Mississippi Results Thread
by Jonathan Singer, Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:37:21 PM EDT
√ Barack Obama: 151,655 votes (57 percent)
Hillary Clinton: 107,309 votes (41 percent)
68 percent of precincts reporting (10:26 PM Eastern)
by Jonathan Singer, Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:37:21 PM EDT
√ Barack Obama: 151,655 votes (57 percent)
Hillary Clinton: 107,309 votes (41 percent)
68 percent of precincts reporting (10:26 PM Eastern)
Heh...15 votes apart right now (3354-3339; 49% each). Too bad it won't last long.
And now she's ahead by 36 votes!
I won't be able to keep this up...now she's ahead by 600 or so.
how do you insert graphics ?
1) Upload a JPG file to a image-hosting site such as www.imageshack.us.
2) Then, in the body of your post, use the html code for inserting the image. Imageshack usually makes this easy for you by writing the necesssary HTML code out for you under the listing "Hotlink for Websites".
[img src="http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/2787/ ohctyod3.jpg" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/]
(Replace the [ and ] above with < and > and see what you get.
Oh my g**, what???
They're counting the racist votes first.
Same reason he wasn't in Wisconsin when he trounced her there.
Like a shark, he keeps moving.
Clinton was in PA yesterday. Have to join the fray, after all.
another interesting thing to note is the geographic split -- NE Mississippi counties going for Clinton hard; Clinton & Obama splitting the Gulf Coast vote; Obama racking it up in the Delta. Nothing from Jackson yet although obviously it will go heavily for Obama. big question: what happens in Rankin & DeSoto?
Rankin going for BO it seems so far
yes, this is quite surprising, making Rankin anomalous among MS counties with 70%+ white voting age population.
Gap seems to be closing a little, from what I see. DeSoto is going to Obama, though.
Also, isn't Jackson Co. (Pascagoula) is predominantly white too, right? Obama's winning there comfortably it seems.
Relax, it's only 4% in. Obama will win by about 20%.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. She has a good shot at keeping this within 10-15 points.
Universal - I see you're a regular on Hillaryis44.org. Do you reject and denounce the racist and hateful statements made on that board?
From CNN exit poll:
"Was gender of candidate important to you?"
YES = 27%
Of these people, Obama won 68%, Clinton 32%
NO = 70%
Of these people, Obama won 55%, Clinton 45%
"Was race of candidate important to you?"
YES = 30%
Of these people, Obama won 62%, Clinton 38%
NO = 67%
Of these people, Obama won 57%, Clinton 42%
Just about everywhere urban minority districts report last
larger number of votes
Don't try to hang it all on city folk...them darn rural counties often report just as late if not later.
Honestly- its a race/class thing Urban districts are underfunded so they have 1 machine or counter for every 500 or so while rural areas are more like 1 for every 50.
Much bigger volumes than rural counties where you might have 500 voters.
Oh Noes Barack can't get the Klan vote, I'm truly shocked. Also he got southern White Men in the one flippable southern state (VA).
is that white voters?
I could read that as AA supporting the AA candidate.
Same with the gender question.
Effects are washing out.
I thought these Southern states didn't matter because they wouldn't go Democratic in the Fall anyways?
Yeah, I found that very funny actually! A HUUUUUUGE problem! As if any Democrat ever won the Southern White vote!
...But I guess you weren't looking for historical references.
Clinton won 4 southern states, Arkansas and Tennessee (where he and his VP were from), and GA/LA as I recall. He would most likely have lost all four if Perot hadn't been in the race.
uh..I dont think he would have lost Arkansas. The other three were within the margin in 1992, but alas, Perot was there so we cannot know how hard Clinton might have worked for any souther pickups absent a perturbing Perot.
IMO from you = wtf.
He said that the campaigns shouldn't be part of the solution finding and that seems very reasonable approach to me. If you have to change the rules mid-game, which you shouldn't in the first place, you can't really let the players make up the new rules!
...The Clinton camp still has $15 million on the table for a re-vote. The Obama camp has a table full of excuses.
Makes me wonder if Sen. Obama wants all votes to count.
Does it really?
If Obama had won those states, would you feel the EXACT same way?
yes. excluding 2 critical states in a tight nomination race makes us look like asshats.
She didn't put anything on the table, her lobbyist friends did. That's a joke.
...Clinton's team and surrogates are offering solutions to the Florida & Michigan problem.
The Obama camp?
Nothing but excuses.
They've said it's between the DNC and the state parties. It is.
They've said they'll abide by any arrangement the relevant parties come up with.
That's all that's needed, and any more is frankly obstructionist.
When your only hope of winning the nomination comes by essentially throwing every single vote in every single state out the window ruins the credibility of that argument.
boo. cant say the rules are the rules and then bitch that the rules for supers are unfair.
This racial split is going to fracture our party for a generation.
the racial split in MS isn't indicative of the divide across the country.
This racial divide has been apparant in many states though...and this race in particular is shining a very bright spotlight on it.
What states? And why is that a problem for our party?
Seriously, are you really seeing this for the first time? You weren't aware before?
This just in: Race HAS been a dividing factor for awhile. And having a candidate with the audacity to be black isn't going to make it worse.
That's quite a conclusion you're drawing from one state's results, isn't it?
Over at Ben Smith, he's noting exit polls that show a large majority of indys and, more importantly, republicans are breaking for Clinton. Most people on that blog are arguing that the Republicans are following Limbaugh's advice...
They're probably right, but I had a thought: maybe Mississippi is one of the only states where disaffected republicans would genuinely vote for hillary clinton because they want her. I know that sounds weird, and its just a gut reaction, but imagine you're a white southern republican (i know its hard, go with it...and by southern, you know what I mean. Not metropolitan or South Floridian). You aren't making money cause the economy sucks, and the republicans havent come through on any of their promises to enforce mandatory church attendance or whatever they were going for in 2004. Abortion is still legal and people in some parts of the country can still get gay married.
You don't like the Republicans anymore, but being a white deep south republican, while you're ready to vote Dem, you can't (won't) vote for a black man (sad I know, but kinda true).
Isn't Clinton the logical choice?
**Im not saying Clinton is racist or courting those votes in any way, just a thought I thought I'd throw out there**
Do you actually take yourself seriously with all that spin? do you still know where up and down is?
A credible article in the Dallas Morning News that kind of puts holes in
the theories that many Republicans voted for Hillary in the Texas primary last
Tuesday helping her to beat Obama.
"Backers of both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton turned out with
passionate support for their candidate in last week's Texas primary. But once
they got in the voting booth, they did something different.
Obama supporters were more likely to vote in the presidential race and then skip
the other contests than Clinton supporters, who tended to continue voting down
the ballot, a Dallas Morning News analysis finds."
" Although some conservative talk show hosts had urged Republicans to cross over
and vote for Mrs. Clinton in order to keep the contest going, there was little
evidence that happened.
According to exit polls, only 9 percent of Democratic voters statewide
identified themselves as Republicans, and they went for Mr. Obama, 53 percent to
and more county by county stats here:
Sorry, here is the link for the comment above:
wow. thanks for the post. kinda puts that party building argument on its head.
Universal: so you reject quotes like this:
"Bambi has two more states to really push his whole bullsh*t, race-politics agenda: Tonight (MS) and North Carolina. And then -- poof -- expect him to play the `who, me, talk about race?' card. It's horsebleep."
"Ann -- Eff BHO."
"AND we get to talk politics and about the patheticness of Bambi."
"`Bama -- you've taken this whole `dual standard race card' BS campaign as far as you can. And who knows,
our Party (well, actually our Party + a lot of jag-off GOPers and malicious Indys) might be stupid enough to give you the nom. Whoop-de-do."
"Obama tinfoil hat wearers -- your moment is about to
end, so soak it up while you can. You and your `bargainer' (Shelby Steele's term) chump vassal are about to return to Earth at terminal velocity, one way
or another. Many, many Dems are seriously pissed off with your garbage Jesse Jackson, Jr-led tactics, and there is going to be Hell to pay, that you can count on. The Jim Jones Kool-Aid convention is about to end, and not a moment too soon."
So you stand behind your hateful statements, saying there will be "hell to pay" and your derogatory insults against independent voters? You don't think broadly insulting comments and "f*ck Bambi" are "extreme views"?
jeez. i think you're in denial.
i'm embarrased that a progressive need to go to your level.
Actually, the Jackson quote you're referring to was questioning why Clinton's own campaign brought her to tears, but not the devastation and subsequent bungling of Hurricane Katrina (or the Iraq war, which she voted for). I haven't seen any commentary that Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comments were taken as racial in the least. His South Carolina statement about Jesse Jackson winning the primaries so many years ago there was edging up to the line - its not the candidate, its apparently the fact that he's black - and while it wasn't well thought out, I don't think it was racist, just short-sighted and myopic. Ms. Ferarro is apparently going to be the one that plays the race card on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
And yes, your comments are extreme and beyond the pale. I see little difference between your comments - disparaging, divisive, insulting and reactionary - and the other comments on Hillaryis44.org.
And yes, I do understand that the race card can be played by anyone. Geraldine Ferarro was a perfect demonstration of how Democrats are not immune from race-bating tactics, dismissal of an individual's accomplishments because of their skin color, and playing the us against them game that only serves to divide a multicultural nation.
Well, I tried finding some "race card" comments coming from the Obama camp. This is the closest thing I could find from Jesse Jackson:
"(The Clinton camp)resorted to distasteful and condescending language that appeals to our fears rather than our hopes. I sincerely hope that they'll turn away from such reactionary, disparaging rhetoric."
How is that playing the race card? Do you have any specific quotes you'd like to share that clearly illustrate Obama's campaign playing the race card on the level of Ms. Ferarro?
Continued ignorance of our community. You really should consider stop talking about a huge portion of the campaign that you clearly have no understanding of.
Oh really? And where exactly does this deep understanding stem from? I'm certainly not picking up on any of it.
I responded to the Jackson comment. I didn't see any racial commentary - he was questioning her sincerity, yes, but I saw not one word about race. He also mentioned the Iraq war in addition to Katrina and other situations that have "devastated the American people". I don't see a clincher here.
Re: Sharpton, his actual quote was this: "The Rev. Al Sharpton yesterday said the Democratic Party would commit a "grave injustice" if it seated delegates from Florida and Michigan at the party's national convention - and he threatened a march on the party's Washington headquarters...Sharpton told The Post, "I think the DNC is playing a dangerous game . . . [and could] open the door here for everything from litigation to demonstration." Not that there would be protests if Obama wasn't the nominee - that there would be protests if the DNC sat the FL and MI delegates as-is. Where's the race card in that? I've heard many people say the same exact thing, black and white, and its due to the fact that those primaries were declared invalid and Obama wasn't even on the MI ticket.
Rep. Wilder said much the same thing: "predicting riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates." Not that there would be riots if Obama wasn't the nominee - that there would be riots if the electoral procedure was hijacked by superdelegates who supercede the popular vote majority and delegate lead. And while it may be a bit extreme to predict riots, there will certainly be protests, as well there should be. There should be protests if any nominee with the majority of the popular vote and the awarded delegates is stripped of the nomination through back room dealing.
So you purposefully misrepresented both men's statements to try to make a point. So far all you have is Jackson's comment on Katrina (and the Iraq war, but you're also purposefully ignoring that as well). You can call out Jackson all day on questioning Clinton's sincerity, I'll give you that one - but no, I think saying he pulled the race card by mentioning Katrina is really, really, really stretching a statement to make it fit your point.
It wasn't "Team Obama". Black folks said this stuff themselves. Our blogs said it. Our papers said it. Our radio stations said it. Our churches and businesses and families and friends and co-workers said it.
It wasn't from all these stupid sources that all the whiners on the progressive blogs want to point to. That may be where you first heard these criticisms, but that wasn't where the Black community first heard these criticisms.
And you know what comment it all started with? Go on, guess... Cause I never hear it mentioned in the list of 'outrages' and race baiting claims from clueless people claiming to know so much about our community and what we think.
The fact that you keep mentioning Jesse Jackson is pretty indicative of your level of understanding of the Black community and where exactly we're getting our news and political commentary.
Seriously, you're showing a very sort of 'outside in' sense of things here, with references to people and news stories that were big around the blogs and the MSM, but very minor things whithin the Black community. Before you go off declaring what race baiting the Obama campaign has been doing, you might want to have some grasp of what the people supposedly being baited were hearing and reacting to.
This stuff is just totally clueless, almost as bad as the totally manufactured outrage over the stuff with Smiley.
Well, apparently what Jackson meant wasn't clear, because I'm really having a hard time parsing that you're willing to back up some pretty rotten and malicious statements against a huge number of people on the basis of the fact that Jackson dropped Katrina when he was questioning Clinton's on-stage crying sincerity. In fact, out of all those quotes, I didn't see one against Jackson himself - its all directed at Senator Obama himself, his supporters, independent voters, and republicans.
If you really want to call out Jackson for what you think Katrina represents - among the horrific plight of the poor and mostly black residents there, Katrina also represents massive government ineptitude, corruption, lack of forethought, and shock that something like that could happen in our country, to our people - then fine, but don't be so desperate to cast the first stone and justify an increasingly vitrolic and unreasonable narrative by using it as your proof.
You purposefully misuse statements from the other examples, and then disregard the individuals out of hand rather than even admitting you're flat out misrepresenting statements to justify your words. That combined with the Jackson statement doesn't lead me to believe your interpretation of Jackson's words or intentions. I'm not sure how that's naivety.
To summarize many of Universal's posts/discussions:
"Some survey says white people won't vote for BHO, so we better not vote for him."
-- Gee Universal, that smacks of racism --
"HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF RACISM! I'm going to reach through that monitor and kick your ass!"
Geraldines comments were not off base especially if you look at the way the Edwards campaign came to an end. Honestly, like Edwards wife said, "I can't make my husband black or a woman." Its true. What sucks is if it were Edwards vs McCain. Edwards WINS walking away. However, now we will have another close race because of our 2 possible nominees.
There's nothing great about Geraldine's comments whatsoever. Flat out saying that Senator Obama would never be where he is today if he wasn't a black man is about the most obvious statement of racism to come out of Clinton's camp so far. It was designed to pander to white voters who feel that being black in America gives you benefits that aren't available to white people. Its hatemongering.
I checked out that video and her own words were that she was responding to a question posed to her - why is Barack Obama in the position he is in now, with all the delegates and all the support? Her response was, "Because he's black".
That's ridiculous. I would be offended if a someone associated with the Obama campaign said that the only reason Clinton is in the position she is in right now is because she's a woman. To hear something like that come out of Geraldine Ferarro's mouth is absolutely abhorrent.
You can find it abhorrent, but you've got to admit that there is at least a parcel of truth to the thesis.
Actually, no I don't. I don't see how being black in American is some kind of advantage. I think that reducing someone's achievements to the color of their skin, or their gender, is divisive and bigoted.
Senator Obama wouldn't be where he is today unless he worked hard. Period.
uh huh. and a CLINTON is drawing only 10% of AA support because Obama worked hard.
What is so wrong with being inspired because people are breaking color and gender barriers?
Are you seriously calling Ferarro's statements "inspiring"?
Was she being inspiring when she said the exact same thing about Jesse Jackson in 1984?
Her exact quote: "If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race".
Once you could possibly argue away - twice is flat out, unashamedly playing the race card in the most disgusting way possible.
He wouldn't be here if he was black.
I am absolutely astonished how you can interpret that as something as completely dismissive of someone's accomplishments solely based on the color of their skin.
Yep. Clearly I was saying she was inspiring. That is exactly what I said when I called YOU on you assertion that Obama's success is based on hard work. I am not interested in getting into a discussion support or defending Ferraro, but I think you throw race around a little too casually. It is a dfficult issue that our country (ad our party) needs to have a meaningful dialogue about..
I think your comments impede that discussion as much or more than Ferraro's.
It is inflamatory and unwarranted.
I absolutely base his success on his hard work. I think that has a far greater impact on where he is today than by simply saying he's black. Her statements completely discount anything about him besides his skin color. The matter of race absolutely warrants a dialog in this country - but Ms. Ferarro's statement was about the furthest thing from a meaningful dialog I've ever seen on the topic.
what is the hard work? or is it hard work in the abstract. And you are backing off to the same relative argument that Ferraro did-- race plays some portion of his success, hard work plays some portion of his success.
"Her statements completely discount anything about him besides his skin color." I think this is pretty over the top... where are my vapors?
I guess I would feel more sympathy for Obama if he and his campaign were not essentializing Clinton as a First Lady and referring to "the Clintons" in his speeches. Maybe if he didnt dismiss her as a woman I would be more troubled by people dismissing him as a black candidate.
Dont get me wrong, I think they are both dangerous. But anyone who thinks Obama is in this contest just because he is black or Clinton is in this contest just because she is Bill Clinton's wife will be sorely mistaken. They are both stronger candidates than that...
I've never, ever heard him or anyone from his camp dismiss her as "just a woman". Please back up your statement with something equatable to Ferraro's comment - something like "Clinton is only where she is because she's a woman" - and I'll concede the point. Fact is, Obama and his camp would get torn apart in the press and rightly so if that occurred. It hasn't.
Clinton is counting her time as First Lady as experience. She's placing the emphasis on that herself willingly - making it a subject of debate. If she was solely campaigning on her time as a Senator, then yes, it would be "essentializing" her in a role. As it stands, its a perfectly legitimate avenue of discussion to determine exactly what kind of experience being a First Lady brings to her candidacy. In that light, its being disingenuous to say that Obama can't use "the Clintons" as a term of address, as she's hinging at least 8 years of her experience as directly tied to her husband's presidency.
"But anyone who thinks Obama is in this contest just because he is black or Clinton is in this contest just because she is Bill Clinton's wife will be sorely mistaken. They are both stronger candidates than that..." is exactly the point I'm trying to make about Ferarro's comments. She said exactly that. "He wouldn't be in the position he is unless he was black." I'm not sure how you can say that her comments were misinterpreted when you concede that anyone that says what she said is "sorely mistaken".
amazing how you turn that all around to Obamas victimhood.
She has a history of making borderline comments.
Whatever she means, her words seem to land her in hot water a lot.
A committee he will control thanks to his pledged delegate lead.. oh the horror!
Why are republicans so scared of Barack?!
From exit polls:
70% of those who said neither Clinton nor Obama have a clear plan for the country picked Clinton
74% of those who have a strongly favorable opinion of Mccain picked Clinton
78% of Republicans picked Clinton
25% of those who say that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy picked Clinton
25% of those who say that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy picked Clinton
LOL. Best exit poll stat ever.
The last point must be the talking point of the day! This is great! How could anybody who thinks she is not trustworthy vote for her unless he/she wants to cheat the system. Rush live.
There's a difference between being the leader of a country and being a minister... Not that I don't think Clinton's honest&trustworthy, but I wouldn't put that at the top of my priority list in voting for a candidate. I hope I'm not alone in this, although I suspect I may be :D
I get your point. I guess it comes down to what options they offer. If you are pushed to chose between trustworthy and not trustworthy, your point is granted. If you are not pushed, I couldn't see anybody choosing not trustworthy and still voting for her.
Yeah, who would want to badmouth their candidate... good point.
so you would need the comparable rating of the respondent. something like: of respondents who thought both candidates were untrustworthy, x supported Clinton.
Haven't seen anything like that and the data isnt public.
If they disliked them both so much, they wouldn't get near a polling station you would guess!
It must be somewhat galling to the Repubs that they need to boost Clinton to keep any hope of maintaining the current system alive.
its is tenable for Obama to concede now, while he has the lead. So really no reason to think you are right about about this one either.
some of the diaries and comments you posted, I really do appreciate your fairly amicable disposition.
African Americans are gerrymandered all throughout the CDs. Only one district (district one, maybe?) is overwhelmingly African American.
Yep. So even with a huge blowout he'd still not get much in the way of delegates they way he did elsewhere.
I thought I read earlier on DD.com that Barack needed to win Mississippi by 66% or more in order for him to brag about trouncing Clinton. Everyone expected Mississippi to go to Barack. Looks like he's going to miss his opportunity, again, to knock her out of the race.
...Winning a state 55% to 45% isn't going to net a lot of delegates.
One needs at least 60% to run up the delegate score.
true. That's why Clinton will never be able to catch up with pledged delegates.
It's also why it will be almost impossible for Barack to knock Clinton out of the race.
Yeah, but nobody expects him to. He is in the lead, remember?
Yeah, well there is this thing called "closing the deal" and he ain't done that yet. Also, Sen. Obama, himself, compared Sen. Clinton to the champion and he went on to say that the only way for the challenger to beat the champion was to "knock them out." Again, he ain't don't it nor will he be able to.
we say Clinton does not really have a prayer.
...In place under the rules for Clinton to contest the nomination at the convention so long as no candidate has the requisite number of delegates to clinch the nod on the first ballot.
You can bitch and whine and moan about Hillary trying to overturn the will of the people, but the fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party is a private organization and we're being nice about it when we allow the public to participate in our nominating process.
Now if Hillary knows the rules and she uses the rules to gain the nomination, you cannot complain about that because we live by the rules and we die by the rules.
Whoa, buddy. Sure, there are ways to manipulate the system so that one or the other is the nominee. Asking people that supported the other candidate to support such a nominee is a different story altogether (and good luck with any independents looking on). I optimistically believe that many here would vote for either, but a brokered convention would be the greatest gift that McCain has ever received. I guarantee the "you can bitch and whine about Hillary trying to overturn the will of the people" line will not win many votes in November.
Democrats are not as divided as Michelle Obama and others would like their supporters to believe. The most important thing about this race is Democrats are united on ideology. This struggle is all about personality. Personally, I believe Obama is trying hard to make it about race, but I think that will fail, eventually. I predict, if Clinton wins the nomination at the convention, disgruntled Obama supporters will vote for Clinton in November.
she changes them. For example calling for Florida/Michigan to be seated as is, even though they have been, according to the rules, stripped of the delegates.
Live by the rules, dies by the rules my ass.
...When Sen. Clinton calls on the Convention Credentials Committee to seat the delegations from the states of Florida and Michigan.
It is completely in the purview of the Convention Credentials Committee to seat or not seat those two delegations.
Those are the rules. There are no changes in the rules. It is simply Sen. Clinton knowing the rules and exercising her rights under the rules to have those two states' voting rights restored.
Lets try this again.
DNC runs the National Convention.
DNC makes the rules for national convention.
DNC stripped FL/MI of their delegates.
So hence by calling to have them seated she attempting to break the rules.
...Before citing them or making interpretations similar to the ones you just made.
I'd put my knowledge of the rules up against yours any day of the week because I can readily cite any section to back up my claims while you just resort to speculation and conjecture.
...Of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States says that "The National Convention shall be the highest authority of the Democratic Party, subject to the provisions of this Charter" meaning that the Democratic National Convention can overturn any decision that the Democratic National Committee makes including the decision to strip the states of Florida and Michigan of their voting rights at the Democratic National Convention.
I looked it up, and yes there is till a way for them to get seated if Credentials Committee votes for it.
So you were right about the letter of the rules.
I maintain however that to do so of course would create a firestorm. It would look to everyone like the Committee is changing the rules to fit Hillary at expense of party unity. I highly doubt that would happen.
Point of Information: the DNC does not run the DNCC-- they are separate and brokered across the national party orgs.. with some ASDC and DGA involvement, I think.
alot of us can choose not to participate if it fucks around.
Oh, please, do you honestly believe that any result of Mississipi, even he had won it by 70% or 80% percent would have caused Hillary to abandon the race?
Are you serious?
I don't think anyone thought Hillary Clinton would abandon the race based on Mississippi. I believe this primary was all about Obama. If Clinton ends up with 40% or more, I don't think the Obama camp will be too happy.
You guys/gals have some really low goal posts these days.
Low goal posts have nothing to do with it. Without going into detail about race and voting, I'd say 40% is about the best Hillary could do.
coming up with ridiculous goals for the opponents camp.
You think a 60-40 split makes Obama people unhappy????
For crying out loud, you guys were happy with a 10% in Ohio and 3% in Texas Primary (where she still lost the delegates).
Do you see a double standard here?
I do not understand something. Why did the networks take 1:30 minutes to call OH the other night, while they called MS in 10 minutes. Looks like it is going to be around 12 % difference in votes. In OH it was 10 %.
I think CNN got complaints for calling it too early previously. Other stations called it earlier this time.
Simple, in OH the outstanding votes were in the large Urban centers-- places which have enough votes to overturn the results, basically the networks didn't want to get burned like they did in Missouri.
CNN just noted that 13% of the vote tonite in Mississippi is by registered Republicans, and that Clinton is getting 73% of those.
That ought to give us a clue about which candidate the GOP would rather face in November.
won't complain about that like they did about how Republican support Obama and thats not fair in a democratic primary.
Thanks for burying that one. Next myth to go-independents for Obama,
I am basing that on him calling for them to vote for her, so this is not like a fact.
But I do think this the only state Hillary got so many Republicans.
about MS indy demographics.
But looking over CNN exit poll, I am seeing weird stuff like:
Opinion of John McCain
Strongly Favorable 73%
Somewhat Favorable 54%
Vote by Party and Race:
All Republicans 79%
There is no doubt Repubs are tilting this toward Clinton.
Read through the poll
I'm not sure if that's a fair assessment to make... I've been studying this for some time, trying to figure out who republicans really "want"... and it flop flops back and forth. What I can gather is that what they really want is a brokered convention, so they are rooting for whomever is behind. Right now, Hillary is behind, so any votes for her help the Republican realize a brokered convention.
I'm sure that they would be horrified and some might hang themselves if she actually somehow pulled off sinning the general election, but at the moment, they must feel that risk is very small. So, it's safe to play around with us... for the moment, anyways!
one of the largest counties in teh state, Hinds County is coming in at a 82% clip for Obama. Only 33% reporting thus far.
Yes, at 10 o'clock. Chris will get to feel the thrill running up his legs when Obama speaks again.
Obama just hit 58 percent. Not saying that will necessarily hold (will probably end up winning by around 55) but the fact is that he beat her by double digits. Every delegate counts, so even if he only nets 7 delegates, that is more than she won in the Texas primary. And by the way, his Texas caucus victory gave him more delegates out of Texas than her.
that predicted that we'd only have 125,000-150,000 voters in the primary? We're already at 230,000 and have 38% more to report.
Wasn't Todd predicting low turnout? It looks like the Mississippi Secretary of State's projections were way off-base, happily. More popular votes to pad that lead.
Yay white voters went 77% for Hillary! Of course Obama is breaking down racial barriers and all those white folks will be on board for him in November...
Against John McCain
If Obama can beat her by 20% it's looking like a 20-13 delegate split, a net gain of 7. If he falls just short, probably 19-14.
And a seven-delegate edge for Obama with eight more to allocate (O:16 C:9). Great split, makes it extremely difficult for Clinton to get within 100 pledged delegates.
How many states has Barack won now?
I eagerly await the morning papers to see what kind of happy spin Hillary's flaks will put on another 20-point drubbing. They have a real public relations problem with the fact that Pennsylvania is six weeks away, and it's pretty hard to fill the airwaves with encouraging news when you've just lost the race for delegates in 15 out of 17 states.