Hillary Wins Nevada County Caucuses

The Clark County democratic convention was held Saturday. It was a do-over from February. Hillary won and she now leads Obama statewide in delegates to the state convention.

More than 6,300 delegates participated Saturday, according to the Nevada Democratic Party. Clinton won 1,330 delegates from Clark County while Obama won 1,133 delegates.

Heading into Saturday, Obama had won the majority of the delegates in the state’s other 15 county conventions, 512 of 900. But Clinton’s win in Clark County, by far the state’s most populous county, gave her the lead statewide 1,718 to 1,645, for delegates to the May 17 state convention in Reno, where Nevada Democrats will select delegates to the national convention in Denver this August.

Nevada has 33 national delegates. As to why Hillary won in the January caucuses, here are the reasons: [More...]


And though it’s easy to slice and dice and analyze strategy, there’s this: Nevadan Democrats put their faith in Clinton and her experience.

At dozens of precinct locations voters interviewed by the Sun cited Clinton’s experience as the overriding factor in their decision.

Other reasons:

  • Foresaw a huge wave of new voters unlike in her failed Iowa campaign.
  • Worked relentlessly to appeal to Hispanics from the ground up rather than the top down.
  • Sewed up the support of many Culinary workers long before the union endorsed Obama.
  • Dominated among women and then persuaded them show up to caucus.
  • Won the final week of publicity with tough political gamesmanship.
< Late Night: Factory Girl | Is The "Creative Class" Blogosphere New to Politics? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    but... but... (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:47:12 AM EST
    election night, at the big orange obamablog, a top of the rec list diary declared that obama was the real winner of nevada. you mean they were wrong???

    Map on Obama webpage (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:50:25 AM EST
    I guess it's time for Nevada to go back to the dark ages... No light for you, unenlightened desert dwellers.

    Texas is still shining however.

    Oh wait, they got rid of the light thingy, but here is his website still claiming that Obama won Nevada flat out, without any nuance:



    they also list the states where he lost (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:25:11 AM EST
    the delegate count and won the popular vote.  It is Obama Roolz for counting vote.

    and... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Rainsong on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:21:00 AM EST
    .. by my PC calculator, thats by 8 points on a 54/46 break.

    Who said Hillary can't do caucuses? she's just better at County ones, than precinct ones, at least in Nevada.


    and (none / 0) (#9)
    by myed2x on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:03:40 AM EST
    now caucuses are a legit measure?

    she also won the popular vote (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:19:59 AM EST
    Mr Strawman

    Hot damn. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by oldpro on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:49:15 AM EST

    Looks like Atrios was wrong when he said (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:50:21 AM EST
    Obama "tied in Nevada".  Quoting CQ:  "In winning the county contests, she has prevailed in the second step as well and appears on track to win the majority of the state's pledged delegates at the state convention."

    Now waiting for Obama to change his map which says he won Nevada.

    Ah just posted about the map also! (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:51:56 AM EST
    It was even more ridiculous when they had the states bathed in magical light only as long as Obama had "won" them, but the rest of the populace remained in the dark... doomed to live their lives as bitter and uneducated low information voters.

    it's still there! (none / 0) (#33)
    by Nasarius on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:36:41 AM EST
    Go to the home page and click on "State of the Race."

    Nevada has still been raptured up into the higher plane of Obama-existence.


    Great news for HRC (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:16:33 AM EST
    Rise Hillary! Rise!

    that's nice, and (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:54:06 AM EST
    obviously i'm happy. that said, dump the caucuses, they are not the democrat method.

    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:19:30 AM EST
    my thought cpinva, great that she can report any kind of a win. Still it's a caucus and we need to rid the party of such an undemocratic process.

    Confirming J's post notwithstanding the LA Times (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by barryluda on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:04:43 AM EST
    Both the Las Vegas Sun and the Las Vegas Review-Journal confirm that Clinton won both the popular vote and delegates in NV with the Sun saying:

    Closely matching the results from January, the final totals from Saturday's Democratic county convention showed 3,442 votes for Clinton (54 percent) and 2,900 ballots for Obama (46 percent). That relative showing -- which mirrored the caucus, when Clinton outpolled Obama 4,023 to 3,245 -- will see Clark County Democrats send 1,330 Clinton delegates and 1,133 Obama delegates to the state convention, where Nevada's delegation to this summer's Democratic National Convention will be picked.

    And the Review-Journal also saying:

    Clark County on Saturday selected the 2,463 people it will send. Of those, 54 percent are Hillary Clinton supporters and 46 percent are Barack Obama supporters.  * * *  Clinton picked up 1,330 delegates to the state convention Saturday, while Obama got 1,133. At the state convention, Obama stands to have 1,645 delegates, while Clinton will have 1,718.

    So why, as PastorAgnostic points out, does the LA Times, which doesn't seem to refute the fact that Clinton won both the popular vote and the most delegates to the state convention, say that Obama still sends more to the Democractic National Convention:

    Nevada will send 25 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention this summer in Denver.  If both candidates retain their January support, Obama will receive 13 of those delegates, Clinton 12.  But that outcome is not certain, since delegates in Nevada can switch allegiances at each stage of the process.

    I'm confused!

    I guess I understand, but I'm still confused... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by barryluda on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:19:43 AM EST
    After I posted this, I see that Jackson Hunter explains the reason:

    I thought Obama got more delegates [to the National convention, notwithstanding getting fewer State delegates] because the areas with the less population got more delegates (which seems to me rather stupid, I realize it is to even out the party so it doesn't swing too far in either direction but it is stupid and certainly undemocratic.)

    If that's what happens, that seems stupid, even to this Obama supporter.

    That is what... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:59:15 AM EST
    I was told, I believe by Kos in a post, right after the vote.  I know that he is not all that popular here (lol) but he did seem to know what he was talking about.  What we need is someone to explain "weighting" far better than I can, especially in Nevada.  I've been to Reno a few times, but other than that I know nothing about the state and how it runs their elections.  It seems like she had the overall amount of electors (or whatever you want to call them) to win, so were these delegates selected AFTER the weighting process or before it, that will be the crucial difference.  

    Seriously, caucuses need to go the way of the dodo, at least IMHO.  How can you lose the delegates when you win the popular vote so handily?  (I know the system is based on the Electoral College, which was put into place because the vast majority of Founding Fathers didn't trust the rabble to always choose correctly.)  Why would a party of the people model their nominating process on such an innappropriate example?  No wonder we lose so much.  LOL



    Nevada has a three step process (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by standingup on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:28:21 AM EST
    and the final delegate count is not official until the delegates are certified at the State Convention on April 12.

    The January 19 precinct caucus was the first of the three.  Clinton won at the precinct level but Obama was projected to take 13 delegates to Clinton's 12 because Nevada apportions delegates in a manner that favors rural areas where Obama performed better.

    The second stage, the county convention caucus, was held on Feb 23.  All of the counties elected delegates to go onto the State Convention except for Clark County which had to be suspended because they were overwhelmed by the number that showed up participate.  

    So the results that are reported for Clark County yesterday are the last for the county level caucuses that will go onto the State where the final pledged delegates will be determined.  So the projected 13 for Obama and 12 for Clinton could still change at the last stage.    


    Some great western movie (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:37:05 AM EST

    "The 13th Delegate",  "Lonesome Delegate"  " The Jumpin Delegate"
    "Nevada Kid, brings 13"  "Wrangling for Delegates"  " She Lassoed That One".  "Claim Jumpers"  


    NoQuarter (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:18:08 AM EST
    has a video of another bit of the  gaffe...I missed that where he calls people racist...

    of course they are racist! (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:38:21 AM EST
    And ignorant.  Why else would Clinton be winning?

    I looked at the video and, granted, you can only see the back of people's heads, but am I the only one who loves a room full of lily white, filthy rich folk laughing about racists in PA and OH?


    Heck ya.... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:48:17 AM EST
    They don't even know why they are elitist, classist and in the end unjust.  I know these folks well.  They don't like the war, they risked nothing to stop it.  They benefit from America in every way possible and yet they never want to own it's nasty little bits.  Their war is against the working and poorer classes in America.  They just don't want them around.  

    When it comes to race, they are fine with high achieving people of color, but watch their racism boil over with poor people of color.  They just want to be absolved of the racism accusation, but they cannot even comprehend the economic suffering of so many Americans.  


    It's easy to gamble (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:22:41 PM EST
    when you've got nothing to lose.

    Ras: Hillary back on top in... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Exeter on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:33:58 AM EST
    in the national poll.  I'm sure all the Obama blogs will be promoting this recent trend ; )

    I love how they are (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:36:52 AM EST
    spinning these polls into an "Obama gaining" narrative.

    It will make a Clinton victory even more wonderful, and make the pundits decrying her bid look even more foolish.

    And that's saying a lot, considering their past foolishness.


    Can hardly wait (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:49:57 AM EST
    but I don't know that it's possible for them to look more foolish.  They have have maxed out on the stupid.

    Uhh...he cannot close it folks (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:54:19 AM EST
    no amount of spin will make him a closer.  

    LOL, Rasmussen (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:53:29 AM EST
    is kind of cute, spending comment time being comforting, "Not all the news is bad for the Illinois Senator." :D

    Interesting how it's taken him just three months to tie Hillary's unfavorables, especially since this poll doesn't reflect the bitter gun-toting religious Dem comments yet.


    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:46:37 AM EST
    and the unfavorables are occuring WHILE Obama is the media darling.  Imagine how bad they'll be when the media starts attacking him in favor of their true media darling (McCain).

    favorability (none / 0) (#43)
    by Nasarius on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:54:36 AM EST
    This part is especially interesting:
    Overall, among all voters nationwide, McCain is viewed favorably by 55% and unfavorably by 42%. Obama's ratings have fallen to 48% favorable and 50% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 46% favorable, 51% unfavorable

    I'll wait for a few other polls to confirm, but it looks like his favorability ratings are now essentially equal to Clinton's. And McCain's rating is disturbingly high.

    Obama's declining (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:57:33 AM EST
    Favorability numbers wouldn't bother me if I thought he'd do a good job as president.

    he won't even make it (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Nasarius on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:12:10 AM EST
    That's the problem. Only a relative few of his scandals and gaffes have gotten play in the media, and they're managing to destroy his favorables. There's a treasure trove of gaffes (my recent favorite, because he keeps repeating it: "knowing foreign leaders isn't important") yet to be exploited by the McCain campaign. If he can't manage to keep his head above water even now, he's going to lose spectacularly.

    McCain's will change (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by cmugirl on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:37:25 AM EST
    when we have a nominee (yes, even though the MCM [heart] him) - right now, no one is paying attention.  It's probably a good thing for politicians when they aren't opening their mouths. These polls will change when HRC is our standard bearer!  :)

    And it shows the Rev. Wright problem (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:47:30 AM EST
    has not gone away.  Obama lost his higher favorables then, and he has been slipping ever since. . . .

    The idjits don't get what older voters know (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:58:08 AM EST
    which is that a 60-year-old and her spouse would have more money now than a couple in their 40s.  It's that simple -- and as Kathy pointed out in a comment yesterday, it makes the Clintons a success story as people who came from poverty (Bill) and the middle class (Hillary) and made it with hard work, even after having to start over in the last several years, after the hit of the huge legal fees.

    Older voters know that the Obamas are well on their way, only in their 40s and already living in a mansion and making almost a million a year.  And more and more will know that his story of coming from poverty and a single-mom home is selectively picking a small part of the story and omitting the rest of it -- the prep school, the mother remarrying soon to the country-club stepfather, the upper-middle-class grandparents, etc.  The "honesty" factor will backlash on him.

    oh goodness (none / 0) (#6)
    by tandem5 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:00:18 AM EST
    logic and reason are about to take another hit in the blogosphere - for what's fair game in Texas could never be in Nevada!

    the LA Times disagrees - it calls it for Obama (none / 0) (#12)
    by PastorAgnostic on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:29:13 AM EST
    Clinton won NV (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:23:36 AM EST
    it is time for the delegate count to reflect that.  

    LAT article and Jeralyn's article (none / 0) (#16)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:24:31 AM EST
    seem almost opposite. Weird.

    What really weird (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Dave B on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:49:55 AM EST
    Clinton won the state delegate count at 1,718 to 1,645. But the LA Times says that Obama will get 13 to the convention and Clinton 12. What kind of weird rules does the Nevada system have? More of certain districts having more delegates than others based on past votes? I don't really get why Democrats do that.

    I'd go with CQ... (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:04:43 AM EST
    The CQ article cited by Jeralyn is far more specific in numbers, giving the actual number of delegates instead of just the percentages, which is what the LAT did.  Obama actually picked up some votes and closed the percentages, but Hillary came out ahead in delegates.  But does this include how the delegates are "weighted"?  I thought Obama got more delegates becuase the areas with the less population got more delegates (which seems to me rather stupid, I realize it is to even out the party so it doesn't swing too far in either direction but it is stupid and certainly undemocratic.)

    Caucuses, while useful for building the party, are really, really dumb.  Closed primaries where the winner of the actual popular vote gets 60 to 66 percent of the delegates (or above if their actual percentage is higher than either of those figures) so that there is a clear winner, but not a death blow for the people who are behind.  The fact that a person can win the popular vote in a state but not the majority of delegates is absurd (and yes, I would feel the same way if it hurt Obama, wrong is wrong is wrong, IMHO.)

    The first thing this Party needs to do after the dust settles is come up with a new plan because this has been an unmitigated disaster, especially in MI/FLA (which NEEDS to be resolved, especially in Michigan, as it is a true battleground state.)  A system that rewards closed primaries (I know that this will anger Independents and third party folk) and punishes caucuses and Open Primaries (although I'm not as opposed to the latter if they are held super early, like New Hampshire where there are still viable candidates on both sides so the hanky panky of voting "strategically" is minimized).  Of course, I just disagreed with my own argument, but it just goes to show you how difficult this is going to be.  :)  But it must be done, because this has been one long, unfunny joke.  Or like a Nickelback concert with five encores!  :P



    Oops... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:09:49 AM EST
    As I read another comment, I might have zipped through that LAT article a bit quickly, I don't remember seeing the delegate count (13-12).  It's early in the West and I've had some insomnia, so I probably didn't read it close enough.  I think my comment can still stand.  Sorry about that everyone, I hate being sloppy.



    the elitists who head the party (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:19:03 AM EST
    will not change the caucus system, especially if it ends up benefitting Obama.

    Can you imagine if these caucuses had been primaries?  Why, anyone could win them!


    carefull commenters ;-) (none / 0) (#96)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:31:55 PM EST
    I remember when the dailykos had carefull commenters...

    I wonder just how much party building (none / 0) (#97)
    by hairspray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    actually happens at caucuses compared to mischief-making.  If Independents are allowed at our primaries, I would be for a weighting of Indy's to Democrats in some manner. Watching the GOP and Indys invade our primaries makes no sense to me.  If they want to vote Democratic, let them vote in the GE.

    LA Times reporter is not schooled (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:50:34 AM EST
    in how caucuses work -- and recaucuses and recauses, as there still is another step in Nevada as well as in other caucus states.  Consistently, since even before Iowa's, I have found that it's important to get online to get reports from the ground, from the local papers, in states that are caucus states.  California reporters are not schooled in this.

    So I trust the Nevada papers on this -- and I read these two in LV consistently before, during, and after the caucuses there, and they were reliable when the reporting elsewhere on the teachers' suit and such stuff was unreliable and often biased.


    Don't be taken in by an Obama supporter's (none / 0) (#67)
    by standingup on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:59:45 AM EST
    attempt to turn the tables.  The LA Times reported this pretty accurately from what I can tell:

    Nevada will send 25 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention this summer in Denver.

    If both candidates retain their January support, Obama will receive 13 of those delegates, Clinton 12.

    But that outcome is not certain, since delegates in Nevada can switch allegiances at each stage of the process.

    Obama picked up some new support at other county conventions held statewide in February.

    It was not yet clear whether his gains would win him an additional delegate in Denver.

    PastorAgnostic was trying to stir the pot and agitate but read the article for yourself before deciding.  


    How many days between (none / 0) (#26)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:42:51 AM EST
    IA, NH and SC?

    I have dates as... (none / 0) (#95)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:25:47 PM EST
    IO 01/03
    NH 01/08
    SC 01/26

    Another Point... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Exeter on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:31:12 AM EST
    Yes Nevada is a caucus state, but unlike nearly all the other caucus states, there was participaition similar to a primary.  

    Yabbut (none / 0) (#37)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:47:53 AM EST
    is the requirement still to show up in person?

    Ohio has absentee voting, early voting at the county office and the usual hours at polling places.  If you can't show up in person and you are registered and the BoE has your address, you can still vote.


    Nevada you had to vote in person (none / 0) (#40)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:51:18 AM EST
    which makes it a true disenfranchising caucus.

    you guys do understand that... (none / 0) (#50)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:17:18 AM EST
    Hillary and her supporters are the ones who have decided to bring down Obama to the detriment of the party.  she has lost (there is no rational path to the nomination).  but, from Rezko to Wright to this Elitist spin, she and her supporters have decided they're willing to push the most petty things to see him fall.  No No - not his policies nor his voting record nor his experience... but comb his life, find anyone he's attached to and make their wrongs his, and discount everything the guy has done w/ his life because its your "team" against his. and you don't want to lose (even if you already have)... right? just dig dig dig, pull anything from anywhere and hope, just this once, that it is the arrow that brings him down.  

    You're so right..... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by michitucky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:26:26 AM EST
    It's that mind control thing Hillary has going on......She transmits and he regurgitates......My bad, I forgot......It's always the Clinton's fault!!!

    no, not petty. (none / 0) (#52)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:32:16 AM EST
    They handed out "I'm not bitter" stickers in North Carolina

    this is absolutely ridiculous.  talk about alienating Obama supporters... and indicative of how she has run her campaign.  


    You Obama guys do understandt (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:04:27 AM EST
    that this is politics?  And that, as noted above, it was an Obama donor who was concerned about his comments in CA and broke this story?  And that Clinton steered clear of the Rev. Wright story, and correctly -- as that would be labeled "racism" again rather than getting out the truth to voters.

    And you do understand that this story, instead,  reveals Obama's elitism and duplicitousness (neither unusual for a pol, as BTD points out, but contradicting Obama's attempt to be a "non-pol") and above all, his classism . . . and that Clinton could say nothing but McCain still would be using it?

    And you do understand that some of us wonder why Clinton ought to say nothing about this?  Why do you want to hide from the voters who your candidate really is, what he really thinks of us?  You do passeth all understanding. . . .


    Understanding is not the agenda (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by standingup on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:20:05 PM EST
    Every time Obama slips or commits a gaffe we see new members registering to distract and agitate.  They rehash and repeat ad nauseum the same old talking points and debunked stories.  It is very tiring.  

    You do understand that (none / 0) (#53)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:33:14 AM EST
    it was an Obama-supporting blog that disclosed the SF tape, right? So remind me, who was digging?

    It would be the height of foolishness to ignore how things will play out in the general election. Whether or not Clinton supporters attack Obama for his statements, they will be attacked in the general. If they make him unelectable (not sure they do), I want to know now, not in November.


    Furthermore (none / 0) (#55)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:35:04 AM EST
    if you don't think people here have criticized Sen. Obama's policies, his voting record, and his experience, then you haven't read too deeply.

    old song, try for a new one (none / 0) (#56)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:35:19 AM EST
    Funny how we've heard this since the first time Obama got the lead. Even when it was way to early to call it. Now that Clinton is gaining and will win big in the next pile of primaries, the Obama camp seems to be getting, well, desperate. Face it, Clinton can win. Neither candidate can get the magic number without the SD's. So the SD's will decide. And Clinton will most likely win the popular vote when you compensate in any reasonable way for at least FL if not also MI. And by that count, it's quite reasonable for an SD to pick Clinton. And then of course if you count electability, that's even more reason to pick Clinton. So there is reaonsble a case.

    Now, given that there is a case. And there is a case for either candidate. How about we play fair. If the Obama camp can tear down Clinton, then all's fair in love and war and politics. If the Obama side says nasty things, then don't be surprised at the same.


    numbers are stubborn things (none / 0) (#58)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:39:17 AM EST
    she can't win.  

    Up is down, (none / 0) (#59)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:41:14 AM EST
    right is left...

    No, it's unlikely that she will win, (none / 0) (#70)
    by Radix on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:05:29 AM EST
    based on the numbers today. Unlikely is not the same as can't, do the math.

    Just as unlikely as a candidate (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:11:57 AM EST
    being caught on tape before a group of billionaires laughing at his dissing of voters he needs.

    That's why even the math that is months old by the convention is, by the rules, not to be the bottom line for super-d's who are to pick who can win next fall nationwide, and by the electoral college process -- not who won months ago in atypical states and in caucuses.


    Not disagreeing. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Radix on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:18:18 AM EST
    Just saying, as of now, the term unlikely is appropriate.  Unlikely may change to probably can't then it may further move to maybe she can, we just have to wait and see what comes next.

    ok... (none / 0) (#82)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:27:44 AM EST
    his dissing of voters he needs.

    and where did he diss voters needs??? you sound so silly.  if you weren't with the choir, i wouldn't be the only one calling you out.  


    Oh, c'mon, now you just sound sad (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:54:45 AM EST
    as you know, from your comments here, exactly what Obama said -- and What Obama Really Meant, for once quite clear -- to the CA billionaires.  Stop your chatter; see the FAQ on site rules about it here.

    The most unforgiveable tactic (none / 0) (#98)
    by hairspray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:15:40 PM EST
    the Obama campaign has done is to smear the Clintons as racists.  For all of the work they have done over the years and the love the AA community has had for them (I know personally) that is swiftboating as its finest. As an activist, I will never forgive them for that.

    Your user name (none / 0) (#71)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:06:51 AM EST
    tell me then... (none / 0) (#73)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:09:37 AM EST
    whats the rational path to the nomination...? use numbers, not pictures.

    Detailed in past diaries; see search (nt) (none / 0) (#75)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:13:09 AM EST
    well (none / 0) (#76)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:17:57 AM EST
    past diaries eh.  nothing rational.

    as my friend the superdelgate said, "We won't commit  career suicide for her".  over.  


    I don't expect they will. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Radix on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:22:44 AM EST
    However, your friend never said, as you related his or her statement, that they wouldn't vote for her, only that they wouldn't commit career suicide for her. Will have to see if that's the case, now wont we?

    Yep...... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by michitucky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:37:47 AM EST
    Wonder what those SD's being targeted by the NRCC are saying right now...

    Neither Senator Obama nor (none / 0) (#81)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:25:37 AM EST
    Senator Clinton can reach 2025/2214 without the superdelegates, so really it's anyone's guess what will happen. And this contest is the closest one ever since we started deciding the nom via primaries. At the convention, past nominees from 1972-1992 were an average of 1660.5 delegates ahead of their closest challenger, would probably more if I factored in 96-04.

    Obama is either 136 or 14 (w/FL/MI) delegates ahead of Hillary right now, with county and state conventions yet to come where those numbers could change for or against her. If she loses PA, it'll be over, but if she wins we go on. So I was agreeing to disagree, no ill-will intended :)


    SD's aren't (none / 0) (#83)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:29:41 AM EST
    going to vote for her.  she'll be behind in delegates, states and votes.  i know you don't get that.  but, i ask you, if he is (which he will be), will you then finally admit, that she can't win?

    they won't commit suicide for Hillary.


    When Senator Obama (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:36:03 AM EST
    has the delegates needed, then sure I'll congratulate him for a hard-fought campaign and send Hillary my condolences. But counting her out prematurely yet again is not my job, because I want her to win. I'm not anti-Obama, I'm pro-Hillary. She'll make a great Democratic president.

    absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:40:34 AM EST
    If Obama wins in both delegate count and popular vote count (including FL and MI of course), them I'm all good and comfy with him as the nominee.

    If Obama wins the delegate count and looses the popular vote, then we have something similar to the 2000 GE. And then the SD's need to weigh all that carefully and hopefully use some sound judgement. And importantly explain things so everyone feels like things were fair.

    I assume you'll be admitting Clinton won fair and square if she wins the popular vote (with some fair counting of FL and MI) and the SD's decided based on that and electability to go with her, and so then she wins the delegate count (including SD's). Right?


    simple (none / 0) (#84)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:34:57 AM EST
    she gets more delegates including SD's. That happens if she is seen as more electable and/or has more popular votes (incl. some count of FL and MI). Forget what delegates have said in the past. Remember, it's all politics. What seemed one way a month ago can be something quite different in a month from now.

    SD's haven't decided yet. If they decide before the convention and one reaches the magic number, the game is mostly over (baring anything crazy happening before/during the convention). If neither reaches the magic number, it's decided in the convention. Anything can happen then.

    The bottom line is, since neither can get the magic number without SD's, SD's decide. And that comes down to who is seen as more electable. That can be decided in a zillion ways. And nothing that has been said counts for sh*t. Time to buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride.


    we can all agree that (none / 0) (#91)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:14:13 PM EST
    the system sucks.  with that said, no SD is going to overturn the will of the people, whatever that turns out to be.  doesn't matter who is "seen" as what.

    and so it should be.


    I think SD's will overturn the will of the people (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:07:53 PM EST
    Look at the ones who have already: Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson, etc. I think the popular vote will be with Clinton when all is said and done, but I think the SD's will probably lean towrad to Obama. So the SD's will indeed overturn the will of the people. And because of the  disenfranchisement of FL and MI and other things, dems will lose in '08. I certainly hope not, but that's my guess. I do agree the system sucks. Caucuses are very undemocratic, and not counting votes in states is very undemocratic. I hope that can change in the future.

    what theda said.... (none / 0) (#60)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:41:25 AM EST
    A masterful display (none / 0) (#61)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:42:58 AM EST
    of passive language. "...very clinical things were said..." Sorry, unconvincing. Try again.

    You are joking of course? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:43:21 AM EST
    I will let this go by and just sit and watch.  

    33 or 25... I'm confused (none / 0) (#68)
    by Radix on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:01:19 AM EST
    In the Jan Nevada, what ever the hell it was, it was reported that Obama took 13 delegates to HRC's 12, yes? Isn't that only 25 delegates total so far? Were the last 8 being decided this past Saturday then?

    Looks like those are super-d's (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:08:18 AM EST
    or at-large dels, still to be decided.

    Btw, none of the non-super-d's really are decided yet in any caucus state.  As this story says, and as is true in other caucus states, the final recaucusing comes at state conventions in June, when only then will the final allocations show numbers of delegates to the national Dem convention.

    That's why any media guesses about actual delegate count now and for months to come are just guesses -- and hardly the sort of harder data that ought to be used to call an end to the primary process too soon by calling for either candidate to concede.  But that is especially dumb to do toward the candidate whose delegates are far more from primary-election states, while the other candidate who relied on a caucus-state strategy still could lose delegates in the next recaucusing steps.


    More good news for Clinton showing it ain't over (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by barryluda on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:23:40 AM EST
    Looks like she's ahead in the latest Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll:

    Clinton has gained a statistically-insignificant one-point advantage over Obama, 46% to 45%.

    And although nothing, yet, has changed my mind in supporting Obama, I'm glad that all of the good, bad and ugly is coming out now, before the GE.  Better to have time to change while there's still time.  And this way, whoever ends up winning, we can all get behind her or him.


    Ah, now the glass has become opaque. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Radix on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:24:13 AM EST
    I can finally almost see. :)

    It will fog again -- that's the fun (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:59:56 AM EST
    for some.  For me, it has been a fascinating education in states that run differently from mine -- but not fun at times.  It is so frustrating to see how many so-called "A-list" bloggers don't do the simple work (it must be so, because I did it:-) to see how it works.  

    That's one reason I'm here at Talk Left.  Jeralyn and BTD already know a lot but do the work to learn more -- or, occasionally when they get it wrong, retract, correct, clarify, etc.  So do the good commenters.

    I don't want to be with a candidate or a blog that is trying to mislead me.  My time has value to me, and I like to use it to learn, including at this site.