U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 11, 2008 04:23 AM UTC
29 Comments
Clinton still has more delegates and a larger popular vote total even after Maine. Also, Obama was projected to win Maine so it was no surprise when he did. The same with WA, LA and NE.
For example, they are only counting about half of Colorado’s delegates so far. They are doing a lot better counting the primary states, which creates the false impression of a big Clinton lead.
Also, the delegates available on the main pages of CNN include superdelegates, who have NOT cast their votes yet and may well go either way depending on the popular votes in various areas.
If you look at complete estimates of delegates, Obama has a lead nearing 100 pledged delegates and comes out very narrowly still in the lead when superdelegates are added into the picture.
As for who was expected to win Maine, it depends on who you ask, I guess. He was definitely down about 37% not too long ago, and the predictions leaked from the campaign a couple of days ago showed Maine as his only loss this weekend.
is straight from the HRC campaign. So as you said, it depends on who you ask…
I’m pleged for Obama and I am going to make my vote count!
It’s just a matter of getting all the data entered. I know in Arapahoe County it took a while to go through all the paper work, make sure everything checked out and the data entry is supposed to be completed this week. Probably the same in some other counties.
I’m sure all the delegates will get counted. In caucus states it’s a much messier and more time consuming process than in primary states where they just need to count the votes.
Also I hope the super delegates will take note that while Hillary has won mainly in states that are sure thing blue, Obama has won in all kinds of states including true swing states. He can win in all the blue states as well as Clinton can but he can also win in states where she would be a long shot. He is also no Jesses Jackson and has plenty of wins in nearly all white states.
Reagan was the Republican’s movement candidate. Obama can be ours. Clinton is just not going to be in that league. Only Dems go for her.
because he wins “Red” in Feb. means nothing regarding the general election. He won Idaho in the Democratic caucus. I’ll bet you every cent I have he won’t (and, neither will Hillary) win Idaho in November.
The one group that is coming to the Dems heavily are Latinos voting for Hillary. In recent years they have gone increasingly to the R’s.
Dems have historically relied on a strong AA, women, unions and to a lesser degree, young voters.
I am a Hillary supporter. I think she would be the better President and is the most electible.
How about Colorado? Iowa? Virginia? It’s not like Obama has only won in Idaho.
Winning a Dem caucus in a Red state means almost nothing in November. Winning a primary could mean a small bit of something because it gives some indication of the Dem vote turn out.
states, not red states. Neither Dem will win most of the southern red states they took in the primaries. Take S. Carolina. It last went Dem for Carter in the 70s. I get that red state Dem caucus and primary victories don’t mean they get those states in the general.
However, Obama has won in heartland states that could go either way and those, along with independent voters, are the key. Obama does better with Indies and better in true swing states. McCain also does well with Indies so that’s where a Dem candidate needs to be as strong as possible in order to compete successfully. The bigger a Dem win, the better. 50% plus one is what keeps us stuck as a country.
What state do you think Clinton will get that Obama can’t? Do you think Clinton supporters will vote for McCain if Obama runs instead? Not likely.
Certainly some independents and Obamican Republicans who are excited about Obama will vote for McCain as their second choice if Clinton is the candidate. Many of the new young voters who caucused, canvassed, voted and worked their hearts out for Obama will just go back to being apathetic and not making it to the polls or mailbox if Clinton is the candidate. Those voters could take swing states with them.
Bottom line, Obama can get every state in reach for Clinton and then some. “And then some” doesn’t have to be very many but every one will count like crazy.
Besides no new President is ready on day one. It’s too unique a position.
Clinton’s voting record on the war in Iraq is pure neo-con hawk. Her health care plan assumes that most people who aren’t coverd would get coverage if they were forced to, does little to lower over all cost and includes the threat of garnishing wages if a person doesn’t comply.
If she’s so great at working across the aisle to pass good legislation, where is all that great legislation? Her best experience is political, working so well with the drug, insurance and military/industrial lobbyists who give her more money than any other candidate while drowning out the voices of ordinary people.
When people say they want change in the way things get done in Washington, it’s the way things are done by old pols like Clinton, entrenched in that world of experience, that they want to change.
The idea that what’s always been the way is the only way and it CAN’T be changed so we need to keep those old pols because they know the game, is what people are rejecting. They don’t see the game getting them anywhere. There comes a time when things CAN be changed.
Slavery was changed. Women got the vote. Legally enforced segregation was ended. Those things were once among the business as usual realities that supposedly couldn’t be changed. Fundamental change is possible but not with a pol as old school as Hillary Clinton.
Obama is more electable AND the better candidate AND has more motivation to push for significant change. He knows that if he gets elected he had better do his best to be the transformational candidate people see in him. That’s his only way to hold onto support.
Clinton knows how to fight her way to 50% plus one, on a good day, with the wind at her back. That’s all.
I guess I’m wondering what those are–Ohio? FL?
TX? All the polls I’ve seen say that more people will vote for a generic Dem than will vote for a generic R.
I think Clinton will win every state Obama will win. Plus, I think she has a chance to win states with large populations of retired and military.
I agree that most young folks will not participate in the Fall if Obama is not the candidate. That bothers me because it shows a devotion to the man rather than to the ideas he represents. I can also say from first hand experience that nearly all the Obama folks left the caucus after the presidential preference.
Granted the presidency is a unique position but there has never been a president with the background of experiences held by Hillary. She, more than any one in modern time, can lay claim to being ready to go on day one. Saying she can’t “be ready” is silly.
Her votes on the war are fine in the real world. Obama on the other hand is basing his argument for judgment and character on two non votes. He says if in the Senate he would have voted against and I don’t believe it. His voting record never puts him against the overwhelming majority. I also wonder what his position would have been if the towers had been in Chicago. The other vote for character and judgment was the one he missed on Iran. Isn’t it ironic!
When Obama covers everyone with universal health care, let me know. When Obama takes a leadership role on anything, let me know. When he leads a transformative change effort, let me know. Or even a systemic change effort would be fine. Anything that shows he can maybe be the leader of the free world.
Obama splits hairs on almost everything. He doesn’t take money from lobbyists except that he does from some or from their companies or from the management of the companies the lobbyists work for. And, isn’t it true he voted “present” more than any other Ill. senator with his number of years experience.
The R attack machine would love to hear how the Senator aims to change politics. Grover will be first in line to sign up for the seminar. I think Sen. Obama is probably a great guy. They don’t care. They will spend several million $$ defining him. All they have to do is find one hole in his story to exploit. If they don’t find it, they will make it up. They did that to Hillary and she is still standing. I hope Sen. Obama will be. I wish he had a crisis or two in his life so we would know how he will handle them.
Hillary is the best candidate. She would do the best job as President. She is more electable and will change the US more than any male candidate ever could. She is exactly what we need.
Iowa, Missouri and Minnesota are also considered swing states. Obama won those. Texas isn’t considered a swing state and Ohio hasn’t voted yet. By the time it does, who knows? Obama’s momentum may change the landscape there as well.
Are extremely misleading, of course, given that some states hold primaries while others hold caucuses. Adding those very different numbers together gives you something meaningless.
They definitely should be looked at differently. As should closed vs open primaries. But if Clinton is winning the primaries while Obama is winning the caucuses, that is cause for concern because primaries do a better job of measuring votes in the general election. And open primaries do the best job.
States where Obama tends to run strong are holding caucuses. These include pretty much the entire mountain west and pacific northwest, a lot of the great plains states, Minnesota, Wisconsin (eventually), etc. Democratic establishment states (California, New York, Mass., NJ) are holding primaries.
So there is an argument made (by the Clinton campaign) that Obama is doing well because they are caucuses; but it’s hardly a controlled experiment. There’s correlation, but no good evidence for causation. As a counter-example, there are a lot of Obama primary wins in the South. So it’s more about who is voting than how they vote. But the caucus format still holds numbers down in popular vote.
where he benefits from the indie vote. Clinton used to point to the fact that she does better in Dems only until she figured out that pointing out indies as an Obama advantage wasn’t all that smart. Obama has good wins in a wide variety of formats amd regions with and without a large black voter base. Hillary Clinton does best in the states we can expect to take no matter what. Advantage Obama.
Perhaps you should check your souce again since CNN shows Obama with 986 pledged delegates and Clinton with 924.
Losing 4 states, the Virgin Islands, firing her campaign manager and making a $5 Million loan to her own campaign to stay afloat… Nothing to see here folks!
Up next, Virginia, Washington DC, Marlyand, Michigan and Hawaii.
Did they schedule caucuses already, or did you mean something else?
I meant Wisconsin. WI votes on February 19th.
no matter which way you count it, Obama leads Clinton:
Total Delegates (including the super-duper-extra-special delegates):
Obama 1,134
Clinton 1,131
Could it happen? Would Clinton accept a VP spot? Would Obama give it to her?
More likely: Obama/Richardson ’08. Or Obama/Clark ’08.
The VP slot is almost always a marriage of convenience. Hillary would suck it up, take it, and then be president in 8 years.
I think that is now the most likely scenario.
There’s no place for Bill in that scenario. He’ll never go for it.
Gee, I wonder if it will take her a whole second to make that decision.
Obama doesn’t need Clinton. She doesn’t get him anything he can’t get without her. If it’s Obama he should be looking for a VP who could actually do him some good.
With all this talk of a possible party split, no matter how ticked off the Hillary supporters may be, if Obama wins they aren’t going to suddenly vote for a Republican who is anti-choice and promises more conservative justices. Why appease them instead of going after some actual advantage?
I’d want him to pick a reliable anti-Iraq war guy with military and foreign policy credentials to toughen up the ticket and appeal even more to indies.
Obama will need a popular and experienced Dem (probably male Caucasian) from a swing state.
COMEDY WARNING! Just a taste from DailyKos
On another note I briefly listened to Jay Marvin this morning and he held an open lines segment for Hillary supporters to call in and complain on how the media (especially Air America, MSNBC and CNN!) have been Anit-Hillary! I found it ironic that Hillary is the “victim” of losing elections and it’s the liberal media’s fault! Apparently there is always someone else to blame…
That was pretty funny
Nothing is ever their fault. Bill’s idiotic blatant skirt chasing while he knew perfectly well that the Rs were looking for any way to bring him down in no way contributed to his problems, even according to wronged wife Hillary. It was 100% right wing conspiracy, 0% Bill’s recklessness and tendency toward sleazy behavior. No way does he bear the slightest blame.
In S. Carolina it was the black electorate falling for another Jesse Jackson. In caucus states it’s because working people can’t caucus in the afternoon. Ours was in the evening but never mind.
There was nothing wrong with Hillary’s decision to authorize Bush to go to war. Even though three quarters of average Americans polled at the time said they felt Bush fully intended on war, not diplomacy, Hillary was right to expect him to use the granted power to pursue diplomacy.
When she voted against the Levin amendment that proposed going back to the UN first for more diplomacy, she voted no because she thought it would obligate us to defer to the UN even though it specifically stated that we would NEVER defer to the UN on matters of our own security and interests. It was NOT a mistake.
When she voted for the Kyl/Lieberman amendment to give Bush an excuse to go to war with Iran by designating the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group she had no idea that the fact that it was written by neo-con hawks at the behest of the Bush administration might make it suspect in any way. Fortunately the report about Iran having ended their nuclear weapons program back in 2003 took the wind out of neo-con sails on that one. That and the military being none too keen on another war. But if Bush had used it to go to war in Iran, she wouldn’t have been at all responsible for that either.
Nope, everything either one of them has ever done has been the perfectly right thing and anybody who says different is out to get them. They have never been even partly to blame for anything ever. Gee, kind of reminds of the President we have right now.