Are the big donors deserting the Hillary campaign?
February 6th, 2008- Why has she had to lend $5M of her own money?
A developing post-Super Tuesday story this evening on US political sites has been a report that Hillary has had to dip into her own resources to keep her campaign on the the road.
It’s been confirmed that in late January, only days before Super Tuesday, that the former first lady made what was described as a “loan” of $5m. It’s being suggested that more money will have to be forthcoming in order to compete with the well funded Obama campaign.
One of the much trumpeted successes of Barack in January was his ability to raise more than $32m from a mass of small donors. In the same period the Hillary effort collected just $13m.
The hope, of course, was that the nomination would have been settled effectively by Super Tuesday and there wasn’t the need to build up much resource for this new phase of the nomination campaign. A second problem is that a lot of the money that Team Clinton has pulled in has been earmarked for the general election itself and cannot be used for the fight with Barack.
Marc Ambinder, who broke the story on his blog, makes two pertinent points: “… I envision that it would produce at least two countervailing forces. There would be a spate of stories on the End of the Clinton Machine — that her donor base is tapped out and hasn’t been able to expand like Obama’s. This force is likely to be very strong, and it is not unfair or inaccurate…..But perceptually, it could turn her into an underdog… She’d be able to show potential donors than she will sacrifice as she’s asking them to sacrifice. One can imagine a fundraising appeal along the lines of: “Help Us Match HIllary!”
In the betting there’s been a sharpish move away from Hillary to Obama and they are now both about evens. The latest prices are listed here.
MessageSpace Advertising
Yes, the January fund-raising figures were hugely revealing of the way in which the Democrat race is going. It does look as if Clinton is in trouble, but then McCain’s campaign was alledgedly washed up financially at one point last year and look what happened to him! Still, all the momentum looks to be going one way at the moment. It’s not going very quickly yet, but then it doesn’t need to.
I think Hilary can probably pull more funding out if she really needs to - although she might be regretting salting away so much for the GE campaign. She probably needed immediate cashflow if she’s going to buy adspace. One big problem for the Dems is that, if the primaries go to the wire, then donors will be feeling fatigued by the autumn.
It’s not that big donors are ‘deserting’ Hillary its that she isn’t attracting as many small donations, particularly over the internet as Obama. She has raised an incredible amount, breaking all records, but Obama is doing even better. The Kerry endorsement may turn out to be much more influential in the long-term than the Kennedy one. He gave Obama access to his 3 million email addresses collected in 2004, the biggest list in the Democratic party. I don’t think Clinton is out of it yet but she is now the underdog. The key for her will be the next couple of weeks - she can’t let Obama get unstoppable momentum. I’d put the odds at 60-65% that Obama will be the nominee.
2 - She hasn’t ’salted away’ any money for the General. There is a donor limit for the primary and a seperate one for the General. Accepting money for the General when a donor has donated the maximum for the primary doesn’t lose her any money.
Interestingly its questionable the value for money Clinton is getting. She reportedly spent $4.2m on Mark Penn’s services when Obama has paid his chief consultant $1m.
Fair enow. My mistake.
“Clinton has signaled only that she’ll compete for Virginia and Maine.”
http://reason.com/blog/show/124843.html
see also
Five reasons Hillary should be worried
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8363.html
It sounds like she can only afford a “sh1t or bust” strategy, having to take a string of hits from Obama in the next few weeks, in the hope that Ohio and Texas will recoup her losses…
Very, very dicey…
6. What is it about New Yorkers and their Big State strategy?!
Chelsea Clinton has apparently been seen carrying big bags out of the Clinton home with valuables for safe keeping ‘just in case’.
If anyone wants an update NBC has a pretty accurate extrapolation here. Hover over the bars to see what states they refer to. I’m not sure but I think these are the pledged delegates only, so more accurate than others at this stage.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22419475
Re 3 So Keiran, you’ll be backing Obama big time (if still available) at 2.10 with Stan James? I think that would be wise, ’cause I reckon Obama will be odds on in a few days. But I’d be ready to lay it off fairly sharpish and take the profit. This just isn’t predictable.
As an scenario example, if Hillary takes Texas and Ohio and it’s down to the super-delegates, they will be brave or foolish to ditch the candidate who won the Dem primaries in NY, CA, FL, NJ, MAss, Texas and, most of all, the potential decider, Ohio. Perhaps we’ll finally get an update to “it’s the economy, stupid’… but only to “it’s the economy in Ohio, stupid’”!
Democratic Odds now for the Nomination;Presidency
Clinton Evens; 85/40.
Obama Evens; 85/40.
So its levels you devils. Both priced at 4/7 if they get nominated.
McCain 15/8 for the Presidency and GOP 7/4.
That 4/7 Clinton to beat McCain seems too short to me. Evens the pair Clinton/Obama to get the nomination feels about right. McCain also looks priced right. I would expect he would shorten to 5/4 against Clinton and lengthen to 9/4 against Obama.
There is a danger now that the US media is now looking at the upcoming states so intently they’re almost already handing them to him. If there’s a good Clinton result in Virginia, Maryland or Maine then it could give her a real boost. I have a feeling that Northeastern blacks won’t be so anti-Clinton as African Americans in the rest of the country - you heard it here first.
$5mm type loan figures are not that material in the grand scheme of a modern political career.
By January 2008, Tony Blair had earned $15mm with 11 months of deal making ability to go.
As Kieran 3) comments, Barack does attract many more small donors - but this speaks more to the nature of B.O.’s campaign than Clinton’s chances of being elected….
9. Martin Smith. This is an important point you make. In the match ups Obama appears to do better than Clinton so far against McCain. But as you point out the Democrats also need the candidate who can win those crucial states. Does it follow that Clinton has a better chance than Obama since she has done better in some of these states? Or will Obama do at least as well in these states in a vote against McCain? An important consideration.
Latest news: Clinton’s staff including her campaign manager now going without wages.
Odd that on Betfair Obama is favourite for the democratic nomination, but Hillary has tighter odds for the Presidency. Do people really think she’d do better against McCain than Obama? I’d have thought Hillary standing is just about the one thing that could get parts of the GOP base out to vote McCain. Have backed Obama and laid Hillary for the presidency and maxed out my account. Roll on the Potomac primaries..
9 - The only states there that matter of those are Ohio and Florida in a close national race. The rest are either safe Dem or GOP. Florida was not a reflection of this race so can be discounted, Ohio we’ll have to wait and see.
The states that will matter are those like Colorado and Iowa, these are ones that voted for Obama. Can the superdelegates afford to put these states in jeopardy nationally?
9 - I’m not betting on this race, emotions are too likely to get in the way, but I do think obama is the value bet at the moment. The problem for Clinton is that it’s hard to see where she wins before Ohio and Texas, and she needs to or she’ll get in a Rudy type situation. That is why she wants lots of debates. She needs Obama to make a mistake. As I’ve said before I wouldn’t count Clinton out until she is totally dead and buried. She is clever and tough but the dynamics need to change and soon.
As for the General I’d advise anyone betting for McCain to look at turnout figures from yesterday. The Democrats are much more enthused and McCain has a real problem with the base. He only managed 43% of the vote, and only exceeeded 40% in blue states. If the GOP had the same rules as the Democrats he would be the front-runner but it would be a lot closer in terms of delegates. Particularly against Obama I think he is the underdog unless there is some kind of terrorist attack on US soil.
Swing States that the Dems can get with a 5% swing and the primary/caucus result -
Arkansas - 4.5 (Clinton big win)
Colorado - 3.5 (Obama big win)
Florida - 2.5 (no race)
Iowa - 0.5 (Obama win)
Missouri - 4 (Near dead heat)
Nevada - 1.5 (Near dead heat)
New Mexico - 0.5 (Near dead heat)
Ohio - 1.0 (to come)
Virginia - 4.0 (to come)
There appears to be no great advantage so far with these, Ohio and Virginia may tip that if they are won big.
12. Harriet Harman took out a personal loan to help finance her deputy leadership campaign - and won.
17 - She also wants lots of debates because they are free.
Looking again at these upcoming states, why is everyone putting Maine in Obama’s column? Clinton won both Massachusetts and New Hampshire. In a two way race I don’t see how having a caucus is much different from a primary.
18. Rather than look at the result of each state, why don’t we look at the result among Independents in all of them. I would imagine Obama would come out convincingly on top there.
CNN making plenty of noise about Hillary’s funding difficulties. Now Barack is regaining the momentum, he needs to ensure he appears confident but not arrogant or expectant. As is being argued here, he needs not to foul up.
16 - The states of Pennsylvannia, Ohio and Florida are key big swing states but they are not the only ones on the table. Iowa, NH, New Mexico to name just a few will have an impact. There is little evidence that either Obama or Clinton would run significantly stronger either nationally or in the swing states.
15 - Obama has a better chance in the General but I think this conventional wisdom about Clinton drawing out hoardes to vote against her is exaggerated. She obviously provokes strong emotions but I still think she could win. People are more likely to vote for someone than vote against them. She got more votes in Oklahoma than any other cnadidate yesterday, and won Tennessee another red state. She has a lower ceiling, but also a lower floor than Obama.
Super Tuesday - Wednesday thoughts on Dems
1. Tremendous bi-coastal performance by Hillary, yet again staving off virtual anihilation with strong wins in Massachusetts and California.
2. Yet again, women saved the day for Hillary, women of all races and ethnicities, but especially White women, in particular those over 50 and/or with no college.
3. Hispanics were likewise critical to her success in California, Arizona and New Jersey, and a big plus in Massachusetts and New York.
4. In contrast, Hispanics in New Mexico appear to have gone for Obama, or at very did an even split. For example, the part of NM that Hillary did the best in, CD2 in southern NM, is the most Anglo part of the state.
5. Note that the next (indeed last) state where the Latino vote will be a major factor is Texas. And that the Mexican American vote in Texas, which is something of a “half-way” house between Chicano California and Hispanic New Mexico
6. Next states on calendar do look to favor Obama and should help maintain his momentum. Ditto the fundraising. Of course will have to see if his positive trends do persist. And what Clintons will do to fight back.
7. Delegates are clearly the name of the game. (My former fews on this subject having been trashed by events.)
8. Most likely scenario: superdelegates will go with the flow of the race. IF the momentum remains with Obama then superDs won’t count him out. Big if there, but so it goes.
9. Alternative universe: race stays tight as a tick and/or Clinton’s go nuclear. Then could be Katy-bar-the-door.
10. IF Democrats can avoid self-immolation (for example #9) then general situation, in particular regime fatigue, economic downturn and conservative angst, will strongly favor Democratic ticket, despite the appeal & best efforts of John McCain.
17/20. Only underdogs challenge the front-runner to debates, surely?
Says a lot about where Clinton thinks she’s at…
Socrates, are you still spouting pro-Obama stuff?
I guess you need a reminder of Gen Election 1992 when Major got elected.
If you put 100 people in the room, how many would have come out to support John Major? Probably None. But in a secret election, he won. This is why all caucuses should be scrapped.
Everything on Saturday should be an Obama win, 2 caucuses and one HEAVY black area.
22 - Independents are important, but so is base turnout. That is what Bush showed. I think Obama will be better at both, but I don’t think you can tell much by primary results in these states. Exit polls show most Democrats would be happy with and vote for either in the General.
Just for note: Hillary won NY senate seat as the underdog: - Should benefits from playing victim/underdog I think.
27. “how many would have come out to support John Major?”
Not very many, but about twice as many as would support Kinnock…
26, 29 - Yes I think Hillary is the underdog, and that there are advantages to being in that position. Today Obama was still claiming to be the underdog. It may be that in the next couple of weeks Obama comes under more press scrutiny - I doubt it as the press generally like him - but he is a long way from being home and hosed.
What’s the latest in NM, anyone? Is it still going to be a squeaker?
29 - Clinton an underdog? That won’t wash.
29 - Hillary was not the underdog in 2000, not by the time she drove Giuliani out of the race, then handed poor Rich Lazio his own fecking head during the big debate.
27. Um, how is what I’m saying pro-Obama? I reckon she’s going to do well in Maine. It’s not like I’m “managing expectations” - politicalbetting.com isn’t influential enough to have an effect on the US primary races! I’ve already said the Saturday primaries should go Obama - Maine’s the next day.
34. Giuliani drove himself out the race when news of his affairs broke.
“Privately, her strategists have also largely written off her chances of winning the so-called Potomac primary Feb. 9, given the large black populations in Virginia, Maryland and D.C. They are also playing down her chances in the following week’s major primaries; Hawaii, where Obama grew up, and Wisconsin, which has virtually sealed the nomination for other Democrats in years past.”
http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2008/02/06/ap/headlines/d8ul3ueg0.txt
Update on that New Mexico fishiness -
http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2008/02/uncounted-rio-arriba-county-ballots.html
“The New Mexico Democratic Party caucus may be tainted by three ballot boxes that spent the night in the home of the Rio Arriba County party chair or the homes of other local election officials instead of being reported to the state party.”
32 - Excellent comment on last post, with story from some NM newspaper. There are a number of precincts that have yet to report to state Democratic HQ in Santa Fe - this was a caucus, not a primary, so the party ran the show.
So HQ has dispatched people to go hither and find out what happened. Which could take a wee while, as some of the precincts in question are in the back of beyond, and off the beat track even for boondocks.
re 13 and 18 useful posts. polls seem to suggest that Obama does slightly better nationally against McCain. But extrapolating from national picture looks less reliable than usual (and that’s not so reliable!). So I do think ‘Can you win Ohio or Florida’ is a better question than most. We shouldn’t presume that if Hillary won both Dem primaries she’s more likely to win the states. But it’s an indicator - and stacks up with the other evidence about her support base.
38 - Rio Arriba County is what you might call its Own Private Idaho, Hispanic style
sorry if this has been posted …
but just heard on CNN that of over 14 million votes in Dem primaries/caucuses there were less than 50k ‘tween Hillary and Obama. As I said on previous thread, you couldn’t make it up and be believed.
36 Affairs did indeed take the bloom off the rose, but public/media disenchantment was well under way before Rudy lingered then funked the race.
40 - Florida primary results are flawed indicator in this context, because the Obama vote was surpressed by the DNC ban, which he largely respected but which she openly defied, as shed did in Michigan. This after Clinton fingerprints from the getgo on DNC presidential nomination frontloading.
Hillary has blundered by combining news of a loan (which could have been sold as ‘commitment’) with turning employees into volunteers. Sounds desperate. Given bookies have already (tonight) had to tighten odds on Obama, I’ve just talked myself into 40 quid on Obama at evens on Betfair.
44 - I think she’s playing for the faux underdog status. Think about it, this is the Clinton’s, next roll of the dice is to be the plucky warrior soldiering on against the odds. How many will fall for it? We shall see……
re 44 except I couldn’t get evens anymore as a few others people worked out how this is going to go in next 7 days! Still a few quid against Hillary at 2.02 …and good night.
The problem with Maine is exactly that it is a caucus if all the states on Tuesday were Primaries I gather we would have seen results far different than those we saw - Maine and all the other caucus states go for Obama or he loses narrowly …. There is a movement here in MN to end the caucus system as it is undemocratic - and to try and move to a primary … I hope it works out
47 - Well, if it’s to a PR system it has the benefits of both. You can switch to a second preference if you want to and you can vote whenever.
47. I kind of like the idea of a caucus - would it be possible to do one with a secret ballot at the end?
35. Socrates. “politicalbetting.com isn’t influential enough to have an effect on the US primary races!”
This is quite a blow. The whole series of primary races has been one helluva rollercoaster with surprises and twists at every turn. But now this sockdologer! Have you any evidence to support this doubtful assertion?
the problem they have in MN with the caucus is that it is not a secret ballot and it is limited voting hours - they want a full primary - secret ballot with normal voting hours -
45. Surely it’s best to make yourself the underdog before a primary you’re about to win, not when you’re about to lose several. I actually think the staff volunteering isn’t as bad as it sounds. If you’re main woman just gave five million to the campaign you would kind of feel pressured to at least work without pay a little bit.
49. The whole point of a caucus is that it’s like a jury. Do you think that excellent film “Twelve Angry Men (1957)” would have had the same ending if they’d stuck to secret ballots?…
This thread is a good example of what I’ve been talking about all day. The consensus is that it’s moving to Obama. On Monday it was the same but more so. Anyone reading the thread then would be forgiven for thinking Clinton was finished. Yet she’s now narrowly ahead.
I’ve just heard BBC News say the advantage is now marginally with Hillary. Whatever PtP might say there is a group think on here that favours Obama and is misleading.
47. I think Obama has a slight advantage in a caucus, but not a huge one. The caucus states so far have been on favourable territory for him. I would imagine Maine to be good for Clinton.
54. BBC are w*nkers. They’ve been trotting-out ridiculous unchanged delegates figures all day. Clinton 845 Obama 765. Where on earth did they get them from?
a slight advantage ?
Do you really thing Obama would beat Clinton 67-32 in MN in a primary contest? I honestly don’t think so - the big advantage is that it is a limited electorate in limited hours - in a primary a lot more folks would be able to vote and the MN result although most probably an Obama win would have been a lot closer … 55-45 I guess
From here?
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746
Roger, you forget that this is focused on bteting. As I posted much earlier (and to which PtP followed me with £100 of his money!) I said to back Obama now as things are in his favour until the end of the month, Then you should lay him before Texas and Ohio when it is likely that he will find it tougher.
The fact is that, from two weeks ago, Obama has done astonishingly well. He hasn’t won by any stretch of the imagination but he’s more in the game than he has been at any time.
The Clinton money issue is a side one and may well be a benefit to her as much as a drawback.
57. I think what we can say is that a caucus favours dedicated supporters over passing ones - as strongly Clinton Hispanics showed in Nevada. Do you think Maine has more dedicated Obamaites than dedicated Clintonites?
58. No, they’re different too. So how the hell do we get from there to here?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22419475
which is more or less what the Obama camp are claiming…
47 I can believe a dynamic of women voting for Obama over Hillary in public when they might have decided otherwise in private. Not out of intimidation, just because of the psychology of public and private behavior. I don’t agree with using hunches like these to handicap Obama’s wins, though - it could easily be happenstance that’s caused him to win so many caucuses.
It is because it’s focused on betting that I make this point. This is one of those rare examples when the partisans stay away and it’s all about predicting a winner. From vaguely following this site on Saturday Sunday and Monday I thought Hillary was finished. It was completely inaccurate. I think people get so tied up with partisan posting that they find it difficult not to continue the habit when an interesting election like this comes round.
The conventional wisdom is that Maine is Obamatron territory - I have no idea why that is the conventional wisdom - but if you look at all the caucus results bar Nevada she has done really badly so far — and not all that well in Nevada …
If you take MN they are saying ME closely resembles that as a guide - and as you recall MN was won heavily by Obama …
conventional wisdom may be wrong but I don’t see Hillary winning any states until she storms in OH and TX and PA,
go girl
61 without looking is difference Mich & FL?
63 - Hillary is certainly not finished, as she again dodged the bullet (as with NH).
But her own timetable did call for her to be cornonated last night, which didn’t come off. And the longer the nomination race continues, the less likely it is she will win.
Just found out that the Texas ‘primary’ actually only allocates part of the delegates. The rest are allocated by caucus, but, to attend, you must have voted in the primary earlier that day!
63 - maybe you should check out the betting markets, Roger, rather than just “vaguely following this site”.
It has been unlikely for some time that either candidate would be “finished” on Super Tuesday, though it was possible one could gain the ascendancy. The betting markets have fairly reflected that and many commentators here have made that point.
65. I really haven’t a clue. Surely there is an official DNC tally that should be relied on, rather than each media network making its own off-the-wall estimate….
69 - But then, you’d probably have to wait for official DNC figures until all the outstanding ballots had been settled, as it’s quite possible they’d mean reallocation of a delegate or two.
Roger, there were definitely people pointing out, when Hillary was 2/1 to win California, that this price was unsupported by any evidence. That confirmation led me to green up and save myself lots of money. The fact is that Obama is likely to have a good run over the next month, and he’s currently about tied or a bit ahead on delegates.
Excluding superdelegates, that is.
70. There’s a helluva difference between a “delegate or two” and the nearly 100 delegate difference in the Obama stats, depending on which media you are watching…
Isn’t the, er, donkey in the room what happens to the disallowed FL and MI delegates? If Hillary had them she’d have a commanding lead. The consensus up to now is that she can’t afford to challenge the DNC in court because she’d infuriate the party elders. But firstly how many divisions do the party elders have? - look at Teddy Kennedy and the other senior Democrats who backed Obama in Massachusetts. Would ordinary voters say “Because Hillary has annoyed the party bureaucrats, I’m going to vote against her?” And secondly she doesn’t have to do it herself, just let the state parties make the challenge.
Presumably a few of the superdelegates would be alienated, and Obama’s camp would cry foul because they didn’t campaign (much) there. But there’s a strong democratic argument for not letting the party leadership disenfranchise two large states. A better bet than hanging around for a month waiting for Texas?
Maybe it’s out of the question and I just don’t understand the dynamics of it - I’m only asking.
On something I do understand, the subject of the last thread - there is no chance whatsoever of PMQ being abolished. If anyone disagrees, the Broxtowe cats have a bet for them - £10 at 5-1, say, with some sort of reasonable time limit, like a year from now.
63. Roger. Last night was a draw. Opinions as to how the result would go vacillated over at least a 24 hour period. As the count began opinion certainly moved towards Obama, as did the market, because that’s what the early exit polls and results indicated. By the early hours of yesterday morning, when it was clear that Hillary had won Ca comfortably, the majority opinion expressed here swung the other way and some argued that it was all over for Obama.
Final result was a draw. Most commentators here feel that a draw was a good result for Obama and that it’s still all to play for.
74 - but would she have had as many delegates from those states if they’d been properly contested? It would go against natural justice [and usurp the authority of the DNC] for those delegates to be counted - the only “fair” solution I can see from here is to re-run those primaries later in the season.
That’s not to say that some sort of fudge won’t be found or demanded, of course.
76 The DNC really wants FL and MI to hold caucuses later, but neither state party has assented. Conventional wisdom is that Clinton will oppose this, as she’s already ‘won’ the states, but I think she might agree, on the basis that she has most of the superdelegates in her pocket if she does, and the demographics of Florida, at least, are favourable to her. In any case, it’s not her decision, although she’ll have pull.
Has anyone picked up on Hillary’s comment at her press conference today that she thought primaries were more democratic than caucuses?
74 & 75 & 76 & 77 excellent points all.
My sources within beltway establishment say DNC is definitely considering caucuses as way to cut the Gordian Knot.
Think likelihood of MI & FL delegates being seated & allocated based on primary, will depend on Hillary establishing a clear lead in the nomination race by say the day after the Pennsylvania primary.
In other words, don’t believe Clintonistas can count on winning this race with tainted delegates; esp. when their fingerprints are all over the evidence of this crime against the voters of Florida.
Issue is similar to the butterfly ballot. Only this time there is a remedy.
BTW, state courts may get involved, but cannot tie the hands of the DNC or the Democratic National Convention. And federal courts won’t touch the issue with a barge poll.
One of the events that now becomes more relevant that anyone ever imagined is the WISCONSIN PRIMARY (Feb 19)
Wisconsin was the first state to enact a primary law. Sponsored by Gov. Robert “Fighting Bob” LaFollette a century ago, to curb the power of the party bosses. (Note: Oregon was first state to enact presidential preference primary resulting in pledged delegates).
For most of the 20th century the Wisconsin Primary was one of the key dates on the presidential year calendar.
1912
GOP: Robert LaFollette 73%, Wm Howard Taft 26%
Dem: Woodrow Wilson 56%, Champ Clark 44%
1924
GOP: Robert LaFollett 63%, Calvin Coolidge 36%
Dem: Wm Gibbs McAdoo 68%, Alfred E. Smith 7%
1932
GOP: George Norris 95%, Herbert Hoover 5%
Dem: Franklin D. Roosevelt 99%, Alfred E. Smith 1%
1948
GOP: Harold Stassen 39%, Douglas MacArthur 34%, Thomas Dewey 25%
Dem: Harry S Truman 83%, others 16%
1952
GOP: Harrold Stassen 44%, Dwight Eisenhower 37%, Robert Taft (write-in) 8%
Dem: Estes Kefauver 86%, others 14%
1960
GOP: Richard Nixon 100%
Dem: John Kennedy 56%, Hubert Humphrey 44%
1968
GOP: Richard Nixon 80%, Ronald Reagan 10%, Harrold Stassen 6%
Dem: Eugene McCarthy 56%, Lyndon Johnson 35%, Robert Kennedy (write-in) 6%
1972:
GOP: Richard Nixon 97%, Pete McCloskey 1%, John Ashbrook 1%
Dem: George McGovern 30%, George Wallace 22%, Hubert Humphrey 21%, Edmund Muskie 10%, Henry Jackson 8%, John Lindsay 7%, Shirley Chisolm 1%
1976
GOP: Gerald Ford 55%, Ronald Reagan 44%
Dem: Jimmy Carter 37%, Morris Udall 36%, George Wallace 13%, Henry Jackson 6%, Ellen McCormick 3%
1980
GOP: Ronald Reagan 40%, George W. Bush 30%, John Anderson 27%
Dem: Jimmy Carter 56%, Edward Kennedy 30%, Jerry Brown 12%, Lyndon LaRouche 1%
1984
GOP: “Reagan Yes” 95%, “Reagan No” 5%
Dem: Gary Hart 44%, Walter Mondale 41%, Jesse Jackson 10%, George McGovern 2%, “None of the names shown” 1%, John Glenn 1%
1988
GOP: George W. Bush 82%, Robert Dole 8%
Dem: Michael Dukakis 48%, Jesse Jackson 28%, Al Gore 17%, Paul Simon 5%, Richard Gephardt 1%
1992
GOP: George Bush 76%, Pat Buchanan 16%
Dem: Bill Clinton 37%, Jerry Brown 35%, Paul Tsongas 22%
We’re going to do a campaign stop for Hillary on Friday
- not really - we are going to a Cheese Factory instead … will be interesting to see how the WI plays out this time - but I think they said it favors Obama but being a primary we will see how it works out ..
74 Nick. I think the issue is less the party elders, than the fear that if Obama follows the rules and wins the most delegates excluding Michigan and Florida , and ends up losing the nomination due to a Clinton legal challenge (or the superdelegates for that matter) there would be a widespread feeling among Obama supporters and African Americans in particular that the Clintons/establishment screwed their guy over, with resultant impact on turnout. It would be Howard Dean and the DNC’s worst nightmare - the general election is still the Democrats to lose, but they will lose if they rupture relations with such a key voting block.
WA Precinct Caucus Sat, February 9
Hillary Clinton visiting Seattle tomorrow, Thur, Feb 7; just got robocall for event on Seattle waterfront.
Barrack Obama visiting Seatle for event Fri, Feb 8
Super Tuesday Geography - Republicans
Massachusetts primary
McCain won western Mass, and was ahead by inches in Boston; but Romney took more populous central and eastern Mass.
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware primaries
McCain took every county
Georgia primary
Romney won Atlanta area but not by much, while McCain took eastern GA between Savannah and Augusta, plus western GA from Colubus south which is in the orbit of Fort Bragg. Which left Huckabee the biggest share of the state, including all of rural north GA and central GA from Atlanta to the FL line. Shorthand: Mitt got the urban/surburanites, and JMcC won rural establishmentarians, but in yet another GA election the cracker vote determined the winner, in this case Brother Huckabee.
Alabama primary
McCain took the Black Belt counties (so called for their soul and the majority race in most parts of the old plantation belt) plus Mobile and the Gulf Coast (vets & military). But north Alabama went big for Huckabee, except in Jefferson Co (Birmingham) where he was neck and neck with McCain.
Tennessee primary
Romney won Nashville and adjacent middle TN counties, while McCain took Knoxville and much of ancestorally GOP east TN; but Huckabee captured most of east TN plus all western TN including Shelby Co (Memphis) which has state’s biggest Republican vote.
Arkansas primary
Huckabee took every county
Missouri primary
Romney won Kansas City & environs, also co’s with U of Missouri & Jefferson City the state capital, plus Rush Limbaugh’s home county! Huckabee carried the backboonies of southern Missouri plus “Little Dixie” in northeast Missouri including Mark Twain’s birthplace. But it was McCain who won the state, thanks to his strengh in St Louis and surrounding area, plus a large swath of northwestern Missouri.
Illinois Primary
McCain swept the state; Romney did best in northern IL but won just two counties; while Huckabee did best in downstate IL parts of which are closer to Memphis than Chicago in more ways than one.
Minnesota Caucuses
Romney swept counties from Rochester (Mayo Clinic) north to Duluth, including Twin Cities area. McCain & Huckabee split much of western & northern MN, with Ron Paul taking four counties, including Blue Earth (which I’m noting just because its such a great name)
North Dakota Caucuses
no county breakdown on NYT interactive map which is my source for this drivvel.
Oklahoma Caucuses
Classic Okla pattern: Romney carried eastern OK including Tulsa, and Huckabee won a handful of counties; but McCain took most everything from Oklahoma City west and won the state.
Montana Caucuses
McCain, Paul and Huckabee split rural eastern MT, while Paul took Missoula. But Romney won the state by capturing the other main centers such as Billings, Great Falls & Helena, plus most of the rest of western MT.
Utah Primary
Romney swept every county; worst he got was 66%
Colorado Caucuses
Romney swept the state except for a couple counties won by McCain and a few ties
Arizona Primary
McCain took all counties except three, but two of these comprise the Navaho and Hopi reservations which went for Romney, perhaps thanks to Mormon vote (most Indians who voted did so in the Dem primary).
California Primary
McCain swept the state, except for Fresno and two northern CA counties that went for Romney, who ran JMcC a close 2nd in most of southern CA, but fell further behind in the SF Bay Area.
Alaska Caucuses
no geo breakdown on NYT webpage
Songs of the Super Tuesday States
NEW MEXICO
BALLAD OF BILLY KID
I’ll sing you a true song
Of Billy the Kid
I will sing you the record
Of deeds that he did
Way out in New Mexico
A long time ago
When a man’s only friend
Was his own .44
When Billy the Kid
Was a very young lad
In old Silver City
He went to the bad
Way out west
With a gun in his hand
By the age of fourteen
He’d killed his first man
Fair Mexican maidens
Played guitars and sing
Songs about Billy
There boy bandit king
And before this young man
Had reached his sad end
He had a notch on his pistol
For twenty-one men
It was on a black night
That poor Billy died
He said to his friends
I’m not satisfied
There’s twenty-one men
I’ve put bullets through
And Sheriff Pat Garrett’s
Gonna make twenty-two
Well, this is how Billy
The Kid met his fate
A big moon was shining
And the hour was late
Shot down by Pat Garrett
Silver City’s best friend
This poor outlaw’s life
Had reached its sad end
Quick test.
test
The democrats are forced to choose between Obama and Hillary, with Edwards having retired hurt. Nobody turns uo to their political meetings, they’re poor speakers with no ideas.
In this country we’re blessed with that inspirational performer GB and and his intellectual heavy-weight of a deputy, Harriet Harman.
And don’t we love feeling superior to our ex-colonists over the pond.
88 And the substance heavy Cameron with his fantastically experienced Shadow Chancellor!! (Ha Ha)