CNN analyst (dunno who, black guy) is asked, what's the big surprise tonight? He answers, well first, Huckabee - "the little engine that could". And secondly, well, "Hillary has kept her own".
Refers to Massachusetts, where she won despite the Ted Kennedy and Kerry endorsement etc. (Of course, he might also not have made that conclusion before the call on California came in.)
He's asked, what would you think if you were Obama? Well, I would wake up in the morning and think, well, we've got half the way - but not the whole way.
Hmm.
Missouri 98% reporting
Obama 391,470 votes at 49%
Clinton 386,544 votes at 48%
nimh wrote:
Refers to Massachusetts, where she won despite the Ted Kennedy and Kerry endorsement etc. (Of course, he might also not have made that conclusion before the call on California came in.)
I'm most happy about Massachusetts (besides CA of course). I truly thought that the Kerry/Kennedy endorsements were going to flip that state to Obama. I am happily suprised there.
Arizona was another surprise for me, I don't know why, never looked at any polling, but I thought they would go Obama (I lived there for 9 years).
NBC now has called Missouri for Obama. Well, "NBC projects; Obama apparent Mo. winner".
Obama now running 68 delegates behind in tonight's results, on CNN...
Obama - Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, Idaho, Missouri!, Alaska
Clinton - Arkansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Oklahoma, California, Arizona
12-8 so far. Twelve wins is big for him.
Nimh, MSNBC 841-837 Obama over Clinton even with her winning CA bigger.
Cycloptichorn
Onward to February 9th where we have Louisiana, Washington and Nebraska. Nebraska and Washington are caucuses and Louisianna is a primary.
New Mexico's results are starting to appear on the NPR map.
We still have results to be reported from Alaska, American Samoa and Democrats Abroad tonight, as well as New Mexico.
Alaska's been called for Obama, by a wide margin. I have a good feeling about NM.
Alaska
60% reporting
Obama 72%
Clinton 27%
New Mexico is looking like it will go to Clinton.
"California, California, California", all they say on CNN now.
Also, we've had Jonah Goldberg tonight, Pat Robertson, Michael Reagan - and I dont remember a single liberal as partisan as that appearing. And that's the liberal CNN for you.
Hillary campaigned heavily here (CA) and she started early, especially
in southern California.
Sometimes there are still positive points to not having cable TV or broadband internet to watch cable TV....
Another interesting comment made by Diane Sawyer of ABC tonight. She said that exit polls showed that "late deciders" (those people making up their minds within the last week) broke 50% Hillary, 41% Obama. This is in California.
Kind of a surprising finding considering that much was made of Obama's late breaking surge in that state.
Butrflynet wrote:New Mexico is looking like it will go to Clinton.
'First draft' of the exit poll has Obama ahead! Something like 50% to 44%:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225997
Course, those numbers may change still.. overall, the exit polls that appeared online immediately after the polls closed were pretty much on target, but there were some noted exceptions (Arizona and I think Missouri).
CalamityJane wrote:Hillary campaigned heavily here (CA) and she started early, especially
in southern California.
So did Obama. Remember the rallies he had in LA and Oakland in the first quarter of last year?
We have to take a look at the exit poll analyses and figure out how to better get his plans and philosophy to various demographics.
100 percent of the precincts are now counted in Missouri and Obama is still in the lead.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Nimh, MSNBC 841-837 Obama over Clinton even with her winning CA bigger.
CNN just announced numbers showing
- Obama behind 37 in all in today's races (so thats well within the -100 benchmark the Obama campaign had set
- Obama behind 109 in all delegates so far (that must be including already pledged superdelegates?)
Hillary's victory in California seems to be wholly based on Latinos and Asians, among whom she leads massively. Among whites she just leads by 3. ANyway, Butrflynet already reported along those lines.
What I'd like to know is, what consequences does that have for the delegate count, considering that many of the delegates are distributed by district, and the Latino population is likely very concentrated?
