Interesting Results

Watching CNN this morning, you'd think Hillary Clinton wiped the floor with Barack Obama last night.

Now, that being said -- she DID win Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island.

Which nets her: ONE DELEGATE.

That's right folks. For all the hype -- Hillary Clinton has only decreased Barack Obama's delegate lead by ONE DELEGATE.


Vermont (15 delegates)

Obama 9
Clinton 6

Rhode Island (21 delegates)

Clinton 12
Obama 8


Primary (126 delegates, Link)

Clinton 64
Obama 62

Caucuses (67 delegates; tentative results based on a straight percentage from 34% reporting)

Obama ~37
Clinton ~30

Total (Nowhere near final)

Obama ~99
Clinton ~94

Ohio (141 delegates, punching in results with 97% reporting here)

Clinton 73
Obama 68

So total for the night, thus far, is Clinton 185 and Obama 184.

So hooray for the media -- buying into the whole "poor me, the press isn't fair!" crap from the Clinton campaign -- now we will go on, probably for another 7 bloody weeks -- while John McCain beats the crap out of the Democrats.

It's said at this point, Hillary Clinton has no chance of winning the pledged delegate lead in the race. So you can bet, she'll scratch and claw her way through the next several weeks, continuing the highly negative campagn -- making the case that if SHE isn't going to get the White House -- no Democrat will.

Lucky us.


Dr. Momentum said...

All that for one delegate?

So much for the idea of the ultimate, ultimate, ultimate Tuesday.

Now the refrain will begin, as Mary Matalin predicted this weekend, despite Obama's lead in delegates "Why couldn't he close the deal on March 4th."

And the Republican high-fives... Oh, the high-fives...

RadioKeri said...

Yes, all that last night -- all the gloating today -- over ONE DELEGATE.


And they say we're a liberal media? Doesn't this benefit the republicans directly?

Maggie said...

Should we offer Senator Clinton a pillow?

B.O.B.(bob) said...

Um... nice to know republicans aren't the only ones that like to bend the truth (or the math) to their favor. Of the pledged delegates I've seen distributed (I used WBZ's delegate counter). Clinton picked up 115 and Obama 88. Now there's still a bunch from Texas to come but I don't see Obama getting to within 1.

I also don't but that prolonging this is a bad thing for the democrats. It's going to keep the spotlight on them and it's going to expose any negative's early. Obama (and I do think he will be the eventual winner) will be able to say when someone says something negative in the fall "look I addressed that in March"

Oh and I'm getting sick of the Hillary should quit now she's destroying our chances. Clearly ~50% of the voters don't agree with you.

Mike said...

I'm not crazy about the way the media reports these things as winner-take-all victories.

MSNBC's coverage has been more comprehensive and less tabloid than CNN. I simply don't trust the Celebrity News Network anymore to accurately report current events that aren't considered sensational.

Dr. Momentum said...

Now that we know it's the long haul, supporters in both camps would be better off in the long run toning down the rhetoric.

But we know that isn't going to happen.

BOB, it's not merely the prolonging that's the problem. It's Clinton implying Obama is America's 3rd choice behind McCain.

And, yes, a bloody, protracted battle can hurt. Every time you hear someone say "I'm sick of x" that's people's frustration level rising. Is that going to be a feeling that gets people to the polls in November? Voter turnout is one of the biggest things Democrats are going to need to rely on.

Hillary should quit now? That's not my opinion. I think she shouldn't relied on fear, which might have been tantamount to dropping out, since she came out the loser in 12 contests in a row before she found a state that responded.

I don't see how she could possibly drop out. But I would prefer a less divisive Hillary.

Julie said...

Bob, Keri wasn't bending the truth. She said those were the current counts at the time when Clinton and the media were declaring her massive victory.

Julie said...

Well, at least you can't say people were apathetic yesterday. Someone I know went to vote in Texas and there was a wait of more than an hour. Since she was still undecided at that point, she went home. It's not that she didn't care - she just knew that an hour wasn't going to make a difference in her uncertainty.

I wish she hadn't gone home, but I can't say I blame her, considering she clearly didn't feel strongly enough about one candidate or the other to stick around. Clearly, other voters were willing to wait that long. For a primary.

I just can't see this as a bad thing. For many people, this is the first time they feel like they have a voice in the selection process. Hell, it was the first time for me last month. Even if half of these people are disappointed in the outcome, I still think it will sit better with them than feeling as though the decision was made with no input from them at all, which is how I felt about Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.

RadioKeri said...

Also, I'd note -- the AP -- which is what WBZ is using to determine their delegate count -- is not including any of the delegates from the Texas caucus from last night. That's 1/3rd of the delegates from Texas -- heavily favoring Obama with only 36% of the vote in. My numbers factor in the delegate split with the 36% number -- warning that it could change. We're awaiting numbers from Texas this morning. But it's pretty safe to say, he's going to pick up a NUMBER of delegates from that aspect of the race -- not yet recorded by the AP.

Julie said...

I actually meant to leave that comment under a different post. However, so much stuff got posted last night that it'd be hard to decide where to leave a particular comment in any case. :)