Official March 4th Results Discussion Topic

[Verily]

Harris, too, and much more of Travis.

[Verily]

Obviously an error in Brooks, by the way.

The same exact thing happened in Okanogan County, WA, during the primary.  I think it was alphabetizing error.

Or Doddmentum.

My guess is that someone alphabetized Clinton as "Hillary", throwing everything off one.

[Verily]

Haha, Hillary supporters chanting "Yes she can"

Cult of personality

[Verily]

WOO HOO!!

She's still clear by 14% in Ohio with 70% in. Her lead in Texas is growing despite the supposedly Obama heavy counties coming in.


YES SHE WILL!

Can you not be BRTD for the evening. Thanks.

[Verily]

Clinton's lead is still growing in Texas.  Why?

Hidalgo this time.

[Verily]

How big will Webb be when it comes in?

Smaller than the other big counties; it only has a bit over 200,000 residents, much smaller than most of the others we're talking about. About three-quarters of Nueces.

[Verily]

How big will Webb be when it comes in?

Smaller than the other big counties; it only has a bit over 200,000 residents, much smaller than most of the others we're talking about. About three-quarters of Nueces.

Still should had a few thousand votes for Clinton's lead.

We really can't judge the race until the rest of Harris comes in.

Oh, yes, it definitely will. But not a large amount, maybe five thousand net at most, probably a bit less.

[Verily]

Tarrant County just dropped from 55% to 36% reporting...

[Verily]

It seems to me that Clinton managed to get a LOT out of this night. She's pulled Obama into exactly the kind of dirty, negative politics where she can probably beat him. He's beginning to sound defensive. Also, the news spin for her right now sounds incredible. There was an analyst on CNN just saying that the winner of PA will be the nominee! If he cannot pull out Texas Clinton may have a better chance than we thought.

They can say it on the media, but the delegate numbers will not bear it out. They can't crown Clinton after winning PA if Obama leads by 100 delegates on April 23.

[Verily]

More El Paso.

If it came down to Harris v El Paso, Harris wins huge. But there are plenty of other large counties with lots left to report.

[Verily]

Obama will not have such a lead if Clinton is crowned by the media.

How will they give her delegates? She won't be within a hundred after today, and the two between now and PA are some of Obama's strongest: the blackest state and the least densely populated western state (a caucus).

She can make up ground in PA. But twenty net delegates there is pretty generous, and Obama should manage that in just MS and WY.

[Verily]

The same numbers say that Obama supporters will back McCain, so I'm not sure how that argument works. Anyway, we'll see if the 50 extra supers Obama is rumored to have are true tomorrow.

[Verily]

Yeah, I noted the El Paso bump just now.

While the media cannot alloted delegates they can affect the remaining races and superdelegates.

You said Obama won't have a lead after Pennsylvania if the media crowns Hillary. There's no way she can catch up between now and Pennsylvania.

That's because super delegates would under that scenario flock to her. If he's forced out his delegate count may even drop to 0

But seriously politics has a lot to do with appearances, especially with all those super delegates holding the balance of power.

You're missing the point. They can't crown a winner who trails, badly, in the pledged delegate count. And the superdelegates are not going to switch on "appearances"; they know enough of politics to understand that a lot of this is smoke and mirrors.

[Verily]

Yeah, I noted the El Paso bump just now.

While the media cannot alloted delegates they can affect the remaining races and superdelegates.

You said Obama won't have a lead after Pennsylvania if the media crowns Hillary. There's no way she can catch up between now and Pennsylvania.

That's because super delegates would under that scenario flock to her. If he's forced out his delegate count may even drop to 0

But seriously politics has a lot to do with appearances, especially with all those super delegates holding the balance of power.

You're missing the point. They can't crown a winner who trails, badly, in the pledged delegate count. And the superdelegates are not going to switch on "appearances"; they know enough of politics to understand that a lot of this is smoke and mirrors.

That's a whole other argument. Should I interpret your changing the argument as you agreeing with me on what I said?

Well, sort of. Yes, the media can affect the remaining races. But they won't crown a winner who trails in delegates, though they might say it now without thinking about it. And there are two other races between now and PA which will change the media narrative (Clinton Bump Elusive?).

[Verily]

Yeah, I noted the El Paso bump just now.

While the media cannot alloted delegates they can affect the remaining races and superdelegates.

You said Obama won't have a lead after Pennsylvania if the media crowns Hillary. There's no way she can catch up between now and Pennsylvania.

That's because super delegates would under that scenario flock to her. If he's forced out his delegate count may even drop to 0

But seriously politics has a lot to do with appearances, especially with all those super delegates holding the balance of power.

You're missing the point. They can't crown a winner who trails, badly, in the pledged delegate count. And the superdelegates are not going to switch on "appearances"; they know enough of politics to understand that a lot of this is smoke and mirrors.

That's a whole other argument. Should I interpret your changing the argument as you agreeing with me on what I said?

Well, sort of. Yes, the media can affect the remaining races. But they won't crown a winner who trails in delegates, though they might say it now without thinking about it. And there are two other races between now and PA which will change the media narrative (Clinton Bump Elusive?).

I agree it sounds crazy, but I've learnt never to underestimate the stupidity that can come on public display in these amtters.

I also take heart from the Nevada spin. For the first day or two it was all about the immense significance of the Clinton victory. Then it was revealed that Obama had won more delegates, and the narrative became that Nevada had been a tie, indecisive. I think that's exactly what's going to happen here; if Clinton gains net delegates at all, it will be five to ten at most, and I actually think Obama is more likely to win net delegates with these numbers (with the caucus caveat that we don't know anything yet).

[Verily]

Ooh, caucus results. But no county breakdown

[Verily]

Chuck Todd on MSNBC is saying that even if Clinton's 2 point lead in TX holds up, his best guess (because of the particular districts where each candidate won) is that Obama nets about 3-4 delegates just from the *primary* contest in TX

Oh, yes. This is clearly the more democratic system.

Is giving 100% of delegates to someone who wins 32% more democratic and proportional?

Uh, at least the person who won more votes gets more delegates as opposed to someone losing in the vote count yet obtaining more delegates.

Do you really want to make this argument? We could talk about House malapportionment, Senate malapportionment, the 2000 EC results...

[Verily]

Here's the Texas State Senate map: http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/leg/features/0400_04/plans01188.html

[Verily]

Tarrant jumped to 71% and Clinton increased her margin.

Bexar also jumped to 75%.

[Verily]

Wow, am I the only one who thought that what has happened tonight was how things would turn out?

Not really.  If this makes sense at all (probably not), I expected my expectations to be much more off than they were.

Fun night, though!

I understand how you feel.

[Verily]

Hamilton County now in - Hillary's margin down to twelve.  Depending on what's out in Cuyahoga, Obama could pull it down into single digits, maybe.

None of Cleveland is reporting, not until 4:30 a.m.

[Verily]

Chuck Todd on MSNBC is saying that even if Clinton's 2 point lead in TX holds up, his best guess (because of the particular districts where each candidate won) is that Obama nets about 3-4 delegates just from the *primary* contest in TX....this doesn't count what happens in the TX caucus, which we don't know about yet.

The SoS is showing Clinton up 64-62 on the primary delegates.  She is also up 55%:44% in election day voting.  You have people who voted early two weeks ago, who you're going to try to get to come back on a cold night to a different place than where they voted the first time.  Those who voted late on election day can just stick around for the caucus.

Not actually true, as the caucuses were in different locations from the primaries. And I was under the impression (haven't checked myself) that it was Obama who led 64-62 in delegates.

[Verily]

Conclusion:  Among Democrats, racists outnumber misogynists, unless you think of pro-women voters as misogynist (not unreasonable)

That would be misandry, not misogyny.