Who is writing Hillary off now?
March 5th, 2008 
The delegate totals might be a problem - but the narrative’s changed
As I write the Texas results are not yet all in but the margins of victory in Ohio and Rhode Island are far bigger than that which was being predicted at the weekend.
Of course she still has a biggish delegate deficit - but what has struck me has been the ruthlessness of her team in raising alleged discrepancies in the overnight Texas caucuses. This, surely, is a marker of what we can expect over the disputed Michigan and Florida delegations and the super-delegates.
-
The Clintons are not going to give up lightly the chance of a return to the White House.
At current prices, Betfair has as I write 2.9/1 on Hillary for the nomination, it’s worth getting something on.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Well done Mike - good call and, if I may so, something little ‘ol me has been mentioning for some time too.
This woman is formidable. She might yet not make it, but by ‘eck she’s going to fight all the way. I personally now have her slight favourite for all sorts of reasons regardless of the current delegate count. For instance, I think with the narrative swinging her way the establishment super-d’s will ultimately back her. I also think she will raise a storm over Florida and Michigan. In addition the scale of her likely victory yesterday means she is in with a shout of getting right up to Obama’s delegete count at the close.
About a week ago I suggested that 5-1 was a great price to take on her. Wonder if anyone here went for it?!
Where Hillary can focus her effort, she does well. Otherwise, Obama seems the default choice across the country.
What does this mean for the November election?
Who is best placed to defeat McCain?
Does this result rekindle hopes of a Clinton-Obama ticket?
Hillary won the Texas primary too, a superb night!
I am. She looks to be winning only very narrowly in Texas and the win in Ohio wasn’t by a big margin either. When the number of delegates is counted, March 4th won’t have made much difference. Everyone was saying that she needed to win big. Clearly she hasn’t, whereas in contrast Obama clawed back from what could have been a whipping according to the polls of 2 - 3 weeks ago to a position of near-victory. Need any more be said?
She needs to think along the lines of the headline of an article on RealClearPolitics, “Hillary shouls save Dems - from herself.” The article is rubbish (IMHO), but the headline is a classic.
TEXAS
Bar is getting higher for Obama, he’s going to need close to 60% of the remaining vote and that’s too much to expect.
So sure looks like Hillary is winning the statewide primary vote. As I type, according to Texas SoS she’s +4 ahead right now in delegates allocated on the basis of the primary.
4. Nonsense I’m afraid. She has won big in Ohio - as the NYT leads - with an emphatic victory there. She looks to have a clear lead in Texas too.
4 - Writing her off? Crazy.
In Ohio I’m currently seeing 55% Clinton 43% Obama. That’s with 92% counted. If that’s not a big win … lol!
4 - She won in Ohio by 150,000 votes and is about 100,000 ahead in Texas. That’s a big swing towards her and you write her off?
Anyway, nice chatting to you all as always. I’m off to bed.
but is it too late for her? if these 50 superdelegates call for obama as rumoured then her momentum is uselss, the maths is nearly impossible.
Take a look at this interesting article concerning the pledged delegates:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240
It says it all about HRCs chances.I do not think that American politicians (superdelegates) would back a contender who is behind on delegates chosen by the people.
It can happen by us in Russia but if it happens in USA a lot of Obamas supporters will maybe not support HRC and McCain would win.
In the upcoming presidential election independets will hold the key.And Obama has been winning them in state after state.
Last time I was on the site, a 2-2 split in states was tipped as the value bet for last night. Did anyone have the balls to go for 3-1 Hillary? And what were the odds if so??
It’s going to be a long, long road to Denver… although I cant say the margins in either TX or OH surprised me, it was pretty clear in the 24/48 hours before the voting that Clinton was rebounding.
Whats most likley now is that Clinton and Obama split the remaining contests, Obama will probably win in the South out west (OR, WY, MT, SD, NC and MS) while Clinton is again likley to dominate in the midwest/ rust belt (KY, PA and WV), IN i think is more likley to break for Obama than the other midwestern states left and as for Guam and Puerto Rico I’ve got no idea.
Texas SoS primary delegate count is now
Clinton = 63 delegates
Obama = 62 delegates
Anyone heard anything about the Texas Democratic precinct caucuses?
Looks like Clinton will come out of Ohio with around +10% margin in the statewide primary vote, and a net lead in OH pleged delegates of +20 to +25
Along with Obama’s win in Vermont and her victory in Rhode Island, something for both candidates.
But more for Clinton methinks. IN particular, a strong rationale for battling on to Pennsylvania.
Am I right in thinking that it’s still unclear who has won the most Texan delegates because the caucus results are not yet in?
14 Looking forward, agree that Clinton looks good in Kentucky and West Virginia, while Obama has the advantage in Oregon, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, North Carolina and Mississippi.
But I see the other states differently.
Indiana may be next to Illiniois, but Hoosiers don’t like to have the fact rubbed in! Plus, southern Indiana is very similar to southeastern Ohio and is a bigger share of the statewide total.
As for Pennsylvania, this will be fighting ground. Certainly the last thing that Obama can afford to do is concede the Keystone State to Hillary.
Guam will likely go with Hillary, following the same logic as American Samoa. Or not!
16 Yes
Crikey it’s close. Clinton is definitely on a rebound. But this is not a huge huge night for Clinton.
But don’t forget she was expected to win these states by big big margins just a month ago. She has won well in Ohio but by just enough in Texas.
Her firewall has held and she’s still in the game - BUT she has major problems with the delegate count. This is not comeback kid territory - for Clinton its more rope-a-dope.
Moreover, in this never-ending dingdong battle we can expect Obama to come out fighting once again: maybe another endorsement, maybe some superdelegates: and he will respond to her attack ads (which seem to have swung people for her at the last moment).
He also has more money. And he will probably win the next two primaries.
So the narrative could change yet again within the next ten days. I’d say the markets have it about right. Obama is still odds-on favourite, but Clinton has a decent chance.
More importantly, I think I shall have beef in oyster sauce for lunch.
17 - Your probably right about Guam and Puerto Rico, although the last poll to come out of Indiana gave Obama a pretty solid lead, it’s a conservative, midwestern state with plenty of blue-collar Dems but its also much more rural than Ohio so i think Obama should be looking to win there.
Of course, having said all that i think it’s almost irrelevant who wins what, both candidates are likley to sweep ‘their’ core states and that leads us up to re-runs of Michigan and Florida and then to the Convetion… i dont see how Dean, the greybeards or the DNC are going to be able to interveen to stop the process now.
Nick Clegg’s arguments on his proposed referendum get more bizarre.
The Libdems only support referendums on clear “Yes/No” arguments. This is consistent with their position at the last election because the referendum on the constitution was “tantamount to a referendum on whether we should be in or out of the EU” (whereas a vote on the Lisbon treaty apparently isn’t).
One thing i don’t understand… if a vote on the Constitution was “tantamount to an in/out question on the EU”, why are France and Holland still in the EU?
A three way Presidential election could be quite interesting.
20 - Good point about Michigan & Florida. May well be that the most important thing to transpire from today’s results will be rerunning Michigan & Florida.
Which among other things would have the effect of showcasing the Governors of these two states.
I should have expected a Hillary rebound. I’d just put money on Obama…….
I heard Obama’s speech last night and though it was OK it sounded remarkably close in both delivery and content to MLK. Brilliant though MLK was he was a preacher not a politician.
It was too long and ended up sounding like a self indulgent eulogy to himself which wasn’t attractive. I’d seriously worry that the Americans are going to tire of this syrup and let McCain in.
23: I would expect Florida to go 60/40 for Clinton, and Michigan to go 55/45 for Obama.
It would be interesting to see what that does for the delegate count.
12. The argument about the super-d’s only backing the one ahead on delegate count at the convention is rendered completely void by the fact that Florida and Michigan have been penalised. Clinton can quite legitimately pull the rug out from under Obama’s moral feet on that score.
anyone know why the spreadfair american president market is suspended?
26: yes but…
Latest CNN caucus results have Obama 55/Clinton 45. Looks like the delegate change from this evening will be Clinton by 20-23.
Of course, Saturday and Tuesday will probably be big Obama wins. Soon after that, I forecast, it will be announced that Florida and Michigan will be rerun.
Here’s an interesting idea - as yet a bit undeveloped and very theoretical.
My view (interested to hear others) is that if Obama is the Dem candidate he will motivate Democrat voters to turn out at the GE. If Clinton is the Dem candidate, she will motivate Republican voters to turn out at the GE. Add to that the feeling that McCain tends to attract more Clinton-Democrats than Obama-Democrats and (if you go along with my thoughts) Obama is more likely to win and Clinton to lose in the GE.
Markets are pretty tight at the moment for both the Nomination race and the Presidential. They are moving about a bit of course, but if you take the Betfair mid-prices as I write (rounded to make them consistent):
Winning Party: Dem 1.53 Rep 2.89
Dem Candidate: Obama 1.35 Clinton 3.9
For President: Obama 2.11 Clinton 5.55
As a strategy:
A. Back Obama for President £1000 @ 1.35
B. Lay Clinton for President £620 @ 5.55
C. Back Clinton for Dem Candidate £999 @ 3.9
In total (give or take some payout timing differences):
Obama gets the nomination and wins the Presidency +£731
Obama gets the nomination but loses the Presidency -£1379
Clinton gets the nomination and wins the Presidency -£925
Clinton gets the nomination but loses the Presidency +£2518
So effectively if Obama gets the nomination you have Backed the Democrats at 1.53 (which equals the current price without knowing who the candidate will be).
If Clinton gets the nomination, you have Laid the Democrats at 1.37.
Even without my suppositions, that looks attractive….. Obviously the amounts aren’t available but I think an interesting concept nonetheless.
But wouldnt Obama still be ahead on pledged delegates if Clinton wins Florida and Michigan if they vote again.
She may win Florida like she won Ohio and then maybe win Michigan 52%-48%.She may even loose Michigan.She won it last without Obamas name on the ticket.
Clinton may still win the nomination but from the betting point it is way too risky to back her for nomination.It is better to stick to individual state betting.
28. I agree. The argument for re-running Florida and Michigan is overwhelming. Given how close the race is failure to do so will make the Democrats a laughing stock. I too think they will be forced to re-run them. There’s plenty of time afterall.
And with those in the race I think Clinton is certainly in with a great shout on the delegate count.
So, do we think it is time to back McCain as the Democrat fight rolls on into the summer? The counterargument is that this keeps excitement levels up. But that may be wishful thinking - McCain can spend a couple of months looking Presidential and raising money without spending it.
Listening to Nick Clegg this morning on R4 helped clarify what the Lib Dems seem to be up to, but not whether it’s a particularly good route for them to pursue. Their position, as set out by Clegg, is intellectually coherent, but doesn’t seem to be politically coherent - it was telling that the R4 interviewer didn’t seem to be able to unpick his position, and neither did Jeremy Paxman last night on Newsnight.
In contrast, the Tories’ position is intellectually all over the place, but makes political sense. And who knows if there’s any sense at all to what the government is proposing.
Anyway, Mr Clegg is left with a very difficult job holding it together today, but ultimately I don’t believe that it will have a great deal of impact on the voters, and in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if the LD’s poll rating goes up slightly in the next few polls given the extra coverage they’ve got (a sort of generalised form of Smithson Law - a GEneral Theory of POlling Relativity? GETPOR).
Newsweek has done the Hillary math - http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240/page/2 - and reckons she can’t overhaul Obama, even with the strongest following wind possible for the rest of the contest (including her winning a Florida re-run).
33. No. Clegg’s position is a mess of putrid lies. And he knows it.
His main contention is that the treaty is so different to the Constitution that we don’t need the referendum he promised.
So what are these big differences then? Go on? Name six? They took the flag out and the anthem, but these are still going to exist. Are they gonna haul down all EU flags once the Treaty is ratified? Yeah? Really?
What else. They.. er.. renamed it. They called it a Treaty. They changed the font. And we got a slightly better redline on the Charter though many experts think the redlines are meaningless.
And that’s it. That’s all there is.
Presumably this near identicality is why Giscard himself says the treaty is the same as the Constitution. The same document “but in a different envelope”.
But why do we have to take that old buzzard’s word for it? Andrew “traitor” Duff, the leader of the Lib Dems in Europe, the man who yearns for “the defeat of the English”, says the Treaty is very substantially the same as the Constitution. In the official EP report.
So which Lib Dim leader is lying?
Do tell.
Richard, I can understand your views on Florida delegates and Hillary, but why do you not think that Obama will sweep Michigan?
To me the omens there all point to a relatively east Obama win:
* It will almost certainly be re-run as a caucus
* It was only a very narrow win for Hillary, even without Obama’s name on the ballot
* It’s a Mid-West state
* It doesn’t have the big rural communities that Ohio does
* It a has bigger % of students than Ohio
* Demographically, it’s like Wisconsin, but with a much higher proportion of African Americans
So, any victory for Hillary in Florida (+25 delagates for Hillary), will be pulled back by a c. +15 in Michigan for Obama.
My new acronym after missing 50/1 on Obama and 20/1 on McCain is ‘Bet On Smithson Or Missout’. BOSOM!
Well, I missed all the fun last night - hope it was worth it for those who stayed up. With the results coming in somewhat different to the polls, never mind the ‘received wisdom’, there should have been money to be made.
I had been saying for a while that I expected Clinton to still be standing after this round; that Obama wouldn’t get the knock-out blow some were expecting - the national polling was still showing strong support for Clinton across the country and she was still making good campaign money. It’s when those background figures fall off that a candidate struggles (or a tactical blunder). Clinton was always going to be able to compete strongly and work off a good support base of general voters, before even considering her core groups.
Having out-performed even those expectations (a 3-1 win in popular vote terms is a very good result, especially given the size of the win in Ohio), this should see things through to the convention, short of a withdrawal for reasons not linked to electoral performance. It’s probably been said overnight, but I can’t be bothered trawling through several hundred posts to find it: ding-dong the witch is not dead.
In fact, she’s very much alive. Can she win the nomination? You bet she can (although I’m not doing at the moment as she’s unlikely to win the next couple of states and so her odds should drift out a little again). Looking at states that have held primaries, Clinton has done very well; Obama performs best in restricted caucuses. That is no doubt a fact that superdelegates will be considering closely, as is the known tendency for younger voters to make more noise but cast fewer ballots than older ones. There are nine primaries left and only three caucuses.
One question that might become relevant now: what happens to Edwards’ delegates?
Having suggested last week, that the Lib Dems had a greater % of rebels (against the party line on the Treaty referendum) than the other two main UK parties, yesterday the LD number jumped to 30%.
MPs Rebels Rebels
LD 63 19 30%
Labour 355 30 8%
Conservative 198 6 3%
The IWAR campaign clearly has had an effect on the LDs, but has it had an effect on Labour MPs which has yet to emerge? Will a larger share of Labour MPs in marginals abstain?
39.
Wow. 30%! Nick Clegg has a third of his party refusing to toe the line. What’s he gonna do, sack them all?
lol.
Clegg is a weak and naive leader. And surprisingly stupid. He shoulda told Shirley Williams to get stuffed, and just supported the referendum. Labour would still, probably, have won, so no harm done to the EU cause, but even if the referrndum was called the Lib Dems would have prospered as the sincere and coherent party.
Now Clegg is in a world of confusion, and looks incredibly spineless and deceptive. Idiot.
Quick observation on the peculiar LD position:
Yes to a referendum on staying in the EU cos they’ll back staying in and believe they’ll be on the winning side
No to a referendum on the Treaty cos they’ll back the Treaty and fear being on the loisng side.
Similarly the Tories want a referendum on the Treaty cos they’ll back rejection and reckon that’s what the country wants, but no to a referendum on staying in Europe cos they’ll be split, and will have to mainly camapign with the govt for a yes vote!
So a major PR game from the LDs putting principles aside for spin and no longer offering an alternative to the main two parties!
That’s certainly a good price for Hillary. The Texas caucuses look like holding her back, despite winning the Primary, but one more big win could see her really push Obama till the end.
I still think it’s Obamas to lose, though.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
41. No, the Tories don’t want an in-out referendum because we believe that it will distract from the current Treaty under consideration and allow it though ‘under the radar’. I agree with that assessment, though personally I would vote ‘yes’. If the case is going to be made for or against, it should be on the merits of the case, not the merits of staying in or leaving the EU.
Still, it’s an interesting precedent, perhaps in the future we might have a referendum to repeal or not the 1832 Reform Act (and all subsequent ones) next time there’s a change to the postal voting regulations
If Florida and Michegan are re-run, and Hillary wins them both and Penn I cannot imagine how Obama, even with more delegates will take the majority of the superdelegates.
Hillary wins every major state except Illinois, the ones you need to win, and more than likely the majority of votes cast. Bama wins the small states and caucuses.
Everyone seems to be assuming Michigan will be a Hillary win. Why?
38. Having just re-read my comment, I probably sound a bit too enthusiastic for Hillary. I agree with Mike’s assessment that 3/1 is value for Hillary, however, Obama is still rightly favourite.
A fantastic (if dense!) piece of geekiness which anyone thinking of backing Hillary would be well advised to read before parting with their money:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751
In short, she cannot get remotely close to Obama in the delegate count, because of the basic building blocks used to award delegates in the remaining races. Even if she won everything by a 24.5% margin! So if you are backing Hillary, you have to do so SOLELY on the basis that the superdelegates are going to override the wishes of those who have already voted for delegates. Even though several of the Democratic Party grandees have said that will not happen.
This narrative will finally sink in. Money to be made from riding the Hillary uptick - but then get the hell out of Dodge before she retires (next Wednesday morning after she has lost Wyoming and Mississippi, I’d suggest).
Milliband vs Hague on Radio4. Fascinating debate, whatever side you’re on.
45. Similar reasons to Ohio, I should imagine.
47. Disagree on the retirement date. If 10 straight losses through February after Super Tuesday can’t knock her out, then the next two states to vote certainly won’t - especially after winning the popular vote in three last night, including both the big ones. She’s in now through to late April AT LEAST.
Hilary does have grit and determination and comes back from some hard knocks.
Bodes well if she becomes the first woman president.
This experience and her experience could resonate with voters especially when your coming up against John Mcain and the republican machine.
I agree with Roger as he says the voters might tire of Obama`s syrup and let Mcain in, which I think will be the outcome in the fall.
I know a producer who has sold his house in london and moved to Spain. Unfortunately he has my email address and I am now part of his round- robin of anti-EU emails. I find it hilarious to think of all these ex-pats sitting around their Spanish swimming pools devising ways of wrecking the EU!
Mississippi is 37% African American, 8 points higher than South Carolina, so that should be a blow out win for Obama.
Wyoming is both a caucus, and demographically and geographically close to some of Obama’s biggest wins (Idaho, etc.)
If he wins both big, he will have almost completely made up - in delegate terms - for the losses in Texas and Ohio.
51, and I think it hilarious to think of the two major leftwing parties lying to the electorate.
Whoops, I meant ‘offensive to democracy’ not ‘hilarious’.
Clegg on Newsnight had a slight slip of the tongue. He said the Labour party had “reneged” on its electoral promise, just once in passing. That means he knows and believes that the Treaty is the same as the Constitution and that Labour went back on their word, though when he referred to it again he used a better (from his perspective) term.
As for the Democrats, this is the worst of all worlds. Obama’s still the leader but Clinton won’t give up possibly for some time now so the infighting continues.
Utterly fallacious, and I suspect a vested betting interest.
Clinton not only can get close, she already is! With nearly 3000 delegates assigned to be only 90-odd shy is a less than 3%. That’s nothing, and she can quite legitimately point to all sorts of shenanigans in caucus voting etc. etc.
No, I’m sorry for you Obama backers but he no longer has any ‘moral’ claim to victory. Forget ‘high ground’ nonsense. The issue now becomes one of pure politics. Will she sway enough super-d’s to win? I think the narrative will become compelling. She has the momentum, and with major doubts emerging about Obama now he’s been put in the spotlight I think she’s the favourite from here.
50 “the voters might tire of Obama`s syrup”
It’s a wig??
40,
I disagree think Clegg comes over as clear and concise on this issue.
People understand it, unlike Cameron`s position.
I have spoken to many Conservative voters who like the fact its straight forward.
Richard; you still haven’t answered my question. Why do you think Hillary will win a Michigan rerun?
52. Except that relying on the black vote doesn’t do much to help his campaign - were it Clinton vs McCain, the Clinton’s traditional African-American support should make that block fairly solid, and in any case, Obama will desperately want to avoid being seen to be a ‘black’ candidate - and Wyoming is tiny (and very Republican), so neither is likely to do too much to help the Superdelegates to make their mind up.
The way she lowered expectations ahead of what should have been easy wins for her in Texas and Ohio means that she gets some good press this morning. Very clever and obviously keeps her going. But when the dust settles and the story focuses on very modest delegate gains followed by big Obama wins over the next week then I think people will realise these wins were simply not big enough.
58. Obama will - however - pick up +15 delegates over the next week. Which will all but eliminate the gains from Ohio.
Leaving Hillary 150 delegates behind on the pledged front.
(I’m not saying she can’t do it, but she’s still a 3/1 or 4/1 shot.)
Clegg’s position (and Brown’s for that matter) is that the Treaty is so different to the Constitution, he doesn’t have to abide by his referendum promise.
Does this thesis hold up to scrutiny? Maybe we should go beyond the M25 and ask a few European pols what they think about this issue.
Here’s what they say:
“The fundamentals of the Constitution have been maintained in large part… We have renounced everything that makes people think of a state, like the flag and the national anthem.”
Angela Merkel, German Chancellor - El Pais, 24 June 2007
“The substance of the constitution has been retained”.
Hans-Gert Poettering, president of the European Parliament - speaking to the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 26 June 2007
“The text consists, in effect, of a revival of a large part of the substance of the Constitutional Treaty”.
Valery Giscard d’Estaing, former French president and chief architect of the EU Constitution - personal blog, 26 June 2007
“All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way”.
Valery Giscard d’Estaing, former French president and chief architect of the EU Constitution - EuroMoney seminar, June 2007
“The adoption of the substance of the European Constitution under a new name is a serious violation of democratic principles.”
Jean-Luc Melenchon, French Senator and one of the main leaders of the ‘No’ campaign within the Socialist Party - Le Monde,
26 June 2007
“The substance of the Constitutional Treaty has been preserved”.
Jo Leinen MEP - head of the European Parliament’s constitutional affairs committee - Agence Europe, 26 June 2007
“A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties”
Jose Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister - El Pais, 23 June 2007
“The good thing is…that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left.”
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister - Jyllands-Posten, 25 June 2007
“There’s nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed”
Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister - TV-Nytt, 23 June 2007
“They haven’t changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there.”
Bertie Ahern, Irish Prime Minister - Irish Independent, 24 June 2007
“The EU Foreign Minister is the original job as proposed but they just put on this long title - High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and also vice President of the Commission. It’s the same job […] it’s still going to be the same position.”
Bertie Ahern, Irish Prime Minister - Irish Independent, 24 June 2007
“Despite all the compromises, the substance of the draft EU Constitution has been safeguarded.”
Elmar Brok MEP, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee - Euractiv, 25 June 2007
“The referendum which the Spanish approved the Constitution has been decisive, and 99% of its content has survived.”
Diego Lopez Garrido, parliamentary spokesman for the Spanish Socialist party - El Pais, 25 June 2007
“As long as we have more or less a European Prime Minister and a European Foreign Minister then we can give them any title”
Romano Prodi, Italian Prime Minister - speech in Lisbon, 2 May 2007
“It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.”
Margot Wallstrom, EU Communications Commissioner - Svenska Dagbladet, 26 June 2007
Of course it is possible that all of these people are lying through their teeth, and dear old Cleggy and Brown are the only men of principle telling it like it is, but.. well…. erm….
Memo to Europhiles: Stop Lying.
During Hillary Clinton’s 11 straight losses to Barack Obama, her aides and allies started talking about the Clinton roller coaster. She wasn’t in a death plunge, they said; it was just a steep drop before an inevitable upward rise. By winning the Ohio and Texas primaries Tuesday, Clinton got that lift, but her campaign seemed less like a roller coaster and more like Luftansa flight LH 044, a careening near-death experience that stabilized only at the last white-knuckle moment.
But what exactly did Clinton win? The Democratic race has come down to a contest of numbers versus narrative. The numbers are on Barack Obama’s side. Clinton won three of four primary contests but did little, or perhaps nothing, to eat into Obama’s pledged-delegate lead of more than 100. Barring a cataclysmic event, Clinton isn’t going to take the delegate lead from Obama, which means he can still make the case that he is the candidate of the people. He will argue that the 800-odd superdelegates who will determine either candidate’s victory should side with the voters. When Georgia Congressman and superdelegate John Lewis this week switched from supporting Clinton to Obama, he said he wanted to be with the people and on the right side of history. Obama will bank on the fact that the party of voting rights is not going to overthrow the will of the people to deny the nomination to the first African-American candidate.
Exit polls show Obama has support for his argument. Roughly two-thirds of voters in the four contested states said that superdelegates should vote with the people and not their own priorities.
59 - Big wins in Wyoming and Mississippi mean nothing. There is NO WAY that she will not be on the ballot paper in PA.
64 - I qualify. They don’t mean ‘nothing’ but mean very little and certainly not enough to cause a decision before PA at least.
64: who is suggesting she won’t be on the ballot in PA?
I’m just pointing out that Hillary has more of a wall to climb than some of her booster’s claim.
51 I once canvassed a guy who said he was emigrating to Spain to get away from those b****y immigrants
Er … Norman why are you posting directly from Slate.com? Without referencing? Tut tut.
Yes! the mists are clearing, I see it all, ‘A US President called Hillary and a (after the coup) a UK PM called errrm Hilary (Benn)’
Right! now lets get to work on those lottery numbers.
62 - But Sean, it’s a fact widely acknowledged in politics that each leader tailors their approach for their own market, and Britain’s negotiators have achieved, rightly or wrongly (and to a greater or lesser extend depending on your point of view), a different text for Britain than for the other countries of the EU. Therefore, it’s perfectly possible for the other EU countries’ leaders to be saying something different from Mr G Brown, and all to be telling the(ir version of the) truth.
Likewise, Clegg’s contention this morning on R4 that LDs don’t have a manifesto commitment to vote for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, if only because it didn’t exist at the time of the last GE, is correct. It’s politically dodgy, but not incorrect.
Looking at the logic of your position, you should be supporting an in/out referendum, perhaps as well as one on the Lisbon Treaty. By all means rail against the Lib Dems for their political two-step, but don’t do yourself the disservice of suggesting that they are in some objective sense factually ‘wrong’ in their stated position.
Also, after Pennsylvania the only states that look favourable to Hillary are West Virginia and Puerto Rico. Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota all look (geographically and demographically) like states that Obama has won convincingly.
56. people are confused by it? The tory position is very clear and easy to understand, they want a vote on the treaty because they feel its the same as the constitution, and therefore should be voted on. How is that complicated exactly?
In contrast the lib dem position is to change the question and answer that, ignoring the debate over the treaty entirely. In fact, I haven’t heard what they actually think of the treaty at all so far.
Nothing has changed, she still can’t get enough delegates and to turn that over at the convention would not just destroy the convention it would destroy the party for a generation or more.
The only surprise last night was the margin in Rhode Island, far too small to give her any extra delegates though. Ohio she needed to win by 20% and didn’t (if it was a Super Tuesday state she probably would have), Texas she needed similar and looks likely to actually lose it, having fewer delegates.
At the height of the Clinton Super Tuesday hype I made the right call on here which I hope people followed - back Obama and take the profit in the run up to Texas and Ohio. Now do the same, back Obama whilst others are looking in the wrong direction.
Follow the Clinton spin and lose out again if you want!
What’s the narrative after the next week or so? Simple, Clinton cannot win enough delegates, she can spread as much fear and divisiveness as she wants but that simple equation remains. Even with a rerun MI & FL he can’t win enough, last night showed that once and for all.
Is not so,that if Florida and Michigan want to vote again,then according to the rules they should hold a caucus.
But maybe I am wrong.
70. they dont have an explicit manifesto pledge to have a vote on the treaty, but their constant sidestepping of the issue onto a debate over whether we should stay in or not is pathetic spinning. They believe its what the public want, but they also believe the people dont care about the treaty. so basically their saying the issue is both popular, and unpopular.
68.Anatole,my apologies,I usually give credit to slate.com
Still nursing a hangover after the Gooners victory in Milan.I hope you all followed Herbert’s tip and made some money.
Nice surprise this morning. Skybet paid out promptly on McCain nomination. Let’s hope the paddies wake up soon.
Agree with others, Hilary is still in with a shout. But BO’s showing in the Texas caucus could reduce her net gains by more than she’d hope for.
Sean at 62. It seems a very tired argument to quote ad nauseam lines said by foreign leaders to prove that this treaty is in part the same as the constitution. If we could establish what part of this constitution/treaty you find offensive then your argument could perhaps sound less childish.
78. That’s unfair. I only appear childish to you because you are a decrepit old has-been, now thankfully retired to a sunset community, after a pointless “career” selling kit-e-kat.
Everyone must seem young to you. You probably think John McCain is an immature whippersnapper.
Try and be more objective.
65. I am gald you clarified that..what it actually means is that in terms of delegates OB will still be at least 150 ahead (depending on these 50 SP’s) this time next week and while I absolutely agree there is no way she is giving this up before PA and yesterday bought her time I think it was clearly not of a scale to confirm a full reprieve but rather a stay of execution. She obviously has a chance but its not a really good one.
Oh and 56. I am, I live with, I work with and I play with, lots of Conservative supporters and your ‘personal canvassing’ is either loblocks or spin…
Having said that…I know it would be too much to ask on the day of the Lisbon vote that we dont simply replay the intransigent EU lies form Lab and LabDemer supporters or EU rants and bile from sceptics but not wishing to disrespect peoples firmly held views it was and would be a total bore.
A vote on in or out seems popular to me.
Clegg has it right on this issue.
Can`t understand what Seant has got against, that apart from his beloved Dave did`nt suggest it.
Then it would have been a point of the highest political honesty.
Fox calling Texas caucus for Obama
The Obama phenomenon reminde me of the early days of the Carter phenomenon — when an unknown and ethereal Baptist Sunday school teacher waltzed through the Democratic primaries and into the White House.
In those early days, Carter did seem a hopeful and cleansing presence, offering a resurrection of national self-esteem.
The Carter bubble burst, and he ended up a failure of a President. Although I’d probably vote for Obama (because of the War), I’d expect an Obama Presidency to follow a similar trajectory.
80 - I think Bill may be arm twisting this morning so that block of Super Delegates is smaller than Barack Obama was hoping.
The undecided Democratic super delegate certainly seemed to shift her opinion over the course of the night.
With hundreds of supers not yet decided and a series of contests left it is too early to write off Hillary. She will probably be behind going into the convention but not by enough for it to be a foregone conclusion.
There’s also still the possibility of an Edwards or a Gore tipping this decisively one way or another. I reckon one of those guys campaigning actively will make a hell of a difference.
She must also have closed the gap significantly in the popular vote tonight. By over 200,000 last time I looked though I haven’t looked for a while.
81. Just want the vote we were promised, Dez, just want the vote we were promised.
If the Lib Dems insist we can combine it with an in-or-outer, too. If they insist. I’m happy to have a two part vote. Are you?
But the Lib Dems won’t insist because they are lying. They actually don’t want a vote on anything to do with the EU because they are cowards and anti-democrats and sh1t scared of losing.
So the whole Lib Dem game is a charade. Calamity Clegg’s Constitution Catastrophe. It’s sad. A once proud if small party reduced to very basic fibs, and embarrassingly silly gimmicks.
Tsk.
I know some people will say I’m overreacting and she’s still behind in delegates but I think Hillary’s favourite now. I’m disappointed by that. She’s got the narrative and, crucially, the final big state (Pennsylvania) - in many weeks time - is bang in the middle of her best region. Obama has a lot of work to do
Ant: PA has c. 150 delegates, North Carolina has c. 120. I suspect Obama will win NC by a bigger margin than Clinton wins PA.
Good Morning Campers …..
Has anyone got an accurate handle of the delegate count for Texas ??
Fox have called the caucus for Obama and the primary delegate count is almost tied. Thus the overall Texas delegate contest appears as was forcast as a win for Obama.
84. Presumably an Edwards or a Gore would want to be pretty sure that their intervention would be decisive before committing? Or would they take the risk of ending up failing to be kingmaker?
‘Clegg’s contention this morning on R4 that LDs don’t have a manifesto commitment to vote for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, if only because it didn’t exist at the time of the last GE, is correct’
No - it’s disingenuous in the extreme. Clegg justified this by claiming the Lisbon text was ‘totally different’ to the Constitution. That is a lie, as anyone knows.
Claiming something ‘didn’t exist’ ealier because it was called something else then is simply pathetic.
81 - Strange that almost the entire media class is pouring scorn on Clegg over his position then. He has screwed up royally on this and it is going to damage his chances of getting his message across in other policy areas because the press will take him just a little less seriously. If I were a Lib Dem member I would be furious to the point of apoplexy!
How the Daily Mash see Paisley’s retirement.
http://tinyurl.com/3dqx67
85,
Seant yes I would be happy to have a two part vote.
The first question being in our out, which would obviously be the main debate.
Clegg was not a very impressive sight at the Scottish Lib Dem conference in Aviemore. The BBC’s Brian Taylor was less than complimentary:
Indeed, I was moved on our webstream coverage to call it insipid… “
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2008/02/post_3.html
90 Agree Harry. If a political party had a manifesto commitment e.g. not to increase VAT, but then introduced a new 10% “Spendy Tax”, I’m sure the electorate would just shrug its collective shoulders and say “Oh, alright then. They didn’t raise VAT. Can’t complain about that….”
Yeah, right…..
86. Yes, you are overreacting.
I have decided not to over-react. I learned my lesson after NH, and it was confirmed on Super Tuesday.
When everyone was saying Super Tuesday was a great result for Clinton (people actually came on here and said it was all over) - I took a longer look at the results and thought: hmmm… No… Obama has actually done quite well. Clinton has the headline wins, but he has more than held his own.
There’s a similar process here. Because the media love a narrative and because comeback kid is a good headline and because the Clintons are good at expectation-management, if nothing else, then on the face of it last night was jolly good for her.
But was it that good? She won Ohio well, but she was always gonna win Ohio well, and she didn’t win it by the seriously huge margin she must have been hoping for.
Meanwhile she just scraped Texas, a state she was expected to win by 20%+ a few weeks back. She may even have lost the delegate battle in Texas.
This is not entirely to belittle her tenacity and ability to absorb punishment, and to fight on, but then we shouldn’t be surprised at that: she was for so long the massive establishment candidate, with years of experience, an ex-president husband, she should be capable of a good fight, at the very least.
When the dust settles on this round I think we will call it a points win for Clinton. But to say she is now favourite is absurd.
Obama still has the money, the netroots, the enthusiastic activists, the promising upcoming primaries - and most importantly of all he has the delegates.
But Clinton might be worth a pop at any odds over 3/1.
OK ….. My brain has warmed up !!
My delegate estimate is that the range for the whole evening is between Clinton +2 to Obama +4
Overall Texas appears now to be an Obama win with a delegate lead in the 6-9 range.
Had to miss the fun after an 18-hour day yesterday, but instead of reading the news directly have read the overnight threads in the order they came in - good fun! Thanks to all who participated. How was the Elite experience?
Anyway - a good night for us Hillaryites (and a discreet purr from the Broxtowe cats, who have still only ever lost one bet), but I agree it’s still tough. In response to those who ask how she could possibly win, the scenario that I’d sketch wolud be this. The polls have already moved sharply towards her in the last week. On the back of today’s results, she regains momentum and builds a national lead, say 6-7%. Obama wins the upcoming two minor states but by less than expected. There’s widespread comment that the Obama rhetoric is proving empty. The Democrats decide to rerun MI and FL. She wins FL and PA by huge margins, and the MI causus narrowly. Further polls show she’s much stronger against McCain. The superdelegates go with the flow of popular opinion as it is then - rather than how folks voted back in January - and she’s home.
An awful lot of ifs there, but not impossible. As for some time, the value bet seems to me to be Republicans to win the presidency at 2.88 - McCain’s ahead already in the polls, why isn’t he at least evens?
89. Edwards still has a few delegates pledged to him. They could yet count if the Obama-Clinton balance of pledged delegates is very close.
Have either of them completely ruled out in their own mind the chance that they might not just be king-maker, but king?
Thanks to all the people that answered my question at 2 in last nights thread. Unfortunatly there seemed to be a server problem last night, so I couldn’t reply.
Off topic, does anybody know if David Cameron has yet sent a reply to Lib-Dem MP’s, after the letter Nick Clegg sent out yesterday?
90 - “Clegg justified this by claiming the Lisbon text was ‘totally different’ to the Constitution. That is a lie, as anyone knows.”
No, that is merely your opinion. There are many people in the UK saying the two documents *are* different. As Clegg himself said this morning, the Treaty is a third of the size of the Constitution, so there must be some difference between them!
It might be disingenuous - as I said above, the Lib Dem’s posturing will cause them trouble - but it is not wrong, nor a lie.
85 - Sean, I think you have to take the Lib Dem’s promise to have an in/out referendum at face value as it cannot be got wriggled out of. And I don’t think that there is much logic to the two-parter either, as you could have the bizarre position of the Treaty being passed and then EU membership being rejected.
As an aside, I should observe that invoking the ‘truth’ to support your basic problem with the EU seriously weakens your arguments. The facts don’t help you, and your efforts to enlist them to support your views do them a disservice. Do argue why you think the Treaty will be bad for the UK, or why EU membership is bad for the UK.
Interesting…
http://slate.com/id/2185278/
http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/04/brokaw-obama-has-50-supe_n_89789.html
100. don’t think he’s bothered, clegg has no sway and his position is seen as being a mess, I doubt many tory MP’s, europhile or sceptic, will want to be associated with it.
100 - No he probably hasn’t stopped laughing at it yet!
98 Another tenner to the cats then, Nick - although for about fifteen minutes after the exit polls, it looked like the dogs might still have been onto an unlikley winner. But their hopes were cruelly dashed as, yet again, the exit polls proved to be crap!
97 Good morning Jack W - may I enquire how you have calculated the Texas delegate count as CNN only have 36% of the caucus results so far.
99. Prince, perhaps, in Edwards’s case. How likely is that?
This is pretty good Jack
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746
91 - glad you’re not. Most Lib Dem members actually have more important things to do. Frothing at the mouth over the minutiae of Euro treaties is something most of us recognise wins precious few votes.
106 Goupillon, try this:
http://precinctconventionresults.txdemocrats.org/election08district
96. Spot on. She may well have won this battle but there are too few delegates available for her to overhaul Obama.
If Clinton goes dirty over Florida and Michigan I reckon the Superdelegates will come en masse to Obama. This is more importantly, about November, especially as McCain is in place. The Democrats can not let this linger or they will self implode with vitriol.
So what is the latest on the 50 new superdelegates that are to be confirmed to Obama? Also how much did he raise in Feb.?
101 - Woodpecker: “As Clegg himself said this morning, the Treaty is a third of the size of the Constitution, so there must be some difference between them!”
That’s because they reduced the font size and the line spacing. There are actually slightly more words in the Treaty. You goon.
I need to say this again.
Whilst it is clear that Hillary would have to produce a quite devastating performance to overhaul Obama overall we have yet again had some atrocious calls being made regarding the primaries
People make wrong calls and thats just standard but what is a problem is those who are calling based on the fact that they have a chosen candidate and literally refuse to see anything else other than their candidate.
For the initiated its not a problem, we can ignore it for others looking betting support its a stinker.
I must confess that I am not totally clear about the attitude of the Conservative Party over referendums. Under Thatcher and Major, the Tories were almost completely against them. The last Tory Leader who was in favour was the greaty lamented Edward Heath - so presumably the message that Cameron wants to trasmit is that the Tories are now thoroughly Heathite again. Fair enough. I can understand that.
But what precisely is there in the Lisbon document that the country would be voting on? What are the new elements that need to be aproved by a referendum?
I am given to understand that most of it is a reproduction of the content of previous treaties (which the Conservatives approved when in government without recourse to a referendum).
Would a rejection of the Lisbon proposals overturn Maastrict and Nice and all the rest? And if so, would a referendum on Lisbon not amount to an in-or-out referendum, which is what the Liberal Democrats were pushing for (but which the Tories, playing politics as usual, refused to support)?
I am very glad to hear that JH’s Conservative friends are not confused by Cameron’s antics. Perhaps they are too young and frivolous to be paying enough attention.
So, who is McCain going to pick as his VP?
109 “Most Lib Dem members actually have more important things to do.”
(Just in case Ave It isn’t around):
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
According to the site I’ve just linked to Obama is 86 ahead with about 600 more needed. That sounds like anyones race.
91
Clegg has not learned lesson no 1 in politics kindergarten.
Keep it simple.
His arguments on Newsnight were so convoluted as to make my barin hurt - the two large G&Ts before hand had nothing to do with it.
Anyone suggesting that the average lector like me could understand what he’s trying to do - or gain from it - is frankly living on Planet Zog.
His policy is as clear as mud and just as transparent. Proves that his poor showing cersus Huhne on the leadership election was not a fluke .. the man is ineffectual as a political leader.
I suspect 12 months later “ineffectual” will be shown to be kind. The publicity he is getting is negative. Watch the polls in 3-4 weeks as the message seeps through to the electorate. He makes IDS look like a natural born political leader.
As for the US, if the Democrats chose Clinton, they’ll be like the LibDems.. chosing the wrong leader.On the basis of their past poor choice, I expect they may very will pick her.. and lose the White House. She’s last century’s politician.
Cheney?
101. Just give us the vote we were promised. Your lies are boring. They are boring everyone. Your party is boring. This argument is boring.
Boring boring boring boring.
Just give us the vote we were promised, and let the people decide. Stop ducking and diving and lying and fibbing and just do what you promised you would do. “Oh it’s only a third of the size of the Constitution.” Why is that? Maybe they used a smaller font?
As implied at 122 there is an answer here. The Treaty is actually about 8000 words longer that the Constitution, by some counts (depends whether you include annexes). Other experts say it is about the same: 63,000 words.
But the Treaty is still shorter in “size”. How? It’s because…. they did indeed change the line spacing.
http://tinyurl.com/238w9y
Stop lying. Stop insulting us. Stop treating us like idiots.
Just let the people vote on the Treaty - as you promised; and then we can all move on.
SeanT: Would it be OK to repost your post of 8:37am (#62) on my blog, with appropriate attribution of course?
118 - It is some feat to try to exhort colleagues to die in the last ditch for something that neither you nor they believe in.
121. Fame at last Sean!
subeditor: Ha! It’ll probably get more readers right here than it will on my blog.
Back on thread - given that Obama has won the Texas caucus - other than pledged delgates is there any other way of determining who wins.
The total vote clearly can’t be used because those who caucus had to be promary voters so there will be an element of double counting.
Just using the popular vote from the primary element also would not reflect the caucus campaign. So has Clinton actually won Texas?
[98] I deduce from this posting that the Labour leadership really really doesn’t want Obama to be the Democratic candidate - to the extent that I expect that any of its members who go off to toil for him can kiss their party careers goodbye, while those who work for McCain will earn Brownie (sic) points.
Because if Obama wins the White House (and I am beginning to think McCain is odds-on as the Democrats spend all their dosh fighting each other) Labour’s sycophancy to neo-conservative foreign policy will be exposed in all its tawdry, corrupt, murderous reality.
106 Goupillon. Hey ho and good morning to you.
I’ve culled the figures and had my tame number cruncher in the States do the numbers.
Overall in the Texas Delegate Two-Step, despite some impressive early footwork from Hillary she fluffed her late fandago and let Obama take the lead with a neat late spin from his waltz caucus.
Never mind Hillary …. Brucie says your my favourite !!
I missed this article on Monday from the Herald, Poll piles on pressure for referendum on EU treaty.
“But Mr Murphy told the BBC Politics show yesterday: “It’s clear that less than one in six people in East Renfrewshire voted for a referendum. The Conservative Party spent £50,000 so it was almost £5 for every person who returned a ballot paper.”
The local campaign in the area was called East Renfrewshire EU Choice and its spokesman, Richard Cooke, insisted the Tories did not put up the money for the exercise.
He said he was “stunned to hear a government minister tell such outright lies”, saying the Tories did not put in a single penny to the campaign and the figure for those in favour of a referendum was double what Mr Murphy claimed.”
113. On the nail. Too much cheer leading and not enough objectivity. That’s OK most of the time but silly on the day of the poll. And some of the US pundits seemed the least reliable
101. You must feel very foolish now.
I commiserate - being a Tory when Major’s clowns were announcing that ‘Maastricht puts the brake on Federalism’ was depressing, too.
128. It’s amazing, watching as labour politicians try and cover up or lie their way out of unpopular decisions. They keep going on and on about what the people want, but every time that goes against what they want they ignore the people and try to discredit the source.
Time for a quick post from work .
I said many times to all those who went heavily on Obama , not to right off Clinton . The contest will go to the wire and Hillary is an experienced fighter , Obama’s stamina is untested . The Mark Senior way of betting has now put me £100 green on both of them on Betfair with more to come as the pendulum swings .
Usual ravings from Conservative posters on here re Clegg , I find it hard to credit that they actually believe the drivel they are writing let alone it will affect a single vote .
125 - No she hasn’t - the 2-2 at 11/4 at Ladbrokes stands up!
In all seriousness, Clinton and Obama are no longer fighting the same fight.
He has won, if you think pledged delegate count is all that matters. It isn’t - pledged delegates give you a case for demanding that superdelegates (who really decide this) support you.
Her job is not to overhaul that pledged delegate lead (she can’t), but to win the popular vote, and the ‘important’ states, and convince the superdelegates that she should win (”if it were a national primary…”) the nomination on those grounds.
Obama needs to get close enough to 50.1% of pledged delegates to convince the superdelegates that it is all but over, and they should support him to unite the party quickly.
So it’s not about who won Texas - she did on vote, he did on pledged delegates - it’s about whose ‘moral’ case is stronger, and I think she probably edged it last night. He needs her to die soon - the longer this goes on, the stronger a case she will have.
126: Don’t be silly - I’m not the Labour leadership, and the party has always been pro-Democratic whoever the candidate is. The government is necessarily neutral. I like Hillary for all kinds of reasons that I’ve been espousing for months, but if Obama wins the nomination I’ll be rooting for him.
Marquee Mark: thanks, you’re a good sport. Do you want to send me the cheque to pass on or send it to them directly? Actually I think you did beat the cats once, didn’t you? - seem to remember sending a cheque to the dogs for you.
132. usual mark senior ravings, insult people who he doesnt agree with, then act like the entire debate is pointless.
Clegg’s ‘policy’ is about nothing more than being able to write leaflets in marginals saying, ‘We supported a referendum’.
End of.
It may save him a few votes, but the damage he has done to his reputation in the media and amongst serious commentators is huge and will cost him more in the long run.
Anyone who sees any great philosophy behind these politically expedient contortions needs to get their head out from under their own armpit. The lack of critical analysis by all but a few Lib Dems of their position and Clegg’s poor handling of it smacks of one thing…FEAR.
120 - “Just give us the vote we were promised. Your lies are boring. They are boring everyone. Your party is boring. This argument is boring.
Boring boring boring boring.”
You’re pretty dull yourself, Sean, if this is the standard of your debate.
There are no fibs or lies from the Lib Dems here, and your saying it repeatedly does not make it true, however much you may wish it. As I’ve said, the politics of the Lib Dems stance in this issue are questionable, but, IMO, pale into insignificance compared to the Tories’ inconsistency on Europe over many decades.
I do withdraw my comment about the size of the Treaty compared to the constitution, but my point about the difference between them being one of opinion still holds.
I say again - debate the merits of the EU and the Treaty, or shut up about it, as you’re not addin