Official March 4th Results Discussion Topic

[Iosif is a COTHO]

Once 'THE COMEBACK KID' euphoria has died down, people will quickly realize that Clinton still has barely any chance of winning the nomination.

I'm sure double digit wins for Obama in Wyoming and Mississippi next week will sober them up. I'm not worried.

[True Democrat]

I just woke up and looked the results.

100k votes! Wow, what a margin.  Clinton really closed in Houston.  Even the caucus is close.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm really surprised that Clinton is that close in caucus.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Very, very interesting results, yes.

In Ohio the main areas to look out for should, stress "should", be the more urban of the various traditional industrial areas (this is not the same thing as areas with the highest percentage of manufacturing jobs. Just thought I'd point that out). Not so much for who wins, but by how much. The rural areas don't matter, Columbus doesn't matter (much), the Southeast of the state (especially) doesn't matter. What matters is the margins (in raw votes as much as percentages) in the sort of areas mentioned above.

Always nice to get something right (more or less) even if it was a little obvious

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes. Obama will win the district but Hillary will do very, very well among the whites in South Philly.

Didn't South Philly vote for Reagan?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yes. Obama will win the district but Hillary will do very, very well among the whites in South Philly.

Didn't South Philly vote for Reagan?

Maine, Vermont and Rhode Island also voted for Reagan.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What's with Obama only leading by 2% Cuyahoga?

More like 7 or so now, but the answer is still the same; white ethnics.

[John Dibble]

Well, I wake up to disappointing results, but oh well. Looks like we might be going to convention. I suppose the silver lining is that Hillary didn't win with the margins she needed for this to be completely decisive in Texas.

[Person Man]

Eh, it could have been worse. Looks like a divided party though.

[Sam Spade]

Very, very interesting results, yes.

In Ohio the main areas to look out for should, stress "should", be the more urban of the various traditional industrial areas (this is not the same thing as areas with the highest percentage of manufacturing jobs. Just thought I'd point that out). Not so much for who wins, but by how much. The rural areas don't matter, Columbus doesn't matter (much), the Southeast of the state (especially) doesn't matter. What matters is the margins (in raw votes as much as percentages) in the sort of areas mentioned above.

Always nice to get something right (more or less) even if it was a little obvious

I should bump you up, if I can find it 30 pages ago, to the initial exit poll releases, which were once again way off, except in Clinton's direction.

Two in particular - Ohio was Clinton +3, will end up being Clinton +10
Rhode Island (LOFL) was Clinton +4, will end up being Clinton +18 (or +19)!

[J. J.]

It might be a situation where, in July, Obama is told, "You have a majority of the elected delegates, but to keep that you'll have to disenfranchise FL and MI, if full view of the television cameras, in August."  Even if he wins, he loses.

Obama needs to get a 110 to 165 lead of elected delegates.  He can still do it, but it will be a long fight.

1-The DNC doesn't agree with you.
2-Arguing that Hillary's lead in Michigan is legitimate is hackery of the worst type. For Florida there might be a point, but not Michigan.

Are you going to keep Granholm, Stabenow, Levin, Dingell, Bonior, Conyers, Kilpatrick, Hoffa, and a bunch of UAW members out?  That ought to make good theater.

I think that is a lot of it.

Obama, to be solid with elected delegates, just to claim a legitimate lead there over Clinton, needs a 110 margin of elected delegates exclusive of FL/MI.  Depending on the count used, he has between 130 (CNN) and 53 (Greenpapers).  By May 1, I predict all legitimate counts will put him below 110.

Obama's last chance might to win elected delegates exclusive of FL/MI by that 110 margin, very well be NC, IN, and KY.  He doesn't, the whole elected delegates argument collapses.  Either candidate basically becomes the nominee because of the super delegates.

It is not a good situation for either candidate.

[Sam Spade]

Just FYI, the Texas SOS site says Clinton 65-61 with 14 precincts left for the primary.

[Reaganfan]

It might be a situation where, in July, Obama is told, "You have a majority of the elected delegates, but to keep that you'll have to disenfranchise FL and MI, if full view of the television cameras, in August."  Even if he wins, he loses.

Obama needs to get a 110 to 165 lead of elected delegates.  He can still do it, but it will be a long fight.

1-The DNC doesn't agree with you.
2-Arguing that Hillary's lead in Michigan is legitimate is hackery of the worst type. For Florida there might be a point, but not Michigan.

Are you going to keep Granholm, Stabenow, Levin, Dingell, Bonior, Conyers, Kilpatrick, Hoffa, and a bunch of UAW members out?  That ought to make good theater.

I think that is a lot of it.

Obama, to be solid with elected delegates, just to claim a legitimate lead there over Clinton, needs a 110 margin of elected delegates exclusive of FL/MI.  Depending on the count used, he has between 130 (CNN) and 53 (Greenpapers).  By May 1, I predict all legitimate counts will put him below 110.

Obama's last chance might to win elected delegates exclusive of FL/MI by that 110 margin, very well be NC, IN, and KY.  He doesn't, the whole elected delegates argument collapses.  Either candidate basically becomes the nominee because of the super delegates.

It is not a good situation for either candidate.

There is one person who benefits from it all....

John McCain.

[Sam Spade]

Interesting exit poll number for Ohio:

Was race of candidate important to you?
Yes (20%) - Hillary 59%, Obama 39%
No (79%) - Hillary 53%, Obama 45%

Considering the way people lie on this question...

[Person Man]

So, what happens now? What happens if there is a brokered convention?

[Alcon]

Interesting exit poll number for Ohio:

Was race of candidate important to you?
Yes (20%) - Hillary 59%, Obama 39%
No (79%) - Hillary 53%, Obama 45%

Considering the way people lie on this question...

Woah.

At least they're honest...at least some of them.

[Sam Spade]

Just for sh!ts and giggles:

Was race of candidate important to you?

Texas
Yes (19%) - Hillary 52%, Obama 47%
No (80% - Hillary 51%, Obama 48%

Rhode Island
Yes (18%) - Hillary 65%, Obama 35%
No (81%) - Hillary 58%, Obama 42% (liars)

Vermont
Yes (13%) - Hillary 42%, Obama 58% (hippys)
No (87%) - Hillary 38%, Obama 60%

Was gender of candidate important to you?
Texas
Yes (23%) - Hillary 60%, Obama 40%
No (75%) - Hillary 48%, Obama 50%

Ohio
Yes (17%) - Hillary 60%, Obama 40%
No (83%) - Hillary 53%, Obama 45%

Rhode Island
Yes (21%) - Hillary 75%, Obama 25%
No (78%) - Hillary 55%, Obama 44%

Vermont
Yes (17%) - Hillary 67%, Obama 33%
No (82%) - Hillary 32%, Obama 66%

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

[Alcon]

"Black pride" voters in Texas and Ohio outnumbered by admitted racists...(and Vermont too, although that voter type in VT is obviously different than TX & OH)...lovely.

[Verily]

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

That would be misandry, not misogyny.

[jimrtex]

Click to Texasize

[minionofmidas]

I thought Texas would be bigger than that.

[Keystone Phil]

Yes. Obama will win the district but Hillary will do very, very well among the whites in South Philly.

Didn't South Philly vote for Reagan?

Actually, they did.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It might be a situation where, in July, Obama is told, "You have a majority of the elected delegates, but to keep that you'll have to disenfranchise FL and MI, if full view of the television cameras, in August."  Even if he wins, he loses.

Obama needs to get a 110 to 165 lead of elected delegates.  He can still do it, but it will be a long fight.

1-The DNC doesn't agree with you.
2-Arguing that Hillary's lead in Michigan is legitimate is hackery of the worst type. For Florida there might be a point, but not Michigan.

Are you going to keep Granholm, Stabenow, Levin, Dingell, Bonior, Conyers, Kilpatrick, Hoffa, and a bunch of UAW members out?  That ought to make good theater.

I think that is a lot of it.

Obama, to be solid with elected delegates, just to claim a legitimate lead there over Clinton, needs a 110 margin of elected delegates exclusive of FL/MI.  Depending on the count used, he has between 130 (CNN) and 53 (Greenpapers).  By May 1, I predict all legitimate counts will put him below 110.

Obama's last chance might to win elected delegates exclusive of FL/MI by that 110 margin, very well be NC, IN, and KY.  He doesn't, the whole elected delegates argument collapses.  Either candidate basically becomes the nominee because of the super delegates.

It is not a good situation for either candidate.

So why should MI's numbers count in elected delegates when anyone with an ounce of intelligence can blatantly see that MI's delegate numbers don't even remotely reflect the opinion of the voters of the state?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes. Obama will win the district but Hillary will do very, very well among the whites in South Philly.

Didn't South Philly vote for Reagan?

Actually, they did.

Ah. Well, we all know how urban-ethnic-working class areas that first disliked and then grew to loath Carter have gone this year...

[Mr. Morden]

We're now up to 38% reporting in the Texas caucus.  Obama's lead is up to 56%-44%.  At this rate, we should have all the results in by May.