March 4, 2008
Clinton Wins Ohio, Texas; Obama Still Has More Delegates
Photograph, left, of Hillary Clinton at Herrera's Mexican Cafe in Dallas, TX by Carolyn Kaster/AP; photograph, right, of Barack Obama at the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo 2008 by Rick Bowmer/AP
Ohio and Texas are "too close to call" for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, which means it will be a long night - and very possibly another few weeks of primary madness. Obama did win Vermont (so far, 59% to Clinton's 39%) and Clinton won Rhode Island (currently 57% to Obama's 42%), which is her first win in a while, but those states aren't the focus.
Currently, at 10PM, with 9% of precincts reporting, Obama is leading 50.56% to Clinton's 47.81% in Texas (but precincts in Houston haven't reported). In Ohio, with 26% of precincts reporting, Clinton is leading 57.65% to Obama's 40.43% - but keep in mind, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton and Toledo haven't reported yet.
There was high voting turnout in Ohio, but also voting problems, thanks to a fake bomb threat and paper ballot issues, prompting a judge to keep Cuyahoga county voting open later. And some Texas precincts didn't order enough ballots, while some Democratic voters will be caucusing as well.
Some early polling info: In Texas, 64% of Hispanics voted for Clinton while 83% of blacks voted to Obama. In both Texas and Ohio, almost two-thirds Younger voters, aged 17- 18-29 tended to vote for Obama, while two thirds of voters over 60 chose Clinton.
The fight for the nomination is so heated that Obama's lawyer Bob Bauer essentially ambushed a Clinton campaign conference call with reporters, to tell the campaign to "stop attacking the caucus process." You can here it at Politco. Also, Obama accused the media of biting on the Clinton's campaign's complaint that they were hard on her and soft on him. Granted, Clinton's getting worked over her comments to 60 Minutes about whether Obama is Muslim.
Update 10:53 p.m.: MSNBC and CNN are projecting that Clinton will win Ohio, with 57% (663,922) of the Ohio vote so far, is the winner. Obama has 41% (470,481) of the vote. Next stop, Pennsylvania?
Update 11:18 p.m.: Clinton is giving a happy, confetti-filled speech about her Ohio victory, noting that her win is for those who have been counted out and knocked around. She makes the point that no President has won without winning the Ohio primary.
Update 11:33 p.m.: Clinton has a slight lead in Texas, with 44% precincts reporting, with about 49.63% to Obama's 48.25%.
Update 3:21 a.m.: It's official: Clinton has won Texas, with 95% precincts reporting, with 50.8% (1,419,732) of the vote.
|
Clinton is now only 700 votes behind Obama as of 10:46...
when will this madness end? this is going to totally suck for the democrats-- three more months of them ripping at each other-- until eventually a completely damaged candidate emerges, and then promptly loses to mccain.
we're doomed.
Provided HRC continues here 2 pt lead in Tx, CNN should soon be projecting her as the winner...
Ahhh Yeah! My Horse is back in it! Give em hell Hill! This is all oprah's fault for endorsing obama cause he's black and she's black. Now, both hill and obama won't win against McCain. thanks oprah!
Obama has won more state. But, they are crappy states. Stay in it, Hillary.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/
You're absolutely right, we only should count the "quality" states. Which ones are those again? Probably only the ones Hillary has (narrowly) won. The last thing we need is a Republican in a Democrat's clothes, winning elections in the Republican manner, with fear, questionable voting practices, and the hyperbole of victimization.
Go Hill, go!
Time to buck up.
This is amazing and Michigan and Florida will matter.
This will benefit the Dems in the end, only if HC wins. She has been attacked from more angles than anyone I have ever seen. OBAMA is hot air. The time is now for her.
Extraordinary.
RI, OH, and now TX..... Go Hillary Go!!!!!
Wow, GOP's united front, no matter how wrong or silly, is actually giving them a head start in the general election. I'm actually concerned that the Dems are not wrapping this up quickly, and wasting money on each other.
The states that Hillary has won (NY, Mass., Ohio, Florida, California) are the states that are necessary to win a general election. Most of the Obama-won states aren't going to go Democrat in a general. Reality is, Obama wins states that have large black democrat populations (i.e., Georgia, Alabama, S.C., Virginia, MD). He also wins caucuses. In a general election, there just aren't enough black voters in those states for him to win them (those are states that traditionally go red), and let's face it, a caucus isn't a true indicator of how voters will vote in a regular election. He also relies heavily on the youth vote who have the attention span of a gnat -- once the rockstar aspect of Obama wears off, his young supporters will go on to the next big thing and lose interest.
If the Democrats want to have a real horse in the race come November, it can't be Barack Obama -- or else we can all give John McCain a big welcome to the White House in January 2009.
The irony is Obama really spent huge in TX and OH for a knockout. He dismissed the "kitchen sink" as acts of desperation from a losing campaign. The fumbling over the Rezko questions and NAFTA couldn't have helped.
I'd like to see how much he spent on those two states.
holyfrijole - my sentiments exactly. Obama is the ADD candidate.
holyfrijole - my sentiments exactly. Obama is the ADD candidate.
"If the Democrats want to have a real horse in the race come November, it can't be Barack Obama -- or else we can all give John McCain a big welcome to the White House in January 2009."
See I would say the exact opposite. Obama actually attracts swing voters. On the other hand, Hillary repels them.
If Hillary wins the caucus I'm voting for McCain.
Without endorsing any candidate, this idea that Clinton's state wins are more important than Obama's is a hollow argument. That Clinton won New York doesn't mean Obama can't carry it in November. John Kerry managed to win 251 electoral votes and he, with all due respect, ran a terrible campaign. If you want me to believe Obama would lose New York, New Jersey, or California you're going to have to try harder to convince me. And if Clinton is the nominee and young adults and African Americans stay home from the polls we are looking at a replay of 2004 in terms of Red States/Blue States.
"If Hillary wins the caucus I'm voting for McCain". Same for if Obama wins. a lot of hill dems will vote for McCain. See what Oprah's civil war has cost us? I don't know how anyone can vote for Obama if you check out his past. His mother was an independant white atheist who raised him singlehandedly by herself after his father abandoned them to go to harvard and he said that she was the biggest influence and yet he's a southern baptist and only mentions his white mother in midwest states. That's shady. Obama is trying to win the george bush way. He's one almost all the states George won in the general election of 2000, and 2004.
So you're basing your vote entirely on his race and the parts of his past that he has absolutely no control over.
I really wish you would be banned and not just because of your name.
Well yeah, your name is probably also a good reason to be banned from here as well.
Hillary supporters are some of the biggest morons I've met. They can offer no original arguments as to why their canidate is better. All they can spout off is "she's the candidate with experience". Yet they can't name what that experience actually is. And if you pressure them on any substantial policy issues they call you sexist or if your a woman that you are betraying your gender. Hill-bots face the facts, your candidate is the most polarizing candidate in the race. If by chance she happens to lie and cry her way into the Oval office she'll be as effective as Jimmy Carter in 1979. And as a result the democrats will lose Congress again.
The states that Hillary has won (NY, Mass., Ohio, Florida, California) are the states that are necessary to win a general election. the joke here is that Hillary's win in most of thoses states has not been resounding. You can't count Florida since it was impossible for Hillary NOT to "win" there. Clinton's win in New York was a given, perhaps more so given that so many precincts apparently decided not to count votes for Obama. Ohio was clear enough, but her win in Texas is basically a tie.
I've read that even if Hillary were to "win" every state left, she still wouldn't be be able to close the delegate gap. I haven't done the delegate math, but assuming that Hillary could win this, the way I see it is this: (1) Hillary has proven unable to win decisively among DEMOCRATS, and (2) Hillary will do even worse when it comes to appealing to independents and cross-over Republicans.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain.
Primary results cannot be used in any way to predict general results. Just stop.
fyi - just because Hillary gets the most popular votes doesn't mean she will get more delegates. To say that she 'won' is misleading.
...I meant in the TX primary system popular votes dont necessarily mean more delegates.
They can offer no original arguments as to why their canidate is better. All they can spout off is "she's the candidate with experience".
I agree 100%. What experience? Most of her experience would be in running campaigns, in Arkansas and for Bill's 2 term presidency, and her own for the NY Senate. For all that experience, she is now running second place after long being considered the front-runner.
Maybe she's talking about her experience as First Lady? Or experience in weathering various scandals? If she's talking about her 6 years as Senator from NY, I'm not exactly clear on what she's accomplished. Support for the Iraq war, followed by backtracking. Not sure about any big initiatives or anything. A lot of what she now complains about (the economy, healthcare, etc.) has existed throughout her term as Senator, but it doesn't seem like she's done much to move the ball forward as a Senator. Her major accomplishment has been servicing her own ambition. Plus being a woman.
The one nice thing that Hillary had a big hand in is getting the morning-after pill approved for over-the-counter distribution. I remember reading about that and saying "OK, score one for Hil."
But, in general, I agree - her "experience" seems to be largely in acting like the kind of overconfident, wonky politician voters hate.
Anyone who says Hillary Clinton doesn't have experience clearly hasn't looked into her history. Wikipedia it, I'm not doing the work for you. SCHIP, ASFA, federal funding for post-9/11 NY... it's a start.
Now tell me what Obama's done other than the shady Rezko deals, not holding meetings for the committee he chairs, and breaking his promises to America's veterans.
No Democrat will lose NY, CA or NJ in Nov. Hillary winning those states isn't a big deal. McCain won't win them in Nov.
I don't get how anyone can go from supporting Obama or Hillary and then vote for McCain. There are some differences between Obama and Hillary but the differences between them and McCain are stark.
People assail Hillary for voting in favor of Iraq. If she had been CIC in 2003, she wouldn't have sent us there. She wouldn't have advocated the neocon Iraq plan in the WH. She won't do it in Iran either. Same for Obama. McCain would have gone to Iraq and wants to fight Iran.
People might be mad if their candidate loses but still should support the Dem. candidate. If not, McCain will be Bush, Part III.
'm not doing the work for you.
Pretty obnoxious. You would think someone that so passionate about their candidate would like to explain to everyone what makes them so great in the hopes of winning a convert. Anyway, didn't Ted Kennedy do much of the work on SCHIP in the 1990s? Seemed that most of what Hillary did was lean on Bill to get it done.