This is going to be a hell of an election night. Exit polls are showing that Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island are split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama!
If Obama ends up winning all three, that’s all she wrote.
But what if Hillary wins all three? That would stop Obama’s momentum cold.
Anything could happen tonight.
Oliver Willis linked to a Newsweek piece saying basically even if Hillary runs the table she still comes up short.
ReplyDeleteI am looking forward to the coverage. I do hope the contestants remember we still have a general election to think about while the Democrats are working the primaries.
^ It ain't about math, though. It's about psychology.
ReplyDeleteIf Hillary takes Ohio and Texas tonight, then Obama starts to look like a Fast-Fadin’ Papa. The Clinton campaign gets a serious morale boost... and fresh gouts of money. The media gets rougher on Obama...
It won't be good for the Obama campaign.
I just worry that Saturday's SNL skit, Hillary's "I take him at his word" on "60 Minutes" and the general nastiness of the past week won't bode well for Obama. But then again, CNN is projecting that he took Vermont....
ReplyDeleteYou're right. Anything can happen.
^ Teresa: If the Clinton campaign's "kitchen sink" strategy is validated, then you're right... Obama's gonna have to figure an effective way to counter, without losing his cool.
ReplyDeleteAnd voter fraud...an investigation has just been launched. Because nobody wants to discuss Hilarious tonight, they've created something else for us all to ponder. (It's on my blog.)
ReplyDeletehuckabee's conceding... hillary's projected to take rhode island. texas & ohio too close to call. but barack's leading in texas & hillary's leading in ohio.
ReplyDeletei don't think tonight's going to determine anything. the next 7 weeks are going to be intense.
There's drama here in Ohio. 15 polling stations open 'til 9, malfunctioning machines, ballot shortage, bad weather. Ugh, I can't take it.
ReplyDeleteClinton takes Ohio.
ReplyDelete^ In a big muhfuggin' way. She just started talking...
ReplyDeleteFrom AP:
ReplyDelete"One-fifth of white Ohio voters said race was an important issue to their vote, and those who did voted 8 in 10 for Clinton. That compares with the one in 5 Democrats in Ohio who said gender was important to their vote, and they voted 6 in 10 for Clinton."
Does that say what I think it says?
She's giving a victory speech when they haven't finished counting the three largest counties, which include Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus. This could be Missouri all over again. Sorry, I don't have a blogger or gmail account.
ReplyDelete-An Ohioan
If Obama can't comeback from this setback then he would have been mincemeat to John McCain. This is the test.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone watch 60 minutes on Sunday?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/02/ohio-voter-on-60-minutes_n_89476.html
The guy from the Ohio group said he had heard Obama didn't know the words to the national anthem among other things he'd 'heard'
kellybelle,
ReplyDeleteThat is saying the same thing we've seen in African Americans in all states, but reversed for Barack Obama. Can't claim racism on one side only there.
I voted for Obama in the Texas primary today and the lines were huge. My caucus tonight was about 2-1 in favor of Obama and that split pretty much what I've been hearing from my friends throughout the area (I live in Austin). Regardless of who gets the most primary votes I think Obama gets more delegates.
The question becomes how is it portrayed? If Clinton wins primary voting 51-48 but Obama gets more delegates, I feel the media will give more credit to Clinton since we are so conditioned on polling.
The question becomes how is it portrayed? If Clinton wins primary voting 51-48 but Obama gets more delegates, I feel the media will give more credit to Clinton...
ReplyDeleteWell, Marcus... if she got more votes, she deserves that credit. I really think it's about the psychology, not the delegate math.
Did you see Clinton speaking tonight? She looked like a winner, felt like a winner, and her crowd was going bananas.
Obama looked like he'd lost this round, and his crowd was more subdued.
That psychological deficit has to be addressed. It'll flood Hillary's campaign with donations, I bet. And Team Obama is under pressure to adjust its strategy and tactics to deal with Clinton's "kitchen sink" strategy.
It's all good. Clinton had no right to feel entitled to this nomination going into Iowa. And Obama had no right to feel entitled to it going into today.
The voters are going to have to decide this. So it's all about who's got the stamina, the mental focus and better game plan.
I did a count of the delegates that were doled out, and as it stands at the moment--with the TX caucuses still out--Clinton gained a net 21 delegates. So while the psychology changes, the fact of the matter remains that Obama's still leading the scoreboard. That said, he needs to step it up before PA in April.
ReplyDeleteObama clinched it last night. Hillary won't be able to catch up.
ReplyDeleteUBM,
ReplyDeleteMy point was that Al Gore got more votes in 2000 than Bush and since it all depends on electoral college votes he lost. My take on primaries is the same thing only with delegates. So in my mind if Obama gets more delegates than Hillary he won. But since everyone needs to know a result as soon as possible, that doesn't matter.
After the "60 Minutes" interview, Clinton definitely gets my "HELL NO!" vote. That was the deal breaker and revealed it's the Clinton campaign that's spreading and encouraging the Muslim smear with the help of their blogger friends now snatched off the Hillary.com line and stored away with those mysterious files Maggie had to tote home in the Whitewater Hefty. Policy and politic vollying are one thing. Fear tactics coded with religious and ethnic intolerance and bigotry is stepping waaay over the line into an ugly area. It says she is willing to do (and step on) anything (and anybody) to win. Isn't this the type of behavior we're trying to wrestle ourselves from?
ReplyDeleteMarcus,
ReplyDeleteI kinda disagree. African Americans have voted for white presidential candidates for decades with no qualms.
One-fifth of white ohioans said yes, the race of who I vote for is important and 8 out of 10 chose someone white. Even if 1/5 of Blacks said the same thing and voted for Obama, I think there's a difference between voting out of pride in vs. prejudice toward the first viable Black candidate.
I know I said this a month ago, but I can't shake it. Hillary ALWAYS does the "HEY YOU GUYS" thing when she's in front of a mic stand.
ReplyDeletehttp://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/POLITICS/03/05/march.4.contests/t1land.hill.wed.05.ap.jpg
kelly,
ReplyDeleteYou are right about that difference- I think I didn't convey my thoughts clearly last night. My point was that I feel Obama has been the beneficiary of people voting based on race throughout this primary (after all he regularly gets 80% of the AA vote).
And now that I think about it, 1 out of 5 white voters using race in their decision likely isn't unique to Ohio. I'd wager that represents some of the older voters who still have some race issues. My friend's grandmother lives in NJ and is a registered Democrat and one of the sweetest ladies you would meet, but she wouldn't consider voting for Obama over Hillary because of issues she had with blacks many years ago. It's sad but it definitely exists. The good news is I feel that thinking largely ends with her generation.
I'm more interested in the 20% of the 1 out of 5 white voters where race was an issue and voted for Obama.