« NM-03: New 'Wiviott in Depth' Video | Main | Results of Santa Fe, Other Municipal Elections »
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Updates on Dem Prez Primaries/Caucuses: OH, RI, TX, VT Results
Frequently updated results for all four states are available at the CNN website.
UPDATE 9PM: Check out how the delegate counts are going for the real story here. The explanation provided is very instructive. This is the kind of mathematical analysis that indicates that unless Clinton wins big, like 65%-35%, in all the states tonight plus all the states to come through June, and she ALSO wins big in most every district within the states, she cannot make up Obama's delegate margin.
Before tonight, Obama's pledged delegate margin was 161 or so. The results from today will probably be a wash -- with one or the other gaining only a handful of net delegates.
***********
Vermont: 15 pledged, 8 super delegates
Polls had barely closed in Vermont when Barack Obama was projected to be the winner of his 12th straight contest based on exit polling results. Obama was expected to win the state by a healthy margin, so this is no surprise, but it does represent one down, three to go if you're an Obama fan like me. The exit polling in Vermont shows Obama winning by big margins in almost every demographic category.
Texas: 126 pledged - primary, 67 pledged - caucuses, 12 super delegates
Vote stealing being reported in Houston. And it's not by the Obama campaign. Description of voting and caucus chaos in . Clinton projected as winner despite the fact that the caucus results, which will allocate about 35% of delegates, are only dribbling in. I thought the "winning" of the state of Texas was dependent on who wins the primary AND the caucus, didn't you?
Ohio: 141 pledged, 21 super delegates
Polling places in two counties staying open late due to weather. Hillary projected winner at about 9:00 PM our time, although most major city totals are not yet in.
Rhode Island: 21 pledged, 12 super delegates
As expected, Clinton the projected winner, although it looks like the pledged delegate split will be about even. Exit polling.
March 4, 2008 at 11:15 PM in 2008 Presidential Primary | Permalink
Comments
Looks like Hillary got the Diebold bounce in Ohio. No surprise there, I suppose...
Posted by: Jenna | Mar 4, 2008 8:09:36 PM
I think it's more that there was very bad weather in the Cleveland area, the Gov. put the fix in in some needed areas and that fake, dishonest, sleazy thing where the conservative prime minister of Canada, who is friends with Bill Clinton, distributed the phony stuff about Obama and NAFTA. The usual Rove tactics that the Clinton campaign uses. They still can't win on pledged delegates.
Posted by: I Vote | Mar 4, 2008 9:31:05 PM
The women who vote for Clinton because she's a woman make me sick. Do they get that they are giving their trust to someone who voted for Bush's war, cosponsored a flag burning amendment, voted for the horribly unfair bankruptcy bill and voted with Bush to define Iran's premier military outfit as terrorists?
Do they realize they are voting for the couple who gave us NAFTA, horrible banking and financial changes on behalf of multinational corporations, the worst telecommunications bill of all time, don't ask don't tell and DOMA?
A true feminist with human values would never do these things. Hillary Clinton is a selfish and dishonest fraud. Any woman who supports her should examine what is motivating them. It isn't anything logical at all.
Posted by: No to Hillary | Mar 5, 2008 2:15:26 AM
How many of the votes for Hillary in Texas were from Republicans? I heard that Republicans there were encouraged to vote for Clinton because she can't beat McCain. I'm glad we have a closed Primary in NM.
Posted by: Michelle Meaders | Mar 5, 2008 12:02:01 PM
Whatever happened in OH and TX, Obama did really, really well, especially when you consider how far behind HRC he was three weeks ago. As a friend said to me today - we both became BO supporters when Edwards dropped out - if BO can't beat the Clinton machine, what hope does he have against the Republican juggernaut? Especially with a do-nothing Congress weighing him down? It would help if he had a Democratic Congressional record of accomplishment to help speed him along, but that appears to be an empty hope. And blaming Clinton for his perceived lack of accomplishment doesn't help him.
Posted by: | Mar 5, 2008 2:56:56 PM
Funny thing about those Republics voting for Hillary in Texas. By voting Democratic they are soon to get a surprise, they will find that for the next year they will have to vote Democratic or not vote at all. Voting in the Democratic primary has changed their party affiliation, guess Rush didn't bother to explain that to those who he was encouraging to vote for Hillary. LOL
Posted by: VP | Mar 5, 2008 4:40:39 PM
John McAndrew: You wrote, "If BO can't beat the Clinton machine what hope does he have against the Republican juggernaut?"
That misses the point. Democrats running against one another in a presidential primary are expected to use some decorum and refrain from using Karl Rove tactics like saying your rival would be a worse commander in chief than yourself AND the Republican nominee. You don't run an ad like the 3AM phone ad based on fear, innuendo and distortion, giving talking points to the Republican side. You don't trump up a concocted and false story about your Democratic opponent allegedly telling the Canadians that's he's really all gung ho for NAFTA.
Hillary's campaign crossed that line in the last week and to me it is unforgiveable and destructive of the Party and so much more.
According to exit polling, Hillary "won" TX and OH (if you can call it that considering she hardly made a dent in Obama's all important delegate count) by gaining the votes of those who decided in the last 3 days and they decided by being swayed by Hillary's nasty lies and dishonest innuendos. She made hay on those for the moment, but now it's clear Obama shouldn't feel bound by any of the normal rules that apply to Democratic presidential nomination battles.
I'd still like to know what "experience" Hillary is referring to when she brags she has 35 years of it, including some sort of vast foreign policy experience. She was the wife of a womanizing governor in a backwater state who didn't have many accomplishments. She was a lawyer for an Arkansas law firm known for political and real estate shady deals including running the bimbo eruptions squad to cover up Bill's infidelities. She was the wife of a president and handled the one responsibility she had - health care reform - so badly and with such stubborness and secrecy that she ruined any chance for reform for more than 12 years.
Hillary never had a security clearance so could not have been involved in any serious decision making in the White House about foreign affairs or security.
Then she became Senator based on her husband's connections and has accomplished exactly what? She voted for the Iraq war. She cosponsored a flag burning amendment. She voted to say Iran's premier military outfit were terrorists.
Is THIS the experience she's talking about?
Posted by: Monica Brett | Mar 5, 2008 5:20:46 PM
Please read David Sirota's excellent piece about Hillary using the same tactics as Joe Lieberman to sucker voters into supporting her:
Posted by: | Mar 5, 2008 5:42:20 PM
Monica, my comment may have missed the point you were trying to make, but it succeeded in making the point I was trying for. Different points. Mine was not intended to address your complaints about HRC, with some of which I agree, though not all.
But you start with a doozy about which I must inquire. You say "Democrats running against one another in a presidential primary are expected to use some decorum and refrain from using Karl Rove tactics like..." My question is, expected by whom? If Obama expects that, I wouldn't want someone so naive at the helm of this country. Can you imagine the disappointment such a naif would suffer when someone breaks a treaty with us?
Posted by: | Mar 5, 2008 8:19:06 PM
Expected by the Party in which they are members. There has been much concern within the Party about what Hillary is trying to do to someone who has a good chance of being the nominee. Remember the outcries when Bill Buffoon was making racially charged statements in South Carolina?
It's not about being a naif, it's about expecting a certain degree of honesty and fairness on the part of your Democratic opponent.
It's all well and good to criticize your primary opponent's positions or other attributes. It's quite another thing to praise your Republican opponent and compare your Democratic opponent unfavorably to them on something like "national security" where Democrats are always criticized.
I think you are the naif if you think that won't hurt us in the Fall.
Obama has been critical of Clinton without being personal because of a variety of reasons, including that he no doubt cares about the future of the Party and its candidates. Clinton is, as she and her husband have always been, out for herself regardless.
Obama came up in Chicago politics and knows full well how to battle an opponent in many ways. But it's hard to fight back quickly enough when your Democratic opponent is generating bogus stories and lying about you a couple days before an election. I'm sure his campaign will be taking a more proactive stance now that Hillary has shown what her strategy is aimed at and how she intends to go about it in the most low-life way possible.
Posted by: Monica Brett | Mar 5, 2008 8:53:50 PM
