CNN's Delegate Assessment

1:39 am ET: Wolf Blitzer on CNN gives these Democratic delegate totals:

Hillary Clinton 591
Barack Obama 476
Total Needed 2025

That's it for me tonight. The spin on both sides begins tomorrow.

AS for my take, let's see who won the popular vote nationally and who has the largest delegate total. I may be in the minority on this, but I don't give much weight to winning the rural, less populated states with few delgates. Particularly those that aren't likely to go Democratic in the general election. (Idaho, Utah, Alaska, etc.)

What Obama has going for him is momentum. The question is, how long will it continue? Hillary has the big states and the biggest number of Democratic voters. The California delegate breakdown will be important. And a big unknown is still the superdelegates in all the states.

< Hillary and Obama: Difference in Tone | After Super Tuesday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Chuck Todd, MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:56:21 AM EST

    CNN has HRC up over 100 delegates. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:29:56 AM EST
    Momentum (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Grey on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:18:49 AM EST
    Obama's momentum?  How much more momentum and time does a person need?  The media have been slobbering all over him for the past few weeks (I'm using South Carolina as a marker) and they intensified the love since the Kennedy endorsement.  That, by the way, tracks with Obama's rise in the polls, which makes it clear, at least to me, that Obama's rise is as real as it is manufactured and manipulated.

    For days now, I've been listening to pundits say that whomever won California would be considered ahead no matter what else happened.  And what happened?  Clinton won it and rather decisively, so now California is no longer the big prize.  I'm shocked.

    Going forward, Obama has an edge in the Potomac primaries, but Clinton has an edge in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.  Those are bigger prizes, so it swings back to Clinton; the media won't say it, it'll take March to show it to the rest of the country, but that is where things are going.

    About MI and FL; Dean was on MSNBC yesterday and basically said what Clinton has been saying all along: they can appeal to the committee to be counted and/or the pledged delegates can vote and decide what to do.  You've got to think that is an advantage for Clinton because who is going to want to piss off Florida and the million and a half people who showed up to vote even though they knew they weren't getting any delegates?  Is the Democratic party going to tell them they don't count?  I don't think so.  Dean also said he wants the candidates to work this out before the convention: that was a red flag for me.  I don't know how the DNC will save face on this, but they'll find a way.

    Early bird special - Clinton 825 Obama 732 (CNN) (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ellie on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:40:24 AM EST
    Via Clinton, Obama both claim Democratic victories
    She wins the California prize and more delegates, but he takes more states. By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times

    Obama won 12 of 22 states -- but not California, the day's most coveted prize. [...]

    Clinton won big in the Northeast: her home state of New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. [...]

    Although there's still a long way to go and the media are calling it a draw, it wasn't a good night for Obama IMO.

    He got more states, but campaign needed to score some of the following to be meaningful to maintaining or increasing his momentum:

    More delegates (Clinton got them)
    California (to HRC)
    Massachusetts (HRC's, after the big story was all those Uber Dems endorsing Obama)

    He didn't even knock HRC down, which he should have given that, after the debate, she got busy pummeling BushCo but he was still talking about what was wrong with HRC.

    No big deal on its own, but if Changing the Discourse is his big theme, continuing to snipe after scoring the agreement from his rivals to play nice is just lame.

    He was dialing back expectations yesterday and his speech at his headquarters was lacklustre. I still like HIM (and Hillary, too) but after all the free publicity about Obamania he should have done better. Someone in the other thread recommended this item at the Washington Note.

    Looking at this with a former organizer's eye, the kind of supporters his campaign is drawing are notoriously unreliable. The campaign needs to score bragging rights beyond exciting events or it's just going to fizzle on Election Day.

    HRC's got the more stable support (older, more experienced at networking, GOTV).

    It seems to me that if what Obama has (4.00 / 3) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:18:38 AM EST
    has going for him is momentum, he would have won the popular vote tonight in CA.  

    To Aaron: I must infer you (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:58:03 AM EST
    think your candidate did not do well on Super Tuesday.  

    Wash Post & NY Times have HRC at around 630 (none / 0) (#2)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:01:42 AM EST
    and BO at 530 (plus/minus a couple).  

    Another thought for those of you still up:  go over and read Steve Clemons at Washington Note.  He has been unbiased through this entire process and has some interesting observations, especially in regard to the mood in the Obama camp tonight.

    AWarning: anecdotal evidence. (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:16:50 AM EST
    I was with five people tonight, all highly educated professionals and upper middle class.  All except me voted for Obama.  They find his speeches inspiring and are worried about "Hillary hate."  Surprised me.  

    Heard this (none / 0) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:23:35 AM EST
    More people voted for Hillary and Obama individually than for McCain.  

    But will Obama voters vote for (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:25:58 AM EST
    HRC in the GE?  Will Michelle Obama work for HRC in the GE?  Inquiring minds want to know.

    I think McCain deserves a big pat on the back for overcoming Rush-fueled McCain hate.  


    And no money. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:26:53 AM EST
    Talk about comeback.  

    I'm not sure I can watch McCain's (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:28:41 AM EST
    spouse stand next to him for four long years.  Or Romney's for that matter.  

    Romney is done (none / 0) (#13)
    by diplomatic on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:35:31 AM EST
    Huckabee was his worst nightmare last night.

    And his poor mom (none / 0) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:38:27 AM EST
    He keeps showing her to tell people, look, good genes.

    If they don't (none / 0) (#15)
    by echinopsia on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:42:53 AM EST
    They're no Dems.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:35:51 AM EST
    Many of Obama's supporters are independents who buy into his change and "there are no red states or blue states" meme.

    No one can win (none / 0) (#27)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:44:05 AM EST
    with party members alone. You need independents.

    jesus (none / 0) (#46)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:38:04 AM EST
    i think the clinton's know what it takes to win the presidency.  let's see how many democrats presidents have had that have won since ww2?  hmmmmmm......????

    and can you name him?


    won twice (none / 0) (#47)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:38:33 AM EST
    won twice since ww2 i meant to say.

    Small, Rural states (none / 0) (#5)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:21:40 AM EST
    It's not the small population of these states that makes winning them a bit of a cheat, it's that they were all caucuses - people didn't actually vote.  And those who did were a tiny fraction of the total population.

    They used the momentum (none / 0) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:26:09 AM EST
    in these states.  What is interesting are the socio economic lines.  

    Yes (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:51:37 AM EST
    I attended a few caucuses when I lived in Denver and quickly discovered what the phrase "true believers" means. It was amazing to see people who were normally as polite as could be turn into demons of democracy....lol....before my eyes.

    Seven more contests by this time next week. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:27:54 AM EST
    Lots of momentum (and delegates) to be had.

    just heard story (none / 0) (#17)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:44:35 AM EST
    in alaska they were lined up to change party affliations to vote for Obama just to screw up the democrats...nice...

    well just look at the raw numbers (none / 0) (#18)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:56:42 AM EST
    from alaska.  obama won the dem side with 300 out of slightly over 400 total votes cast.  

    romney got more than 5,000 on the republican side.

    so basically the turnout statewide was 400 dems to almost 10,000 repugs.


    Re: (none / 0) (#21)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:59:53 AM EST
    Those numbers represent delegates, not voters.

    no - you are wrong (none / 0) (#23)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:16:07 AM EST
    that is the turnout number straight from cnn.  alaska does not have 500 democratic delegates.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:08:17 AM EST
    You seriously think only 400 people showed up to vote in the entire state of Alaska?

    The numbers are state-level delegates.  That's the way they report every caucus state.  Look again.


    okay (none / 0) (#45)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:36:39 AM EST
    yes.  i am willing to concede that it was a caucus and not a primary.  i was mistaken.

    the point i was making was that the number for the dem total was 400, while the total for the repubs was 10,000.

    that's what i was reporting here.  sorry i don't meet the obama electoral minutae expert hand wringer standards.

    do you concede now that you see my point comparing dem to rep turnout?  and that obama can't win alaska in the general?  

    care to comment on those points?


    Of course (none / 0) (#48)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:50:58 AM EST
    Obama or any other Democrat surely has no chance to win Alaska in the general.  But you can't tell anything about the actual number of D's and R's who showed up to caucus by looking at the results.

    ? so there was (none / 0) (#49)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:09:46 AM EST
    so there was a dem caucus and a repub primary?  or there are 10k delegates to the repub convention?  or maybe i can tell the number of repubs that showed up by looking at the number that showed up?  read your last sentence again and tell me you aren't spinning here.  

    I'm not spinning (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:06:58 PM EST
    I frankly don't understand why you refuse to grasp the point.  Every single caucus state, from Iowa to Alaska, reports the results in terms of state delegates and not in terms of raw voters.  You have to glean the voter turnout from news reports and the like.

    For example, here is an Anchorage Daily News report that says Democrats had 4,000 voters show up in Anchorage alone, the previous record for that site being 254.  Can we agree yet that total Democratic turnout in Alaska was not 400?


    on the other hand (none / 0) (#20)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:58:53 AM EST
    some of these states are looking very good to go over to the democratic side in november.

    missouri, oklahoma, tennessee, arkansas all had huge margins of dems turning out over republicans

    georgia was slightly more dems than repugs.  

    so that is a very good sign.

    alabama (none / 0) (#22)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:15:00 AM EST
    is a lot closer than i thought it would be too.  virutally dead even dems/reps.

    arizona is close but still slightly more than 100k more republicans turned out.  


    Birds in hand (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:04:23 AM EST
    vs birds in the bush.

    Turn out now has nothing to do with turn out in November.

    Obama is getting a huge number of black voters, which in the past were split between the Demo candidates. In the GE's the black vote has routinely went 80% Demo. If Obama doesn't get nominated, will the trend continue?


    If Michigan and Florida aren't Re-Instated (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:01:05 AM EST
    AND re-instating the delegates from those states would prove to make a difference in the outcome of this primary, the Democratic Party will truly have a crisis on it's hands.

    Anyway, one of the things people should keep in mind, if Obama wins, he needs to win in such a way that the Michigan and Florida delegates, if re-instated, would not change or take away his victory.

    If, in the end, he wins because of this unresolved issue, because, in this one primary, for whatever reason, a couple states were ignored, it will have long lasting ramifications within the party.

    People will remember.

    Super delegates... (none / 0) (#26)
    by dutchfox on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:39:17 AM EST
    What role will they play? My hunch is that they'll give it to HRC.

    Super delegates are likely to decide this. (none / 0) (#29)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:49:04 AM EST
    I think this won't be over till the fat lady sings, that fat lady will be superdelegate Al Gore. But I don't think he'll declare till there's an obvious winner.

    That is a point. (none / 0) (#28)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:45:32 AM EST
    The Obama campaign clearly is a "movement" campaign and needs momentum. The primary calender lends itself well to such a campaign, and they have done a good job of running the campaign that way.

    However, ever since SC, Obama has gotten tons of positive media attention, high profile endorsements, etc. While Hillary (or especially Bill) was roundly trashed. It seemed impossible for her to 'win' a newscycle. The pundits were drooling over her poll numbers going down.

    Yet, despite all this, her base remains stable and turns out for her. Whereas with his movement/momentum campaign, there is a danger for Obama that the excitement will wear off. Maybe not even by much, but enough to make him lose enough delegates to hand it to Clinton.

    But, it's on to Saturday, when Obama is favored to win several more states. Which will give him yet more positive media attention. So who knows. Maybe there's just enough momentum left for him to clinch it.

    One last thing about "momentum".. while primary season lends itself to such a campaign, the general election campaign doesn't. If you go around for several months, without any "wins", giving speeches about how "there's something in the air" and "our time has come", it will get old pretty quickly. So if Obama gets the nomination, I wonder how his campaign will adjust.

    Obama In The General Election? (none / 0) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:22:41 AM EST
    If he wins, I wonder how much further right he will campaign and in which areas.

    Well... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:53:04 AM EST
    It's post Super Tuesday.  Does this mean Edwards and Richardson will announce who they support?

    I am just sick about this.  "He won more states" is more important than "she won the popular vote and more delegates."  The folks who scream disenfranchisement if a step leading to a polling place is broken have no problem at all with saying Obama "won."

    I think Howard Dean needs to step in and tell Obama that Hillary has the Superdelegates and he needs to take a VP slot instead of dragging this out.  Which is what Obama should have done in the first place.  Knowing what I know about Hillary Clinton, I would bet money that she offered Obama the VP slot a year ago and he passed her up because he is so arrogant.  The great uniter dividing the party.

    And I am sick of people saying that the Clinton campaign is running out of money.  They raised 13mm last month, they had a 10mm+ advantage last quarter and did not spend all their cash.  Not to mention...has anyone looked at the Clinton's tax returns?  Bill made around 40mm bucks last year.  They could easily throw in ten more without sweating it.

    Ummm. . . (none / 0) (#31)
    by hookfan on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:12:18 AM EST
    does Howard control the superdelegates?

    Dean (none / 0) (#35)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:39:38 AM EST
    can call in favors and get superdelegates to go ahead and commit.  He is the leader of the DNC, after all.  He was able to call Clinton and Obama and tell their respective camps to be more civil.  The man exercises a lot of behind the scenes control. That is the nature of his job: to protect the party.  If he sees that what is going on is bad for the party, he can stop this.

    And, Hillary has more superdelegates at the moment anyway.

    I think with Kennedy not even being able to swing MA for Obama, and not just that but losing by a chunk of the vote, Obama's old guard buddies have lost their teeth.  I mean figuratively, as I am sure most of them lost their literal teeth many years ago.


    Obama (none / 0) (#33)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:23:25 AM EST
    Obama claims to have won more delegates on Sup Tue than the Hillster.  If that is true, the premise of your post falls.

    Obama's Night (none / 0) (#38)
    by mouth of the south on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:52:11 AM EST
    I can't tell you how deflated I was last night about 11:30 when I returned to my computer to read the blogs.  The first blog I visited was this one and the post read Obama's Bad Night.  I nearly fell off my chair!  How can it be a bad night for the underdog to win 14 out of 22 contests and be just over 100 votes behind the "sure thing" candidate? I must be living in another universe.

    And why is it a good thing that she wins the hispanic vote but its a bad thing that he wins the black vote?  You imply that the only reason he wins is the black vote.  Huh?  Then why isn't the opposite true of her - the only reason she wins is the hispanic vote. And also remember this, there are a lot more black voters in our party than hispanic voteres.

    I am Southern and a life long Democrat and I can tell you that the black vote is of tremendous importance to our party.  We can't win without an energized black vote.  Just look at the Gore and Kerry campaigns if you don't believe that.  As for the hispanic voters, they will vote Democratic even if Hillary is not the candidate because they have turned against the Republicans.  But the blacks will have lost the wind in their sails and will not be motivated to vote.

    As for HIllary winning New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California, Obama will win them too if he is our nominee.  And don't give me this stuff about winning these small states is meaningless.  You wouldn't be saying that if Hillary had won them and you know it.  Somehow that would have been translated as "her wide appeal."  

    Your post last night about Obama's bad night reminded me a lot of Bill Clinton saying about
    South Carolina that Jesse Jackson had won two elections there.  Everyone  saw his statement as racist and so is your saying that the reason  he won so many states is the black vote.  I say Hooray for that.  We need every vote we can get and none is more valuable that another.  No wonder so many people have turned to Obama.  Hillary's followers are just more of the same old same old - the kind of message that has cost us the last two presidential elections. We always choose the wrong, unelectable candidate.  And you want us to do it again.  Not this time!

    I for one am sick of being told to be afraid.  I am sick of being lied to.  I am sick of being depressed about our country and the peole who are in charge.  I don't want a candidate who has twenty steps to go though before we  can get out of Iraq or have health care.  She niggled health care to death the first time she was in chage of such a program and I have no doubt she will do it again.  

    And finally, she has very high negatives.  What do you think they will be if the party dumps Obams by pushing him out of the campaign?  Many people will not vote for her but will stay home.  It only take a few percentage points to doom her election.

    Too Bad for Obama too (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:09:44 AM EST
    It puts an asterisk next to his name if he wins.

    If I was in the Obama camp, I'd be wishing those delegates counted and working to win in spite of them.

    Not celebrating the party's embarrassment.

    sorry, i don't see momentrum. (none / 0) (#42)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:22:23 AM EST
    what i see is a slobering media, ego driven politicans and obama supporters too driven by attraction to an idea rather than reality.

    wanna bet? (none / 0) (#43)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:23:29 AM EST