Obama Adds More Delegates (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
The Associated Press reports that Barack Obama’s delegate lead over Hillary Clinton slightly increased today as Democrats in Iowa and California finalized their delegate counts.
After the Iowa caucuses, Obama originally claimed 16 delegates, Clinton 15, and Edwards 14. However, 9 Iowa delegates that were originally allocated to John Edwards switched to Obama during Saturday’s delegate selection process giving Obama a total of 25 delegates, Clinton 15, and Edwards 6.
California also finalized its delegate process. Clinton added 2 pledged delegates for a total of 204 delegates, while Obama added 5 for a total of 166.
Including the Iowa and California results, the AP showed Obama with 1,617 delegates and Clinton with 1,498.
UPDATE: Hillary Clinton won the Texas popular vote with 51% to Obama’s 47% but she trailed after the caucus when Obama received 23,918 delegates and Clinton 18,620. Now, the Clinton campaign has written a letter complaining about numerous caucus violations, and some are concerned that Hillary is trying to disenfranchise Democratic voters in Texas.
— DRJ
You know who this benefits, right?
.
.
Orville Redenbacher 😉
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/15/2008 @ 8:47 pmHeh. We’ve certainly eaten a lot of popcorn recently, and it looks like that’s only the beginning.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/15/2008 @ 8:59 pmI’m surprised the Edwards’ delegates aren’t required to choose someone now that he’s out. Is it possible for either Obama or Clinton to clinch before the convention?
What’s even funnier than the primaries are the meltdowns over at DKos. A bunch of Clinton supporters are protesting/boycotting/leaving because they’re being told that if they don’t support Obama it’s because they’re either racist or a Republican plant.
Funny how that works. 😉
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/15/2008 @ 9:10 pmI saw that report at a New York Times’ blog. More popcorn, please.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/15/2008 @ 10:12 pmteehee….
Trouble at Kos-town?
Apparently Santa got my letter afterall. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 3/15/2008 @ 10:22 pmIt is a little …….. satisfying.
Vermont Neighbor (c6313b) — 3/15/2008 @ 10:28 pmMy mother lives in Mexia (that’s pronounced Ma-hay-a), Texas and is a life long Democrat. Early the morning of the primaries, she went to the polls and voted for Hillary. Later that evening she went to her district caucus being held at the high school gym. She told me that a young man was standing outside the gym wearing an Obama pin and he asked her “who are you going to caucus for?” She, being the headstrong person she is told him “none of your business.” At that point the young man told her, and her friends that were with her, they would have to wait because the gym was full of people and they couldn’t go in yet until some people left (bear in mind, she is in her 80’s). When she was finally allowed in (after 20 minutes) she said there was no one in the gym but those caucusing for Obama, the gym was far from full so she didn’t understand the reason she had to wait and when she said that she was there to sign in for Hillary, they could not even find the Hillary sign in sheet.
Other reports were coming in primary night from Bexar County that the caucus packets were being grabbed up with Obama volunteers, that people were being asked to sign Obama sheets while at the polls and were told that would eliminate the need for them to attend the caucuses later that night and that some of the caucus packets given to Hillary workers had no green sign in sheets when opened at the caucus itself.
If Hillary is questioning the signatures of Obama caucus voters, she is doing nothing more than what Obama, himself, did in his first run for office. He had his worker bees challange the signatures on every petition for every other candidate and basically disallowed so many of them that he ran unopposed. Perhaps Hillary is just applying the “Chicago Way” rule to the Texas primary.
retire05 (62ad61) — 3/16/2008 @ 4:36 amI think Hillary has a valid objection to the Texas caucus. It was dominated by Obama supporters, and there were reports of “irregularities.”
The biggest problem for Hillary was how long it took to complete the caucuses. The reports were that mothers had to leave early to return home to care for their young children. Older people also left because of the late hour, as well as the in-your-face politics of the Obama supporters.
It seems likely that Hillary would have found more support in these demographics than young voters with few family obligations. Maybe Hillary could complain that the Texas Obama vote is made up of irresponsible parents.
Not that I care about Hillary’s problems, exactly.
Scott (3a402b) — 3/16/2008 @ 5:54 amUPDATE: Hillary Clinton won the Texas popular vote with 51% to Obama’s 47% but she trailed after the caucus when Obama received 23,918 delegates and Clinton 18,620.
Heather (7ec32b) — 3/16/2008 @ 6:39 amI suspect these were voters, not delegates.
Heather, if you can understand the Texas delegate system, please, feel free to explain it to the rest of the nation. It is archaic and not representative of the voters.
There were many, many irregularities reported on the night of the caucus. It should stand to reason that if the majority voted for Hillary, she should have taken the majority of delegates. She did not.
If I were Hillary I would contest the Texas caucus, big time.
retire05 (62ad61) — 3/16/2008 @ 6:58 amOlder people also left because of the late hour, as well as the in-your-face politics of the Obama supporters.
I wouldn’t get too up in arms about that. Older people are usually at a decided advantage because they are often retired and can spend all day mobilizing and making their voices heard. That is why public policy is generally so badly skewed towards them. If, for once, senior citizens were at a tactical disadvantage, I’m not going to cry over it.
JVW (85f15c) — 3/16/2008 @ 8:59 amHillary is just trying to undisenfranchise the Texas voters.
Caucuses, like superdelegates, are undemocratic. Like superdelegates, they are subject to manipulation.
If Democrats lose this election, and then get rid of superdelegates and caucuses, that will be one good thingtwo good things.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 3/16/2008 @ 11:53 amJust a question:
Another Drew (8018ee) — 3/16/2008 @ 1:05 pmDoes Hillary wish to be elected; or,
selected?
“It should stand to reason that if the majority voted for Hillary, she should have taken the majority of delegates. She did not.”
Not true. The “majority” result was reported as a state wide result. But in any state that is not “winner take all” but instead assigns delegates by voting district ( as many do ), one can ‘win’ a majority and not get a majority of delegates. This happens when you win by large majorities in a district but lose in a different district by a narrow margin. The “extra” votes you got in big wins were meaningless.
The same thing happens in the electoral college in the general election for President.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/16/2008 @ 1:12 pm