Obama expands delegate lead over Clinton

Hatuey · 03-16-08, 11:36 AM

Obama expands delegate lead over Clinton - Yahoo! News

Quote:

DES MOINES, Iowa - Democrat Barack Obama expanded his fragile lead in delegates over rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday, picking up nine delegates as Iowa activists took the next step in picking delegates to the national convention.
ADVERTISEMENT

More than half the 14 delegates allocated to John Edwards on the basis of caucus night projections switched Saturday to Obama.

Iowa Democratic Party officials said that with all of the delegates picked, Obama claimed 52 percent of the delegates elected at county conventions on Saturday, compared with 32 percent for Clinton. Some of the delegates picked at Saturday's conventions were sticking with Edwards, even though he's dropped from the race since Iowa held its caucuses in January.

Quote:

Counting Saturday's new figures from Iowa and California, an Associated Press delegate tally showed Obama with 1,617 delegates and Clinton with 1,498

....

Brennan said turnout was heavy, with more than 13,000 activists showing up at conventions in the state's 99 counties.

The. Champ. Is. Here.

aps · 03-17-08, 05:26 AM

Yippee! But don't forget, Hatuey, Iowa is not an important state according to Hillary Clinton.

PeteEU · 03-17-08, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

Yippee! But don't forget, Hatuey, Iowa is not an important state according to Hillary Clinton.

And she is right.. in the big picture on election day against the republicans.. Iowa matters very little compared to say Ohio or Florida.

But its good to see Obama getting further ahead, now if his people would stop putting thier foots in his mouth (same for Clinton's people on Clinton).

aps · 03-17-08, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

And she is right.. in the big picture on election day against the republicans.. Iowa matters very little compared to say Ohio or Florida.

But its good to see Obama getting further ahead, now if his people would stop putting thier foots in his mouth (same for Clinton's people on Clinton).

Yes she's right, but what matters is he WON that state. Frankly, I think her placing so much importance on what states are important in a general election during the primaries is misplaced. Yes, she won in Ohio and Texas and Florida. If Obama is the nominee, how many of those who supported Hillary will support Obama? A large amount.

PeteEU · 03-17-08, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

Yes she's right, but what matters is he WON that state. Frankly, I think her placing so much importance on what states are important in a general election during the primaries is misplaced. Yes, she won in Ohio and Texas and Florida. If Obama is the nominee, how many of those who supported Hillary will support Obama? A large amount.

I agree that a large amount will vote for Obama or Clinton. Thats not the point. The point is she won the population heavy states, states that are key in any national election and she has a right to claim this. She is in fact 100% correct in her assumptions, something that has been lost in the fog of war. .

aps · 03-17-08, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

I agree that a large amount will vote for Obama or Clinton. Thats not the point. The point is she won the population heavy states, states that are key in any national election and she has a right to claim this. She is in fact 100% correct in her assumptions, something that has been lost in the fog of war. .

Mitt Romney won in Nevada, which usually goes red in Presidential elections. Are you saying that John McCain can't win in that state in November?

PeteEU · 03-17-08, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

Mitt Romney won in Nevada, which usually goes red in Presidential elections. Are you saying that John McCain can't win in that state in November?

No thats not what I am saying, not even remotely.

Clinton won the "big states", with big populations and many electoral votes. Obama won the "small states" with low populations and few electoral votes. This means that Clinton has the backing of the big states (democrats), where most democrats live, and Obama does not (as much). It does not mean that Obama wount get a large part of the Clinton votes in a general election, he probally will plus independants.. so all in all he is the "better" candidate.. hence the right is pulling no stops to discredit him and probally laying the blame on Clinton.

It does mean Clinton can claim (and rightfully so) that she has won the states that actually matter a lot during a general election, and Obama has won the states that usualy dont vote demcoratic anyways. Which states would you rather win?

Hatuey · 03-17-08, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

No thats not what I am saying, not even remotely.

Clinton won the "big states", with big populations and many electoral votes. Obama won the "small states" with low populations and few electoral votes. This means that Clinton has the backing of the big states (democrats), where most democrats live, and Obama does not (as much). It does not mean that Obama wount get a large part of the Clinton votes in a general election, he probally will plus independants.. so all in all he is the "better" candidate.. hence the right is pulling no stops to discredit him and probally laying the blame on Clinton.

It does mean Clinton can claim (and rightfully so) that she has won the states that actually matter a lot during a general election, and Obama has won the states that usualy dont vote demcoratic anyways. Which states would you rather win?

California and NYC won't go red tomorrow. They'll still be Democrat states. Sam goes for New Hampshire and Vermont. I think an Obama-Hillary ticket would guarantee a win.

danarhea · 03-17-08, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

California and NYC won't go red tomorrow. They'll still be Democrat states. Sam goes for New Hampshire and Vermont. I think an Obama-Hillary ticket would guarantee a win.

I disagree. If Obama wins, picking Webb from Virginia, or picking another marginal red state's personality for the ticket, would guarantee that state's electoral votes, thus enhancing his chances. The Dems already have New York. Hillary is not needed to enhance the ticket.

Truth Detector · 03-17-08, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

.. hence the right is pulling no stops to discredit him and probally laying the blame on Clinton.

I am curious what stops you think the "right" is pulling? From what I am seeing, there are two BIG ego personalities, both with relatively weak experience, destroying each other over race and gender in their bid to lead a party which offers nothing better than the tired old rhetoric we have seen since August of 2003; "anyone but Bush."

The fascinating thing about this Democrat party denial is Bush is not running, and principles and policy do matter. The notion that this fight all the way to the convention doesn't benefit McCain is evidence of further denial.

At the end, there will be disenfranchised Democrats who will feel angered at how this party has conducted itself, particularly in Michigan and Florida, and they will abandon whomever is the Democrat candidate. Most elections are decided by the independents and the undeclared. I am doubtful that they will think giving the Democrats control of the White House AND Congress, considering their pathetic record in Congress so far, is in their best interests.

My prediction that there will NOT be a Democrat in the Whitehouse in 2009 regardless of whom the Democrat nominee is are looking better with every day that passes.