NBC News: Barack Obama Wins Oregon Primary
by Jonathan Singer, Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:00:20 PM EDT
NBC News calls the Oregon primary for Barack Obama.
Tags: Democratic primaries, Oregon, Oregon Primary (all tags)
by Jonathan Singer, Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:00:20 PM EDT
NBC News calls the Oregon primary for Barack Obama.
Tags: Democratic primaries, Oregon, Oregon Primary (all tags)
Except the Indiana primary, which they held off on and CBS called first for a change.
They called Kentucky 3 seconds after polls closed, before CNN.
Let's hear it for the hard-working white people of Oregon.
But, but, but....Oregon is full of working-class white people!
What's going on?!
The only thing unnecessary is the Clinton campaign's BS spin about Obama's performance among whites.
On the contrary, it's appropriate because it's humorous, informative, and most of all accurate.
White people, old women, young people of every description are voting for Obama in the primary and will do so in even larger numbers once he is allowed to campaign without unnecessary distraction. I say this with the full knowledge that my blunt honesty may cost him a few votes due to the hypersensitivity of a minuscule number of people who read my comment and decide to use their vote to punish me rather than vote for the candidate who best represents their interests. The blame for that action will rest squarely with the voter.
So if it is a 40,000 difference at 10%...does that point to an over 300,000 vote pick-up in Oregon...More than the 250,000 in Kentucky.
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*
17,228,607 47.4% (O)
17,394,726 47.8% (C)
Clinton +166,119 +0.46%
When Oregon is added in, this number may drop to a 60,000 popular vote lead.
Delegates do nominate, but the supers should acknolwedge the "fuzzy math" (sorry, guys) nature of delegate apportionment in congressional and state Senate districts.
Supers pay attention.
Oh, they will, indeed. Please keep making this claim to them. I implore you.
Oi, ain't someone going to find me a statistician who says it's remotely valid math to add caucuses to open primaries to closed primaries in a non-homogeneous election?
This is basic math. The "popular vote" cannot be measured from that unrelated hodgepodge of numbers.
Unless you want to explain why that kind of math is ok?
YOu're missing the 500,000+ "popular vote caucus conversion points" to add to Obama's total to be able to reasonably add caucuses to raw (not converted into seated delegates as the rules require) vote tally.
And the -500,000 "popular vote open primary conversion points" required to not piss off small states with caucuses.
But hey, it's not the world series or anything important where the rubric established for deciding a winner actually matter, it's just democracy, everyone gets their own metric! YEA~!
ANd then I'm taking my mathematics to Puerto Rico and the superdelegates and the convention and then I'm taking it all the way to the white house!
YEEEEAAAAARRRRRGGGHHHHHH!
I don't know what you're talking about.
Let me make this easy: I get my numbers from Real Clear Politics. I trust them. I don't know where you're getting your information from.
It's snark, but I mean it. No one has been able to explain for me yet why they use this "popular vote" metric when it's just basic math that you can't do it. You need a common denominator to add these figures. Think of it as exchanging currency. You don't exchange dollars for Euros straight up do you?
The only reason I've heard to justify it is: "but the "currency" set up to measure the "will of the people" must be wrong."
That doesn't make a different non-sense metric that the current election was never intended to assess acurately any more valid.
See my diary on it here if you like.
A big Yeeeaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh!!! for Obama!
ANd congratulations for anyone who was a workin and a callin there on both sides (I had to sit this one out.)
I can't wait to hear the Dem turn out numbers....
35 Comments