early “absentee” voting (huge in some states, notably CA) and last-minute decisions puts pollsters in a very difficult situation (especially for exit polls) — I don’t think there’s evidence for a “Bradley effect” or any such thing.
<
p>Hard to see a “brokered convention” with only two contenders, each broadly acceptable to the party, and a simple majority for nomination; we could see a second ballot, but that’s about it.
<
p>But what if the current trend holds, and Clinton arrives at the convention with a bare majority based on superdelegates? Could look like a “stolen nomination,” and turn off some voters. That would be a circumstance in which she might have to make a public offer of the VP slot to Obama.
leonpowesays
is what to do with Michigan and Florida …
trickle-upsays
it’s a stratagem.
lateboomersays
As an Obama supporter I’m naturally disappointed that he didn’t get beyond the Starbucks vote in Massachusetts (the City of Boston being a notable exception). I was also struck by his almost non-existent ground campaign.
<
p>But this is about winning the general election, not just winning the nomination. The general election head-to-head polls may be meaningless right now, but they show Obama at least as strong against McCain as Hillary. I think it’s significant that Barack carried states like Minnesota and Missouri last night and won 13 states overall. My gut tells me he has a much better chance of expanding the ranks of blue states next fall than Hillary does. Do we really think the women, Latinos and older/old-school democrats who broke for Hillary in places like Massachusetts and California would abandon Obama in large numbers for McCain?
<
p>The whole race changes if Iraq gets substantially worse over the next few months (since the recent calm has given Hillary a pass on her pro-war votes and given McCain cover on his support for the troop surge). Hillary’s already-high negatives will get worse if Bill continues to be a loose cannon or if his slimy business dealings continue to make the front page. As these events play out, I think “turning the page” will start to feel better and better to the general public.
<
p>While my heart is with Obama, my head is with him too.
<
p>
leonpowesays
Similar in Springfield, which has a higher populations of African Americans and a lot fewer members of Starbucks Nation.
People are going to wonder why even vote if superdelegates are the deciders anyway… it totally sucks.
<
p>Very frustrating how Hillary will come back to try to fight for florida’s delegates by saying their voices should be heard…
<
p>The whole system needs an overhaul and both candidates should admit that.
leonpowesays
Elected officials would run on candidates slates, which did a couple of things:
<
p>1. They ran the risk of losing, in 1972, the McGovern slate knocked off a huge number of Mass. electeds, including Tip O’Neill, I believe, who were on Ed Muskie’s slate. Can’t have that.
<
p>2. The flip side is that you don’t want Congresspeople and Senators competing for the same slots as “real” people, imagine going to a caucus and finding that your rep. had packed it, just to send themselves to Denver or whereever.
<
p>Thus, superdelegate slots gave the electeds the guarantee that they’d be in the room, and keeps them away from the delegate caucuses.
<
p>Just laying out the pros and cons …
christophersays
They matter this year because of the closeness of the race. It makes perfect sense that party leaders also have a say. On the one hand it wasn’t meant to be completely democratic, but on the other hand many of them are elected by the people anyway. It strikes a good balance in my opinion.
This is a tie. Just about half the Democratic Party voters at Democratic candidate selection events like Obama. The other half likes Clinton. I can’t imagine Texas, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland moving things much more than that.
<
p>Twenty percent of the convention votes are ex-officio “superdelegates” — more than enough to decide the nomination. In other words, these people will be picking our nominee.
<
p>These people are party insiders, not independents or Republicans. It will come down to whether the part of the Democratic Party that hates the Clintons is stronger than the part that is loyal to them.
Last night was a win for the Democratic party. I thought that both candidates’ victory speeches sounded like the speeches of primary winners, ready to reach out to the unenrolled voters of the country. The Republicans, on the other hand, sounded like they were still looking for more knives to stick in each other’s back.
<
p>From the long perspective, the pundits expected Clinton to wrap up the race last night; she didn’t. From the short perspective, the Obama supporters clearly expected a major breakthrough last night; it didn’t come. We’re left with the most even race in my memory since Reagan-Ford back in 1976.
<
p>In Massachusetts, the split was pretty predictable. I don’t think that either campaign mobilized enough effort to really change the results.
http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>Looks like Kevin Aguiar won in Fall River, along with the other three that we knew about (Clark, Ehrlich, and Garballey).
<
p>Good day for School Committee members; only Ehrlich wasn’t listed as a current or former one in the article!
All that energy. All that positive press. All those revival-like rallies with all those celebrities and all those establishement politicians calling for change. And Obama is in the race, but he’s behind.
<
p>I continue to think there are a lot of folks voting Clinton, but laying low about it. Why else the polls only days ago showing Obama so close in Massachusetts and exit polls in California last night showing the state would be competitive, when both end up being comfortable victories for Clinton?
<
p>Stephonopolous was breaking it down on GMA this morning and said women broke for Hillary. He called women her “last line of defense.” Can a candidate leading in delegate counts going in and coming out of last night have need for the “last line” of defense? And can 50%+ of the electorate be considered a “last line of defense?”
<
p>Obamamentum: Sometimes there doesn’t seem to be enough there there.
…problem with starting a phenomenon as opposed to a platform. Obama may attract 20,000 people to a single rally but how many of those people are there because they support his politics and intend to vote for him and how many are there so they can say they were at the “rock concert” and have bragging right when this is talked about in 20 years? I venture to guess that there are a lot of people (especially in college towns) that go to the rallies that can’t vote there in the first place, a number of people who aren’t going to vote no matter what, a number of people who don’t intend to vote for Obama but aren’t going to say so, and then those who are truly loyal Obama supporters. From the way votes are coming down it appears that in some circumstances those who can’t or won’t vote for him are a significant number of these rally goers.
that people who go to Obama rallys vote in any lower proportion than those who go to Clinton rallys. The fact is that as large as Obama’s rallys have been, the people who attend them still represent a tiny minority of the state’s population, so I don’t think you can draw much of a conclusion based on vote totals.
…for exaple that a significant number of the people at Obama’s rallies in NH were from MA. The media reported as such.
<
p>There are also a lot of students in Boston who turned out who can’t vote here because they never registered. Of this I am also certain because I spend a lot of time with college students and almost across the board they haven’t bothered to register here if they are not from here.
<
p>My whole point is conjecture, of course, but I stand by it. Even his actual under 40 numbers don’t conform to the phenomenon.
that Obama rally attendees don’t vote in as large a percentage in the state the rally is held or overall?
<
p>If all those Obamaniacs from MA at the NH rally voted in MA instead of NH, then what’s the difference, so to speak?
that a lot of people are undecided and so go to an obama rally to check him out, give him a fair hearing. but they don’t hear enough of what they’re looking for – the concrete. and so, they decide to vote for clinton. i think that many people are predisposed to like obama, so these are votes for him to lose. whereas the press, etc have set up clinton as a female devil incarnate, so she has to earn people’s respect. and she seems to do that quite well when they give her that same fair hearing that they give obama.
and loved it.
<
p>Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns emerged from Super Tuesday with bragging rights. Clinton trounced Obama in Massachusetts, 56 percent to 41 percent. It was a thrashing that almost matched the one he gave her in South Carolina. She had been ahead in polls in the state, but for the last week, Barack Obama has had about the best press imaginable there. He was being compared often to JFK by Kennedy family members, who did everything but play touch football with him on the lawn. Obama also had the support of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.
As an Obama supporter I am disappointed by the vote in Mass. I didn’t think he’d win it but thought he’d get a little closer than he did.
<
p>When you look at the map, Obama was not able to break out of liberal cities and affluent suburbs and small towns of western mass. His map looks a lot like Shannon O’Brien’s in her loss to Romney in 2002 or Bob Reich in losing the primary for governor in 2002 – pinned to liberal cities and affluent suburbs. And in certain places where Obama won, like Newton, it was only by a hair. Clinton did well in those places with older voters (lots of grey hairs in liberal towns like Brookline, which she was very competitive in) and got enough liberals to keep the tally honest there while racking up in more moderate communities.
<
p>Obama lost big in places like Peabody and Quincy among more moderate and modest-mean dems. The crushing in those places was mostly by women as exit polls say he drew with white men in Massachusetts, but lost white women big time. And women vote more so you do the math.
<
p>What does it all say and mean? Who knows. The coalitions each candidate has built nationally with Clinton’s (white women, lower educated, lower income, Hispanics) versus Obama’s (blacks, higher-educated, liberals and rural voters and white men) are interesting and seem to be hardening – not good news for party unity. The candidate who can break free from these chains should win the nomination or just grind the other down in a war of attrition with the size of the coalition making the difference.
<
p>It remains Clinton’s race to lose. Her coalition at this point is just bigger. Obama will have to pull off a big state sometime or go down eventually I think. Pulling out Connecticut last night shows he can break out in a place that was hard core Clinton territory but the northeast won’t now be where the race is won.
<
p>All roads lead to Texas and Ohio on March 4th as the next big crunch point. Interesting states both with certain dynamics that could favour either/or. Clinton should start ahead in both places given her name. Obama has to rack up wins through Feb to keep momentum and then pull off an upset in one of both of those big states. Ties won’t be good enough eventually, as the leader stays the leader with ties. Given the proportional distribution of votes, it is also hard come back that is why Obama keeping the delegate totals close (well within 100) is so important.
<
p>Given Obama’s loss in Mass is there any read-across to the Patrick coalition and his fortunes? Maybe some, but Patrick won’t be running against a Clinton in 2010 and Patrick has been pretty moderate in his policy proposals. If anything, the Obama loss shows the continued popularity of the Clinton brand in Mass., Hillary’s own competence as someone seen as ready for the job, her appeal to women and the fact that endorsements by big names don’t do much beyond get some great headlines. This is not a loss for Patrick, Kennedy or anyone else – machines don’t exist and people choose for themselves.
I’ve won. Decisively. This proves that the voters want Change.
<
p>(Cue Bowie theme song)
<
p>Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes…
Turn & face the strain
Ch-ch-Changes
<
p>Now it’s time to take a morning after victory lap around the blogs!
McCain owes Huckabee big.
He was saying nice things about Huck in his speech last night.
<
p>I wonder to what degree he is considering him for his VP?
McCain’s not a theocrat, but he knows that even though most of the hardline conservatives will end up holding their noses and voting for him anyway, having Huckabee in his corner helps his image with them, and will boost turnout somewhat. And Huckabee basically shivved Romney for him, last night.
Now I have to go out and get me a new signature line and some different bumper stickers ..
I’ve been hearing that that Ralph Nader fellow is going to give it another go this time around …
“Not a dime of difference between them” …
“two sides of the same coin” …
Hmm, I suppose I could listen to some more of that … Better than pretending to swallow any of the garbage being floated elsewhere ..
Is it time for another teary moment yet? BAhhhhhhh!
Once again, the pollsters would have us believe they got stymied by those crazy Kalifornia voters who pulled a massive Clinton switcheroo at the last possible moment. Just like New Hampshire. Americans are racist and won’t confess it to us on the phone, don’t ya know.
<
p>I have trouble believing that. I think the pollsters ought to have their work very closely reviewed, in light of two hallucinatory predictions of a Barack double-digit victory in key states. Who exactly are these folks talking to? Is there a regulatory or self-policing body for polling outfits? The potential for a tainted analysis is simply too great to ignore.
Your desire to say “racist voters” is the opposite of what actually happened.
<
p>California: Survey USA had Clinton 52, Obama 42 in its last 2 polls.
California Actual: Clinton 52, Obama 42
<
p>MA: Survey USA had Clinton 56, Obama 39.
MA Actual: Clinton 56, Obama 41.
<
p>MO: Survey USA had Clinton 54, Obama 43.
MO Actual: Obama 49, Clinton 48.
<
p>In fact, Obama EXCEEDED his poll numbers in many states. In others, HRC exceeded her numbers.
<
p>There’s a Bradley effect and a reverse-Bradley effect, plus a hard-to-model turnout issue, plus an electorate that increasingly decides in last 48 hours.
Will wasn’t saying that Americans are racist. He was saying that this is what the pollsters will be saying as an excuse. Hence the “won’t confess it to us on the phone [my emphasis].”
<
p>BTW, I’m with you on the general accuracy of the polls. But one of them — Zogby was it? — has a lot of explaiing to do. Blowing it by more than 20 points is pretty inexcusable.
You are right, I did say “pollsters” when I really meant, in my mind, a limited number of outfits, not an entire industry, that screwed up. I am questioning whether their “screw ups” are possibly within the bounds of what can be called a professional poll that is worthy of being released to the public, or that can reasonably be called a valid sampling of opinion. And if not, whether there should be professional repercussions, as would be the case in many other professions.
<
p>I can’t figure out what you’re talking about with the “racist voters” remark or your “Bradley effect and reverse-Bradley effect” remark.
<
p>If the electorate increasingly decides in the last 48 hours–which is an unfounded claim on your part–then the poll isn’t worth anything and shouldn’t be published. Those margin-of-error figures are supposed to mean something.
they probably will lose revenue by getting fewer commissions.
Perhaps I should have said “official professional repercussions.” People in some careers have to worry about having their license to practice revoked, or otherwise being “officially” chastised via a meaningful authority.
<
p>It’s probably dreaming, but I would be comforted to think that such a fate awaited Mr. Zogby and whoever else was in on this (the poll I linked to was co-credited with two major news organizations)
but the reality in our country is that “the marketplace” is elevated to the level of judge and jury. sad but true.
Despite all the spin, I really don’t see how anyone can look at the results and not declare pretty much an exact tie. Sure it’s better for Obama than 2 weeks ago, and sure Clinton won the big prive in CA.
<
p>But the fact is that on just about every measure — states won, total delegates, and even overall popular vote — they tied.
<
p>The prospect of a ticket just became much brighter. It may be one of the situtations that if this drags on too long, the party basically forces that option on the candidates.
you mean a shared ticket, which I would be happy with, if only because it means we’re through the primary cycle.
<
p>If there is actually talk of a McCain/Huckabee ticket, then why not one for the blue team?
Although I suppose the closer Dem analogy would be Hillary/Edwards or Obama/Edwards, and Edwards has already stated that he wouldn’t accept the number two spot, so on it goes.
I just pulled some numbers from here and added them up. I didn’t bother to differentiate elections from caucuses because I have other (paying) work to do, so my vote tallies are bogus and under-weight the caucus states, but I don’t think a more refined summary would be much different.
<
p>As of right now, for yesterday’s events I get:
<
p>Votes:
<
p>Obama 7,283,806 49.8%
Clinton 7,331,192 50.2%
<
p>Delegates:
<
p>Obama 593 49.2%
Clinton 612 50.8%
<
p>So it was indeed a close day. Given the huge amount of delegates still up for grabs, I don’t know how to consider this anything other than a tie.
<
p>If you want HRC to win, it’s easy to spin this as Obama couldn’t break through despite all the endorsements, music videos, etc., and now he’s going to wither away.
<
p>If you want Obama to win, you look at graphs like this http://www.pollster.com/08-US-… and you have to like the trend.
<
p>It’s going to be interesting. I just pray the two campaigns can keep things relatively clean, although I’m not optimistic.
It is not really important who “won” which state or even which county. It is the delegate count that matters, and it is going to be a while yet before we find out exactly what happened there.
<
p>If Obama ended up picking up more delegates on the day than Clinton, as his campaign claims, then I think that would count as a clear victory for Obama and should help him continue his momentum, especially since the next couple of states are expected to be good ones for him. Going forward the key for each campaign will be to continue to win endorsements and to continue to raise enough money to fund campaign operations. Who knows what will happen in endorsements, but given that Obama has many more donors to go back to than Clinton does, I think he probably has at least a slight advantage in fund raising.
<
p>I have to see that seeing both Clinton and Obama do well yesterday in various states increased my desire to see them on the same ticket in November whatever happens.
<
p>Regardless of the final details, if yesterday was political “groundhog day” then, at least for the Democrats, it is pretty clear that we are in for at least six weeks more of campaigning.
<
p>As a final note, I would have to think that Romney’s kids must not be too happy to see their dad continue to burn through their inheritance!
…quite a bit who won which state. Obama is not winning the “big” states while Clinton is. If he does not win Texas or Ohio it will be very hard to convince the super delegates (who will likely decide who gets the nomination) that he can win the general election. Clinton is already leading in the super delegate count.
But the big states that Obama didn’t win are quite Democratic- I have a hard time believing he’d lose CA and NY in the general election. So his losses there have almost no implications for the general election. Same with IL (though looking at the 2004 results I suppose IL could go red with Hillary vs. McCain; pure conjecture on my part).
<
p>By my count, I have the delegate counts for yesterday’s events at:
<
p>Obama 593 49.2%
Clinton 612 50.8%
<
p>with not all results in as of 10:30am. That sure seems close to me. Hillary won a few of the bigger states by moderate margins, and got clobbered in a bunch of small to medium states (plus Illinois). Pretty much a wash.
<
p>But I agree that it does matter somewhat who wins in TX or Ohio, though you also have to consider whether those primaries are open or closed, etc.
<
p>The short view is that Hillary still has the edge, and did not succumb to the recent wave of Obama-ism. But I don’t know that said wave isn’t still building.
…because perception doesn’t matter at all in politics. Every pundit from both sides of the aisle is in agreement about this. The big states matter significantly.
I find myself unable to follow your train of thought except for the last sentence.
<
p>Yeah, I agree that perceptions matter, but what perceptions are we talking about?
<
p>Also, I think we’ve seen enough times that pundits are wrong about as often as not.
<
p>Let’s talk big states, ordered by total delegates (here’s a good reference on the primaries). Yes, I am engaging in punditry:
<
p>CA: A big win for Hillary; last went R in the general in 1988, when Dukakis got 48% of the vote.
NY: Blue all the way in Nov, regardless.
TX: Last went D in 1976, 51% for Carter. Still, will be interesting.
PA: Arguably the most interesting big state, but primary is in late April, and is closed.
IL: BO home field advantage. D since 88, when the Duke got 48+%.
OH: The battle is joined; please count the votes correctly!
NC: Very late. Clinton was close in ’92.
NJ: Fairly close in ’04; strong for Gore in ’00; Clinton barely got it in ’92 (easy in ’96). So HRC win may matter.
MA: D all the way in ’08.
VA: Last D to win was LBJ, but Clinton came close. Given Webb victory, a battleground.
GA: Clinton barely won in ’92, lost in ’96; this is an outside change for the D’s.
<
p>So: we have Hillary with a big win in CA that has an outside chance of being competitive, and a medium win in NJ which leans to the Democrats. Barack’s big win in Georgia suggests he could take that state.
<
p>But if you want to talk big states, it’s VA on 2/12 and OH on 3/4, and maybe PA on 4/22. While Clinton’s victory in CA was big, I’d hardly categorically say Obama can’t win in big states. It’s still too early. And no, MI and FL don’t count.
I know there were no delegates at stake, but it was a level playing field, 1.4 million voters went to the polls, and Hillary won by a huge margin. It’s interesting how often Obama supporters will cite unreliable opinion polls, but dismiss the results of actual voters casting actual ballots.
and thus was not like a ‘real’ election. The candidate with greater name recognition has an incumbent-like advantage. I couldn’t find any name recognition data for FL, but I’m guessing First Lady > freshman Senator from IL.
<
p>I think Hillary supporters are treading into very dangerous ground when making an electability argument.
<
p>What opinion poll did I cite? It’s clear for reasons far beyond my understanding that polls are particularly unreliable right now.
…thing I can say then is wait and see. The super delegates are lining up behind Clinton. If Obama does not take either Texas or Ohio he will not get the nomination.
Those are big states with ~400 delegates between them.
<
p>According to RealClearPolitics, , Hillary’s delegate advantage is equal to her advantage in superdelegates (+/-).
<
p>Here’s my prediction: If the super delegates end up being the deciding factor for the nomination (i.e. if Obama ends up with more assigned delegates, but loses due to the superdelegate gap), hello President McCain.
From Salon:
<
p>Mayer adds that he doesn’t think the super delegates would go against the popular will. If Obama wins more contests by the time of the convention, “The super delegates aren’t going to say, ‘Tough, Barack, we’re going the other way.'”
… I’ll ask here:
<
p>What big states are left?
Here’s the calendar
<
p>Looks like MD and VA on 2/21 and OH and TX on March 4th are ones to watch.
How many Republican votes did Clinton win in those states? Is there any reason to believe that Democrats won’t vote for Obama in those states in the general election? How many superdelegates do you know personally? How do you know what motivates them?
<
p>I think that Obama will need to win or tie Texas and/or Ohio but not because he needs to impress superdelegates but because he needs to win pledged delegates.
…that Clinton already is ahead with super delegates and that everybody talks about the importance of big states except where HRC is concerned. It was all about CA until he didn’t take it???
<
p>Puleez.
<
p>He needs Texas or Ohio or his best hope is VP.
I did not say that big states don’t matter.
<
p>I was just stating that (a) I don’t think that anyone’s victory in any of these states is a good predictor of how they will do in these states in November and that (b) I don’t think that superdelegates are going to be especially impressed by these wins on either side and (c) that I have no reason to believe you have any special insight into what motivates superdelegates.
<
p>As I said, I agree that Obama needs to do well in Texas and Ohio because those are large states with a lot of delegates to give out.
<
p>
….misunderstand anything.
<
p>Wait and see.
Not including NM (Hillary leads)
<
p>Clinton 616
Obama 565
Where are your numbers from?
This is what I got pulling data from ABC around 10:30 this AM. Plus, it looks like Hillary will net 1 in NM, despite a narrow pop. victory for Obama.
Please let me know if you see an error in my numbers. This was a quick dump and sum in Excel.
Obama
Clinton
Alabama
23
19
Alaska
9
4
American Samoa
1
2
Arizona
16
19
Arkansas
9
23
California
56
73
Colorado
13
6
Connecticut
26
22
Delaware
9
6
Georgia
41
23
Idaho
15
3
Illinois
70
41
Kansas
23
9
Massachusetts
38
53
Minnesota
27
14
Missouri
28
28
New Jersey
42
57
New Mexico
0
0
New York
86
135
North Dakota
8
5
Oklahoma
14
24
Tennessee
25
37
Utah
14
9
Total
593
612
Pct
49.2%
50.8%
The Globe had her ahead in Alabama by one delegate, despite Barack’s big margin. Just goes to show how arcane this process is.
Alabama has 52 pledged delegates, but 23+19=42. They just haven’t counted them all yet.
For CA, ABC shows 73-56 delegates for Hillary, while CNN shows Clinton at 64-35. And CA has:
<
p>241 district-level, 81 at-large, 48 PLEO, 66 unpledged PLEO, 5 unpledged add-on delegates
<
p>I gather PLEO = Party Leaders and Elected Officials
<
p>So I guess we need to sit back and wait for the delegate tallies to catch up.
<
p>But if we gauge by popular vote, clearly this is a close race.
It’s as clear as mud.
<
p>…Romney’s relatively young age and unquestionable business acumen would indicate that, should he remain in the private sector, he can make it all back and more.
<
p>I rather doubt that his kids are too concerned about it.
he’ll be 61 next year. it took him his whole adult life to amass that loot. and now the economy is tanking. i hope for theor sake that he set aside “untouchable” money for his family, so that he is not dipping into their financial security. although, why they shouldn’t work like everyone else…
I don’t like Romney as a politician. At all.
<
p>However, one of his sons (Matt) was a friend of a friend in high school. He appeared as “Hunter #2” in a video we shot for Latin class (the story of Actaeon) c. 1989. I still have the video.
<
p>He was a total straight arrow (no caffeine, etc.; a good Mormon) and an extremely nice kid. I had no idea that his family was rich and powerful until many years later; he sure didn’t act like it. Quite the opposite.
<
p>I think the Romney kids will be fine either way. A little inherited wealth is a nice safety cushion; too much is almost always extremely corrosive. I speak from experience on this topic.
The combination of early “absentee” voting (huge in some states, notably CA) and last-minute decisions puts pollsters in a very difficult situation (especially for exit polls) — I don’t think there’s evidence for a “Bradley effect” or any such thing.
<
p>Hard to see a “brokered convention” with only two contenders, each broadly acceptable to the party, and a simple majority for nomination; we could see a second ballot, but that’s about it.
<
p>But what if the current trend holds, and Clinton arrives at the convention with a bare majority based on superdelegates? Could look like a “stolen nomination,” and turn off some voters. That would be a circumstance in which she might have to make a public offer of the VP slot to Obama.
is what to do with Michigan and Florida …
it’s a stratagem.
As an Obama supporter I’m naturally disappointed that he didn’t get beyond the Starbucks vote in Massachusetts (the City of Boston being a notable exception). I was also struck by his almost non-existent ground campaign.
<
p>But this is about winning the general election, not just winning the nomination. The general election head-to-head polls may be meaningless right now, but they show Obama at least as strong against McCain as Hillary. I think it’s significant that Barack carried states like Minnesota and Missouri last night and won 13 states overall. My gut tells me he has a much better chance of expanding the ranks of blue states next fall than Hillary does. Do we really think the women, Latinos and older/old-school democrats who broke for Hillary in places like Massachusetts and California would abandon Obama in large numbers for McCain?
<
p>The whole race changes if Iraq gets substantially worse over the next few months (since the recent calm has given Hillary a pass on her pro-war votes and given McCain cover on his support for the troop surge). Hillary’s already-high negatives will get worse if Bill continues to be a loose cannon or if his slimy business dealings continue to make the front page. As these events play out, I think “turning the page” will start to feel better and better to the general public.
<
p>While my heart is with Obama, my head is with him too.
<
p>
Similar in Springfield, which has a higher populations of African Americans and a lot fewer members of Starbucks Nation.
People are going to wonder why even vote if superdelegates are the deciders anyway… it totally sucks.
<
p>Very frustrating how Hillary will come back to try to fight for florida’s delegates by saying their voices should be heard…
<
p>The whole system needs an overhaul and both candidates should admit that.
Elected officials would run on candidates slates, which did a couple of things:
<
p>1. They ran the risk of losing, in 1972, the McGovern slate knocked off a huge number of Mass. electeds, including Tip O’Neill, I believe, who were on Ed Muskie’s slate. Can’t have that.
<
p>2. The flip side is that you don’t want Congresspeople and Senators competing for the same slots as “real” people, imagine going to a caucus and finding that your rep. had packed it, just to send themselves to Denver or whereever.
<
p>Thus, superdelegate slots gave the electeds the guarantee that they’d be in the room, and keeps them away from the delegate caucuses.
<
p>Just laying out the pros and cons …
They matter this year because of the closeness of the race. It makes perfect sense that party leaders also have a say. On the one hand it wasn’t meant to be completely democratic, but on the other hand many of them are elected by the people anyway. It strikes a good balance in my opinion.
This is a tie. Just about half the Democratic Party voters at Democratic candidate selection events like Obama. The other half likes Clinton. I can’t imagine Texas, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland moving things much more than that.
<
p>Twenty percent of the convention votes are ex-officio “superdelegates” — more than enough to decide the nomination. In other words, these people will be picking our nominee.
<
p>These people are party insiders, not independents or Republicans. It will come down to whether the part of the Democratic Party that hates the Clintons is stronger than the part that is loyal to them.
<
p>It will come down to the superdelegate dance.
<
p>
Put in the wrong tag. The voters at Democratic Party events split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama. Clinton wins among Democrats.