Only 56 delegates to go
May 26th, 2008 at 10:15 pm by David FarrarObama has picked up some more super delegates and looks to have 1,970 delegates – just 56 short of the 2,026 needed.
86 delegates are still to go, so if he gets half that is just 13 short. It really should finally end on the 3rd of June (4th in NZ).
In Montana a poll out last week has Obama ahead by 17% so he should pick up over half the 16 delegates – maybe 10 to 6.
South Dakota had a early April poll with Obama ahead by 12%. Delegate split of their 15 may be 8 to 7 in his favour.
In Puerto Rico, Clinton led by 13% in the last poll (5 April) and should win that one. Delegates may split 30 to 25 for her (55 in total).
Related posts:
- Obama closer but not quite there
- Finally the end in sight for Obama
- Obama in the lead
- Obama wins South Carolina by
May 27th, 2008 at 12:21 am
More important is the Rules and Bylaws meeting on the 31st. We don’t know how many delegates are needed until we know what compromise will be reached over Florida and Michigan; the Clinton camp certainly don’t accept the 2026 figure.
But even if Obama has the numbers, Clinton could spend from June 3 til the convention lobbying superdelegates to switch over to her.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 4:04 am
It wont be over until the convention – the little bar graphs on CNN mean nothing. Superdelegates can and have changed their endorsement.
Clinton is now consistently performing better than Barack Obama in head to head polls with John McCain, particularly in the well controlled Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls. A margin that is now a differential between 5 and 7%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Maintains-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx
If this is maintained it will make for an interesting convention.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Nah Clinton will have to withdraw once Obama gets over 2026. Otherwise her superdelegates will start defecting.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Iz it cus she iz white? Still, if Clintonistas wan’t to run that line, could someone tell me where Gallup and Rasmussen were tracking Al Gore at this point eight years ago? If my memory serves, those polls had him romping home.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 8:45 am
“Iz it cus she iz white?”
no it’s because she’s getting the woman vote. But please do continue with characterising her supporters as racist – that is sure going to get all those women and Hispanics out to vote for Obama in Nov.
It’s really interesting how when some one confronts you with facts Craig you have to drag things down to simplistic moralising.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 9:06 am
NeilM:
For fuck’s sake, Neil, considering the amount of explicitly racist (“America’s not ready for a black President”), Muslim-bating bullshit on display around here, excuse me for calling a spade a spade. I’m still waiting for someone to plausibly explain how Obama can be both an Islamofascist Manchurian Candidate and a member of a radical black church, but won’t hold my breath. McCain doesn’t feel the need to even try, but if that’s the kind of politics you find acceptable – shame on you.
Having said that, considering your knee-jerk tendency to dismiss any criticism of Clinton as the work of misogynistic far right-wing men, I have a kettle to introduce you to, Mr. Pot.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 9:16 am
BTW, Neil, you didn’t answer my quite reasonable question. How were tracking polls rating Bush and Gore six months ahead of the 2000 general election — as I said, my memory is that they showed Gore with a substantial and sustained lead. If I’m wrong, please correct me but I see no reason to change my view that all polls need to be taken with big fists full of salt.
And if you think racial (and racist) anxieties — and anti-Mulsim bigotry — aren’t being played on against Obama, you’re in fairyland. I really hoped McCain wasn’t going to go there, but he has. Sorry if the truth hurts, but you need to deal with it.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 9:33 am
And if you think racial (and racist) anxieties — and anti-Mulsim bigotry — aren’t being played on against Obama, you’re in fairyland. I really hoped McCain wasn’t going to go there, but he has.
I thought I had been watching the race reasonably closely. In what way has McCain started down that track? Do you have a link or two as examples?
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 9:34 am
It’s hard to get accurate polls right now — lots of overzealous Clinton supporters are claiming they’d vote McCain over Obama. They’ll rally around Obama once they accept he’s gonna be the candidate. Well, not the Appalachians, but the rest will. Obama will get women’s votes once they realise he gets to appoint maybe three judges to the supreme court.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 9:40 am
I was under the impression that McCain behaving relatively well on the race isssue (eg his complaints about the racist Tennessee ad).
The media on the other hand…
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 10:24 am
McCain did call Obama the “candidate endorsed by Hamas”
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 10:25 am
He IS the candidate endorsed by Hamas.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Just because an organisation endorses you, it does not tie you to that organisation. It’s not as if they would have endorsed McCain now would they?
It’s a bit like tying the National Party to say, a well organised and funded fringe religion who is more aligned with national than labour.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 10:56 am
So you think Hamas is gong to start taking out newspaper adverts and printing leaflets for Obama then SR?
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Just because an organisation endorses you, it does not tie you to that organisation.
Which in turn leads one straight down the path of argument that Obama supporters want you to travel, and which, as you point out with your National Party reference, is a tactic the Left are more than happy to play when it suits their candidate. No double standards here thank you.
This is exactly the same as the debate that brewed up ages ago about one of Osama Bin Laden’s sad little spiels – in which he repeated virtually every Left-wing talking point of the last few years against Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan – right down to the Pet Goat.
This led to many loud squeals of indignation that this did not mean the Western Left supported Bin Laden. Such suggestions were ourageous, false, a smear job, “The Politics of Fear”, yada, yada, yada.
The point then was not that Bin Laden believed any of that Left-wing crap but that he had made those statements because he saw the Western Left as his best ally in reaching his objectives, something the left has done very little to dissuade him from believing.
This is exactly the same. With the exception of Loudon and co few people think that Obama is in the tank for Hamas or the Iranian mullahs.
The real point that McCain is drawing to attention to is the fact that Hamas clearly think that the policies or approaches of a President Obama will enable them to achieve their objectives.
That should be of concern to Obama himself, the fact that it is not, and even more, that it is simply a question that can be deflected with a form of “Don’t Question My Patriotism” spin, should be very big red flag.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I had heard Puerto Rico is winner take all, which would make the race run longer if HC wins there
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 11:46 am
In the US, all convention delegate counts are merely indicative until the votes are actually cast on the convention floor. Obama could obtain the requisite number for the nomination before then and STILL lose on the floor of the convention. Saying a vote is pledged is more a matter of wish and convention than fact.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Race has played, and will continue to play, a huge factor in the presidential race.
Of course, racism can only possibly work one way. It’s apparently not racist if 92% of black people voted for Obama in a primary (as happened recently), but it is racist if 70% of white people vote for Clinton. The double standards of the Left are just amazing.
The simple fact is that — and it’s not PC to make this point — there are people who won’t vote a black man president. And some of those people are Democrats.
One theory on why the exit polls in some states have been so unreliable is because white people are afraid to tell the pollsters that they voted for Clinton because they’ll be seen as racist. And/or they’re afraid to tell the pollsters that race was a major issue when deciding how to case their vote.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
The worrying thing is how many are prepared to tell pollsters that they voted against Obama based on race. And the unwillingness of the media to make the obvious inference when they ask about Obama’s “problem with white voters”.
Clinton was polling higher than Obama with blacks last year — Obama has won those votes from Clinton. Those black voters are willing to vote for a white candidate. There aren’t many blacks voting for Alan Keyes.
There’s a world of difference between voting against someone because of the colour of their skin, and voting for someone for the same reason. It’s the difference between having pride in your own culture and having prejudices against another culture.
As for the “reverse racism” nonsense — just as unprovoked assault and self-defence are morally different, racism and racial solidarity in response to racism are morally different.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
But it’s not a factor that some people won’t vote for Clinton because she’s a woman, or won’t vote for McCain because he’s old. Both pretty fatuous determining factors, in my view, but the great thing about a secret ballot is precisely that, and universal suffrage means idiots and bigots get to vote too, however much you wish they wouldn’t.
And looking through some of the freaky-deaky clerics like John Hagee McCain has actively courted (and now disavowed), I wonder if Catholic and Jewish voters are wondering if Obama is worth another look. But I guess, once more there is a double standard and it’s simple as black and white. Wright is wrong and Obama must be judged by the company he keeps, but it’s always different if you’re white and right-wing.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“He IS the candidate endorsed by Hamas.”
Have you read any of foreign policy statements? He’s a centrist Democrat. Have a look back at Bill Clinton – expect much the same.
It’s worth reading the Gallup breakdown of voter support –
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107416/Obama-Faces-Uphill-Climb-vs-McCain-Among-White-Voters.aspx
It’s not really a race thing more about class – Clinton does slightly better with blue-collar males, Obama slightly better with white-collar males.
The most significant difference is with woman – that’s where Obama does much worse.
And I know you’re not impressed with poles this far out Craig (with good reason – but then what else have we got to go on besides our own very limited judgement?) but Clinton consistently outdoes Obama against McCain –
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Maintains-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx
Sure it’s all too early to tell but if people are going to make the argument that Obama’s the one to win, that Hillary is too divisive and can’t win then let them come up with some actual evidence.
But of course the poll match-ups tell only half the story – it’s where those votes are geographically which makes all the difference with the electoral college. The best info on that is at http://www.mydd.com/ at the top left and right of the home page.
Obama is wining against McCain 290-248 but Hillary blows him completely out of the water 338-200. That’s what being divisive gets you. After all the campaigning, after all the hype of how well Obama is doing – Clinton outperforms him big time. Not bad.
Since 1st March Clinton has won the popular vote by 500,000 – she won the second half. Not that Obama won’t most likely get the nomination but I think his supporters should breath a bit of reality now and then – he isn’t doing spectacularly well.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
(apologies in advance if this turns out to be a double post).
“He IS the candidate endorsed by Hamas.”
Have you read any of foreign policy statements? He’s a centrist Democrat. Have a look back at Bill Clinton – expect much the same.
It’s worth reading the Gallup breakdown of voter support –
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107416/Obama-Faces-Uphill-Climb-vs-McCain-Among-White-Voters.aspx
It’s not really a race thing more about class – Clinton does slightly better with blue-collar males, Obama slightly better with white-collar males.
The most significant difference is with woman – that’s where Obama does much worse.
And I know you’re not impressed with polls this far out Craig (with good reason – but then what else have we got to go on besides our own very limited judgement?) but Clinton consistently outdoes Obama against McCain –
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Maintains-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx
Sure it’s all too early to tell but if people are going to make the argument that Obama’s the one to win, that Hillary is too divisive and can’t win then let them come up with some actual evidence.
But of course the poll match-ups tell only half the story – it’s where those votes are geographically which makes all the difference with the electoral college. The best info on that is at http://www.mydd.com/ at the top left and right of the home page.
Obama is wining against McCain 290-248 but Hillary blows him completely out of the water 338-200. That’s what being divisive gets you. After all the campaigning, after all the hype of how well Obama is doing – Clinton outperforms him big time. Not bad.
Since 1st March Clinton has won the popular vote by 500,000 – she won the second half. Not that Obama won’t most likely get the nomination but I think his supporters should breath a bit of reality now and then – he isn’t doing spectacularly well.
“He IS the candidate endorsed by Hamas.”
Have you read any of foreign policy statements? He’s a centrist Democrat. Have a look back at Bill Clinton – expect much the same.
It’s worth reading the Gallup breakdown of voter support –
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107416/Obama-Faces-Uphill-Climb-vs-McCain-Among-White-Voters.aspx
It’s not really a race thing more about class – Clinton does slightly better with blue-collar males, Obama slightly better with white-collar males.
The most significant difference is with woman – that’s where Obama does much worse.
And I know you’re not impressed with polls this far out Craig (with good reason – but then what else have we got to go on besides our own very limited judgement?) but Clinton consistently outdoes Obama against McCain –
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Maintains-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx
Sure it’s all too early to tell but if people are going to make the argument that Obama’s the one to win, that Hillary is too divisive and can’t win then let them come up with some actual evidence.
But of course the poll match-ups tell only half the story – it’s where those votes are geographically which makes all the difference with the electoral college. The best info on that is at http://www.mydd.com/ at the top left and right of the home page.
Obama is wining against McCain 290-248 but Hillary blows him completely out of the water 338-200. That’s what being divisive gets you. After all the campaigning, after all the hype of how well Obama is doing – Clinton outperforms him big time. Not bad.
Since 1st March Clinton has won the popular vote by 500,000 – she won the second half. Not that Obama won’t most likely get the nomination but I think his supporters should breath a bit of reality now and then – he isn’t doing spectacularly well.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Finger pointing does not alter fact. Whatever you choose to make of it, Hamas has endorsed Obama. There’s little doubt that any such endorsement from an organisation that would prefer to see the US wiped off the face of the earth is a matter of lesser evils, but it remains a fact.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
“He IS the candidate endorsed by Hamas.”
Have you read any of foreign policy statements? He’s a centrist Democrat. Have a look back at Bill Clinton – expect much the same.
It’s worth reading the Gallup breakdown of voter support –
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107416/Obama-Faces-Uphill-Climb-vs-McCain-Among-White-Voters.aspx
It’s not really a race thing more about class – Clinton does slightly better with blue-collar males, Obama slightly better with white-collar males.
The most significant difference is with woman – that’s where Obama does much worse.
And I know you’re not impressed with polls this far out Craig (with good reason – but then what else have we got to go on besides our own very limited judgement?) but Clinton consistently outdoes Obama against McCain –
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Maintains-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx
Sure it’s all too early to tell but if people are going to make the argument that Obama’s the one to win, that Hillary is too divisive and can’t win then let them come up with some actual evidence.
But of course the poll match-ups tell only half the story – it’s where those votes are geographically which makes all the difference with the electoral college. The best info on that is at http://www.mydd.com/ at the top left and right of the home page.
Obama is wining against McCain 290-248 but Hillary blows him completely out of the water 338-200. That’s what being divisive gets you. After all the campaigning, after all the hype of how well Obama is doing – Clinton outperforms him big time. Not bad.
Since 1st March Clinton has won the popular vote by 500,000 – she won the second half. Not that Obama won’t most likely get the nomination but I think his supporters should breath a bit of reality now and then – he isn’t doing spectacularly well.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Well, sorry for bringing a “breath of reality” but the popular vote doesn’t really mean a lot in either party’s primary process or the general election. And you better not be including Michigan — where Obama wasn’t even in the ballot! — in that tally.
How about learning from experience — I didn’t rush out and bet the farm on a Gore landslide in 2000, based on the tracking polls six months out. Just as well, because penury isn’t really a good look on me.
Neil: Anywhere I can find the data these Pollwatcher pictograms are being aggregated from, because I’d hate to find they’re using less than credible data.
Again, care to source that assertion — I’ve hardly geeked the poll data, but at the moment the female Democrat demographic where Obama is (arguably) doing much worse is… white women over fifty.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Craig is merely pointing out an obvious truth -Clinton is polling better than Obama in the head to head polls against McCain in the swing states. She fights on because she believes she is the more electable candidate in the fall. So far the polls back her up.
The polls in 2000 were all over the place. Bush led Gore until the Dem Convention then Gore led right through Sep and in Oct Bush drew level and it was neck and neck all the way to the Nov vote. Craig is right – tracking polls this far out are not hugely indicative. At this stage in 04, Bush was 12 points behind Kerry – Bush 1 was 17 points behind Dukakis right after the 88 Dem Convention. Ive seen 4 different reputable organisations’ EC maps and 2 have McCain easily beating Obama and 2 have Obama beating McCain. All 4 however show Clinton winning!!
The truth is since the Wisconsin primary in early March, Obama has only won ONE state and that’s NC with 37% African-American population. Clinton’s lock on the popular vote since then has been substantial.
The superdelegates pledges are nothing more than that – pledges. They can change their mind at any time up to the convention as that is the only time they must actually cast their votes.
Obama polls poorly with working class whites. Its not racist to utter this truth nor should we infer that this demographic are inherently racist. Obama does worse than Clinton with Hispanics and Jews, is racism at work here also?
On the Hamas issue, McCain merely uttered the truth – Hamas prefer that Obama wins. Hugo Chavez has said the same thing. Obama’s policies are less threatening to them so its no surprise they prefer him to McCain. In the cut and thrust of Presidential campaigns, pointing these truths out is fair game and Obama needs to toughen up.
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
correction, puerto rico delegates will be allocated proportionally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_Democratic_primary%2C_2008
Vote:May 27th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
There is a difference, though I would not say it is world sized. Right now I’m sure there are lots of African-Americans who are voting for Obama precisely because of their pride that ‘one of theirs’ is almost there, and because of racial solidarity. Given the ‘first’ nature of the event I’m neither surprised nor discomforted by that, though I wonder whether the same thing would have happened had Colin Powell run for the Republicans in 1996?
However, you don’t have to reach too far back into the not-so-distant past too find numerous examples where having pride in your own culture and having prejudices against another culture is one and the same thing: that they cannot be disentangled.
In fact that is precisely the argument that has been used by numerous left-wingers on this site during debates over Jihadism and Islam – that right-wingers are being ‘racist’, or at least ‘culturally insensitive’ because they think Western society to be so superior to Islamic ones that the latter should assimilate with the West rather than vice-versa.
Adding race to the culture mix makes that entanglement worse, especially when you have professional race-baiters like Jesse Jackson involved who scream ‘racist’ so often at everything that the demand for endless racial solidarity begins to look exactly like racism. Here’s Jesse Jackson Jr commenting, the day after the New Hampshire primary loss, on Hilary’s tears:
In other words, whites who are not part of Obamamania can be obliquely accused of racism on the flimsiest basis, whereas Reverend Wright, with his racist theology, is beyond criticism from the same people.
Again, that is a classic, diversionary, “me good, you bad” line of argument that has been employed by left-wingers often on this blog on any number of topics. And of course it is ultimately tied in with the Post-Modern notion of power and powerlessness, which might make sense except that the people using this tactic somehow always manage to define themselves as powerless even when they end up in huge houses in nice parts of Chicago – or as President of the US.
Vote:May 28th, 2008 at 9:04 am
“Anywhere I can find the data these Pollwatcher pictograms are being aggregated from, because I’d hate to find they’re using less than credible data.”
ah, great argument. So you can’t be bothered checking their methodology and that makes them unreliable. Why not check for yourself. Maybe info from a fairly neutral Dem site that puts all available polling information from every state through a quite sophisticated processing algorithm that’s based on previous voter patterns in previous elections is of some value.
“Again, care to source that assertion — I’ve hardly geeked the poll data, but at the moment the female Democrat demographic where Obama is (arguably) doing much worse is… white women over fifty.’
I gave the Gallup link. Have a read. I sourced my statement – if you have a problem with the Gallup polling say why. Ignoring the link is not an argument.
“…but the popular vote doesn’t really mean a lot in either party’s primary process or the general election.”
You think I don’t know that? My point was that the current hype is Obama taking the country by storm – that he’s sweeping all before him. That he will beat McCain and Hillary won’t. But the reality is quite different. Through the campaign it’s Hillary who has become the stronger candidate – a point completely lost on the pundocracy who are infatuated with Obama and ignorant of facts.
In a contest that is so close that it’s the idiosyncrasies of the process that will determine that outcome such things as the popular vote will actually have moral force.
Vote:May 28th, 2008 at 9:40 am
“On the Hamas issue, McCain merely uttered the truth – Hamas prefer that Obama wins. Hugo Chavez has said the same thing. Obama’s policies are less threatening to them so its no surprise they prefer him to McCain. In the cut and thrust of Presidential campaigns, pointing these truths out is fair game and Obama needs to toughen up.”
But all that goes to show is that Hamas and Chavez are stupid – they don’t know Obama’s policy positions. He has clearly stated his support for Israel and that Hama is a terrorist organisation that should not be negotiated with. And just the other day he was calling Chavez out for being the demagogue he is.
He’s aslo been attacked by Castro.
Hillary is my first choice but I’m not worried about US foreign policy under either of them.
Vote:May 28th, 2008 at 10:39 am
More evidence that Hillary is destroying the Dem Party –
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6005
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6012
But still she’s ahead of McCain but Obama isn’t –
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_daily_tracking_5.php#comments
And Obama and Clinton’s negatives are exactly the same.
Doesn’t really add up to the standard media narrative.
Vote:May 28th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Seems to be a problem with commenst again
Vote: