Frist Read next morning....

email this story
read comments (10)
post a comment

According to MSNBC's "First Read," Barack Obama won last night's delegate hunt "by the narrowest of margins, picking up 840 to 849 delegates versus 829-838 for Hillary Clinton." (Does this tally include New Mexico, which Obama appears to have finally "won" in a squeaker?) Update: The Page's Mark Halperin says the current total is 908 for Obama, 884 for Clinton, not including superdelegates.

Obama "also won more states (fourteen to Clinton's eight), although she won the most populous ones (California and New York)," the First Read summary says. "And Obama's argument that he might be the most electable Democrat in a general election was bolstered by the fact that he won nine (ten with New Mexico?) red states versus four for Clinton.

"Yet with Clinton's overall superdelegate lead (259-170, based on the lists they've released to us), and when you toss in the 63-48 lead Obama had among pledged delegates going into Super Tuesday, it appears Clinton has about 70 more overall delegates than Obama does (1140-1150 for Clinton versus 1070 to 1080 for Obama). It's that close, folks...

"Obama's Opportunity And Challenge: The calendar for the next couple of weeks favors Obama, as we head into February 9 (Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington State); February 10 (Maine); February 12 (DC, Maryland, Virginia); and February 19 (Hawaii and Wisconsin). In fact, in a conference call it held with reporters on Monday,
the Clinton campaign seemed like it was conceding those states when it didn't mention those states, but said it was looking ahead toward March 4 (Ohio and Texas; don't forget Rhode Island and Vermont) after Super Tuesday.

"Obama can certainly feel good about last night: He went toe-to-toe with Clinton in a Super Tuesday contest
that once seemed to favor her. And he's on pace to have a significant financial advantage over Clinton. But as the AP's Ron Fournier writes, "Obama still has much to prove. The potential for setbacks and mistakes is high." At some
point, the question will have to be asked: When or how can he put her away? Of course, last night proves that Clinton faces that very same question regarding Obama."

Not depressed, but dispirited<< previous | next >>Wednesday morning shakeout

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 6, 2008 at 6:20 AM

comment #1

T. S. Idiot says ...

Deadlocked convention. Uncle Al reluctantly steps in. High drama.

Posted by T. S. Idiot at February 6, 2008 6:41 AM

comment #2

Breedlove says ...

This shit confuses me, I need to do some homework on the whole super delegate thing and how the convention works if it's this close...one thing, though. I still believe Hillary to be perfectly capable of beating McCain, who has Bob Dole written all over him.

Posted by Breedlove at February 6, 2008 6:47 AM

comment #3

le corbeau says ...

I had the same thought last night, T.S.-- clearly the ONLY acceptable compromise candidate to the rank and file besides the two running would be Gore. In the old days state bosses could rally their delegations to a guy pulled from nowhere (say, Mark Warner) but I think now there would be too much outcry. Oddly enough, I think it's precisely because 19th century election rules screwed Gore once (or so Dems believe) that he could get away with using them to his benefit as no one else could.

Breedlove, here's basically the situation. If Obama & Clinton keep winning at this rate it's nearly impossible for either of them to get to a clear majority, because there's too big a block of votes which aren't nailed down-- the superdelegates (who have the power to vote as they please), two big states that were deprived of their delegates (Florida and Michigan) for moving their primaries up, and the states whose rules mean their caucuses didn't actually pick anybody. This is where the superdelegates come in like the old party bosses, shifting sides to put someone over the top; and since they're often elected officials (or at least insiders concerned about the overall ticket), they'll be looking hard not only at who can win the presidency but who helps the most folks down the ticket all over the country. I don't think that's clear yet, though Obama can make a very strong case there that he can capture new votes while Hillary only turns out existing ones (as I noted before, she practically only wins in highly unionized states with big public sector unionized payrolls).

Posted by le corbeau at February 6, 2008 7:04 AM

comment #4

TakeMeBackToManhattan says ...

A lot of this information seems to be all over the place, but Real Clear Politics has Clinton with 900 delegates to Obama's 829.

Posted by TakeMeBackToManhattan at February 6, 2008 7:07 AM

comment #5

mutinyco says ...

The AP and NYT have the counts at 845 for Clinton, 765 for Obama.

Posted by mutinyco at February 6, 2008 7:15 AM

comment #6

rocco says ...

Houston 117, San Antonio 109.

Eckman, isn't he in jail?

No, he's out. He got out.

Posted by rocco at February 6, 2008 7:31 AM

comment #7

Mr. Muckle says ...

OK, I've actually started to like Obama. But I have to wonder how many of his supporters know how much character, long-suffering, patience, and forgiveness it takes to convincingly preach the unity theme. If you like that theme, if you believe in it, then we'd better see it in action in your own case. So uncle Jeff would do well to cease the putdowns of those many other categories of humanoid lifeforms with which he is not naturally or culturally in sympathy. It requires a little stretching and reaching out. Otherwise, even if Obama proves not to be hypocritical, it will be obvious that his supporters are.

Posted by Mr. Muckle at February 6, 2008 7:37 AM

comment #8

Larry says ...

The delegate confusion is due to the ornate, even bizarre rules the Democrats have created for their primaries. If they had winner-take-all rules, or even winner take all on a district by district basis, Hillary would have blown out Obama. (And don't forget, the general election is mostly winner take all.) Even their so-called representational rules mean you can win all over a state and, when districts have even numbers of delegates, gain no lead.

Considering how the party set things up, if they get a brokered convention, it'll be hard for them to complain.

Posted by Larry at February 6, 2008 10:51 AM

comment #9

Abbey Normal says ...

I'll say this...the Democrats better be careful. If either Clinton or Obama go into the convention with a delegate lead based on their performance with actual voters, and then the superdelegates change that, it'll get ugly quick. Also, if they let Florida's or Michigan's delegates factor in, that'll be just as lame and result in the same problems.

They ought to just split the superdelegates 50-50 right now, and reiterate that they won't allow Florida's or Michigan's delegates into the count, just like they said they wouldn't.

Posted by Abbey Normal at February 6, 2008 11:50 AM

comment #10

BNick says ...

"I'll say this...the Democrats better be careful. If either Clinton or Obama go into the convention with a delegate lead based on their performance with actual voters, and then the superdelegates change that, it'll get ugly quick. Also, if they let Florida's or Michigan's delegates factor in, that'll be just as lame and result in the same problems."

Yup. Obama said today that if he ends up with more pledged delegates but still falls short of the 2,025 mark needed to clinch, he expects the superdelegates to honor the choice of the voters and back him. I think they will.

The Michigan-Florida thing is a mess, mostly because Hillary is sensing she will need those delegates to beat Obama. Sorry, you can't go back and change the rules.

Both sides might agree to a re-do with both names on the ballot and ample time to campaign. But if I were Obama I'd stick to my guns. He's on the right side of the rule. And if he does agree to a re-do, he should insist on caucuses.

Posted by BNick at February 6, 2008 1:22 PM