Maine Early Caucus Results

(another county map here and city map here.)

Here's a report from the blog Turn Maine Blue, where caucus goers and local news are reporting some results [by BTD, and here is CNN's running totals, with 44% reporting, it is 57-42 Obama]:

  • Fairfield:
    In the end, said caucus Chairman Franklin Bouchard, there were 55 Democrats for Obama and 54 for Clinton. The vote means each camp will send seven delegates to the Maine Democratic Party convention in May.
  • Hillary wins Turner (Results (including 8 absentees) were: Clinton 62; Obama 55; Edwards 1; Undecided 2) and Wells (Clinton: 151, Obama: 122, Kucinich: 4,Undecided: 4)
  • Obama wins Houlton and Rockport

More below the fold:

More results:

Obama takes Fryeburg 67 to 17
Obama takes York 414 to 225
Clinton takes Rumford 52 to 37
Clinton takes Dixfield 16 to 14
Clinton takes Mexico 27 16
Clinton takes Byron 1 to 0
Obama takes Hanover 6 to 2
Obama takes Gardiner 129 47 with 2 uncommitted
Clinton takes Old Orchard Beach 134 to 128
Obama takes Hampden 179 to 70
Obama takes Wilton 87 to 30
Obama takes Cape Elizabeth 550 to 217
Obama takes Deer Island 6 to 1
Obama takes Winterport 7 to 4
Obama takes Machiasport 2 delegates to 1O
Obama takes Ellsworth 184 to 100
Obama takes Lincoln 3 to 1 (no numbers, ratio)

< Writers Strike To End, Settlement Reached | Hillary's Campaign Manager Steps Down, Maggie Williams Takes Over >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    11% reporting (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Firefly4625 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:12:29 PM EST
    Obama 51%
    Clinton 48%

    GO HILL!


    P.S. Just signed up for an account and boy, does this place look different from what it looks like as a lurker - all these numbers and buttons and stuff!

    Anyway, so happy to be among the wonderful posters in this great place.

    Byron (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:06:57 PM EST
    that is a funny result.

    How many delegates does Hillary get for that one?

    The absurdity of caucuses in stark relief.

    Actually the enitre list of results (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:07:38 PM EST
    highlight how absurd this all is.

    None apparently (none / 0) (#3)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:16:18 PM EST
    I read on another blog that when they reported it in, no one was awarded delegates in Byron.

    Why not? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:19:24 PM EST
    Does that vote NOT count now?

    Your comment makes it EVEN MORE ABSURD.

    What of the 7 on Deer Island? Did they get delegates?

    This is so infuriating.


    Yes (none / 0) (#6)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:21:26 PM EST
    Deer Island had one delegate for Clinton

    Is this a delegate count or a vote count? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:25:52 PM EST
    BEcause this reports the vote was 6-1 for Obama.

    Err, sorry (none / 0) (#14)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:30:40 PM EST
    I was reading it wrong. Those are delegates awarded, and the delegates went 7-1 for Obama.

    No (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:35:43 PM EST
    That makes no sense. Every other result is votes.

    Someone is not getting this straight.


    There's an open thread at Kos (none / 0) (#20)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:40:02 PM EST
    Where people are reporting in how the caucuses went. I double checked there and somebody said that's how Deer Hollow went (that 7-1 were delegate numbers). But some of the other numbers on this Maine page look like vote counts, so it's hard to tell what's going on. These are all very preliminary anyway.

    Daily Kos commenters (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:51:22 PM EST
    are not a reliable source for anything.

    No Kidding! (none / 0) (#24)
    by katiebird on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:57:52 PM EST
    No Kidding!  I wrote a diary there this morning and you should see the pile-on.  The only surprise was that the reaction was worse at MyDD.

    I didn't have any idea that I was a right-wing kook until today.


    katie..e-mail Jeralyn about that diary. I (none / 0) (#27)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:10:41 PM EST
    think she would be interested.

    Did you read it? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by katiebird on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:12:58 PM EST
    Did you read it?  email me first:  katiebird@gmail.com

    I just did -- wow. Defintely (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:22:27 PM EST
    send it to Jeralyn, re prisoners' rights.

    In a county that now, per a court ruling this week, has to pay out millions to people incarcerated -- some only charged and still presumed innocent -- in horrible conditions in our county jail (our GOP sheriff is an arrogant fool), it matters to me, too.  

    Too many innocents have died in my county jail, have been killed by cops in my city's streets, etc.  To effectively encourage prison rape is appalling.


    (I don't want to hijack this conversation) (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by katiebird on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:25:44 PM EST
    Please delete this comment if necessary -- I don't want to hijack this conversation.

    But, I'm VERY new here and I don't know Jeralyn.  Should I send her the entire text?  Or just a link?


    A link (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:29:56 PM EST
    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:35:35 PM EST
    for helping her figure out how to send it.

    Hope this isn't hijacking the thread. :-)


    Poblano (none / 0) (#25)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:06:55 PM EST
    posted a chart that has O leading C 63 to 37.  

    We do not trust Poblano here (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:10:44 PM EST
    CNN has it 51-48.

    That's pretty respectable considering... (none / 0) (#31)
    by katiebird on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:15:13 PM EST
    "CNN has it 51-48"

    That's pretty respectable considering...

    Isn't it?  Am I clutching at straws?


    It would be a good result for Clinton (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:19:49 PM EST
    but it is early.

    I expect at least a 10 point Obama win.


    I heard that caucus times vary between locations? (none / 0) (#35)
    by katiebird on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:21:01 PM EST
    I heard that caucus times vary between locations?  So some might not have met yet?

    Me, too (none / 0) (#41)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:30:36 PM EST
    Particularly with the bad weather.

    Dont trust Fox either (none / 0) (#32)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:19:16 PM EST
    They say 57-42 with 41% reporting.

    I do trust Fox on this (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:20:55 PM EST
    Have a link?

    My point waqs not who was winning.

    My point to you was I do not trust Poblano.

    If you have the link for Fox I would like to add it to this thread.


    Never mind (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:23:30 PM EST
    CNN updated.

    Also, in unrelated developments (none / 0) (#5)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:20:24 PM EST
    Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, has quit. Maybe hoping that the news cycles of the next couple of days make this a minor news item?


    Hillary doing well this news cycle (none / 0) (#10)
    by dwightkschrute on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:27:08 PM EST
    CNN has been showing her close to non-stop Sunday. Hillary supporters may have to rub their eyes and pinch themselves because today CNN has been running very long clips of Clinton's Manassas speech  repeatedly and only barely showing Obama's Alexandria speech at TK Williams in the form of brief soundbites.

    They've likely killed (none / 0) (#49)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:42:25 PM EST
    her chances now so they can be magnanimous.

    not so sure (none / 0) (#11)
    by andreww on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:27:35 PM EST
    that would be a good media move.  I personally don't think Obama victories make this anything but still a tie.  But for the casual observer, having a campaign shakeup right after the losses seems to make the losses seem like a bigger deal.  Am I missing something?

    all I know (none / 0) (#17)
    by dwightkschrute on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:36:57 PM EST
    Is that I've been laid up sick in bed today and watching tv. CNN is the only one showing election infor. MSNBC isn't running political coverage and I haven't even bothered watching Fox news, so I'd guess most Democrats watching for political news sre going to CNN. And today CNN has been absolutely dominated by Clinton. So whether it's the new campaign manager or not, today at least has been a great day media wise for Hillary.  

    She's staying with the campaign (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:28:54 PM EST
    but not as campaign manager.  

    Shakeup was expected.  Remember, change is good!:-)


    theres another thread on this (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:41:34 PM EST
    please comment on that here.

    This thread is for Maine results.


    Repeating a Lie Often Enough Doesn't Make it True (none / 0) (#7)
    by cdalygo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:25:29 PM EST
    These numbers need to get emblazoned everywhere when we start hearing the inevitability theme for the Obama campaign. The same goes for places like Alaska.

    We cannot - and must not - let our nomination get set this way. It's has nothing to do with the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters. I don't care how much the Obama campaign attempts to argue that he his catching up in the "popular" vote. This is not a "popular" vote so they are comparing apples to oranges.

    Obama's campaign wants the change how the super delegates operate? Good, for once we agree. Have them step in now and fix this travesty. That is really the only reason for their existence.


    Caucuses and "dumbocracy" (none / 0) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    In Washington state Garfield County had exactly 1 caucus goer -- voted for Obama. So however many delegates for Garfield? they all went to Obama.

    It's been snowing heavily over there, which is likely the reason for the for the low turnout.

    Our Democracy at work!  made me laugh.

    Strange results (none / 0) (#13)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:29:34 PM EST
    Award of delegates notwithstanding, I expected Clinton to do a better job in ME popularity-wise.

    This one has me flummoxed.  

    I'm not surprised (none / 0) (#16)
    by OldCoastie on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:36:49 PM EST
    Falmouth and Cape Elizabeth are the latte drinkers... up state, along the Canadian border would be more equivalent to the red areas like Idaho... Clinton needs her votes to come in via more working class areas - off the coast, suburban Portland, Lewiston...

    wait a bit... its gonna be a close one no matter what.


    Bad weather works against Clinton (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:37:50 PM EST
    who does well with older voters, high turnout, etc.

    Plus, it's a caucus, also working against Clinton.


    That thread.. (none / 0) (#23)
    by TheRealFrank on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:54:38 PM EST
    ..is random people reporting from their caucuses. There's no way of knowing whether these people are representative of the caucus goers as a whole.

    More likely than not, Obama supporters are people who enthusiastically report this online, much more so than Clinton supporters.

    The Page has had a graphic up for a while saying Obama 50 Clinton 48 with 11% of precincts reporting.

    Obama's favored to win it, but I don't think by a margin such as in yesterday's states.


    I added a link to the CNN tally (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:09:55 PM EST
    I was shocked (none / 0) (#18)
    by NJDem on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:37:37 PM EST
    at the amount of unfiltered HRC speeches on CNN today.  Are they trying to pull in those viewers who not watching MSNBC b/c of the recent anti-HRC incident/bias?  Let's see if it's a trend...

    57-42 with 44% in, per CNN (nt) (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:25:38 PM EST

    Not lookng good for Hillary but it's a (none / 0) (#42)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:32:42 PM EST
    caucus. Though I though she'd do better in this one.

    Interestingly (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:41:56 PM EST
    I did not.

    If she narrows it to 55-45, I'd say she did well. Probably drops only a delegate or 2.


    I fell for the Obama memo and Geek's (none / 0) (#52)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:45:53 PM EST
    low ball estimate.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:49:38 PM EST
    Can anyone explain to (none / 0) (#43)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:34:47 PM EST
    me why Hillary is not going to win Maine? or why its even close?

    The year of Obama. He just won a Grammy (none / 0) (#45)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:37:15 PM EST
    too for spoken album or something. His book.

    No, it's the Year of the Rat (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:52:32 PM EST
    -- I just read that, as the Chinese New Year just started.  I find that a worrisome choice of animal-of-the-year, when it's an election year.

    Good grief (none / 0) (#50)
    by stillife on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:42:35 PM EST
    I read that on another website and I thought it was a joke.  Is he up for an Oscar too?

    Political Speech of the Year when he (none / 0) (#51)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:44:36 PM EST
    takes the nomination at the convention. A new category created just for him.

    He won a grammy (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    last night for best spoken word album...his memoir...he beat Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

    Look at Maine's history (none / 0) (#56)
    by Shawn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:00:53 PM EST
    '76 - Carter won before he was the frontrunner
    '84 - Hart won over Mondale
    '88 - Dukakis won, but Jackson finished a strong second
    '92 - Jerry Brown won, Clinton finished fourth behind Uncommitted

    (You have to scrounge around a little for this history, but some of it is here)

    It's historically a great state - and caucuses a great election venue - for activist/insurgent Democrats. So is the rest of New England really, so Hillary's ability to create a bulwark in NH and Massachusetts was actually quite significant.


    hmmm... (none / 0) (#46)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:38:09 PM EST
    ... so Obama is currently up 15% in the whitest state in the country.

    Maybe we will stop hearing crap like Obama can't win the white vote?

    Let him win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:40:54 PM EST
    And we can stop worrying about that.

    Maine, Nebraska and Idaho are not the problem.


    He's been close in white vote in most state (none / 0) (#57)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:04:33 PM EST
    Most of the primary states have been decided based on the Latino/Black factor. In California he lost the white vote by only a couple of percentage points, I think he won the white vote in AZ, DL, CT and NM. Outside of LA, he's been competitive for the white vote in the South too.

    Nope (none / 0) (#58)
    by Shawn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:24:59 PM EST
    White voters in the Southern and border states so far (leaving out LA):


    Clinton 72
    Obama 25


    Clinton 79
    Obama 16


    Clinton 53
    Obama 23


    Clinton 53
    Obama 43


    Clinton 57
    Obama 39


    Clinton 56
    Obama 29

    South Carolina

    Clinton 36
    Obama 24

    (Edwards won whites here)


    Clinton 67
    Obama 26

    Keep in mind that the black percentage of the Texas electorate is closer to Tennessee's and Arkansas' than any of the Deep South states that Obama has won.


    Ah, hmm, interesting (none / 0) (#60)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:46:18 PM EST
    Thanks for this. I'd only seen the GA and SC results.

    I wonder if it's the white vs. black conflict in these states that is dominating, or if it is the level of poverty (Clinton has done well getting the working class votes).


    I think it's the polarization (none / 0) (#62)
    by Shawn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:52:07 PM EST
    A little-noted fact is that it seems to cut both ways. That is, Hillary has received a respectable percentage of the black vote in some Northern states - 29% in MA, 24% in CT - just as Barack has done better with non-Southern whites. She's also scored higher with Southern blacks outside the Deep South - in Florida, Tennessee and naturally, Arkansas.  

    He can win caucuses. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:50:53 PM EST
    Somehow, that doesn't reassure me for November.

    Maybe we ought to change those rules, too, and have a nationwide caucus for the White House?  Decided by a few percent of the public?  I think that's how the founding fathers did it, hundreds of years ago.

    But then, we changed it.  Remember, change is good.


    No, what shoud reassure you (none / 0) (#59)
    by Maggie on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:44:54 PM EST
    for November is that he's appealing to Independents and some Republicans; that his nomination won't galvanize the right in a way that overcomes the Republican base's dissatisfaction with McCain; and that he has shown remarkabe campaign skills in being able to build up an organization that delivers large numbers of enthusiastic voters to the polls.  

    Truth in advertising: I'm one of the Independents who are chomping at the bit to vote for Obama.  As much as I want to give the country a break from the Republicans, I would find it very difficult to vote for Clinton, especially in light of her desire to seat the delegates from MI and FL as if those states had been contested fairly and properly.  Don't mean to argue with about it -- but for me that is the same old political machination that shows no respect for democratic process.  And I want to get away from that even more than I want to get away from the Republicans -- especially when the Republicans are doing me the good service of nominating a candidate who Rush Limbaugh despises.

    Obama won this weekend from sea to shiny sea.  Not sure I get the desire to pretend these aren't real victories when he's playing by the rules established by the party.


    A little late? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:27:29 PM EST
    It's a little late to complain about caucuses now.

    I agree. Let's get rid of caucuses, superdelegates and make sure no one's primary jumps party rules. FOR THE NEXT ELECTION.