Other than his home state of Illinois, what large states has Obama won? Gonna be tough to win the nomination by amalgamating a bunch of little bitty states. When Obama lost NY, CA, FL, MI, NJ, it's just hard to make that geographic argument that you are attempting to make, Major. It's just fool's gold.
Georgia was large, and FL and MI don't even count. It won't be hard at all given that in the general election it is highly unlikely that either CA or NY would go for McCain.
That's a nice collection there. CA - lost fair & square NY - Why include this but ignore IL? FL & MI - Weren't competed for by either candidate NJ - Why include this but ignore the larger GA? Assuming a Tuesday win in Virginia, Obama will have won the #5, #9, #12, and #13 states in the nation. Clinton will have won #1, #3, #11, and #14 (with faux-wins in #4 and #8). Given the vast number and breadth of states won by Obama, that's a tiny disadvantage. Odd that you say it would be tough to win the nomination his way, yet despite those states mentioned, Obama already leads in delegates - with that only set to grow in the next week. You're making the same mistake Hillary made - assuming that those small states are irrelevant. The wins he got yesterday include more people than Ohio. The potential wins on Tuesday include far more people than Pennsylvania and more delegates than Texas. Even with TX/OH losses, Obama would still likely come out of March 4th with a delegate lead at this point - and with only one truly big state (PA) and a bunch of small states left.
How do the super delegates factor into your analysis. Also, expect Florida and Michigan to have delegates seated at the convention. Bank on that, son. The Obama cult hysteria has been fun, but I just can't see him being the nominee. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't see it. Then of course if he does win, there is the looming issue of buyer's remorse when it dawns on the libs that they just nominated an incredibly liberal, inexperienced candidate.
That was hilarious. I do like the part about people who thing that if you people support Obama because of his hope message that somehow it means it's all passive, and not activism.
Obama is slightly behind taking into account superdelegates - barring upsets, by Tuesday, he'll be ahead in both accounts. However, since Jan 1st, Obama has gained more superdelegates than Hillary. Most of hers were committed long ago. So for the remaining 400+ superdelegates, that favors Obama. On the FL/MI delegations, it's still up in the air as to what will happen. Florida's may be seated as-is, they may adopt the GOP-rules with a half-delegation, or they may not seat it at all. They are currently talking about holding a new MI caucus in May potentially, so they may be handled differently. Or it may not even matter. If Obama wins either TX or OH, that may effectively end the campaign long before then. It's unlikely they will seat an as-is delegation that would flip the result though - you'd have a complete revolt. Don't worry, you've been wrong a lot in this race. About two weeks ago, you were expecting a 600 delegate advantage for Hillary today, so really, what do you know?
This was a great article about that speech: http://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-brings-it-back-to-earth-in.html
Gets a bit more interesting! http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004175292_webhuckabee10.html Huckabee not ready to concede Washington state By The Associated Press and Seattle Times staff Republican Mike Huckabee says he's not ready to concede Washington state, even though the state Republican Party has declared Arizona Sen. John McCain the winner of Saturday's caucuses. On NBC's "Meet the Press" this morning, the former Arkansas governor said his campaign is looking into some legal issues, without going into specifics. Huckabee's campaign blog, though, offers this: "The Washington State GOP, with 87.2 percent reporting, discontinued the counting process. We are looking into the matter. We are committed to making certain EVERY vote is counted. We will keep you posted." McCain won 26 percent of delegates, Huckabee won 24 percent, Texas Rep. Ron Paul finished with 21 percent, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has dropped out of the race, got 17 percent. On the Democratic side, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama beat New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 2-to-1. WTF is going on?
Ohio's biggest newspaper just indorsed Obama Friday I believe. Come you Texas Democrats! It's up to you!
The weird thing is that whole caucus/primary structure in Texas. If Obama out-organizes Hillary in the caucus, he could conceivably lose the popular vote and yet win more delegates. Truly messed up. (Nevada had that too, but that more geography than anything else)
On the Dem side, I think Austin is behind Obama, but Clinton may be ahead in Dallas and Houston. Hispanics in San Antonio and the Valley will tend to favor Clinton as well. Either way, with the way the tide's swinging right now, I wouldn't be surprised to see Texas turn into a close race.
The other thing you're missing here is that margin of victory matters. In winning NJ, Clinton gained a net of 11 delegates. In winning Idaho, Obama gained a net of 12 delegates because he destroyed her there. So from a delegate perspective, Idaho and New Jersey were a wash. Massachusetts and Colorado were a wash. Illinois and California were a wash. Minnesota+Kansas and NY were a wash. etc. Small states by large margins more than make up for smaller losses in big states.
The big difference with OH/TX compared to the earlier big states is that Obama will have two full weeks to campaign in those two states. With Super Tuesday, while Hillary was focused on California, Obama was crisscrossing the country in Idaho, Kansas, etc. That's a huge advantage for Obama, though early voting may be a problem yet again.
Read somethng yesterday that basically said (take this with a grain of salt and I'm not really too sure I agree) that Obama's campaign has seen a trend that he tends to do better with Hispanics in states where there isn't an equally represented black population. whatever that means?
Great article on the Dem super-delegate breakdown in the NYTs today. -- So there are roughly 490 undecided super delegates.
I'd like to vote for Hillary in the Texas primary, so as to advance the Republican cause in November. What implications would this have for me personally, by changing my party affiliation in order to do this? Texas Republicans across the state ought to be doing this.
I don't believe there is official party registration in Texas, so you certainly can do this. The Texas primaries are open, so anyone can choose which party to participate in. Although I think your voter info will be sent to the Dem party - I don't know if that's public information or not. I know there was a big brouhaha about this in Washington state with people not wanting to have their names on a public record of party affiliation or something.
Send in the lawyers! http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.c..._dubious_caucus_count_sends_lawyers_here.html Republican Mike Huckabee's campaign is sending attorneys to Washington state to investigate what happened with the count of yesterday's Republican presidential caucus. Campaign Chairman Ed Rollins issued this statement:
Good for them. If anything it looks like the State GOP actually looked at the remaining votes and said "uh oh, McCain may not win, okay! voting over! McCain wins!" What a joke. .
