4.50pm. CNN calls Texas for Clinton. Her lead is back to 51-48 with 75 per cent reporting.
4.42pm. Still 50-48 in Texas with 69 per cent reporting, but the trend on raw figures is nudging gently back to Cllinton. We also have 5 per cent of the caucuses reporting with Obama leading 56-44; no idea what to make of this.
4.12pm. Only just noticed how great the New York Times’ graphical maps are. Run your pointer over Texas and note how a lot of the big counties in the Obama-voting cities have a very low count.
4.08pm. … and her lead his now back to 50-48 with 63 per cent reporting.
4.08pm. CNN analyst says most of Clinton’s strong areas in Texas are “in”; if Obama’s early 60-40 lead in Houston holds up, it will apparently be enough to put him ahead, although he stresses that won’t definitely happen.
4.02pm. Clinton has gained another point in Texas, leading 51-48 with 58 per cent reporting.
3.27pm. Been away from my post for a bit. Clinton has claimed victory in Ohio and is currently delivering a speech making it very clear she’s not about to withdraw. Clinton leads 50-48 in Texas with 46 per cent reporting.
2.46pm. Now 51 per cent of precincts in Ohio and Clinton’s lead has in fact widened a little, to 57-41.
2.33pm. Clinton has caught up with Obama in Texas with 20 per cent of precincts reporting: now 49-all. Her lead is only narrowing slightly in Ohio, now at 56-42 with 47 per cent reporting.
2.14pm. Clinton still leads 57-41 in Ohio with 35 per cent of precincts reporting. Talk in comments suggests a 50-50 result in Cleveland, which I gather was expected to be good for Obama.
2.08pm. Interviewee on Fox Radio notes that Rhode Island exit polls were way out, pointing to a close result when it has actually been a big win for Clinton.
1.50pm. 21 per cent of precincts in Ohio now reporting and Clinton’s earlier lead is almost intact – now 59-39. Texas count has edged up to 6 per cent and Obama’s earlier lead has steadily been whittled away, now down to 51-49.
1.36pm. Clinton still leads 60-38 in Ohio with 14 per cent of precincts reporting.
1.31pm. Claude in comments points out another factor in Ohio being the extension of voting in some counties where Obama is expected to do well.
1.28pm. CNN calls Rhode Island for Clinton, her first win since Super Tuesday.
1.28pm. Al in comments notes no precincts are in from the Ohio cities of Columbus and Cleveland, the former being an Obama-friendly college town.
1.23pm. Huckabee announcing withdrawal. Clinton leads 60-38 in Ohio with 6 per cent counted, but this is presumably with Clinton-friendly areas reporting.
1.10pm. Fox reports that Mike Huckabee has confirmed he will withdraw, but says there are “conflicting reports”.
1.04pm. Obama campaign reportedly feeling upbeat about Ohio, the bad weather having diminished the turnout from older Democrats who favour Clinton. Fox gives McCain a clean sweep of Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island.
1.03pm. McCain by all accounts now has enough delegates to secure the nomination.
1.01pm. Via Kevin Rennie, an explanation of the Texas system from New Republic.
12.45pm. I’ve had my eye off the ball for the last 45 minutes. Obama has an early 56-44 lead in Texas, but these are big city precincts where he is expected to do well. I’m not going to pretend to be on top of the Texan primaries-plus-caucuses system: perhaps somebody who is can provide a brief explanation in comments.
11.55am. Exit polls point to a “tight race” in Rhode Island.
11.40am. CBS News reporting a very high turnout by Hispanics in Texas and low turnout of African-Americans, boding well for Clinton.
11.30am (Australian EST). Polls have just closed in Ohio, and Fox News has immediately called Ohio for John McCain but predicted a close result between Clinton and Obama. Vermont is being called for Obama and McCain.
1,628 comments on “Texas and Ohio live”
Sorry, EC @ 1591. 1597 applies.
EC @ 1596 – I love that! That would even make KR LOL I reckon.
Warm greetings to my very good friends and fellow Obama supporters; cool regards to the Clintonistas, and a narrow-eyed gruff nod to the McCain clique.
I see in my absence there have been keen debates.
And at last we discover who Rain’s “better half”, or her “hub” is – Mathew Cole!
And where does this Rochester-based couple get all that balderdash they have been posting?
In other news, my conservative and aged mother, who has never voted for anyone but Menzies all her life, tells me she would like to see Mr Obama win! And not a prosyletising word from me beforehand, either. She thinks he might make the world a bit safer. Silly old dear. But then, when you think about it …
… It’s all been a bucket on Obama today from the Clinton supporters. Getting back to the real issues, why do you think Mrs Clinton can make the world safer than Mr Obama? I’m thinking Iraq; Middle East …Hmmm?? Perhaps you would have to admit that Obama has just the tiniest bit better chance to make progress on that front after 20 years of Bush/Clinton failure? C’mom Mathew & Rain, give me both barrels!
GG, here’s my Clinton anthem: http://www.amazon.com/When-Will-Last-Time-Dreams/dp/B000SH1RQ6.
Mainly for the title, but good for the college-rock cred as a youthful wide-eyed Obama supporter.
President George W. Bush commented on Sen. Hillary Clinton’s controversial “red phone” campaign ads at the White House today, telling reporters, “When that red phone rings, I just let it go straight to voicemail.”
“If I answered the red phone every time it rang, I would never get any sleep,” Bush said. “Sometimes it starts ringing at 9 p.m., and I am already tucked in by then.”
Hey, Viggo, fargeddaboudit!
Yeah, jv, Kirri’s such a LOLly dolly:)
It was layed out pure and simple on Southpark tonight. Terrorists snuck a briefcase nuke up Hillary Rodham Clinton’s snatch. This item is also known as a snuke, How could any of you support a candidate who helps terrorists.
As HRC said…. “Oh Dear”
Sorry, I thought Rod Stewart was a Libertarian, then I looked again the word was licentious. Are they the same thing?
EC from your link:
‘Campaigning in Pittsburgh, former President Bill Clinton took issue with Bush’s remarks, telling reporters, “When I get a call at 3 a.m., I always pick up, if you know what I mean.”’
I think he means ‘I have always picked up’.
“And to the feminists who will undoubtedly complain about my previous post,”
Not me, Cupcake.
and in the immortal words of Coen brothers ‘I’m bonafied’.
Thoroughly agree with Maureen Dowd’s position (can’t find the link.).
George goes to voice mail ,Bill picked up whoever was in the other end, and Hillary’s sleeping babe wants Obama to protect her instead. This is so much fun!
Indeed, zedder, ’twas the Season of the Snark on South Park tonight. Languidly sprawled acroos the sofa, my Minister for War was watching. She opined that it was a bit over the top.
Far too shifty to take the bait, one replied; “yes, dear.”
(But she doesn’t know those boys like I do. They’re equal opportunity sledgers. You can bet Chef’s big chocolate balls that The Kid will cop a serve just as savage in an episode not too far away.)
And then her Exocet struck with with devastating precicion:
“Anybody wrong out there on the internet tonight, sweetheart?”
It’s a hard school, but I like it that way:)
McCain will bomb whoever it is on the line, presumably. Or whatever.
Possum @1595, oh gallivanting one, ‘handbags’ & for that matter handgags be f*cked; we have been ‘shocked & awed’ by the Monica Lewinsky’s X-Boyfriend’s Wife for President Jackboot Klub and their terrorist charity front organizations. (OKA the ALP?)
Where’s Ruddock when ‘we’ need him?
Galloped on by the Horse, inundated by the Wet Ones and their suspect strappers and attendant rising damp…& still no sign of the Terminator, Mr Bowe…
#2: Hey H, yeah you, Plus 1, wanna be my #2?
Plus1: It’s not yours to give…
#2: Hey Silly Willy bring it over here; what’s he mean?
Silly Willy: The Horse @ PB says H can’t win in November
#2: Oh; Hey H, last chance, you wanna be my #2?……..
Graph please Poss.
“With his popularity at only 7% Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson can no longer count on his own support and is secretly planning to stab himself in the back when he least expects it.”
LOL…those Good News Week guys make me laugh almost as much as you do EC.
I must ask, why all the carry-on in her support today when Mrs Clinton has the devil’s own job of securing a sufficiency in the delegate department?
Currently the pledged delegates stand at: 1368 Obama vs 1226 Clinton
Her winning strategy? Apparently: persuading super delegates supporting Obama between now and the Convention that they should jump ship to her; try really hard in the remaining primaries; damage Obama as much as possible with buckets of slop. Will this do it for her? I can’t see it. So , you may as well get with the Obama strength, Clintonistas.
jv, I think it was cos your cult-like delusion didn’t allow you to see the truth.
Yep, she probably won’t win. And I don’t even want her to, on the whole.
But the thing is, she could win. Unlikely as a HRC win may be, Obama hasn’t got it locked up – yet.
Pancho @ 1616 – That’s right, the cult is doing my head in. I’ll have to take some more 15 y.o. wives and drink some more Waco water to clear my head 🙂
In the words of Col Jessop in ‘A Few Good Men’:
“You want answers?”
[“I want the truth!”]
“You can’t handle the truth!”
And the new truth appears to be that 1226 is bigger than 1368.
Dyno @ 1617 – have you mucked around with the Forbes calculator that R Bollard linked to the other day? Whatever skewed %s for Clinton you put in, there is no way she can win a majority of pledged delegates with the remaining primaries. She has to be 90-100 behind at least.
The only other possibility would be a sudden outburst of anti-Obamaraism from Gore, Kennedy, Edwards et al and a decsion by the DNC to pressgang the supers in to voting for Clinton. And does that look likely on current indications?
No, and the trend of the supers is all Obama’s way.
In case you missed it yesterday the Democrats thrashed the Repugs in a by election in a safe Repug seat.
The Votemaster also goes on exploring the theory “Is an Experienced President a Good President?” You can download the data and come up with your own answer.
Mon. March 10:
Sun Mar 9:
“They have a hunting season on the rabbit
If you shoot him, boy, you go to jail
But the season is always open on men
Don’t nobody need no bail
Down in Mississippi
Down in Mississippi where I come from
Down in Mississippi where I belong…”
Tomorrow’s Primary will be open season on 33 Dem delegates in MS, Dixie, USA.
6 SDs will remain on hold.
An Obi/HRC split of 20/13 would be a nice little 7-net for The Kid.
If we crack enough corn and pick enough cotton and keep buildin’ Dem levee banks mighty strong ‘n’ all, maybe Big Boss Man will break out a fresh thread fo’ us uppity “cultists”.
*pretty please with sugar on top*
Everything “on the internet” is doing just fine. Gonna make a clean break.
Having been called away on various domestic duties I’ve just briefly surveyed the last pages and what has stood out amongst the predictable snark has been the outing of Rain and Monsieur Cole as Agent Provocateurs from the real world (ie where people get to actually vote for these jokers) – hardened septic Clintonistas posing as neutral innocents abroad in order to confound an obscure group of Aussie psephological groupies. Ptuii to them I say. Get a real job!!
Otherwise there was some cynical wisdom from the Possum who understands that Obama isn’t the messiah and the fact that Clinton is a VERY naughty girl doesn’t make him one.
I accept this, but I think old (or young) Poss should take a geek at this article from the more sensible reaches of the American far left. The cynicism is there, but there’s also an appreciation of what the Obama phenomenon represents, and (justn as importantly) what Clintonism represents.
Probably been linked already – he is a pretty good peformer.
Barack Obama: If the Red Phone Rings, Call Me NOT Hillary
“And–though you would never know it to judge from the candidates or the media that cover them–Obama and Clinton together share more in common with their Republican counterparts in Washington than they do with the millions of people who hope a Democratic president will do something to change the status quo.”
Mr Bollard, spare us the socialist worker rubbish. 😉
Possum @ 1594
Couldn’t agree more that Obama is a professional politician. As a supporter, that fact makes me a little less nervous about the match-up with McCain and the (potentially deadly) ultra-liberal tag.
A Clinton supporter put this link in somewhere above, to Obama’s 2003 website when he was running in the primary for his current Senate seat: http://web.archive.org/web/20030816155957/www.obamaforillinois.com/index.shtml.
At least a couple of things jumped out that provide a bit of a back story for the inevitable tack back to the centre if (which I think likely but not guaranteed) he wins the nomination.
One is the bit in his bio (there are other references) boasting that he “co-sponsored legislation that expands innovation through charter schools, increases accountability for all school districts, improves the recruitment, training and retention of a highly skilled teaching corps, and limits tuition increases and maintains scholarships to make higher education more accessible”.
Although teacher’s unions are quite sceptical about charter schools usually (not sure what happened in this case) it’s arguably the sort of progressive yet market-orientated stance that fits well with his message to independents, that he will bring people together across the aisle.
The same goes for the several references along the lines of “Demanding Accountability. Obama was the chief sponsor of legislation that creates a Hospital Report Card to guide consumers on issues from infection rates to nurse-patient ratios. He was also the chief sponsor of the Truth in Hospital Billing and Finances Act.” This ties in with his current health care plan, which is sold as less prescriptive, more market-friendly, a bit more centrist than Clinton’s. Maybe a bit of a theme developing? I notice he is now talking about “infrastructure” and “productivity” too.
One of the impressive things about his candidacy is his ability to lock up huge slabs of the base liberal vote without actually giving too much away that McCain can beat him up with (though there have been some things and the 100% liberal rating last year wasn’t a good look even if there weren’t many substantive issues he differed from Clinton on). Even on the Iraq war his statements between the invasion and the end of 2006 display a clear desire not to alienate voters who initially backed it, and to maintain some room to move. See also this quote from the 2003 website: “Obama will encourage the government to once again seriously consider joining, among other things, the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and the International Criminal Court”. “Encourage”? “Seriously consider”? He may have gotten harder on these things since, but he is clearly a man that understands political sensitivities in the centre ground.
He has to be careful for now though. As people here have noted, at least one of those academic economists who apparently dominate his domestic policy team has already hurt him by exposing his NAFTA beliefs as somewhat more nuanced than Ohio primary voters may have guessed (helpfully assisted by Harper’s Chief of Staff it seems – watch for the revenge when Harper goes to the polls next, if Obama wins). And another academic advisor had to resign after making the obvious point that Obama’s Iraq decisions will ultimately be guided, at least in part, by conditions on the ground. They need to wrap Clinton up before they start spreading these sorts of things around, or at least they need to do it a bit smarter, as I am sure they recognise.
New thread up (finally).
Comments are closed.