home

Hillary Wins California

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:00:00 AM EST
Tags: Tsunami Tuesday (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bump and Update: CNN calls California for Hillary Clinton. This is huge.

Update: Check out this California election result map and click on "by city." Obama won: San Louis Obispo, Chico and Eureka -- that's it. In 2004, the major recipient of donations in 2004 was G.W. Bush. San Luis Obispo leans Republican. The last Democrat to win there was Lyndon B. Johnson. Chico is in Butte County which supported GW Bush in 2000 and 2004.

***

California Dreaming...The polls just closed in California. Now we see who won the big prize. Offcial election results available here.

More...

Map/vote updates here.

Update: Steve Clemons at the Washington Note examines the Jack Nicholson factor (Nicholson endorsed Hillary on Friday.)

< Obama's Bad Night | Hillary and Obama: Difference in Tone >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Wins California | 172 comments (172 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Big Time Ballot Problems in LA (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by DA in LA on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:37:39 PM EST
    Many people I know who voted for Obama did not have their votes counted due to a bubble not filled in on ballot.  I'm one of those.  Ten friends in the same boat.  We have all complained to District Attorney, Sec of State.  DA released press statement saying he is concerned.

    No way will any district in LA County be called tonight.  A lot of people here are pissed.

    So Obama will underperform the exit poll? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:40:37 PM EST
    I doubt it.

    I can't wait for another breathless diary from TINS about how the world is so unfair.

    [ Parent ]

    I think he will (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:45:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He Has Everywhere (none / 0) (#39)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:48:38 PM EST
    Most of the exit polls aren't properly weighted.


    [ Parent ]
    This is anecdotal (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:44:47 PM EST
    This could have been the case with HRC voters too...and what does the District Attorney have to do with this? Is this criminal?

    [ Parent ]
    Interestingly (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:44:56 PM EST
    I have read about it and my question to you is you are an independent? I thought you were a Dem.

    [ Parent ]
    I switched to Ind (none / 0) (#56)
    by DA in LA on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:03:54 PM EST
    A couple of months ago, when Reid pulled his FISA business of Dodd.

    I said in these threads I would.  And I did.

    [ Parent ]

    The "bubble" only affects DTS voters (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:48:07 PM EST
    and there has been numerous posts on prominent blogs regarding the "bubble" before tonight. How did you miss all that chatter?

    [ Parent ]
    I don't come to this blog much anymore (none / 0) (#57)
    by DA in LA on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:04:40 PM EST
    because of the Obama hate.  It's like the flip side of Daily Kos here.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd venture to say (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by echinopsia on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:04:36 AM EST
    Kos has lost more readers due to Clinton hate than this blog has for neutrality.

    If Kos is your yardstick, I'm sure TL does look like Obama hate. But it's not.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh, no. (none / 0) (#141)
    by DA in LA on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:31:21 AM EST
    There are not many sites as biased as this one.  The posters here are like attack dogs.

    [ Parent ]
    Its been noted on (none / 0) (#86)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:19:22 PM EST
    various blogs

    [ Parent ]
    as the Pollster site says (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:39:21 PM EST
    about these polls, some (Zogby wink wink) are going to be dead wrong, just totally off.  But if we can prove that they were manipulated to create a story, then we should call them out.  It's undemocratic! I read somewhere that a BO super-delegate works for Zogby.  Does anyone know if it's true?  (I sincerely don't mean to start a rumor).  

    Yes, Zogby's brother James (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:15:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Further kumbaya from Obama (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:49:10 PM EST


    Implicitly accuses Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:55:14 PM EST
    of okaying torture. Ugh.

    [ Parent ]
    It's an excellent speech by O (none / 0) (#46)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:57:01 PM EST
    and very well delivered...running against Washington (read Hillary/the Clintons)...hitting all the marks.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:02:56 PM EST
    I think it is his worst delivered speech.

    His disappointment is transparent to me.

    Very dead crowd and speech.

    [ Parent ]

    True (none / 0) (#59)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:05:54 PM EST
    but I've been reading that his crowds aren't what his campaign has been saying they are...is this a normal crowd for him?

    [ Parent ]
    It annoyed me, but that was just his message. . . (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:08:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This is what I do not like (none / 0) (#148)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:42:20 AM EST
    He lumps Hillary with the Republicans.  As if her agenda and her candidacy is a Republican candidacy, whereas, she always says positive thing and speaks for the party, being different from the Republicans.  He has this whole, "them" including her which I think is antagonistic and divisive.  

    [ Parent ]
    oh, poor Hillary, she would never (none / 0) (#158)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:04:38 AM EST
    do anything like that!
    Lump Barack in with Republicans, like Reagan?

    Pshhhhaw

    [ Parent ]

    No, she never does. (none / 0) (#161)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:07:51 AM EST
    She never does the innuendo tango.  

    [ Parent ]
    It's not his best delivered speech... (none / 0) (#94)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:23:47 PM EST
    but I appreciated his comments about the victims and the remarks about Hillary. And, anyway, soaring rhetoric isn't everything..


    [ Parent ]
    Eye of beholder? (none / 0) (#124)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:55:27 PM EST
    Maybe you expect more from him than I do...yes, I agree he seemed disappointed but seemed to me he turned it into an aggressive challenge in tone/language which he needed to do, without seeming overly belligerant...

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe his audience liked it ... (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by cymro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:30:48 AM EST
    ... but I watched both Barack's and Hilary's speeches tonight, and I found Hilary's much more appealing. But then I prefer her speaking style, which comes across (IMO) as more sincere and less dramatic. So I tend get bored before the end of an Obama speech, and start wondering "Where's the beef?"

    And this is therefore how I evaluate his candidacy, and ultimately, what he would bring to the office of President. And I don't want a President like that; I never got bored during a speech by Bill Clinton, when he was President. But I believe that his style IS what his supporters like.

    [ Parent ]

    Whisper in Springfield... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:39:51 AM EST
    WTF...he said it as many times as McCain says friends.  

    [ Parent ]
    Springfield is to Obama as (none / 0) (#156)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:55:17 AM EST
    that S.C. coal mine is to John Edwards.  

    [ Parent ]
    yeah, I love his speaking style (none / 0) (#160)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:06:39 AM EST
    Hillary's speech tonite I found very odd. Droning, and she seemed to be rushing through it.
    I guess personal style taste colors our perceptions.

    [ Parent ]
    gives congrats to hillary..friends before and afte (none / 0) (#52)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:01:18 PM EST
    condolences to victims of tonight tornadoes.

    very classy

    [ Parent ]

    It is a first...first time for everything (none / 0) (#58)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:04:58 PM EST
    Actually...he seemed much more likable

    [ Parent ]
    What's going on (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:01:05 PM EST
    with NM?  I haven't seen anything.

    Anyone notice the rather aggressive jabs BO is taking at HRC in his speak.  I say it's time to call him out for not leading a movement against this war when he could have.  Comparing himself to MLK in this respect is ridiculous.  Beyond his near exact voting record with HRC once he got in the Senate, he didn't do anything except a speech in 2002.  Did he?

    What I Noticed (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:06:55 PM EST
    Is that it's long and didn't start until after 11 p.m. eastern time.  

    We also know for all the talk of momentum, he hasn't really won any states where he wasn't close or ahead a couple of weeks ago.  Although admittedly California is still out.  All that glowing press and he still couldn't overtake Clinton in most of the big states.

    And even if he eeks out a popular vote win in Missouri, it looks to me, based on the CNN maps of where Clinton and Obama won votes, that Clinton is likely to get more delegates since she won more CDs.  

    One of the things that's been driving me crazy to night is the talk about how Obama just didn't have enough time to catch Clinton, that he was surging, but not enough.  As if Obama didn't know the primaries were on Feb. 5th.

    [ Parent ]

    MO Delegates (none / 0) (#104)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:30:54 PM EST
    Not all those CDs have equal weight. The Kansas City/St. Louis districts have much more weight than the rest of the districts do. I think the delegates will break about even in MO.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, Thanks (none / 0) (#110)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:33:33 PM EST
    Last time I listen to John King.  I can't believe I listened to him to begin with.

    Given the closeness of the popular vote, an even split would probably be fair.

    [ Parent ]

    A Little Confused (none / 0) (#166)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:18:02 AM EST
    CNN election site is showing Obama getting 6 delegates in MO and Clinton 15.

    Is their site incorrect?

    [ Parent ]

    Pretty hard NOT to notice! (none / 0) (#55)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:03:03 PM EST
    We...all inclusive....good speechwriter...is Sorenson still producing???

    [ Parent ]
    Zogby had (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:18:08 PM EST
    BO and Mittens winning, he's got some splain'n to do!

    Bad night for the Kennedys--minus RFK's kids, especially his namesake, the environmental champion, who I thought might pull weight with Edwards people. Anyone else think that?

    Yes...small impact but may (none / 0) (#89)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:21:03 PM EST
    be important to those undecideds in environmental community...if there were any...they tend to get it together and 'endorse' in their organizations with vote tallies, etc. pretty early on...

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn, I owe you an apology (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:19:46 PM EST
    Carl Bernstein is by far the worst commentator on television.  Sure, I agreed before that he was awful, but I don't think I realized how awful until you pointed it out.

    Hey, maybe you owe me an apology because I used to be able to ignore the awfulness that is Carl Bernstein before you pointed out how very vile he is.  

    OMG (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:23:10 PM EST
    They've added Ari Fleisher as a commenter.  Do these folks have no standards at all?

    [ Parent ]
    Getting worse by the day... (none / 0) (#97)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:26:00 PM EST
    selling his book on Hillary is what's going on here.  Transparent and pathetic.

    Almost as annoying as Wolf and/or Lou Dobbs...two stammerer/stutterers who never shut UP...babble on in monotones...and if I had a dollar for every time Blitzer said "right now" I could buy and sell Romney.

    [ Parent ]

    Kos already gave Obama a "wow" tonight (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:21:08 PM EST
    and now has a front page post about Obama's "huge night". I realize this isn't really a big win for either, but expectations this week were that he would/could win more than he did. I don't see the huge win that Kos does. He is counting the number of states won just like Obama's team is.

    Gergen Agrees (none / 0) (#95)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:24:38 PM EST
    Gergen says he'll probably be behind in delegates a little bit, but that he may win 14 of the states, and in a national primary, that's some good bragging rights. It's especially big if he can pull off Missouri.

    Also, Obama can say that he won in every part of the country. Not that Hillary didn't, but Obama wasn't "expected" to. I'm telling you, Axelrod's a friggin' genius the way he's run his campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama wins in red states (none / 0) (#103)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:30:37 PM EST
    so how will that help democrats in the GE?

    [ Parent ]
    Because blue states will vote for him anyways. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:32:34 PM EST
    I think it's a mistake for the Dems to nominate another "Northeast liberal." The last couple haven't worked out so well.

    [ Parent ]
    Like Gore? (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:11:44 AM EST
    did Tennessee move?

    [ Parent ]
    Not people from NE. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:35:12 AM EST
    But people whose strengths are in the Northeast as opposed to the Midwest, South, Plains, or West.

    We always do well in the Northeast and California. They'll definitely vote for us again this year, so I'd like to see a candidate who has broad appeal in states we typically suck in instead.

    [ Parent ]

    This misses the point (none / 0) (#128)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:03:35 AM EST
    The "blue" states will go Dem anyway...but the red states are probably going to stay red too...two sides to the coin.

    The media has missed this too...it was a primary...not a GE, so we're seeing Dems in red states voting ...not red states voting for Dems...

    [ Parent ]

    because some of them (none / 0) (#162)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:09:27 AM EST
    may no longer be red.

    That is the point, y'know. Lose the last election, hope to win the next - ergo, you gotta make some red ones blue.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#112)
    by hookfan on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:33:56 PM EST
    Although I voted for clinton, Obama did well, leads in money, and has a favorable primary context coming feb 15.I think it's going to the convention. Dean must be sweating blood.

    Come on CA. come through big. . .

    [ Parent ]

    Called for Hil...sending her some (none / 0) (#115)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:36:13 PM EST
    more $$$ to keep this train rolling...

    [ Parent ]
    Big State Iron mama (none / 0) (#121)
    by hookfan on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:43:34 PM EST
    Hill winning in large majority of big states including (sniff) Florida says much about her electability.

    It's amazing to me with all the negative press, all the obama endorsements, she still stands and leads. That's one tuff mama!

    [ Parent ]

    She rawks (none / 0) (#134)
    by echinopsia on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:13:41 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    gotta count something or the myth dies :-) (none / 0) (#99)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:27:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:28:05 PM EST
    Dems have apparently raised losing to such an art form that losing the popular vote by as much as one million votes and coming in second in nearly every big state is now a WIN.  It's enough to simply close the gap.  That explains a lot about the last eight years.

    And Ed Schultz is just lying - Barack Obama won in rural America.  Some of it yes.  But look at that map of Missouri.  And Arkansas.  And Oklahoma.  And Tennessee.

    And Unless (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:32:10 PM EST
    Obama can simply swamp Clinton with money, which I doubt but you never know, the demographics from tonight make me think he actually might be in more trouble than it appears by simply counting states.  I find it hard to believe that the Democratic nominee can lose huge states and become the nominee on the backs of Utah and North Dakota.

    The real loser of the night is Howard Dean - his decision to strip Michigan and Florida looks more and more likely to come back to haunt him and the party.  What a disaster if there ends up being a bloody fight at the convention on the issue of seating these swing states.

    [ Parent ]

    BO outraiser he in January (none / 0) (#130)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:04:58 AM EST
    But she out raised him in 2007...where are people coming up with the line that she has run out of money...is there a link?

    [ Parent ]
    Josh has a note from reader JS (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:31:58 PM EST
    Just a quick trend to note: Obama seems to do well in states where there are either a huge number of black voters or virtually no black voters at all.

    In states with large urban populations, and ethnic suburban populations, he doesn't do as well.

    He also doesn't do as well in interior southern states.

    In other words, either a state needs to have white voters who have very little experience with ethnic or racial politics, or it needs to have an extremely large black population, in order to vote for Obama
    If this is correct, doesn't bode well (none / 0) (#118)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:39:22 PM EST
    for Dems if Obama is the nominee...

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, like (none / 0) (#164)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:14:03 AM EST
    Illinois? or CT? or MO? or DE?

    [ Parent ]
    OMG (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:36:39 PM EST
    At the beginning of tonight, everyone on CNN agreed the big issue was California.  Clinton won California and so now it doesn't matter.  It simply pales in comparison to Idaho!

    i want to add that hillary is ahead in texas (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:39:44 PM EST
    and we have 200+ votes. and that comes in march!

    If Obama does not win California (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:18:01 PM EST
    this simply is not a good night for him.

    I think it is make or break for him.

    was he expected to win California? (none / 0) (#2)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:20:49 PM EST
    seriously

    [ Parent ]
    Just stop it (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:27:40 PM EST
    Expected means nothing anymore.

    Winning is what matters now.

    If California goes for Hillary she wins the nomination.

    I know NBC does not want to deal with that reality.

    [ Parent ]

    Please blog about Zogby Armando (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:31:14 PM EST
    This man needs to lose all credibility once and for all.  Please don't let him off the hook.  You devastate him the best.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's wait for the votes. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:35:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    "Winning" doesn't matter. (none / 0) (#171)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:53:56 AM EST
    Every delegate gets 1 vote at the Convention. Jimmy Carter's gonna decide this thing.

    [ Parent ]
    Seriously? (none / 0) (#8)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:27:27 PM EST
    Depends who you believed. I think his supporters were serious, don't you? Naturally, they will spin it as if second place and a good effort should be seen as a win, after he loses.

    But seriously now, would you really believe that spin?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm for Obama. I never thougth he'd win (none / 0) (#12)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:29:06 PM EST
    I thought and hoped, he'd make up ground. Guess I need more Kool Aid.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:46:03 PM EST
    when does Obama have to start WINNING?

    [ Parent ]
    When (none / 0) (#41)
    by rilkefan on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:49:30 PM EST
    CW says he has to keep it close tonight and then the coming states are favorable to him.

    I don't understand why Obama needs to win in CA.

    [ Parent ]

    Sadly, I agree. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:58:11 PM EST
    With LA, NE, HI, VA, MD, DC, and WI coming up (a potential Obama sweep), I don't see how he has to win California, as long as he's not more than about 50 delegates behind. Then if he can show strong in Ohio on March 4th, I actually think it's possible he could lock it up.

    It's unfairly biased towards Obama, obviously, and it shouldn't be, but it is. If he's behind, he's "surging", and if he ever gets ahead (which I don't see how he won't), then he will have "won." It's not just the MSM, either. It's how Axelrod and he have purposely designed his campaign.

    Don't discount Axelrod in the GE either. I don't really mind having a "Democratic Karl Rove", as long as we take back the White House.

    [ Parent ]

    TPM says (none / 0) (#50)
    by rilkefan on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:01:02 PM EST
    They assume a comfortable margin for HRC in CA and project the delegate count about even after tonight.

    [ Parent ]
    AP (none / 0) (#61)
    by rilkefan on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:06:43 PM EST
    has HRC up 80 delegates pre-CA so I don't understand the above claim.

    [ Parent ]
    No caucus delegates yet. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:33:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    um........................................... (none / 0) (#88)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:20:44 PM EST
    he doesn't.

    when does Obama have to start WINNING?

    welcome to "through the looking glass" land, where winning is losing and losing is winning. so says humpty dumpty.

    see, as long as sen. obama gets some votes, regardless of the margin of victory for sen. clinton, his campaign can claim a "moral" victory. as the "underdog" (in spite of his wins in iowa and S.C.), he gets extra points just for showing up and taking on that horrid sen. clinton. at least according to the MSM.

    "one pill makes you larger, one pill makes you small, and the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all................"

    [ Parent ]

    More Kool Aid? (none / 0) (#30)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:44:33 PM EST
    I'd say you should stop drinking that stuff. Then maybe you'll be able to see that the emperor has no clothes, before you head over the cliff with the rest of the lemmings.

    (How about that for a giddy wine-induced mix of metaphors? Yes, I know I should stop drinking this stuff, but not tonight ... ;-)

    No offense meant, byteb, I'm sure you have sincere and rational motivations for supporting your candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    No offense taken. I do have rational and (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:09:31 PM EST
    sincere reasons for supporting him and I never saw him as an Emperor. At this point in time, I'm a little cynical towards politicians even Democratic ones.
    One thing I do know, we need to come together and support the Democratic nominee and make sure McCain or Mittens or Huckleberry don't become the next President. So I come here to mitigate any lasting effects of that delicious Kool Aid in Hillary is The One. :)

    [ Parent ]
    insert a 'case' after the 'in' (none / 0) (#74)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:10:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If Hillary is THE ONE (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:36:01 PM EST
    We will welcome you gladly and with no recriminations.

    We'll even say nice things about your boy Barry.

    We're nice like that.;-)

    Go Dems!

    [ Parent ]

    Same here. We welcome all Hillary supporters,.Bill (none / 0) (#122)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:45:01 PM EST
    Clinton too. No recriminations either...except for perhaps if you call Barack "your boy Barry" again.
    We're like that too. ;)


    [ Parent ]
    Thin skinned much? (none / 0) (#139)
    by echinopsia on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:27:01 AM EST
    WTF is wrong with "your boy Barry"? I wouldn't get all bent out of shape over "your girl Hilly."

    [ Parent ]
    "Barry" not so bad; it was his nickname (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:53:23 AM EST
    so just tell us what you were called as a kid.

    But "boy" -- nope, not good.  You must know the connotations of that in our horrid racial history.

    Not that I like "girl," but it doesn't have the same connotations.  Those other names for women that are hurled at Hillary, those are awful -- and those are like using "boy" for an African American man.

    And I am a Clinton backer, and I don't like Obama much -- but I respect his accomplishments, too.  So let's be careful here.  We have to come together again for one or the other and make it work.

    [ Parent ]

    No way (none / 0) (#24)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:40:57 PM EST
    The delegate count is estimated to be a tie, with the rest of the month favoring Obama, and a big Obama fundraising advantage.  

    A tie is a tie.

    Has a nomination ever been so close in this century?  This is pretty crazy.

    [ Parent ]

    Um...this century is 7 years old... (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:50:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#48)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:58:45 PM EST
    How about last 100 years?  How embarassing...

    [ Parent ]
    Heh. I knew what you meant... (none / 0) (#125)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:57:26 PM EST
    I was just giving you the biz...

    [ Parent ]
    according to Zogby, (none / 0) (#3)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:22:11 PM EST
    yes, it is supposed to be a rout.  Ve shall see...

    zogby??? (none / 0) (#4)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:23:16 PM EST
    Zogby is usually wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    Axelrod just said (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:23:36 PM EST
    they don't expect to win California but they expect to get a big chunk of delegates. He said early voting before Obama's surge will hurt.

    I'll predict he'll win Colorado though, particularly with Denver and Boulder.

    Axelrod was crowing about winning states ... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:33:17 PM EST
    ... even though he knows that "winning ten States to their seven" is totally irrelevant. Spin, spin, spin! If you looked carefully, I swear you could almost see his head spinning! Maybe someone should explain the delegate system to him?

    [ Parent ]
    Douglas County, CO (none / 0) (#28)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:42:53 PM EST
    Just like your caucus and the results statewide so far, 2 to 1 Obama.

    Iowa caucuses (when I used to live there) are way more fun than Colorado.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary wins (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:23:56 PM EST
    Do the Calculation on the CNN exit poll numbers, and you get Hillary- 50.7% ; Obama - 44.4% according to a diarist who did the math at dkos.

    andgarden (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:25:58 PM EST
    I dunno...I didn't trust Kos before, so maybe I shouldn't trust them now...

    Hillary is polling below Obama in white voters, but she's doing extremely well with Asians (whom he seems to have forgotten about) and Latinos (who haven't had enough time to fall completely in love with him yet)

    Scary stuff.

    [ Parent ]

    kos didn't do this math (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:28:16 PM EST
    and even if he did, it's right.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw the numbers on CNN's exit polling page (none / 0) (#26)
    by Angel on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:42:02 PM EST
    and it looks like HRC will win.  She gets the older voters which outnumbered the younger voters, a huge chunk of the 60+ white voters, and about 60+ percent of the Latino voters, as well as 64 percent of Other Races.  

    [ Parent ]
    I know Zogby's usually wrong (none / 0) (#11)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:28:36 PM EST
    but his polls are given attention and are used in the average totals, even if they are an outlier.  So in that respect they matter.

    I just read that AP called MO for Hillary.  I'm surprised b/c it was really narrowing, but then again, Conn. had been b/w 3-4% ahead and that was called a while ago.  

    and while (none / 0) (#13)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:31:04 PM EST
    the Potomac primary favors BO, OH and I think possibly TX, favor HRC.  I can't believe we have more weeks of this!

    NJDem (none / 0) (#19)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:38:38 PM EST
    I know--so depressing this is going to be dragged out.  Dean needs to get Clinton and Obama together and tell them, "this is what we are going to do."  I think who gets the top spot will depend on CA, but I don't think NJ, NY and MA disregarded, either.

    Texas is huge.  Not sure what number of delegates they have, but they certainly have a lot.

    [ Parent ]

    Pennsylvania is the next biggie on April 22nd (none / 0) (#27)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:42:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Clinton will win pop. vote in California (none / 0) (#17)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:37:37 PM EST
    early votes and last minute deciders are in her favor.  

    Thanks Kathy! (none / 0) (#21)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:40:33 PM EST
    Glad we're all in this together :)

    Demos (none / 0) (#23)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:40:46 PM EST
    I'm interested to see if Obama has improved his demos outside of States he won big like Georgia and Illinois.  If he's still losing women and hispanics, I don't see how he wins Texas and some of the other later states.  Unless, of course, Hillary really is broke, which I doubt.
    Could Obama come back in MO? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:41:57 PM EST
    It looks like Obama's seriously closing the gap in Missouri. He's to within just a few thousand votes now with about 10% left to be counted. Arizona's narrowing as well. What shall happen?

    It's been callled for Hillary (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:43:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It has? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:47:14 PM EST
    I don't see it being called for her, but I'm paying attention to CNN. I think it'll be exceedingly close in MO, especially if he keeps closing the gap.

    [ Parent ]
    AP knows more about this stuff (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:48:15 PM EST
    than anybody.

    when they call it it means something.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama within app. 4000 votes (none / 0) (#67)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:08:11 PM EST
    with 4% left.  No difference in delegates, but bragging rights help.

    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:10:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm worried about MO too (none / 0) (#35)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:47:10 PM EST
    but AP and a major St. Louis paper (sorry, forgot the name) called it for HRC, so they must know something.  It will be very close though.

    And in one county (Johnson??) (none / 0) (#43)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:50:32 PM EST
    Not one precinct has been reported

    [ Parent ]
    Polls held open in Alameda Co., CA (none / 0) (#42)
    by yerioy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:49:49 PM EST
    Polling places have been running out of ballots in Berkeley and a judge has ruled that the polls stay open until 9 pm.

    I've heard of running out of ballots in Santa Clara Co. as well. So counting will run even later.

    Is the Sec of State a Dem? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:58:53 PM EST
    get ready for the headlines if Hillary wins Cal...

    ...another stolen election?  Bill Clinton did it.

    Obama now has a movement.  Clever.  

    [ Parent ]

    That quote tonight was troubling (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:07:43 PM EST
    I though we already had a movement...he seems to be saying he's got his own...separate...different movement...

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, she is (none / 0) (#96)
    by yerioy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:25:42 PM EST
    Debra Bowen is a Democrat.

    Now the polls will stay open until 10 pm for those who arrived there before 8 pm tonight. The problem is the Decline to State people are allowed to request Democratic ballots. So they are copying more right now.

    [ Parent ]

    He's no Arlo Guthrie (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:32:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Is Alice's open? I'm hongry! (none / 0) (#123)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:50:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Arlo endordsed Ron Paul. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:00:13 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    UC Berkeley and Stanford (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by DA in LA on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:22:43 PM EST
    Ran out of ballots.

    Not a good sign.

    Add in the ballot problem in LA County and you have a mess.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:01:37 PM EST
    CNN has more up to date results.

    Obama just pulled ahead in MO. . . (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:07:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    :P Great minds think alike. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:07:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The other problem with CA exit polls (none / 0) (#60)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:06:41 PM EST
    We have 3 million absentee ballots already sent in, with the state expecting around 4 million total.  That's, um, a lot.  

    Obama takes the lead in MO (none / 0) (#62)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:06:54 PM EST
    He's up by 3000 votes now with less than 4% to count. I don't care if the AP has called it for Clinton, I don't know if she'll win it.

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:09:03 PM EST
    But who knows what the actual numbers are.

    [ Parent ]
    Edwards at 10% (none / 0) (#69)
    by rilkefan on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:08:42 PM EST
    Anyone understand that?

    pretty impressive (none / 0) (#107)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:32:15 PM EST
    Considering he dropped out a week ago. I expect some of that is from absentee ballots, but still.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton ahead in delegates (none / 0) (#73)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:10:23 PM EST
    ...not including her lead in super delegates says C-SPAN

    Haven't counted caucus votes yet (none / 0) (#77)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:13:24 PM EST
    A lot of the caucus delegates haven't been counted yet. Right now Hillary's up by 60 or so delegates, but they've yet to count more of Obama's states (Idaho, Colorado, Kansas, etc.) than Hillary's states, because Obama had more caucuses.

    [ Parent ]
    Can't count them until (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:18:09 PM EST
    they play out at county, cong. dist. and state conventions...weeks if not months from now...

    [ Parent ]
    MO (none / 0) (#75)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:10:35 PM EST
    according to CNN is at 97% with both of them at 49% but BO up.  Could all of those outlets have gotten it wrong?  It seems like he will win considering the demographic of what's left to be counted?

    Now msnbc has BO up by 49/48% in MO--I can't believe this!

    I Wish There Wasn't A Ban On Cursing Here n/t (none / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:18:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    msnbc just called CA for HRC!!!! (none / 0) (#76)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:12:46 PM EST
    this early no less!  This is great, right?

    Yes!! (none / 0) (#78)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:13:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't trust it. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:23:01 PM EST
    She probably will win CA, but considering what I'm watching unfold in MO, don't count your chickens with this little of the vote in, and especially most of Obama's areas not in yet. That's the trouble with Obama--he does well where the votes are counted last, which makes me lose a ton of sleep.

    [ Parent ]
    I am worried (none / 0) (#126)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:02:27 AM EST
    Also for from the other side, are these the early votes?  

    [ Parent ]
    Edwards has about 10% of votes in CA (none / 0) (#102)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:28:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Arizona for Hil...51 to 41% (none / 0) (#79)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:14:36 PM EST


    Just under 5000 votes...Obama (none / 0) (#81)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:16:04 PM EST
    ahead in Mo.

    AP is going to be embarrassed if these numbers are right...

    NBC just called CA for McCain (none / 0) (#82)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:17:33 PM EST
    the exit poll makes that seem a little premature.

    CNN Calls CA (none / 0) (#98)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:27:25 PM EST
    Cnn just called called CA for Clinton.

    Clinton ahead in New Mexico (none / 0) (#101)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:28:10 PM EST


    The delegate count (none / 0) (#114)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:36:12 PM EST
    will have to wait until CA is divided no?  I think a lot of the spin will depend on the margin in CA.

    But b/c of what's going on in MO, I think we're all a bit skeptical of early reports.  

    ya'll need to come and hold me down. (none / 0) (#117)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:38:29 PM EST
    the pundits on cnn are making me really mad.

    hey dufuses, hillary won super tuesday. i turn on cnn, and i hear "it is hard to beat a movement." consider it done for tonight, cnn. she won!

    msnbc (none / 0) (#120)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:43:13 PM EST
    just called MO for BO.  What a night!  I can't believe AP got it wrong.

    cnn if finally (none / 0) (#127)
    by NJDem on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:03:12 AM EST
    reporting about NM--HRC is up, but w/in the MOE @ 1% in.  I thought I read somewhere she was up by a larger margin. Why did NM take so long--voter irregularities I guess.

    Amazing how HRC's wins in NJ, CA, NY and MA will somehow be spin'ed to reflect something negative.  How HRC will raise serious $$ is another unfavorable matter.      

    Chris Matthews accidentally (none / 0) (#131)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:08:46 AM EST
    confuses Obama with McCain.

    The Obama people do think they can "wear Hillary down." Where? Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania? I doubt it.

    Whatever: California is a Non-Story (none / 0) (#132)
    by Seneca on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:11:31 AM EST
    California is a non-story. Obama never expected to win anyway. He'll pull enough delegates to keep the race close and the dump tons of money into Ohio and Pennsylvania and win them both.

    California is a non story? (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:13:42 AM EST
    He poured everything here. Brought his big guns, money, time.  

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's endoresments (none / 0) (#136)
    by ding7777 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:14:42 AM EST
    Gov. Janet Napolitano  - AZ

    Ben Nelson - FL

    Kennedy/Kerry - MA

    Catskil - MO

    Ned Lamont - CT

    Governor Kathleen Sebelius - KS

    I think the only endorsement which may have actually helped him was Ned Lamont in CT.

    Even if Obama wins MO, I thought Catskill's endorsement benefited her more than him.  

    Well... (none / 0) (#169)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:21:51 AM EST
    ... lets see.

    Arizona was closer that it was thought it would be a couple of weeks ago.

    Massachusetts was significantly closer than it was a few weeks ago.

    Obama won MO.  Obama won in CT.  Obama won in a landslide in KS.

    So how can you say the endorsements didn't matter?

    [ Parent ]

    How did Hillary "win"? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Seneca on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:17:28 AM EST
    Okay, I want everyone claiming that Hillary somehow "won" tonight to state the criteria by which they define "winning." Sure, she won the states she thought she would, but she'll probably lose the delegate race.

    Secondly, I find it astonishing to see an entire blog devoted to Hillary partisans. How can anyone be enthusiastic about a shrill, latter-day Machiavelli whose only "experience" is serving as the wife of a president and spending a few years as a do-nothing Senator who never risked one bit of political capital to achieve something. Just what has Hillary done to improve this country for which we should commend her?

    Hillary Won (none / 0) (#142)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:34:41 AM EST
    Because she got a lot more democrats to vote for her than Barack Obama did.  When the popular vote gets added up, she's going to have beaten him by almost one million votes.  

    She also won because - despite all of Obama's alleged momentum - she won all of the states she was supposed to win.  She also held her base together - women, Latinos, working class democrats.  Given that she was seen as the frontrunner going in, if she won what she was supposed to win it stands to reason that she did what she needed to do to win the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    Considering she's ahead (none / 0) (#153)
    by DA in LA on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:50:45 AM EST
    by 100,000 now.  I wish you luck with that one million.

    [ Parent ]
    It ain't luck (none / 0) (#165)
    by joc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:16:34 AM EST

    Look at the numbers that are coming in from California. She's up by 300,000 with 34% reporting. If the trend holds, she'll have 900,000 more votes in California alone.

    She'll beat Obama by a number much closer to 1,000,000 than 100,000.

    [ Parent ]

    Estimates of the Popular vote (none / 0) (#167)
    by joc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:20:21 AM EST

    Assuming things hold out in California (and the few other states that haven't reported more than 98%), a quick estimate of the popular vote for the day is as follows:

    Hillary Clinton 8,200,000
    Barack Obama 7,500,000

    [ Parent ]

    Won't be that big a spread (none / 0) (#168)
    by DA in LA on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:21:20 AM EST
    The problems in LA County still have to be addressed and the places where polls where held open late were because of independent voters in college towns.  That mean Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    And, it's closed to 300,000 (none / 0) (#170)
    by DA in LA on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:44:15 AM EST
    And Lawsuits will be filed over the LA County ballots.

    [ Parent ]
    Kiddo (none / 0) (#149)
    by echinopsia on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:44:07 AM EST
    obviously your mind's made up. Why should anyone waste time trying to change it?

    Shrill, eh? I think we know where you're coming from.

    BTW, how can anyone get excited about a minimally-experienced freshman senator who doesn't have any political capital to spend?

    [ Parent ]

    Naw, really, (none / 0) (#151)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:48:53 AM EST
    Never heard any of that, darn and I voted for her today.   Well, we know all the criticisms all the shortcomings.  

    Well, we felt welcome here, people don't tell us to shut up, that we are xlfdkf, or *&^%$ and there are rules that are enforced.  

    [ Parent ]

    Obama campaigned in Cali ONCE (none / 0) (#138)
    by Seneca on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:19:32 AM EST
    Oh my god Stella, don't blog drunk!

    Obama totally NEGLECTED California, campaigning there once, I believe (not counting the Oprah event).

    Wait a minute- (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by echinopsia on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:48:33 AM EST
    Didn't he send his "Dream Team" to California for him?

    Oprah, Michelle, Caroline, plus a surprise appearance by Maria?

    So now you're saying your guy ignored CA?

    Well, OK. Whose fault was that? That was dumb, wasn't it?

    [ Parent ]

    The Hampton Girls (none / 0) (#152)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:49:52 AM EST
    One plutocrat and two aristocrats.  That resonated.  

    [ Parent ]
    WaPo Lists 38 Obama Campaign Events In CA (none / 0) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:37:13 AM EST
    List from 1/07 to 2/08

    WaPo

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, Please (none / 0) (#145)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:39:07 AM EST
    He did more than one event here.  He's been here a number of times.  He spent quite a bit of money on organization and on television.  He worked hard to win Latino votes.  He worked hard to win women, sending Oprah.  It didn't matter.

    CNN's Popular Vote difference - way to put it up before California comes in, CNN, since Clinton is on track to beat Obama by 1,000,000 votes in California.  Gee, I wonder why they didn't wait until California came in or note that it was going to change?  


    [ Parent ]

    Obama's campaign (none / 0) (#147)
    by ding7777 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:41:22 AM EST
    has not ignored CA nor has his "celebrity" cheerleaders.

    [ Parent ]
    New Mexico (none / 0) (#154)
    by nycvoter on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:51:13 AM EST
    can anyone provide any comfort??

    Timmeh (none / 0) (#157)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:59:38 AM EST
    This result in California can't be right.  Pumpkinhead himself said that hispanics would go for Obama because Ted Kennedy asked them to because latinos supposedly have a picture of JFK on their walls.  That couldn't have been eastern, elitist crap, could it?  Of course not.  So Obama won California by winning hispanics.  I do not care what the voters said.  Timmeh told me otherwise.

    exit polling (none / 0) (#159)
    by wasabi on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:04:49 AM EST
    I just looked a the exit polling for CA and Clinton won or tied for every age group.  That sure doesn't match any other state so far.

    Ballot shortages in CA (none / 0) (#163)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:09:32 AM EST
    Big issues not enough ballots in Alameda County.  

    Hillary Wins California | 172 comments (172 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment