Official March 4th Results Discussion Topic

[J. J.]

The question is, does Hillary get a net gain of delegates.

[J. J.]

The question is, does Hillary get a net gain of delegates.

Almost assuredly no.

What happens now, then?

So far, I'm not seeing that.  A heavy Hispanic turnout in TX was reported; higher numbers than in 2004.  This was Obama's chance to end it (and it still might be).

It looks like Obama is abandoning the "elected delegate" argument.  We might see a brokered convention.

Republican unity and no frontrunner for the Democrats, with the potential of the DNC floor fight.  I'll bring the popcorn (if one side or another doesn't hire me).

[J. J.]

They are talking about a 15-16 delegate gain for Hillary on MSNBC.

[J. J.]

TX counted the early votes first.   African American turnout was lower than 2004; Hispanic turnout is higher.  This could end up being bad news for Obama. 

RI is almost a mirror of VT.

[J. J.]

Crap. It looks like it is over in Texas. Obama is not closing the gap even though Houston, Dallas and Austin are all reporting.

It's still too early to tel, but a net gain for Clinton, in terms of delegates.  The race will continue with both candidates viable. 

Bill Clinton is to campaign in WY.

[J. J.]

I've been out since Page 26. Can somebody tell me what's going on?

Hillary won OH, RI, and is leading in TX; Obama won VT.  Probable net delegate gain for Clinton.

[J. J.]

I almost always admire Obama's delivery but he does seem very nasty in his tone tonight.

He looks like a guy who got a 3:00 AM Phone Call.

[J. J.]

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.

No candidate can win without the Super Delegates.  Obama's argument that he has the majority of the elected delegates is weak, because he's not counting those from FL/MI, that are elected (if too early, according to the rules). 

Now, he has one argument to convince the super delegates:

He's more electable.

The results of Hillary's McCain-like (and McCain-lite) campaign today cast a shadow over that.  The fact that he close the deal, even though he outspent Hillary 3 to 1 casts a shadow over that.  The reported, on MSNBC, that 25% of Hillary's supporters say that they will support McCain over Obama casts a cloud over that.

This may come down to bare knuckle brawl in Denver.

[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.

[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.

[J. J.]

A good night for Clinton.

Two more WY and MS.  MS should be safe Obama.  Bill is heading to WY.

Now, this was Obama's third chance to close the deal, and he couldn't do it.  That could be one of many factors that will convince the super delegates to stay uncommitted.  Welcome to the Keystone State one and all.

[J. J.]

YES SHE DID! TONIGHT AT LEAST.

[J. J.]

Bill is heading to WY.

That settles it. WY = Safe Clinton.

No, but it might hold down an Obama lead.

[J. J.]

I've looked at the CD's and the heaviest is 50% African American (but it keeps electing Bob Brady).  Most of even the 5  districts are heavily Caucasian.  PA is not Obama territory.

[J. J.]

Obama's not going to drop out as long as he has a delegate lead. That'd be just ridiculous.

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.

[J. J.]

I've looked at the CD's and the heaviest is 50% African American (but it keeps electing Bob Brady).  Most of even the 5  districts are heavily Caucasian.  PA is not Obama territory.

I think you're missing Chaka Fattah's CD.  Aren't most of the whites in Brady's CD ethnics?  And isn't there a decent Puerto Rican population in Brady's CD too?

Brady's CD has 9 delegates, Fattah's, the really big African American District, has 7.

I can actually see Clinton taking some of the 5 seat districts strongly enough to get 4 delegates.

[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.