Too many different kinds of results coming in..

Bottom line - no trends yet. California will determine the spin on the night.

Each campaign's winning what they were supposed to win. Something tells me Virginia will matter next Tuesday! :)

With all this, PENNSYLVANIA could matter in April.

I thought CA was solid Clinton.

... but likely for Clinton.

is a pretty nice performance given that last week this race was viewed as a 50-50 proposition.  Not a huge delegate count, but a bunch of smaller states won along these lines add up.

the issue may not be who wins what states.  IF Clinton were to lose CA, yes, that would be the major issue after her huge lead and all the time spent there and the heavy Hispanic vote

but what if she wins narrowly, say 2-4 points, but gets no real advantage in delegates from the state

my prediction early today to my students is that the difference in delegates won between the two candidates would be less than 100 ro what happens tonight

Obama outperformed delegate expectations in Georgia.  Despite Clinton's real wins in Oklahoma and TN, her delegate advantage there according to Chuck Todd is not significant.   My guess there will be no real advantage in any of NE states, except possibly NY, and I think that will be offset by a better than that split in IL

In all those scenarios, California determined the spin, though.

Nice prediction, though. I think I tend to agree.

I see Obama may actually win 10 or more states

has won IL, GA and DE

will win most of caucus states

may win CT

if he picks up CA or AZ or NM or -- and this would surprise me - NJ he will have a big edge

David Shuster is at Obama headquarters in Chicago. He just reported that the campaign is happy about how the delegate count is going because they feel if they can get within 100 or 75 votes of Clinton, they can win a war of attrition with her as the campaign wears on because of his larger war chest.

Is he serious? Win a war of attrition with Hillary Clinton?

His fundraising is much better right now and after today, he can focus individually on states more.  

My wife never wants to contribute to a political campaign, and she did to Obama.

I just don't think Clinton will lose because she runs out of money.

far fewer of Obama's did

but what we don't know is the burn rate of the respective campaigns.  I suspect that Obama had a far higher burn rate.

At end of Dec, Clinton had 5 mill more on hand.

For January Obama outraised her by about 19 mill

that means this month he had net 14 mill more.   But I would suspect that was cut in half by the burn rate, but would still mean he has 5-7 mill more.  And remember, his fundraising first took off after NH, which he lost.  

with Mark Penn's call for several weeks of debates on Fox News (free media).

If by the end of the night clinton is up by 70-100 delegates, that will be VERY difficult for Obama to overcome because of the proportional thing.

if he doesn't emerge from the primaries as the voter preference.

Clinton wins NJ.  Starting to look like politics as usual.  Buying elections works.

whether they vote for my candidate or not.

Edwards was a far better candidate, but he didn't sell out.  Clinton's style of politics are just shameful.

Clinton made a B-line for the corporate money.  So she deserves every critical thing I have to say about her regarding the source of her funding.

And no matter how much faith you have in voters, we all know that without big money your campaign is doomed.  Obama took the high road.  Clinton is politics as usual.

Last time I checked, Hillary won two fair elections for Senate.

They weren't even close, as a matter of fact!

Don't make me visit OpenSecrets tonight.  I can promise you, it won't look good for Hillary.

We have been over this time and time again.  And even though I will support Obama in VA's primary, there is still an imperceptible difference in campaign contributions.  And no one on here has proven that Senator Obama's hands are clean or substantially cleaner than Senator Clinton's.  You want to pull OpenSecrets out, be my guest.  Take a look at the actual FEC filings, the source documents, if you want.

The way OpenSecrets works is this: I work for a corporation, I give more than $250 to a campaign, I have to write down my employer as part of contribution, OpenSecrets then considers that contribution to be from my corporation and representative of my corporation's industry group.  This may mean a lot, if say I am the CEO of Exelon, but probably not a lot if say I am an Accountant for Freeport McMoRan.

I will never drop this argument.  Ever.  It isn't an Obama or Hillary thing.  This is too important an issue to just ignore.

FYI, I just recently became an Obama supporter after Edwards dropped out.  So this isn't an issue of ignoring facts to support Obama.  This is an issue of I WANT MY FUCKING COUNTRY BACK.

of anything illegal that Hillary Clinton did in raising money?

So far, I've see several allegations without anything to back them up except your sincere and heartfelt anger.

I've certainly never heard of anything, except for the general perception by some people that Clinton is too "corporate" (whatever that means).

Mmm...general perception, another term for conventional wisdom.

Worked so well for the Allen campaign...

[/snark]

The only crime that occured was against the American middle class.  Of course it isn't a crime in the legal sense, but it is certainly an injustice to the American public.

There are alot of bad things you can do which are still perfectly legal.

Legally she did nothing wrong.  But ethically - she is on the take BIG TIME from corporate donors.  Do you really believe that they don't expect something in return for their money?

Why would corporations - with an explicit goal of making profits - send money to both parties?  Simple - they are hedging their bets.  They expect ROI.

Are you seriously suggesting that corporations don't expect anything in return for their investment?  If politicians didn't reward corporations for their donations, the money would stop flowing.  OF COURSE politicians pay back their donors one way or another.  Otherwise, corporations wouldn't donate because they don't intentionally make bad investments.

She's the status quo.

and you accused her of buying votes.

Now, if you have some generalized complaint about the corrosive effect of money on our politics, I'm with you. But don't demonize Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton alone. If contributors to campaigns expect ROI, then they expect it from Clinton, and they expect it from Obama.

But the real fact is, in any event, that many of these corporations don't
expect any specific quid pro quo for their donations.

One of my problems with these generalized complaints about Bill and Hillary Clinton is that folks let the accusations fly -- they're corrupt, they'll do anything to win, blah blah blah. But when you ask for specifics, none are forthcoming. At the end of the day, they are somewhere in the middle of the pack ethically -- better than some, worse than many. What sets them apart is they are very successful, perhaps because they are more shameless, perhaps because they are tougher.  

"But the real fact is, in any event, that many of these corporations don't expect any specific quid pro quo for their donations. "

Do you live on the same planet?  Of COURSE they expect SPECIFIC policy favors.  

I will spell it out for you:

Senator Obama
Individual contributions $101,429,472 / 99%

Senator Clinton
Individual contributions $103,611,269 / 90%
Full Disclosure $83,942,173 / (89.7%)

Of those individual donations, you also should break it down by donation amount.  I can't find the latest data, but historically Clinton has high averages.  Obama has far more individual donors, just smaller amounts.

 

Disagree with them, and they accuse you of being an extraterrestrial. That's the second time I've seen that contention.

I base my statement not only on several politicians I have known personally, who took plenty of corporate contributions but were, as far as I could tell, honest people, as well as on a thoughtful discussion I had a while back while interviewing Creigh Deeds (well, he was thoughtful) on this very subject.

I would guess that many of the people who contribute to this site who regularly interact with politicians would say the same thing: most are decent people. The corporate contributors know that. If the pols thought there was a quid pro quo on the table, they'd dismiss the contribution out of hand.

Anyway, that's been my personal experience. Perhaps yours has been different, so you have reached a different conclusion.

As to what it is with Obama supporters ...

That would be disgust at politics as usual.  And, more focused, that would be the politics of the last 20 years.

But, again, the American electorate gets the leadership it deserves.

You - a Hillary supporter - are discusted with Obama supporters?  Now that is funny.

Have you been watching the news the past month?  Have you seen all the dirty tricks by the Clinton campaign?  OMFG!!!

There is corruption at every level of our government.  Hate to shatter your naive view of the people representing us.  Most of the RFPs I have seen out there already have a vendor - the reason for the RFP is to appear legit - as if the government shopped around.

I see corruption first hand.  It's in my business interest to pretend I don't see it.  We all play the same game.  We all know the rules - especially in gov contracting.  Why is it that all these "fact finding missions" funded by corporations occur on the best golf courses and resorts in the world?

So is it your conclusion that corporations donate to candidates because they simply have the best interest of this country in mind?  

This election has already attracted more money than the prior 7 elections.  And that is before the primaries are even over.

Corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars for one reason: ROI.  John Edwards is right, and trying to convince people otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.

She is pretty good at winning. She won't play if she can't win.

And her strategy is a lot more subtle than just going after money. That is one component, a really important component, but not all.

Ironically, what seems to work in her favor is that a lot of people are not paying too much attention to her. Once people pay more attention, they seemed to get turned off.

She is having a string of foot-in-mouth episodes. Last week, in the California debates, she actually used a divisive conservative talking point about illegal immigration! Democracy Now picked on it, but the rest of the media didn't.

Hillary is Hillary's worst enemy.  

so he has caucuses in WA on Saturday, and then the DC metro area 3 primaries

Obama will win DC.   IF he wins both of the others, he will be in excellent shape.  Despite O'Malley's organizing for CLinton, remember that the percentage of the primary vote is likely to be far more heavily African-American than usual because of the heated 4th district congressional primary between Wynn and Edwards

and look at the difference in support from named parties in VA for Obama versus Clinton, and seemingly almost none of Edwards' key support in the Old Dominion seems to be going for Clinton.

She should had the advantage to start in OHio, especially with Strickland backing her.  But - and this is key - what if Edwards does decide to endorse Obama?   OH is one state where his active support could swing a lot of votes.

As of right now, this race is far from determined.

Patrick, Kennedy and Kerry all were on Obama's side in Mass, and Clinton won.

Will the institutional influence of big name Dems in VA matter?

I tend to think it matters more here than in Mass. We're newer to being electorally successful, so I feel like we trust the leaders that brought us here, as it were. In Mass, the Kennedys and Kerry have been there forever - easier to ignore their endorsements.

in MA Clinton had the organized machinery early - and local labor unions  

in Virginia Obama has mayors, the governor, state legislators, and unions do not have as big a role

oh, and VA also has a significantly higher percentage of the electorate that is African-American

the most important person in GOTV in MA is Michael Whouley of the Dewey Square Group.  John Kerry knows that - that's who he brought to Iowa to help him in 2004.  He is on board with Clinton

Obama is in control of the Potomac primaries, or whatever they are called.

Appropos of the parallel discussion of $$, it will be interesting to see what sort of effort Clinton launches here.

What are you basing that on? New Jersey has it's problems, no doubt, but attributing a Clinton win there to "buying elections" is a little crass.

That's like saying "all Virginians are hicks" because we have a large proportion of gun owners here.

Not singling NJ out.  

Generally speaking, Clinton has made the Republicans look like amateurs when it comes to getting corporate money.  She should be ashamed of how she funded her campaign.

Now is where the Hillary supporters boo me.  But, facts are facts.  Clinton and her excessive corporate donations are what I DESPISE about politics and is exactly the kind of thing that Democrats should purge from the party.

You are right, relawson, money is the problem.

What we have now is a two tier election: the money election and the political one. The way that the monied elite votes is through campaign contributions. The more money you have, the more votes.

Think about: the working poor can't afford to contribute anything. All must go to pay bills. The real middle class may be able to contribute a little.

It is only when you got a lot of spare money that you can start making serious contributions.

The problem with changing this system is that the party favored by the richest people benefits from their "freedom of speech" when they get to power. No incentive to change anything in a substantial way.

If it is going to change, it will have to come from the grassroots, and, unless things get really bad, I doubt that this issue can sustain the length of time it would take to make this campaign successful.

MSNBC says Clinton 112, Obama 46 so far.

now MSNBC says Obama 56 (still 112 to Clinton)

New delegate count, Clinton/Obama (MSNBC)

I'm pretty surprised to see the numbers.  I expected it to be much closer--even a different result.

if Boston has reported its full tally yet (my understanding is that it usually takes major cities longer to report their tallies).  I could be wrong here, but I would expect Obama to do very well in the city -- he should be able to close the margins.  48% of the vote is still out, so if he can bring this close to a 10% loss, it still means that Obama got about a 10%+ point bounce out of the Kennedy endorsement.  His huge margins in Illinois, George, Alabama, and smaller states should help close the gap in the overall delegate count.

here's a link on the current reporting totals for the state.  Obama's strongest area of performance looks like it was in the western part of the state.  Clinton's getting her margins in the eastern part of the state.

http://politics.nytimes.com/el...

Obama wins

As I look at the exit polls out west I am feeling good about Obama's preformance in CA.  If the exit polls are correct in New Mexico, he may pull off a victory there.  Also, he isn't getting completely blown away among women or hispanics.

for Obama

Notice that a large chunk of the vote is still out in St. Louis -- only about 15% of the tally is in.

If Google trends are any indication -- a lot of people in St. Louis were searching for information on Obama on the web the past couple days (looks like about a 60-40 split compared to Clinton).

http://www.google.com/trends?q...

The margins have shown up in other cities were Obama has done very well tonight -- will be curious to see how this one plays out:

1. St Louis, MO, USA

2. Minneapolis, MN, USA

3. Chicago, IL, USA

4. Washington, DC, USA

5. Denver, CO, USA

6. Atlanta, GA, USA

(Obviously a lot of interest regarding the race in DC).

and I'm thinking Obama picks up 40,000 or so votes from St. Louis city and county.

Clinton leads by 45k with 68% reporting. I think she's got Missouri.

also have a large number of votes left to report.  Not sure how these will play but the 9% margin should continue to close.

the gap has closed by two more points -- lead down to 7%.

Btw, the county totals I'm finding at:
http://politics.nytimes.com/el...  

so far he has been declared as winning

GA
AL
CT
IL
DE
UT
ND
MN
KS

I expect that he will definitely win
CO
ID
AK

that will give him a minimum of 12

I expect he will lose both CA and MO

but may well win both NM and AZ

in other words, he will win no worse than 12-10  and possibly as good as 14-8

and as of right now, I think he may actually win more delegates tonight when all is said and done

Obama is getting over 40% of the vote according to CNN. Could that be a formula for success in CA?

is what I meant.

in the exit polls.

AZ ain't looking good with 31% reporting..

Hillary 50
Obama 39

bummer.

MA went just like the polls said they were, and they're buying the Clinton spin that it's an upset.  

Why am I sensing disappointment among Obama supporters?  Aren't things coming out how we were expecting (even a little bit better)?

BTW... I think Clinton has California based on the exit poll numbers but as well know, the delegates are what count.

I'm in a great mood! :)

I couldn't tell.  I am in a great mood as well!  I think things look very good for Obama next Tuesday.