Official March 4th Results Discussion Topic

[Gustaf]

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.

[Boris]

Momentum would be important if Pennsylvania was next week. It's not; it's in April. By the time Pennsylvania votes, any momentum from today will have been completely forgotten, and Obama will still have a 150+ delegate lead.

And Hillary has to eat two big losses before it.

I don't think Wyoming and Mississippi will make much of an impact on Pennsylvania. Clinton suffered through eleven straight losses and still managed to pull out what looks like a double-digit victory in Ohio and tie Obama in Texas. Apparently, she has some skills that Giuliani lacks. Ultimately, the demographics of Pennsylvania will decide the winner, although, realistically, I think the result there will be close, probably within five percentage points.

If Obama can eek out a win in the Texas Primary, I think it'd be a huge boost. That way he can essentially claim a 50-50 split on March 4th.

[J. J.]

You know you can keep copying and pasting the FL and MI crap all you like, it doesn't mean sh!t since the DNC doesn't agree with you.

Hate to tell you this BRTD, but the DNC can seat those delegates.  It really depends on who has a bare majority on both the credentials committee and/or if Hillary (this time) can muster a majority of all delegates on the floor (not just the elected ones). 

The Democratic National Committee can even reverse the initial ruling.

It becomes a matter or raw votes.

Sure they can but they don't want to. And the math for Hillary to catch up in delegates not counting FL and MI is still quite daunting.

And you'd have to be a complete braindead hack to say there is no valid argument why Michigan should not be counted in the elected delegate total.

I didn't say there was a valid argument, though there might be (I'm not sure the DNC has the authority to adopt such a rule in the first place, but I have not checked).  Neither candidate will have a valid argument, at least completely so.  The hypocrisy swells no matter what happens, without a clean win.

[Keystone Phil]

Momentum would be important if Pennsylvania was next week. It's not; it's in April. By the time Pennsylvania votes, any momentum from today will have been completely forgotten, and Obama will still have a 150+ delegate lead.

And Hillary has to eat two big losses before it.

Big losses? Wow. I've never heard Wyoming described as "big" in any sense. Whose spinning now?

Big in terms of the margin. Wyoming's not a big state but neither is Iowa or New Hampshire.

....

Iowa and New Hampshire are well known "first in the nation" contest. Wyoming is...uh...

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[Trilobyte]

Momentum would be important if Pennsylvania was next week. It's not; it's in April. By the time Pennsylvania votes, any momentum from today will have been completely forgotten, and Obama will still have a 150+ delegate lead.

And Hillary has to eat two big losses before it.

I don't think Wyoming and Mississippi will make much of an impact on Pennsylvania. Clinton suffered through eleven straight losses and still managed to pull out what looks like a double-digit victory in Ohio and tie Obama in Texas. Apparently, she has some skills that Giuliani lacks. Ultimately, the demographics of Pennsylvania will decide the winner, although, realistically, I think the result there will be close, probably within five percentage points.

If Obama can eek out a win in the Texas Primary, I think it'd be a huge boost. That way he can essentially claim a 50-50 split on March 4th.

I agree, and if some new revelation surfaces from the Rezko trial, Obama could be in for weeks and weeks of unfavorable news, offsetting his momentum from wins in WY and MS.

[Meeker]

Caucus results!

5% in

Obama: 56%
Clinton: 44%

[they don't love you like i love you]

You know you can keep copying and pasting the FL and MI crap all you like, it doesn't mean sh!t since the DNC doesn't agree with you.

Hate to tell you this BRTD, but the DNC can seat those delegates.  It really depends on who has a bare majority on both the credentials committee and/or if Hillary (this time) can muster a majority of all delegates on the floor (not just the elected ones). 

The Democratic National Committee can even reverse the initial ruling.

It becomes a matter or raw votes.

Sure they can but they don't want to. And the math for Hillary to catch up in delegates not counting FL and MI is still quite daunting.

And you'd have to be a complete braindead hack to say there is no valid argument why Michigan should not be counted in the elected delegate total.

I didn't say there was a valid argument, though there might be (I'm not sure the DNC has the authority to adopt such a rule in the first place, but I have not checked).  Neither candidate will have a valid argument, at least completely so.  The hypocrisy swells no matter what happens, without a clean win.

Then why do you keep saying Obama can't argue he leads in elected delegates excluding FL and MI?

[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

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Despite currently losing the Texas primary, Obama is leading its delegates 64-62.

EDIT: Now it's a 63-63 tie.

With 5% in, he leads 56-44 in the caucus, which selects another 67 delegates.

[they don't love you like i love you]

There is something else that is rarely mentioned about superdelegates, some of them are elected (sort of). Every state has at least one "add-on" which is elected either by the state convention or leadership of the state party. Since Obama dominates all caucuses he'll dominate all conventions and thus own the superdelegates elected at conventions. The ones elected by the state committees are trickier, so far two have been elected, one from Oklahoma (a former Edwards supporter now uncommitted) and one from Alabama (an Obama supporter.) These are basically immune to media spin and Obama is guaranteed at least half.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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?

[Alcon]

Wow, the Texas Democrats are paranoid.  Before even viewing the results, they force you to agree to two separate terms of use and provide your email, phone number, name and home address.  Wtf.

Anyway, by senate district:

TX-8 (: 62-37 Obama
TX-14: 66-33 Obama
TX-16: 60-39 Obama
TX-29: 75-24 Clinton
TX-30: 59-40 Clinton

All I know is that TX-29 is most of El Paso County, and TX-30 I think is Wichita Falls (?).

[Sam Spade]

The spin here is getting ridiculous - if it wasn't already.

[Alcon]

Anyone (Sam especially), have a link to a map/list/something to help me out?

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Mr. Morden]

Wow, the Texas Democrats are paranoid.  Before even viewing the results, they force you to agree to two separate terms of use and provide your email, phone number, name and home address.  Wtf.

Anyway, by senate district:

TX-8 (: 62-37 Obama
TX-14: 66-33 Obama
TX-16: 60-39 Obama
TX-29: 75-24 Clinton
TX-30: 59-40 Clinton

All I know is that TX-29 is most of El Paso County, and TX-30 I think is Wichita Falls (?).

Is this the primary or the caucus?

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

But by any mathematical measure of proportionality the Democratic system wins out.

[Alcon]

Wow, the Texas Democrats are paranoid.  Before even viewing the results, they force you to agree to two separate terms of use and provide your email, phone number, name and home address.  Wtf.

Anyway, by senate district:

TX-8 (: 62-37 Obama
TX-14: 66-33 Obama
TX-16: 60-39 Obama
TX-29: 75-24 Clinton
TX-30: 59-40 Clinton

All I know is that TX-29 is most of El Paso County, and TX-30 I think is Wichita Falls (?).

Is this the primary or the caucus?

Caucus (hence why I have to go through the dumb party site)

[Lief 🗽]

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.

The votes of a greater number of people matter under our system, whereas in your system, 68% of voters don't matter at all.

[Meeker]

Break out your Texas State Senate district maps, cause that's how we're going to be getting results:

District 8 42% in
Obama: 62%
Clinton: 37%

District 14 47% in
Obama: 66%
Clinton: 33%

District 16 42% in
Obama: 60%
Clinton: 39%

District 29 31% in
Clinton: 75%
Obama: 24%

District 30 32% in
Clinton: 59%
Obama: 40%

[Meeker]

Curse you Alcon

[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...