Latest AP Super Tuesday Delegate Count: Obama Leads by 2

The AP has released a new delegate count. Obama has 796 and Hillary has 794.

With nearly 1,600 delegates from Tuesday contests awarded, Sen. Barack Obama led by two delegates Friday night, with 91 delegates still to be awarded. Obama won 796 delegates in Tuesday's contests, to 794 for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to an analysis of voting results by The Associated Press.

As for totals to date, the AP includes Superdelegates:

In the overall race for the nomination, Clinton has 1,055 delegates, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates. Obama has 998.

And, finally, an explanation of why it's so hard to count delegates in plain English: [More...]

The problems arose in states with counties that are split into multiple congressional districts.

The states have provided results in each county. But in some cases, they are still working to assign the votes in the appropriate congressional district.

Those votes are important because both parties award delegates based on statewide votes and on results in individual congressional districts. Democrats award them proportionally, meaning precise counts can be necessary, even when the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate.

California is still counting 1 million absentee ballots. Colorado is still counting. New Mexico is still counting.

And here's where the math gets fuzzy:

The AP tracks the delegate races by projecting the number of national convention delegates won by candidates in each presidential primary or caucus, based on state and national party rules, and by interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences.

In some states, like Iowa and Nevada, local precinct caucuses are the first stage in the allocation process. The AP uses preferences expressed in those caucuses to project the number of national convention delegates each candidate will have when they are chosen at county, congressional district or state conventions.

< David Shuster's Apology for Chelsea Clinton Comment | Olbermann on Shuster's Chelsea Comment >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    God (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:05:07 PM EST
    We might have a brokered convention simply because no one manages to get the delegates counted before then.

    For the love of heavens! (none / 0) (#74)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:29:43 AM EST
    which genius came up with this??

    Why don't they just admit it (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by hookfan on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:18:54 PM EST
    Nobody knows who is ahead or behind,who's winning or not, what delegates will be seated or not. I wonder if a vote even matters much as each vote seems to get sucked up into a byzantine delegate machine that few if any know what is the criteria for spitting out at the other end any measurable result. What a mess of dead frogs this primary is.

    one thing is certain though (none / 0) (#75)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:31:19 AM EST
    It's Clinton's fault.  Don't laugh.  People are already talking about drawn out process.... wink wink nudge nudge ...

    GOOD DELEGATE COUNTER SITE (none / 0) (#81)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:08:56 AM EST
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:45:22 PM EST

    There is something to be said for winner take all primaries.  At least they produce a clear winner.

    CNN's new count has Clinton still ahead (none / 0) (#1)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:43:58 PM EST
    with 840 for Clinton, 831 for Obama in caucus/primary delegates -- and 1,033 for Clinton, 937 for Obama including super-delegates.

    sounds like (none / 0) (#2)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:53:49 PM EST
    CNN is still providing estimates and AP is giving what they know for sure.  Just a guess though.

    if they seat MIchigan and Florida (none / 0) (#4)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:56:34 PM EST
    and they really have to if they expect their support in the general election, Clinton pulls ahead big time....Then what?? Michigan just rejected the idea of a caucus and said it was insulting and compared it the a russion election that if you dont like your result you simply have another vote...they have also chosen their delegates and are expecting to be seated...

    then people like me (none / 0) (#6)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:00:18 PM EST
    get very upset.  As I've said since before new Hampshire, MI and FL were how Hillary would steal the election.

    Yes (none / 0) (#9)
    by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:12:02 PM EST
    because Hillary has a team of elves that hack voting booths and force people at invisible ink pen point to vote for Hillary...it was all part of her master plan hatched in 1993, just after Hillary had Vince Foster killed (for knowing too much about this plan most likely)

    whatever (none / 0) (#16)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:20:05 PM EST
    there have been very substantive debates about this on this and other sites. Mock if you like, but asking for delegates from states where candidates pledged not to campaign is more Russian than anything I've seen and tantamount to stealing the election.  The question that should be asked is: did Michigan voters have reason to believe their votes would not count and therefore stay home?  If your answer is yes, then that is the definition of voter disenfranchisement.

    True and (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by hookfan on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:42:01 PM EST
    not seating those who voted because Republican legislatures screw around with dates for voting is also viewed as voter disenfranchisement. What is most certain is voters will be disenfranchised. But hey, superdelegates are not bound by any official state results or rules-- they can choose their own criteria. There's alot of them too. That really promotes the import of any democratic voter"s ballot doesn't it? And requirements like in calif that delegates for any district will be evenly split unless a candidate gets 60% of the vote for that district, really enhances the value of any vote, doesn't it? Sure. One can win an entire state by double digits and still be equal in delegates. Sounds just equitable and fair to me-- when I'm drunk!

    It should be purely percentage based (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:47:25 PM EST
    off of the overall vote count...I guess that would just make the math too easy though right? I mean...we'd put the whole voter disenfranchisement cottage industry out of business if we made it too easy...probably lose those jobs to India.../snark

    Ok...but why are you blaming HRC? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:27:22 PM EST
    if you want to talk substantively, how about answering the above?

    You're blaming her for 1) winning 2) the DNC's action 3) the other candidates removing their names from the ballot


    I'm blaming her (none / 0) (#24)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:35:50 PM EST
    solely because she is asking for those delegates to be sat.  I blame the DNC for causing it in the first place.  The only fair solution to the voters is to have primaries that count.

    Do you also place some blame on Barak then? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:44:13 PM EST
    because by that standard, Barak should also take some blame...since he too said they should have been seated...of course that was before it was clear Hillary would take FL...but Barak wouldn't waffle on an issue because it is no longer politically favorable to support it...thats not his style, right?

    So let me get this straight. It's Hillary's fault that the Florida and Michigan voted for her, its Hillary's fault that her opinion that they should be seated does not match the DNCs current position, and it just so happens that the disenfranchised voters benefit Hillary. So all that in your opinion computes to a solution of:

    As I've said since before new Hampshire, MI and FL were how Hillary would steal the election.

    and of course

    but asking for delegates from states where candidates pledged not to campaign is more Russian than anything I've seen and tantamount to stealing the election.

    I am REALLY struggling to make sense out of your opinion. I just can't see the logical connection with your opinion of her stealing the election, and your opinion that whatever MAY benefit her is ill gotten by her...I just don't see how the two are 1) proven 2) connected


    absolutely not (none / 0) (#34)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:52:38 PM EST
    obama never has ever said that the delegates from MI or FL should be sat.  Please back up your statement.  

    at least (none / 0) (#39)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:56:55 PM EST
    not in the context of they should be sat but we shouldn't be allowed to campaign there.  I think everyone wanted them to be sat prior to the dnc  laying down the gauntlet.

    Well, Obama was the one (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:29:05 PM EST
    who campaigned there, by the terms of the pledge he signed.  He held a press conference, he did advertising, both banned by the pledge.

    at least (none / 0) (#41)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:57:09 PM EST
    not in the context of they should be sat but we shouldn't be allowed to campaign there.  I think everyone wanted them to be sat prior to the dnc  laying down the gauntlet.

    Didn't say MI...I said FL (none / 0) (#43)
    by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:00:31 PM EST
    please....... (none / 0) (#50)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:09:50 PM EST
    yes, of course if any candidate was a clear victor they would seat MI and FL.  But to use them to get over the top is totally different and you know it.

    Nobody has used them yet (none / 0) (#55)
    by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:26:22 PM EST
    You're attacking Hillary for some perceived crime that has not (yet or ever) been committed...this is beyond ridiculous...its histrionics, really!

    Not only do you not want to discus this issue in earnest, but you're changing your argument as each point you make is removed or disproved...this is beyond fruitless for me, and quiet frankly a waste of both of our time.

    of course if any candidate was a clear victor they would seat MI and FL.

    The sad thing is, this is more damning of Obama than anyone else, especially in context of how things have played out...I am not sure if it is worth explaining how it is more damning, or if you already know that and are just arguing for the sake of doing so...either way, you're not going to see this any differently than you want to see it, so it is a waste of my time.


    Obama/Florida (none / 0) (#88)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:50:44 PM EST
    Of  COURSE   he  did,  andrew.  He  CLEARLY  told  the  voters in  Florida  he  would  support    their  reinstatement   at  the convention.  

    But  that  was  BEFORE  the  primary.  

    Apparently  he  has  now   reneged on his promise.

    He  was  FOR  reinstatement   before  he  was  AGAINST  it.  

    Can you guess  why?  
    Can you guess  how p*ssed  the  Floridians  are?


    Politics (none / 0) (#30)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:44:56 PM EST
    If Obama had won, he'd be asking for them to be seated.  

    There's an argument on both sides.  Neither is completely right and neither completely wrong.  Which is why this is a complete cluster.  Frankly, I think they should negotiate a resolution to this now, when neither side is exactly sure how it will end.  That gives both sides a reason to compromise, Clinton because at least some of the delegates will be seated and Obama, to avoid having all of the delegates seated.  

    Why Howard Dean didn't follow the Republicans' lead and simply halve the delegates to begin with is beyond me?  I know it was unlikely the race would be this close, but any close race was bound to create this very problem.


    Dean has done a lot for the party (none / 0) (#35)
    by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:53:07 PM EST
    but he also has a knack for just making a really boneheaded decision (granted he's more than capable to correct them)...but this seems to be in the boneheaded decision bracket for Dean...

    Ohwell...if Clinton loses the nomination, there will be some grumbling on her side about 1.5 million voters or so being disenfranchised, and that will be a legitimate complaint (albeit some sour grapes too) but if the delegates get seated and Obama loses the nomination (because of or in spite of those delegates) there will be grumbling about how unfair it is...but ultimately that argument won't have a lot of traction because one of the tenets of our party is the support of the voter and the little guy...anyone who votes for disenfranchisement does not have the best interest of the party in mind...maybe a candidate...or something else, but not the party...and that is what this is all about! power of the party to enact a platform of issues we all collectively agree on and believe in...


    how does (none / 0) (#46)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:02:56 PM EST
    telling voters their vote means nothing to keep them away from the polls only to tell them that it would have mattered had they voted live up to the tenets of our party?

    Fair...but again, you are blaming HRC (none / 0) (#48)
    by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:05:44 PM EST
    for this...it is not her fault...sure she won...and I am sure a good number of her supporters stayed home too...probably about the same percent of the other candidates supporters...the argument that turnout was depressed is legitimate, the argument that only Barack Obama's turnout was depressed is not...and blaming HRC for winning despite depressed turnout is not only unfair but dishonestly biased

    yeah (none / 0) (#51)
    by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:11:48 PM EST
    Michigan and Florida are just by coincidence the states Hillary has won by the widest margins in.  

    Obama's only (none / 0) (#61)
    by IndependantThinker on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:47:58 PM EST
    draw is his stump speech. Without that opportunity to give his "You are wonderful, great, brilliant if you vote for me, and we can change the world if you vote for me", he has to rely on his record, and he doesn't have one.

    Well he has one... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Virginian on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:56:51 AM EST
    we don't know much about where he stands on stuff, but at least we know he was present...(very much tongue in cheek)

    record (none / 0) (#82)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:19:35 AM EST
    heh heh, maybe there should also be a 'maybe' vote.

    Obama ran ads in Florida, (none / 0) (#52)
    by sancho on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:17:27 PM EST
    AndrewW. He encouraged people in Michigan to vote undecided. He was involved in both states' elections. He likley removed his name from the ballot in Michigan (Edwards too) as a strategic campaign move to take Mi. off of the map. If so, that would make him (and Edwards) vote depressers. The demographics of these states match Hillary's strengths. Had she won Michigan and Florida openly, then those powerhouse dem states Utah, Idaho and South Carolina would not seem so important. The Republicans have a long history of depressing voter turnout. I want to support the candidate who does not try to suppress the expressed will of voters and whose voters turn out anyway even when told not to.

    Then let's go with the one (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:24:07 PM EST
    who abided by the pledge to not do campaigning in Michigan -- for "uncommitted votes" to be given to the candidate at the convention . . . the one who did not do advertising in Florida . . . the one who did not give a press conference in Florida . . . the one who did not have a public event in Florida until after polls closed. . . .

    That would be Clinton.


    Virginian (none / 0) (#87)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:46:26 PM EST
    ROFlMAO!!    You owe  me  a  new  computer monitor ---I  just  spit  coke  all over mine.  

    Hillary  elves  and invisible  ink......Thank  you,  I needed  that.   :):)

    Be  prepared  for the Obamanauts  to be p*ssed.


    HRC is not stealing anything. MI voted. JE and (none / 0) (#10)
    by Angel on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:13:48 PM EST
    BO removed their names from the ballot.  Maybe a mistake.  But FL voted, and all names were on the ballot.  

    That's the DNC's problem (none / 0) (#11)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:14:28 PM EST
    Nobody forced those other candidates to ignore millions of voters. Yes, I know they had an honor system, but what kind of system makes you ignore the wishes of registered voters?

    Nevertheless, it is a clusterfrog. For all those voters who went uncommitted, how many would support Obama vs. Hillary?

    I love being ambiguous. Being ambiguous means never having to say you're sorry.


    1.7 million democrats voted in Florida alone! (none / 0) (#76)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:33:34 AM EST
    How in the heck is that stealing an election???

    Is that the newspeak by Obama?? Caucus's count twice, whereas actual votes by 1.7 million people don't get counted??


    Florida voting (none / 0) (#89)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    A million and   a  half  voted;  YES  THEY CAN.  

    And  here  are  the  numbers  broken  down:  

    Clinton   856,944
    McCain    693,425
    Romney    598,152
    Obama     568,930

    Hell,   Obama  couldn't  even  beat  Romney,  let  alone  McCain,  and  that's  WITH  ads  and  press conferences.     Hillary  wiped   the  floor  with  ALL  of  them,  without  any   ads, any  press  conferences,  any  campaigning.  

    She   had  roughly  300,000  MORE   votes  than  Obama  in  Florida.  

    And  NOW  he  has  reneged on his  previous promise  to  support their  reinstatement.  

    Excuuuuuuuuse  me???


    Good for Michigan; it did vote (none / 0) (#7)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:01:31 PM EST
    and why should the state party have to pay for a caucus?  Those funds are needed to get other candidates into office . . . and it can't be as easy fundraising in Michigan right now.  It went into the recession some time ago, already.

    Count the votes! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sancho on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:41:20 PM EST
    Caucuses are clearly undemocratic. It is very depressing to think our likely candidate is running a campaign that evicerates the one vote-one voter rule. He is piling up points (delegates) in states we cannot win in November and then using those phantom "victories" to assert his momentum. (How many democrats voted in Alaska? Hint: not many.) He is arguing against counting the votes of people who have voted. (This is part the DNC's fault, I admit.) Most likely scenario: Hillary will receive the most total votes during the primaries. She will have won handily--in terms of counting votes--in the key big states. And Obama and his supporters will say she's "undemocratic" and a vote-stealer.

    Lets be fair (none / 0) (#60)
    by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:40:02 PM EST
    he is using the old system (so much for change aye) and they are legitimate victories. Sure, he has found a way to build huge margins in the caucuses...but he's playing the caucuses by the rules...

    With that said, Obama has clearly illustrated how unfair to the voter and their vote a caucus is (not to mention demographically depressing voters). Obama really will end up being a catalyst for change; by working the caucus system so well to his advantage, he's opened all of our eyes to the inequality of the caucus system (I bet that was his only goal, to enlighten us), and hopefully the party will take steps to correct this.


    caucas's are undemocratic. (none / 0) (#77)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:39:30 AM EST
    Plus if there are caucases, that means a FINE NEW MESS in Michigan and Florida.  With nothing else going on, it would be up to parties to advertise the vote.  People also would be CONFUSED because they just voted.  Then since nothing else is on the ballot, very few people show up, and winner is the one who can bus the most voters to the polls.  So, turnout is almost guaranteed to be very low.

    Then: do you count Florida with 1.7 million votes?
    Do you count Florida with 0.5 million votes?
    Do you not count Florida at all??

    This is ridiculous!! The punishment from DNC was given so that 1) candidates don't campaign in Michigan and Florida, and 2) candidate don't spend advertising money in Michigan and Florida. Both those goals have been accomplished.

    As for Michigan, it's not Hillary's fault that the other guys got their names off the ballot on the deadline in a manauver to pander to Iowa and NH.  


    Maybe, but still odd . . . (none / 0) (#5)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:59:50 PM EST
    as NY Times also has her well ahead from Super Tuesday, 687 won that day alone vs. 608 for Obama -- and the Times' story yesterday (I think it was) went into considerable detail as to how conservative it was in its count.

    They don't count caucuses (none / 0) (#79)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:20:57 AM EST
    Which Obama pretty much ran up a big score on. There's a possibility that, when the state convention happens, the projected delegates could shift by +- 1 or 2 so NYTimes won't include them.

    Caucus votes (none / 0) (#90)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:02:48 PM EST
    Well,  andrew,  they're  RIGHT.   Caucus  votes  are  not  binding  or  certified  until  the  state  conventions  take  an  actual  VOTE.   Until  then,  NONE  of    Obama's  caucus  delegates  count.

    Do we count the ones coming in tomorrow? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:55:32 PM EST
    And Sunday and Tuesday?

    Funny, we used to talk about the primaries and caucuses here.

    We only count them if they benefit (none / 0) (#13)
    by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:15:00 PM EST
    Barak...otherwise we don't count them, because they obviously wouldn't be cool enough to remain delegates if they aren't pledge to Barack

    Yeah, will of the people and all that.....besides, (none / 0) (#14)
    by Angel on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:17:39 PM EST
    he won the CAUCUSES!

    Because you have to (none / 0) (#18)
    by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:22:34 PM EST
    be super cool to win a caucus...Hillary is just a bookworm...Barak is cool...so he should win...his uniform is prettier...etc. etc. etc.

    In all seriousness, I do think his supporters use the peer pressure and "hipness" and "trendy" to pressure people into tepid support...I don't know if this happens at a caucus or if there is underlying peer pressure at a caucus, but it wouldn't surprise me


    I think you're on to something about the peer (none / 0) (#22)
    by Angel on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:27:33 PM EST
    pressure.  It's a cult of personality.  I like what Steve Clemons said, something to the effect that BO is a rock star, we just don't know when he'll pop.  

    caucuses for BHO (none / 0) (#83)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:28:54 AM EST
    I think Hillary has a point about people having to work during the caucuses. Her support draws more from working class who are less likely to be able to leave work to go vote. His has more affluent people who may be able to alter their schedule to take a few hours out of the day to caucus and students can fairly easily change schedules.

    I know not all of her support is from these groups and not all his is from his groups. But all that has to happen in these smaller contests is increase slightly one side and depress slightly the other side. and you get a margin in favor of the candidate s with support from the group with more flexible schedules.


    Caucuses (none / 0) (#91)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:08:25 PM EST
    Not  to  mention  the  fact  that  Obama  winning  a   small  caucus  in  an  actual  November  RED  states  (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Nebraska)  doesn't  mean  SQUAT  in a  general  election   in which   winning  Michigan,  California, New  York, New Jersey, Ohio,  and  Pennsylvania  is    KEY  to  winning  the   Presidency.  

    NO ONE  believes  Alabama, Georgia, Alaska,  Idaho, North  Dakota,  or  Kansas  are  actually  going  to  vote  BLUE in   November.  



    What about New Mexico? Anything from them yet? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Angel on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:14:54 PM EST
    The last I saw was the HRC was ahead by about 1700 votes but they were still counting the provisionals.  Also, Jerlyn, what do you think about the absentee CA ballots?  Think that might tip things to HRC's favor?

    New Mexico is doing a complete recount (none / 0) (#17)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:22:26 PM EST
    before counting the provisional ballots.  I'll bet that democrats in New Mexico are pretty hacked about now.  They are not giving a time frame for the recount, which seems ridiculous.

    Still Counting (none / 0) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:22:41 PM EST
    The counting of the 17,000 outstanding provisional ballots cast on Tuesday in New Mexico was supposed to have begun today but that process has been delayed by a recount of the 130,000 regular ballots cast.

       It will be awhile before the last of the Super Tuesday states declares a winner. New Mexico Democratic Party officials announced Thursday that they will recount every ballot. Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama in the state by about 1,000 votes. [...]

        But the Democrat-only contest was plagued by so many problems that the state party, along with the Clinton and Obama campaigns, agreed that only checking all ballots cast would insure an accurate result.

    MY DD

    About the CA absentee ballots (none / 0) (#21)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:27:23 PM EST
    I read where they are counting about a million more ballots.  Since Hillary was way ahead in polling when lots of those were sent, I don't see how it could do anything but add to her victory.

    Any idea the number of delegates at stake in the (none / 0) (#23)
    by Angel on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:28:54 PM EST
    CA absentee?  Or the New Mexico provisionals?

    Not a clue I'm afraid (none / 0) (#33)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:48:59 PM EST
    about the CA absentee ballots.  I wouldn't expect much change but sure don;t know.

    All of New Mexico's delegates are at stake in the recount, which will include the provisional ballots. New Mexico has 38 total delegates, 26 tied to the primary results and 12 super-delegates.

    NM has roughly 530K registered Democrats.  Looks like a little over 140K voted in the primary which is less than 30% turnout.  Wonder how that stacks up with prior turnout and record turnouts in some other states?


    Hillary led (none / 0) (#42)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:59:55 PM EST
    vote by mail ballots by about 20%.  Now, it might be that Obama did better in the later absentee ballots, but they would probably still favor Clinton because voters casting such ballots tend to be older and tend to be disproportionately women.  

    I would think (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:44:29 PM EST
    Hillary has an edge in the absentees because a lot of them probably voted before Obama's "surge."

    Absenteeism? (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:56:33 PM EST
    Aren't provisional ballots from people who show up to vote but there is a problem. In order to vote, one has to fill out a paper, swearing to be are a registered voter.

    Yes, but CA hasn't finished counting their (none / 0) (#44)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:00:47 PM EST
    absentee ballots yet.  I read today they have about a million left to count.  Don't know why it's taking so long unless they've got 2 guys with a pencil and big piece of paper doing the counting.

    I saw the counters (none / 0) (#68)
    by blogtopus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:48:56 AM EST
    It's three chimps and a donut box filled with golf pencils. Don't ask.

    Provisional Ballots (none / 0) (#45)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:01:11 PM EST
    Absentee Ballots, or as they are called in California Vote By Mail, are simply for folks who would rather vote by mail than go to the polls.   Traditionally, these voters skew older and female.

    New Fun And Games (none / 0) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:42:34 PM EST
    "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this," Donna Brazile told CNN this week. Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000, is herself a super delegate." ABC

    Chris Bowers of Open Left, is quoted in the article. He too is threatening to quit the party for the same reason. From all indications, Chris is referring to delegates rather than popular vote.

    So much for party unity. I guess if I don't think that how the party determines the winner is fair, it is A-OK for me and everyone who thinks the same way to quit the party also.

    The Irony (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:57:02 PM EST
    The irony is that the entire reason why the party has super delegates is for situations just like this.  Otherwise there's no need for super delegates at all.  But in a close election, where there is no clear winner, the super delegates are supposed to figure out what's best for the party.  Now, maybe folks don't like that, but I don't see how people who will probably argue that Michigan and Florida shouldn't be seated, given that these are both Obama supporters, because IT IS AGAINST THE RULES can turn around and justify quitting the party if it follows its own damned rules.  

    Frankly, Bowers has been all over the map on the super delegate issue.  One minute they don't seem anti-democratic to him and the next they do.  

    There has also been competing ideas of what super delegates should do in terms of being "democratic".  One idea is that they would support whoever has the most pledged delegates.  The other is the idea that they should support whoever wins their state or district to reflect the will of the people they represent.  I've seen both advocated for and I think you could make an argument for either way being fair.  But then I can also make the argument that it's the popular vote and not pledged delegates that should count.  Or that if both the vote and pledged delegates are super close, the super delegates should figure out what's the best thing for the party and do that.  

    There's no one right answer here and folks who pretend there is are being ridiculous, IMO.  The reason people disagree is because there are truly different ways to do this and an argument can be made for each of them that it is the "fair" way.

    I'd also add that I think that it's way too early for these kind of threats and given that we have a couple of months before we know if this is even a problem, I take them as an attempt at intimidation.  They are threatening to split the party if the candidate isn't selected their way.  No ifs, ands or buts.  It's the last thing we need, IMO.  What we should be doing is 1) wait a couple of months to see if this is even a problem and 2) if it is, working together to come up with a solution that democrats as a whole can live with, whether that makes any one democrat happy or not.  Drawing lines in the sand now just makes it more adversarial than it needs to be and for absolutely no reason.


    Basically I'm Getting The Feeling That (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:26:26 AM EST
    we will play by whatever rules result in an Obama nomination.

    We can't seat MI and FL because that is against the rules and would be unfair to Obama. The nomination can't be decided using Super Delegates, which are the established rules, because that would be unfair to Obama. We have to use delegate counts even if the popular vote goes to Clinton because otherwise it would be unfair to Obama.

    No one cares if anything is unfair to Clinton, We know that Obama's voters will leave the party because they have told us so.  Meanwhile, Clinton's voters will vote for Obama no matter what happens. We are the ones saying we will vote for the nominee.


    First (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Virginian on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:33:28 PM EST
    Donna Brazille is one of the reasons Bush was able to get close enough to Gore to steal the election...she, and Bob Shrum are cut of the same campaign managing cloth...

    But second isn't this the epitome of sour grapes? If I don't win (by the rules long established...super delegates ain't revolutionary) I'm going to take my ball and go home...

    To Obama's credit, HE has never supported this notion...but his campaign, surrogates and supporters definately use this "strong arm" tactic ALL THE TIME...if we don't get our way...if Obama isn't the nominee, we'll vote for McCain/not vote at all...

    When I look at the statistics, I am convinced that the significant group of voters that make his candidacy viable are not in fact Democrats at all...they don't support our party, they don't support our platform, they don't support our history, our candidates, our point of view, our future, they only support Obama or the notion that if he wins, they are winners too...it makes me ill


    Donna has my permission to leave (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:55:24 AM EST
    now, on condition she not tout Obama on TV.

    Donna Brazille (none / 0) (#92)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:14:36 PM EST
    Agree  completely.  If  she  wants  to  take her  little  red  ball and go home,  she  can.  

    But  I  don't  remember  her    WHINING  about   superdelegates  in   2000 ,  do you?  

    Like  she's   REALLY  gonna   vote  for John McCain  instead.  



    Guess that would be OK (none / 0) (#36)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:53:14 PM EST
    My nightmare scenario is still that one candidate wins the popular vote and the other the delegate count.  Then it seems like almost a no-win situation, especially since the delegate selection process is so complicated and different in just about every state.  Every news organization has a different count now and nobody really knows who's ahead.  

    Isn't that just (none / 0) (#62)
    by IndependantThinker on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:56:24 PM EST
    what happened on Super Tuesday? Clinton won the popular vote and Obama the delegates by 2.

    Really depends on whose count of delegates (none / 0) (#64)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:03:44 AM EST
    you use I think.  Some have him up by 2 for the day and others have her winning more.  Beats me.

    No final delegate is available anywhere though so nobody knows for sure.  NM is doing a recount so that's 1 state and 38 delegates that can't be counted at all yet.


    not done counting yet (none / 0) (#85)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:15:11 AM EST
    I think what you are reading is only delegates in states done counting. When projected delegates are taken into account (and they should be pretty accurate because counting is at 99% in NM and Ca says 99%) Then the delegate counts are HRC 807, BHO 798 for Tuesday. Total projected pledged delegates to date are HRC 855 BHO 861.

    Delegate counts (none / 0) (#93)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:16:27 PM EST
    And,   if you  add  the   "committed"  superdelegates---although  that  can change---the   CNN  total   is  

    Clinton  1033
    Obama   937

    With  some  states, like  New  Mexico, incomplete.


    yeah, (none / 0) (#78)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:57:23 AM EST
    Donna Brazile is a complete idiot here, and she is shilling for someone else.  If they had an oounce of integrity, they worry about total votes in a state (and Hillary has gotten more), but they are talking delegates.  

    OTOH, busing supporters from Illinois to Iowa to vote in the caucuses (there are no secret ballots, I might add), is perfectly OK for her and Chris.


    The Bowers meltdown (none / 0) (#96)
    by Camorrista on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:45:27 PM EST
    Bowers' threat to quit the party is only the lastest shriek in his extended tantrum over Clinton's refusal to admit defeat and go away.

    Lately, he's been publishing "analyses" on what makes Obama preferable to Clinton.  Since each analysis is fraudulent (it's hard to be an honest analyst if your overture (I won't vote for Clinton no matter what--is the same as your finale--I won't vote for Clinton no matter what), his visitors naturally challenge him.  When they point out his twisted logic, or his unsupported assertions, or his readiness to change his definition of 'democracy' on what seems like an hourly basis, or, most of all, his embarassingly naked unfairness, he yowls in hurt that the visitor is accusing him of bad faith, and, like Howard Beale, he won't take it any more, he won't take it any more.

    I say this, by the way, as an admirer of Bowers (and not one he has reprimanded).  He is smart, he is committed, he is eloquent.  But, lately, his antagonism towards Clinton seems to have sabotaged his reason.  It's a shame.


    does anyone think (none / 0) (#38)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:56:44 PM EST
    this debate on Monday night, will change any feelings if Obama fails to show up and just Hillary is there in Virginia (It is sponsered by ABC/Politico)

    Not showing up has been a good way (none / 0) (#47)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:04:58 PM EST
    to lose an election in the past.  I don't have any idea how this will play out though.  Sad but since polling is so bad, we'll never know the effect.

    I hear the DNC is planning on (none / 0) (#49)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:07:17 PM EST
    starting a movement to call the Clintons all sorts of names like racists if they insist on seating Michigan and Florida...This is to start on Sunday at the talk shows...they will really lean on the viewing audience to go against the Clintons...it is a movement inside the DNC...Nothing like ignoring the voters....wow...

    That'll be very classy of them (none / 0) (#53)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:17:45 PM EST
    I guess I'll have to watch some talking heads now on Sunday.  I wouldn't doubt it but I also think it could go against them.  Maybe we can do to those folks in the DNC what we did for MSNBC in the last couple of days?  :-)

    Here are contact numbers (none / 0) (#56)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:28:18 PM EST
    for the DNC.....

    Democratic National Committee Contact numbers


    Thank you, I'll keep them handy, (none / 0) (#58)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:32:57 PM EST
    Wait a minute (none / 0) (#63)
    by IndependantThinker on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:59:03 PM EST
    where have you heard this? This is not something that you can just throw out with "I heard that . . ."

    Agree. (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:56:25 AM EST
    I Find That Hard to Believe (none / 0) (#65)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:05:55 AM EST
    Two Civil Rights leaders, including one who is an Obama supporter, have already urged Howard Dean to find a solution to this matter, one that does not disenfranchise Michigan and Florida voters (note - they did not offer a solution or urge the seating of all delegates).

    And pushing this angle would be very risky for a couple of reasons.  It presumes Obama will be ahead when Clinton could very well end up in the lead.  Historically, nominees have reinstated the stripped delegates of their supporters.  It's also risky because it could completely backfire - there are a lot of non-white voters in Michigan and Florida.  Is it racist to want to seat them because it hurts Obama or to not want to seat them because it's disenfranchising voters, including a fairly large number of non-white voters.  

    I can see no benefit to anyone from the DNC doing anything right now.  Dean himself has said that he would seek a deal if there's no nominee in March or April, but it's still only February.  Going on national television and calling one of your potential nominees a racist would just be stupid.

    Again, god knows, if anyone could commit political suicide by doing something this stupid for no reason, it would be the DNC.  But I'm hoping they aren't completely brain dead.  


    Would be stupid, but the DNC is capable of it. (none / 0) (#67)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:08:33 AM EST
    DNC calling names on Sunday (none / 0) (#86)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:20:03 AM EST
    I think that is just a rumor. Only Pelosi, Kaine (Va Gov) and Bob Kerrey show as being scheduled. Of them Pelosi is uncommitted, Kaine is BHO & Kerrey is HRC. That is from HuffPo.

    Hilarious (none / 0) (#66)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:07:07 AM EST
    This should go in an open thread but it's just hilarious, so ...

    Become the one you're waiting for

    Hilarious (none / 0) (#97)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:10:46 PM EST
    LOL!    I've  always  wondered:   what  does  the following  actually   MEAN?

    "We  are  the ones  we've  been waiting  for."
                            Barak  Obama


    Cream City has you there (none / 0) (#72)
    by blogtopus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:04:07 AM EST
    He agreed to all those things, and broke his own rules. Denying he did doesn't make it not so.

    Your argument is just a taste of the kind of waffling, yeah-butting, ignorance-is-bliss kind of stuff we'll be getting if Hillary wins. Obama fans just cannot believe that Hillary could ever win fairly. It isn't possible, not when you have Jesus, um OBAMA as candidate.

    So when Hillary takes office in 2009, she'll have all the Media against her, all the press against her, all the Bushbots against her, all the Talk Radio against her, and all the former Obamabots who voted Republican to spite her, against her.

    And none of them will understand that the people control the election process, not them. As Atrios says: No one gives a s*** who you vote for.

    arghg (none / 0) (#73)
    by blogtopus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:05:26 AM EST
    This was in response to a comment below about how Hillary is 'stealing' the election while actually Obama was the one who agreed to and broke the rules about campaigning in Fla. I won't repeat it, read below. Grrr.

    Hillary didn't steal anything (none / 0) (#84)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:32:12 AM EST
    And Barack Obama having a national advertising campaign that happened to have ads in Florida, which was beyond his control, does not equate to breaking the rules.

    The FL and MI legislatures screwed up.  The DNC screwed up.  But that is water under the bridge.  

    If they can't find some sort of equitable solution they won't seat them, presuming it isn't settled by the convention.  It is as simple as that.  

    BTD believes that they will strike a deal in which the person with fewer delegates will that the VP slot prior to the convention thus avoiding this problem entirely.  I am not so sure.   I don't know if either candidate has any desire to be VP.  

    But we shall see.

    Flyerhawk (none / 0) (#94)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:30:15 PM EST
    Sorry,  flyerhawk.  

    Your  candidate  promised  the voters  of  Florida  and  Michigan he  would  support  their  reinstatment.  

    He  lost both   contests.

    He  has  now  reneged on his previous promise.  

    He  was  FOR  it  before  he  was  AGAINST  it.  

    And  everybody  knows  why.  

    And  it  ain't  looking   very  flattering  in  terms of  his  CHARACTER,  is it?


    Flyerhawk (none / 0) (#95)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    Sorry,  flyerhawk.  

    Your  candidate  promised  the voters  of  Florida  and  Michigan he  would  support  their  reinstatment.  

    He  lost both   contests.

    He  has  now  reneged on his previous promise.  

    He  was  FOR  it  before  he  was  AGAINST  it.  

    And  everybody  knows  why.  

    And  it  ain't  looking   very  flattering  in  terms of  his  CHARACTER,  is it?