sozobe wrote:Yep, seems to be.
Meanwhile, this is interesting:
Quote:9:09 p.m. -- Jason George reports chaos just broke out on a Clinton campaign conference call, which was apparently interrupted by an Obama staffer and devolved into a shouting match. Stay tuned for his full report...
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/livebloggin_a_pivotal_primary.html
Need to get to bed. Not much resolved but so far seems a little better than I feared...
Found this:
audio of the conversation
Doesn't sound as bad as printed.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Wonder if anyone has a map of TX counties reporting?
No maps here, but this sheet should fill up with vote totals by Senate
District:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJ0M6W5tNQCO1A-HPgBCldQ
And MSNBC has vote totals
by county.
Clinton breaks into the lead in Texas, a 10,000 vote lead with 2400 precincts reporting. When I first started watching the difference, she trailed by around 35,000 votes.
From Burntorangereport.com:
Quote:9:10pm (Phillip) - [..] Some South TX boxes just came in, which is why we just saw Clinton's numbers jump up.
And then:
Quote:9:45pm (Phillip) - CNN is a bunch of idiots. [..] They fundamentally don't understand Texas. The fact is, we're finally getting boxes coming in -- and they are coming in randomly. [..]
Basically, CNN can't handle waiting. If you wait -- and yes, it will be serveral more hours -- you'll see what's going on. Senator Clinton's boxes are coming in in South Texas, and Obama is still neck and neck. Wait until the urban areas start reporting...
Also relevant in terms of the winning margin in Ohio, this from The Swamp:
Quote:10:27 p.m. Don't say we didn't warn you: Still nothing -- not one vote -- in from Cleveland. Also nothing in from Cincinnati and very little from Toledo. All are big urban areas. All figure to tilt heavily Obama tonight.
nimh wrote:Hmm! (Thats a cautiously happy hhmmm)
First, provisional exit polls out
for Ohio.
Recalculating the numbers by men and by women on the basis of the relative share they make up of the total vote, I come to this overall result:
51.13% Hillary Clinton
47.87% Barack Obama
Or a 3,3% lead for Hillary.
Only the first exit poll data, will be updated throughout the night, cant say anything with sureness yet, etc etc...
... but thats a lot closer than I feared it would be!
Well, those have been updated...
Now:
Males (41%)
51% Clinton
47% Obama
Female (59%)
58% Clinton
40% Obama
Makes for the following totals...
55.13% Clinton
42.87% Obama
Or a 12,3% lead for Hillary... ouch.
Teaches you not to get your hopes up on the basis of early exit polls... but damn, this has been quite the revision. I dont think Ive seen this drastic an adjustment of the first exit poll data officially posted later in the evening earlier this year.
Maps of Texas results by county - I think Cyclo asked for those a while ago? - are here on the NYT site:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/TX.html
Dude - up in the Panhandle Hillary leads Obama 2:1 pretty much everywhere. Obama's really got a problem with rural whites.
Click on the "Margin of Victory" tab and you can see that so far Obama's gotten huge leads in the popular vote in Dallas, Houston and Austin, while Hillary's got her largest leads in San Antonio, El Paso, Corpus Christi and down in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties.
Here the map for Ohio:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/OH.html
Click on the Margin of Victory tab: damn, did Hillary rack up the votes big in NE Ohio!!
whew, I don't know if Obama can make it up at this point.
Well, delegates and all.
Cycloptichorn
Pollster.com earlier tonight (at 11:11) reported:
Quote:The tabulations for Vermont and Rhode Island have updated. Rhode Island's estimate now shows a 59% to 40% Clinton lead (was 51% to 48% before the update -- quite a shift).
So it wasnt just Ohio.
Looks like the exit pollsters got a serious undersample of Clinton voters in their survey, something that could only be corrected once actual results were coming in and the trends they were showing could be plugged back into the equations.
Clinton voters more likely to refuse to answer the exit pollsters, when leaving the voting station? Or less likely to acknowledge having voted for their candidate? Sounds plausible enough...
What an amazing election cycle this is. Stay tuned, all you youngish types. I expect this will be a once or maybe twice in your lifetime thing. I turned 60 today and this isn't something I've seen before. The turnout figures alone...my god.
nimh wrote:Exit polls up now
for Texas dont look very reassuring:
Males (43%)
Clinton 46%
Obama 52%
Females (57%)
Clinton 53%
Obama 46%
So... that would make the totals:
49.99% Clinton
48.58% Obama
Just first tentative numbers of course..
These ones have been updated too:
Males (43%)
Clinton 48%
Obama 50%
Females (57%)
Clinton 55%
Obama 44%
So... that would make the totals:
51.99% Clinton
46.58% Obama
Code:Texas - Pres Votes - State Summary Select Party--------------DemGOP------------All Races
March 05, 2008 - 05:48AM ET (i) = incumbent = winner = runoff
President - Dem Primary
8231 of 8247 Precincts Reporting - 99%
Name Party Votes Vote %
Clinton, Hillary Dem 1,452,776 51%
Obama, Barack Dem 1,354,553 47%
President - Dem Caucus
2947 of 8247 Precincts Reporting - 36%
Name Party Votes Vote %
Obama, Barack Dem 20,209 52%
Clinton, Hillary Dem 18,689 48%
Delegate totals... Why after all this time is there so much discrepancy? Is it the way delegates from caucus states are or are not being counted?
ABC: Obama 1,555, Clinton 1,449
AP: Obama 1,477, Clinton 1,391
CBS: Obama 1,512, Clinton 1,423
CNN: Obama 1,451, Clinton 1,365
MSNBC: Obama 1,307, Clinton 1,175
I think there are estimations involved. Texas' caucus results won't be final until June, for example; I think I remember that there are other states with similar situations.
So not much good news when I woke up this morning. But one thing seems promising: CNN has TX primary results at 51/48 for Clinton with 99% reporting. That's within that 8% margin.
Doesn't look like we'll make that in OH, though (also 99% reporting). Depends somewhat on what that remaining 1% is, I guess.
Chris Redfern (for example) stipulated an 8% margin for BOTH, though. Would love to see him follow up.
Plus, according to CNN, Obama has about a 100-delegate lead. Would love to see that rumored superdelegate bloc (Brokaw's hint) sometime soon...
Butrflynet wrote:Delegate totals... Why after all this time is there so much discrepancy? Is it the way delegates from caucus states are or are not being counted?
ABC: Obama 1,555, Clinton 1,449
AP: Obama 1,477, Clinton 1,391
CBS: Obama 1,512, Clinton 1,423
CNN: Obama 1,451, Clinton 1,365
MSNBC: Obama 1,307, Clinton 1,175
Because of the super delegates. Obama will still have a better than 100 lead in pledged delegates going into Pa, I am guessing. And all the numbers crunchers say that Hillary, barring an Obama collapse, cannot possibly win in pledged delegates even winning EVERY state.
sozobe wrote:I think there are estimations involved. Texas' caucus results won't be final until June, for example; I think I remember that there are other states with similar situations.
So not much good news when I woke up this morning. But one thing seems promising: CNN has TX primary results at 51/48 for Clinton with 99% reporting. That's within that 8% margin.
Doesn't look like we'll make that in OH, though (also 99% reporting). Depends somewhat on what that remaining 1% is, I guess.
Chris Redfern (for example) stipulated an 8% margin for BOTH, though. Would love to see him follow up.
Plus, according to CNN, Obama has about a 100-delegate lead. Would love to see that rumored superdelegate bloc (Brokaw's hint) sometime soon...
Every time I think of the "super delegates," I see images of the scene in Best Little Whorehouse in Texas with the Governor doing the Texas Two step. Most SDs want to be on the winning side but who is to determine what the winning side is now? It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma...
Obama's still looking pretty good, winning-side-wise. He could still self-destruct of course, but it's pretty much his to lose.
I don't think superdelegates completely account for the discrepancies, though I agree that different agencies/ organizations count superdelegates differently, too. I think the pledged delegate counts are themselves different from each other though.
OK, so my big question -- I've looked but haven't come up with the answer yet, will keep looking after this -- do Ohio totals include early voting? Have all of those paper ballots been counted?
