No way. Even the Clinton campaign is saying they’ll come out with at best 35 net delegates from CA. That’s basically nothing, considering that 1600 delegates were at stake today, and that Obama probably actually took more delegates, in aggregate, from the other states.
I predicted a trouncing by Obama, which I’m still predicting overall. But even though tonight seems relatively close between the 2 of them, looking at the margins by which he beat her in the states he won, vs the margins she won her states by, he did, indeed, trounce her.
Obama's Clinton's
Margins Margins
66% 48%
46% 24%
45% 22%
35% 17%
31% 15%
31% 13%
29% 10%
24% 10%
16% 4%
14%
11%
3%
1%
The state she beat him by 48% was Arkansas – her home state, and that was completely expected. But she only beat him by 17% in New York, whereas he beat her in Illinois by a whopping 66%!
And even though the pundits are saying Massachusetts was a disappointment, it wasn’t at all. Obama wasn’t expected to win it, even with Kerry and Kennedy’s endorsements. What they helped him do was close an enormous gap, so that he only lost that state by a margin of 15%. Which, by the way, was exactly how he was polling in the last couple of days. As recently as January 23rd, she was ahead of him by 37 points; 59% - 22%! He closed a HUGE gap there to take a significantly higher percentage of the proportional delegates away from her in that state. cite
How many of the states Hillary won are likely to vote democrat in the general elections?
What about Obama?
Seems to me Clinton is more liked among democrats than people think if she got NY, FL and CA. Those are biggies.
Plus, there’s a ton of early votes, a ton of votes for Edwards, and Obama can easily use both of those to argue–especially if he wins about the same or more delegates in CA–that he did great in CA all things considered. I still say that Obama has the money and he’s got a favorable schedule from here on out.
There’s no pouting in Primaries! 
Look at how California distributes their delegates. I don’t think it’ll be as bas as you think.
Of course she’s well liked by Dems! Her husband was an extremely popular president, especially in Democratic bastions like NY, FL, and CA>
But that’s exactly the wrong way to win a general election. Winning CA, NY, and NJ are not really an issue for Democrats this fall, no matter who they run. What they need is to push into states like MO, IA, CO, NM. These are all states that Obama did very well in.
In the end Obama exceeded expectations (at least realistic ones) for tonight. Any delegate margin within 100 would have been a success, and reports are he might have actually taken more delegates tonight (as well as more states).
Bottom line, this race is not close to over. Obama has plenty of money and a little more time to focus on the upcoming states. If he can move voters like he did tonight he has a very good chance to take this thing. Also, considering his showing, an Edwards or Gore endorsement is not out of the question.
She only won NY by 17%, and given that it is her adopted home state – the state she represents in the Senate – it was not only expected, but much closer than expected. Obama took his adopted home state (Illinois) by a margin of 66%!
And she did not win Florida! No one was allowed to even campaign in Florida, and they were stripped of their delegates long before these primaries. And California won’t give her a significant enough margin of delegates to overcome the lead he’ll build over the next few weeks in the remaining 24 states.
I think you’re confusing Illinois for Idaho, or margin for Obama’s total percentage of the vote. The NY Times has Obama’s margin of victory in Illinois at 31%.
I guarantee that if Obama gets the nomination he will win all those Democratic states in the general election. New York and California are not going to suddenly turn red if Barack is the nominee. What he is showing is that he might have the abilty to really compete in GOP strongholds in the deep south. He would have a genuine chance to steal something like Georgia (huge black population in ATL) or South Carolina. Hillary would have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than winning a state like that and one or two southern states can swing the election.
Indeed. While Clinton did take some of the middle states, look at this map and note the states Obama won tonight, then compare it to how the 2004 election played out. And look at the margins he won them by!
Idaho by 63
Colorado by 34
Kansas by 48
Georgia by 35
North Dakota by 25
I think this indicates he would have a much better chance against the Republican nominee than Hillary would.
So will the DNC take this into account? I mean if it is very close and even if Hillary has a few more delegates, will the convention decide to run Obama if it appears he has a better chance of beating the GOP?
I imagine the superdelegates would decide it and it’s not easy to know where they’d land. The party establishment feels a lot of obligation and loyalty to the Clintons. I think it would be hard for them to turn on Bubba. But they also want to win, and if the popular momentum for Obama continues to accelerate (and especially if internal party polling indicates significantly better GE odds for BHO than for HRC), then I think a few could be persuaded to Obama’s camp.
I still think the Clintons are a very tough beat but if anyone can do it, Obama can. That kind of charisma is a game changer in politics.
Hillary Clinton has 438 pledge delegates and 193 superdelegates on the Democratic side. That is more than Obama’s 419 pledged delegates and Obama’s 106 superdelegates.
I think Clinton is going to maintain the lead in the election, there’s basically two ways to look at this. One is that Clinton didn’t get knocked out by Obama (as some Obama supporters were hoping for) the other is, Clinton didn’t knock Obama out of the election, which some Clinton supporters were hoping for–I don’t think anyone can intelligently say either Democratic candidate looks anything close to sure yet.
I don’t think it’s impossible we could get close to the convention without either candidate having a clear majority for the Dems.
It really worries me that all I hear about Obama, repeatedly, is his charisma. He’s supposed to be running for President of the United States, candidacies built on pure charisma are more common in countries like Venezuela than they are in a democratic society like the United States where we’re supposed to be voting based on the issues.
That’s what’s so great about him. He has substance too but substance doesn’t win jack shit. Obama’s charisma can get him over the top but he also has the brains and temperment and the ethos to be a good --even a great – head of state.
And don’t undersell personal charm as a job requirement. The job requires a lot of diplomacy, consensus building, schmoozing and deal making. That’s easier to do if people like you. Bush, for instance, has no charm and that’s part of why he’s such a shitty President.
A candidate winning based on the perception of his/her personality is something limited to foreign countries? Remind me who’s president, again? Remember how people thinking “I’d rather have a beer with that guy” was considered a big factor in Bush’s favor?
It’s not just Obama’s charm. It’s also that he represents an alternative to Clinton. She has a BIG dislike factor going for many of us, even Democrats … even NY Democrats, for God’s sake. The only reason I voted for Obama today was because I really really really dislike Clinton and think she’s been useless for my state. Obama doesn’t do much for me, except that he doesn’t have Clinton’s negatives. And he’s the only alternative left, alas. I know my entire family voted the same way for the same reason, and we’re not alone … which is why it was as close in NY as it was.
Sigh. Y’know, I don’t mind voting strategically during the regular elections. Come election time I’ll vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, that much is certain. But primaries are different. They’re the one chance to vote for my ideals. There’s none of that luxury now, thanks to Edwards backing out, Kucinich being universally dismissed, and my uber-ideal, Gore, not even choosing to run. Now it’s a matter of who can win, IMO.
This election sucks. But it’ll be worse (for me) if it’s Clinton v. McCain, so by process of elimination I’m stuck as an Obama supporter.
Woo. Hoo. waves Obama '08 flag listlessly.
Its unfortunate, but I really can’t see voting for Clinton. I say unfortunate, because if she wins the nomination I may not vote at all. None of the other candidates inspire me. I hate elections. I’m always filled with such dread and disappointments. Looks like more of the same.
Maybe – Obama speaks to the heart of Americans. He has managed to inspire an increasingly hopeless populous and create a movement for fundamental change in government. He is different and fresh. He is symbolic of a new beginning and the end to the corporate politics of corruption.
Voters need to believe that our government is still of the people, by the people, for the people. Government isn’t a business. It is a philosophy. His message is important and should not be underestimated because it actually reflects the widely held beliefs of the vast majority of Americans. If HRC wins the nomination, I hope she continues Obama’s message, or she just might lose this election to a war president.
I don’t think that was a big factor whatsoever in Bush’s election. Bush had more charisma than Gore which is to say he had a pulse, in 2000 Gore was about as flat and uninteresting as it could get. Bush was seen as a pragmatic, effective politician because of his record in Texas.
It’s hard to explain exactly what I mean, but I think there is a big difference between a candidate who has been “swept into office on a wave of charisma” versus a candidate who was simply more likable than the other guy but primarily won because more people agreed with that candidate on the issues, or because that candidate just simply operated a better campaign.
Every politician makes promises, that is their job. But to me, there’s a difference between a candidate who repeatedly makes promises like, “I will bring you to new levels of greatness!” And a candidate who promises, “I will slash taxes on the middle class through a comprehensive tax reform plan, at the same time I will reduce government spending in several wasteful areas.” One of those statements is pretty dull, but it’s actually one that explains what a candidate plans to do and how he plans to do it.
Most demagogues and dictators that rose to power on a wave of popular support did so by making a lot of very flowery, but ultimately very empty, statements that thrilled the public. Charisma always played a big part. I view these candidates as sharks, empty-suits, men without ideas or understanding but just simply a desire to inspire. These are the type of people who make money as motivational speakers (without actually imparting any real knowledge.)
The thing is, Obama isn’t truly an empty suit. If you look at this website he has some pretty clear ideas out there. What scares me is he’s running on his charisma and not his issues. The public deserves to vet this man on the issues. If Obama lays out his issues, using all that charisma the public is so orgasmic over (personally I’ve never been one easily moved, Obama comes off to me as being akin to a network news personality) and wins, then that’s perfectly fine–the public has spoken. But if he gets all the way to November and hasn’t been seriously challenged across the board on his policy positions, that’s extremely frightening.
Bush had to fight on policy, like Bush or hate Bush, if you remember him and Gore were going at it over very specific policy proposals in 2000. The primaries are always a lot different than the general election.
But if Obama wins because he’s more charismatic than John McCain (who is somewhat charismatic for a senior citizen, but nowhere near as charismatic as Obama) then I weep for America. I hope Obama is not our next President, but America could do worse. But what I don’t want to see is a guy get elected because of flower words–he needs to be challenged on the issues.
For the Democrat’s sake, they should be challenging him on the issues now. We have no idea how well Obama’s stances on the issues will play out in the general election because he’s never been called to seriously defend them in a manner that makes the public aware of it. His issues-stances may be quite untenable in a general election (where, all told, I think he eventually will be challenged on them), and if he’s allowed to get nominated without ever really being challenge no one on the Dem side will know it until it is too late.
I’d say his biggest issue that could polarize voters is his stance on Iraq. By and large the American people are not terribly interested in Iraq anymore, but I think this is because they view it as going well. Americans may not like Obama’s defeatist policies now in 2008, when the situation in Iraq is fundamentally different than it was when Obama first fleshed them out.
I’m not sure where you’re from, but no President is going to fundamentally change America. What do you really imagine when you say “fundamental change” in government? How would he implement this “fundamental change?” I’ve looked through his website, and I don’t see much on his platform that speaks to “fundamental change.” Nothing about breaking the backs of corporations or et cetera. Obama is actually a centrist, I think a lot of people on the SDMB would be bored by his policies if they actually knew what they were. But he plays like some liberal crusader in his speeches, in reality there’s very few risky or outside the middle policies in his “issues” section on his website (Iraq being one of the key ones where he is genuinely a radical.)