Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont - March 4th, 2008

[Merkwurdigliebe]

ETA: meant to quote it here, but this is in response to the numbers from Daily Kos above.
That’s an interesting guess really. I can’t figure out how that would play in the press. Hillary would be crowing about Ohio for sure, saying how it’s an important state, blah blah blah, but a 12 percent win in TX for Obama is freaking huge. How many delegates would he get that way? I think this outcome would certainly make the delagate lead heavily favor Obama.

Kos wondered aloud why Obama was spending the last two days in Texas rather than going to Ohio. I think I have an idea. Obama sees a chance of widening a lead in Texas as much more beneficial than tying up in Ohio (a smaller state) because Obama, as always, has his eye on the delegate math. Clinton is going for the symbolic victory as she always does. So I suppose if this is true, we’ll have yet another round of Clinton crowing about how she’s won while Obama silently racks up the delegates.

[Phlosphr]

@Merkwurdigliebe

ETA: meant to quote it here, but this is in response to the numbers from Daily Kos above.
That’s an interesting guess really. I can’t figure out how that would play in the press. Hillary would be crowing about Ohio for sure, saying how it’s an important state, blah blah blah, but a 12 percent win in TX for Obama is freaking huge. How many delegates would he get that way? I think this outcome would certainly make the delagate lead heavily favor Obama.

Kos wondered aloud why Obama was spending the last two days in Texas rather than going to Ohio. I think I have an idea. Obama sees a chance of widening a lead in Texas as much more beneficial than tying up in Ohio (a smaller state) because Obama, as always, has his eye on the delegate math. Clinton is going for the symbolic victory as she always does. So I suppose if this is true, we’ll have yet another round of Clinton crowing about how she’s won while Obama silently racks up the delegates.

Which is the smarter choice? Hint: gender sign with an arrow.

[atomicbadgerrace]

Nothing to see here

[Shayna]

Statement from Ohio State Director Paul Tewes:

Our campaign’s goal today is to ensure that any registered voter in the state of Ohio can go to the polls and cast their ballot for their candidate of choice without interference.  We understand that the Clinton campaign may want to depress turnout because Barack Obama has closed a 20-point gap over the course of this month as voters across the state got to know him.

It has been the hallmark of the Democratic party to educate and protect the rights of voters.  If the Clinton campaign disagrees with that principle, they should say so today.

We have received reports from around the state of independents and Republicans who chose to vote in the Democratic primary receiving issue only or Republican ballots instead of the Democratic ballot they were entitled to.   We have also had reports that the voter ID requirements have been misstated at various locations, causing some voters to be turned away. 

We will take action when necessary to ensure that all eligible voters are able to cast their votes and to have their votes counted.

We will continue to monitor the polls to ensure that all Ohioans who choose to participate in today’s election are able to do so regardless of who they choose to vote for.

I guess her newest motto is, “By hook or by crook.”

[hajario]

@Shayna

I guess her newest motto is, “By hook or by crook.”

Where is there proof that any of this is intentional and, if it is, that Clinton is behind it?

[stolichnaya]

Elections are messy things. It’s proper for the Obama campaign to work to make sure that their likely voters get to vote, but it doesn’t therefore follow that Clinton is engaging in funny business.

[Shayna]

@hajario

Where is there proof that any of this is intentional and, if it is, that Clinton is behind it?

@stolichnaya

Elections are messy things. It’s proper for the Obama campaign to work to make sure that their likely voters get to vote, but it doesn’t therefore follow that Clinton is engaging in funny business.

You guys read that statement in its entirety, right? You caught the part where the Ohio State Director said, **"We understand that the Clinton campaign may want to depress turnout because Barack Obama has closed a 20-point gap over the course of this month as voters across the state got to know him.

It has been the hallmark of the Democratic party to educate and protect the rights of voters. If the Clinton campaign disagrees with that principle, they should say so today."**

They’ve been getting complaints all day about apparent voter suppression. In fielding those complaints, they’ve clearly formed the impression that these tactics are being utilized in an effort to suppress OBAMA votes, or they wouldn’t have made the accusation that it’s Clinton’s campaign that seems to want to depress voter turnout.

It’s not my accusation, it’s theirs, through their own remarks. I don’t assume they came to that conclusion completely without evidence (or at least testimony to that effect).

[hajario]

@Shayna

You guys read that statement in its entirety, right? You caught the part where the Ohio State Director said, **"We understand that the Clinton campaign may want to depress turnout because Barack Obama has closed a 20-point gap over the course of this month as voters across the state got to know him.

Uh huh. As I said, where is the proof?

It’s not my accusation, it’s theirs, through their own remarks. I don’t assume they came to that conclusion completely without evidence (or at least testimony to that effect).

I assume it’s bullshit without proof. More politics as usual.

[stolichnaya]

He’s a state campaign director. That’s what they do. Insinuation and agitation- his goal is to shake the trees and get turnout up. At the same time, he needs to make sure that people who will be voting for his candidate (ie independents requesting a Democrat ballot) get to vote as requested. So he calls attention to the problem while presenting unattributed “reports” that the Clinton campaign has something to do with it.

I know that you’re not saying it, but he is a campaign employee and this should be taken with salt.

[Syntropy]

@hajario

I assume it’s bullshit without proof. More politics as usual.

One of the things I’ve noted about particularly eloquent candidates is the high amount of “true believerism” they inspire. Not that that’s a bad thing; it’s good for the party and the political process in general to involve as many voters as possible. But it does tend to engender the belief that said candidate would not stoop to something as slimy as “politics as usual.”

[hajario]

@Maureen

One of the things I’ve noted about particularly eloquent candidates is the high amount of “true believerism” they inspire. Not that that’s a bad thing; it’s good for the party and the political process in general to involve as many voters as possible. But it does tend to engender the belief that said candidate would not stoop to something as slimy as “politics as usual.”

Well said. I’m a lifelong registered independent who voted for Obama but, my god, have some of his supporters gone over the deep end. He’s the best candidate that either major party has put up for some time but he’s still a politician.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Shayna

Statement from Ohio State Director Paul Tewes: I guess her newest motto is, “By hook or by crook.”

With respect, there is no way for the poll workers to know in Ohio whether you are “republican” or “democrat”. The identifying line in the voter roll doesn’t state which party you are registered as, and you get to fill in the blank for which ballot you want yourself. I just did this not 90 minutes ago.

[MovieMogul]

Texas won’t be resolved tonight:

A quick reminder – as you watch the Texas returns tomorrow night, remember that it will be virtually meaningless to say that either candidate “won.” (I’m lookin’ at you Wolf Blitzer). That will remain an unknowable question for some time. Delegates, after all, are ultimately the name of the game. And there’s no state where the popular vote tally bears less relation to the ultimate delegate count than Texas.

For one, winning the popular vote matters less than winning the heavily-weighted districts. And as most people now know, those districts are Obama-friendly territory. Second, the post-election caucus results (which provide roughly a third of the delegates) can’t possibly be known for at least a week. From what I understand, each individual precinct has seven days to send in the results. So it will be a while.

[dalej42]

And, we’re expecting large caucus turnout as well. There will be a lot of confusion once the caucusing begins.

[MovieMogul]

@dalej42

And, we’re expecting large caucus turnout as well. There will be a lot of confusion once the caucusing begins.

You can say that again. Yikes.

[RTFirefly]

@SNenc

especially with Obama set to announce endorsements from 50 superdelegates tomorrow.

I should point out that in the original story, the timeframe wasn’t “tomorrow” but “before too long.”

But that would still be pretty damned big.

Hillary didn’t win NY by 50 delegates. She didn’t win CA by 50 delegates. And she’s not going to win any two remaining states put together by 50 delegates.

The delegate math is already solidly against her. This just makes it that much more impossible for her.

[RTFirefly]

I’m gonna say Hillary wins Ohio and RI both by 9; Obama wins TX by 1%, and VT by a googolplex.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Vermont is already called for Obama.

Exits show “Change” trumping “experience” by 20 pts. in Ohio, 15 pts. in Texas. Encouraging news for Obama.

[Aguecheek]

Exit polls, from HuffPost :

VT Obama - 67, Clinton - 33
OH Obama - 51, Clinton - 49
TX Obama - 50, Clinton - 49
RI Obama - 49, Clinton - 49

However many grains of salt you take, it’s still gonna be a squeaker.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

I think exit polls are particularly meaningless this time around becuase you have to realize that there was so much early voting in TX and OH. How do they account for that?