Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
California Primary Results Certified: Obama Gains 4 Delegates
Nobody seems to be covering this, but it seems relevant news. The
California Primary results were finally certified on Tuesday, March 4,
and the final result is that Obama has picked up 4 delegates from
Hillary - for a total 8 delegate swing.
In case the significance of this number escapes you, Hillary's net
delegate win on March 4 was approximately 8 delegates (the certified
results have yet to be tallied, but isn't expected to swing much from
that number).
The result? Hillary's victories on March 4 were a wash.
Advertisement
Comments (18)
Sweet justice.
March 7, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm truly afraid of when your type controls the levers of Justice.
March 7, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's probably because your candidate of choice has been putting too much "fear juice" into her kool-aid. ;)
(It's a joke. Laugh.)
March 7, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
This appears to be on the level. A big piece of good news for Obama's camp. Does anyone know how to prod the major news services into updating their tallies?
Calitics post "Hey Catch Up, National Media:
http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5275
California certfied vote results:
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/pres/dem/59.htm
March 7, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the links Don! Especially the California vote results.
As for the major news outlets... most of them have a place on their website where you can submit commentary or corrections for stories. That's about the best I can suggest.
I figure they'll pick it up eventually.
March 7, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice catch.
calling idiotic...
March 7, 2008 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"HILLARY LOSING DELEGATES IN CALIFORNIA IS GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY CLINTON!" -IDIOTIC
March 7, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's official! Tuesday round of primaries was a DUD!
Here is the simple math
California Obama net gain 8
Texas Obama net gain at lest 3
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/7/11339/50182/559/471347
Vermont Obama net gain 3
Ohio Obama net loss 9
Rhode Island net loss 6
Add these up and the we conclude that HRC's net gain is one delegate.
Felix
March 7, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You gotta love it. I can hear America's favorite victim now. "But its SOOOO unfair. These caucuses are so undemocratic"
You would think Obama made up the rules that govern caucuses, from all of her campaign's whining. Maybe they should focus on the ground game instead of instituionalized victimhood.
March 7, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well but you see, that's the thing: Clinton's shown pretty conclusively that she sucks at the ground game. Top-down is the only politics she knows, which is why she attacked the press - she knew they'd cower, cave, and do her every bidding, and they did.
Clinton only knows how to run a campaign through controlling the media narrative. And that's exactly what she's doing.
March 7, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
great
March 7, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Awesome. "Hillary the Monster" gets one vote.
It's like there are two seperate events going on, the sham "close election" pedaled by the media, and the REAL inevitable nomination of Obama.
Obama supporters can relax: let the media eat itself, it doesn't matter in the end.
March 7, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
any word about ny delegate count?
March 7, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah it doesn't count, it was lost somewhere in Texas.
Just kidding!
March 7, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The significance of all of this is to illustrate the absurd way we select presidential candidates. Normally the primary elections are so one sided it makes no difference that they are a sloppy, ill defined, irrational system. But, like the shenanigans in Florida in 2000 or in Ohio in 2004, when there is a close election, all of the sloppiness and irrationalities become important.
I remain convinced that the only honest and accurate way to select candidates in a democracy is to hold national primaries, all on the same day, all with the same rules, and with all voting being accumulated to give a national vote on the candidates. This to be followed by a general election using the same rules, and with the one with the most votes being the winner.
For political insiders the problem with this scheme is that it leaves them no room to manipulate the results so as to get the winner they want. We can't have that, now can we?
March 7, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
the problem with a national primary election is that it boils down to celebrity and money more than the current system.
March 7, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought about a national primary or 4 regional primaries for a while. In the end, I decided that it would be a terrible idea. Whichever candidate had the most name recognition and money would win every time. It would be impossible to finance such primaries for candidates. It would be impossible for candidates to introduce themselves to voters and get any face time.
The best known/best financed candidate is not always the best candidate. Going state by state gives candidates a chances to slip up and recover and become stronger general election candidates. I think a national primary would be a disaster. It would spawn political dynasty after political dynasty. That is to close to monarchy for me.
March 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. It would have been an advantage for someone as well known as Hillary. Obama would never have had a chance to build his momentum. I actually love having Iowa first. I lived there for a while and they take their caucus very seriously. Nice, slow (i.e., human) pace of life and they take the time to really get to know you. I trust them to get it right most of the time.
March 8, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment