If memory server, Obama is supposed to carry both states quite handily is he not?
Not quite.
Wisconsin was a Clinton-supporting state up until February 8th. At that point it flipped to Obama and now the polls show Obama with a lead of 47% to 42% in the state. Obama should win but it won't be a blowout I don't think.
Obama is a native of Hawaii so I believe he should carry that state quite handily, however.
__________________
Huge thanks to Dion for the signature!
The thing to remember is that it isn't winner take all. Obama doesn't have to WIN Texas and Ohio if he's already got a lead, he needs to challenge. I can't believe a state as red as texas is going play such a huge role in deciding the democratic nominee.
It's still one headache after another right now for Hillary camp. The press is pressing (ha!) Chelsea Clinton to talk to the reporters. It's ridiculous how she wants to publicly endorse her mom but not defend her moms platform in front of reporters. Of course Hillary thinks this is all just an outrage...
THis all comes down to Texas and (ironically) Ohio on March 5th. Can Obama make some traction in Texas???
Last four polls in Texas:
InsiderAdvantage (Feb. 14)
Clinton 48%
Obama 41%
Rasmussen Reports (Feb. 14)
Clinton 54%
Obama 38%
American Research Group (Feb. 13-14)
Obama 48%
Clinton 42%
Texas Credit Union League (Feb. 11-13)
Clinton 49%
Obama 41%
Obama is close in Texas... even leading in one poll. He has come a long ways in the state. He might yet win it depending on the results on Tuesday and the campaign run up to March 4th. It will be interesting.
__________________
Huge thanks to Dion for the signature!
There are currently 395 superdelegates who have pledged their support. In total there are 795 superdelegates so there are exactly 400 undecided.
And of course some of the superdelegates could still change their minds, as the votes aren't actually cast yet. It's unlikely that the superdelegates would dare to go very much agaist the will of the voters, so if Obama wins in normal delegates with some margin, most superdelegates will propably go that way too.
And of course some of the superdelegates could still change their minds, as the votes aren't actually cast yet. It's unlikely that the superdelegates would dare to go very much agaist the will of the voters, so if Obama wins in normal delegates with some margin, most superdelegates will propably go that way too.
actually i saw an interview that the Daily Show or Colbert Report (can't remember which) had with a Democratic super delegate and he said that the democratic party has no desire to make the nomination a smoke filled room decision, and has instructed it's members to back the popular vote winner 100%
And of course some of the superdelegates could still change their minds, as the votes aren't actually cast yet. It's unlikely that the superdelegates would dare to go very much agaist the will of the voters, so if Obama wins in normal delegates with some margin, most superdelegates will propably go that way too.
I wouldn't count on it. While most regular voters can be swayed by the likability factor or the ideals expressed by the candidate, the super delegates will be more subject to deals and favors promised and given. Back room, cigar smoking party hacks may very well decide the Democratic nominee and cause a backlash.
I wouldn't count on it. While most regular voters can be swayed by the likability factor or the ideals expressed by the candidate, the super delegates will be more subject to deals and favors promised and given. Back room, cigar smoking party hacks may very well decide the Democratic nominee and cause a backlash.
Actually the superdelegates are propably mostly interested in winning the election, and picking the more popular candidate (and avoiding that backlash) just makes more sense. Taking the "all for the popular winner" route also neatly absolves the individual superdelegates from looking like turncoats.
Actually the superdelegates are propably mostly interested in winning the election, and picking the more popular candidate (and avoiding that backlash) just makes more sense. Taking the "all for the popular winner" route also neatly absolves the individual superdelegates from looking like turncoats.
I hope you're right but if politics took the high road and made sense, the world wouldn't have had Bush in charge for not one but unbelievably two terms.
I hope you're right but if politics took the high road and made sense, the world wouldn't have had Bush in charge for not one but unbelievably two terms.
there's a big difference though in campaign tactics for a presidential election vs a primary. as much as Clinton and Obama are fighting each other, they both work for the same side. and with McCain the clear republican nominee the Democratic party wants to get this over with so they can concentrate on the big election. i have no doubt they'll instruct all their superdelegates to back the public vote winner simply so they'll have a better shot at beating McCain
actually i saw an interview that the Daily Show or Colbert Report (can't remember which) had with a Democratic super delegate and he said that the democratic party has no desire to make the nomination a smoke filled room decision, and has instructed it's members to back the popular vote winner 100%
Isn't making that declaration a decision made in a back room?
Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008
