Obama Website Claims He Won Nevada and Texas

LMAO….isn’t this what they call “fuzzy math”?

The website doesn’t claim that he won those states. It merely highlights them on a map. Given the high level of support Senator Obama received in those 2 states AND given the fact that he won more delegates in each of those two states than Senator Clinton, he is right to highlight them on his map. She should highlight them on her map too.

How much honesty can one expect from a friend of Rezko?

The whole superdelegate system is nonsense. It is set up so that nobody can ever win a competitive contest without the superdelegates. Right now the superdelegates are 20% of the total delegates. So in order to get to 2025 delegates without the supers, a candidate will have to win 2025 out of 3200 delegates, or approximately 66% of the pledged delegates. This is deeply undemocratic. Whoever wins more than 50% of the pledged delegates should win the nomination.
Ideally, the delegate count should be replaced by the national popular vote count.

that is why Obama will lose in November, think what Obama has been winning, red states like Alaska, then caucus even he certainly defeated in primaries, will the general election count in the caucus results? maybe Obama’s supporters can submit a law suit to get them counted. LOL.

Why support any party that have rules such as the democrats after this race I will beome independent.

Politics of the new?? NOPE! Spin machine 101! If you want to tell over 125000 people in Nevada and Texas that Obama won and their votes don’t mean anything then go ahead and see how they feel. When you win the popular vote of a state by 100000 votes or almost 4% that is winning I’m sorry that is a fact. I don’t care how our system divies up delegates its a win and by a large margin.

So why isn’t Obama telling these caucus delegates to follow the “will of the people”???????????????????? You know, like what he says about Superdelegates.

Facts, or the rules of the game don’t seem to matter. The only thing that apprently matters is that Political Punch finds a hook into any piece that has the potential of defeating Obama. I’ll admit that the Obama campaign has made it pretty easy this week. But I want coverage on McCain as well as Obama and Clinton. Enough. Start reporting. On all three candidates. Equally.

Popular vote = delegates. The problem some people seem to be having is recognizing that not all delegates are awarded at the State level. Yes, Clinton won an extra delegate for NV statewide vote, but Obama won more by winning the popular vote in more Congressional Districts. Hey, those are the rules.
You can’t just win the big cities and call yourself a winner. You’ve got to appeal the the entire State. You can’t just win the big States and call youself a winner. You’ve got to appeal to the entire Country.

Actually, Obama’s web page, which includes a table for all states shows Texas twice all other states are shown once.
The first is Texas Primary and his website shows the Clinton Won Texas Primary.
The second is Texas Caucus and the website shows that Obama won the caucus.

Obama used to say that if he won the popular vote then he should get the nomination. But now, he’s changed his tune, claming that if he wins the delegates then he should get the nomination. Can you say flipflopper?

I want to know :
Why Obama always win the caucus states and lose the primary state?
As I know causes voters send their votes through mail.
Is there something wrong??

Obama always win on caucus states.
As I know causus states voters send their votes through mail.
Could it be something wrong??

sure, sure, he won the delegates, just like bush, but lost the popular votes. what a nice coincidence.

For the popular vote in Texas, add the Primary results to the Caucus results, and Obama will come out ahead. So I agree, that Obama will win Texas, with both the popular vote win and the delegate win.

Well, seems like a win is a win is a win.
And, of course, Hillary never acknowledges her losses.
So what?!?

Hey Libyan President is supporting Obama and Clinton because he wants change in US to follow libya!

Why does Obama win caucus states and not primaries?
Easy.
He wants 75,000 votes, in a two hour window of public confusion, during work days, to decide the fate of a state with 30,000,000. He loves it. He hates Primaries cause they have all day to do the voting and he gets his butt kicked in every big Blue State but his own.
And before you say, Illinois counts. So did Minnesota for Wally Mondale, but it was still a landslide for Regan.
He has not intention of wanting every voter to cast their vote. He wants intimidation in public rooms. He wants confusion and process – that is how he eliminated Alice Palmer from running against him despite being a seasoned AA Civil Servent. He used process and manipulation to deprive her of her spot on the ballot so he could win uncontested. He is deceitful, dishonest, and without respect for anyone who came before him. Not even Alice, who was an AA. No one gets in his way to ambition and power. Not even Truth, apparently, should get in his way.
He will fight to make Florida a caucus and Michigan too. He knows if everyone has a fair chance to vote he loses in a Blue State.
Even in Ohio – notice he only fought to keep black precincts open in Cuyahoga? All the county was under a freeze warning – but he only requested the high black population centers to be kept open. And that’s not racism?
rubbish.

Neither candidates will seal 2025 delegates before convention. It will be up to super delegates to decide who will be the best candidate to hold blue states and sweep Ohio/Florida to beat McCain… Do not ever think about to take red states aways from Rep, it is impossible for both Dems’s candidates…

Allen: A joy to read that Obama won popular vote, a nice try, but everyone else (probably including Obama himself) knows he was defeated in popular vote.

Folks, here’s an important thing on Michigan & Florida nobody seems to focus on.
If Florida and Michigan re-vote, the magic number jumps from 2025 to right around 2207…
In other words, Hillary Clinton might gain some pledged delegates, but not by orders of magnitude.

Another thing to remember the popular vote in Texas and Ohio does matter when it comes to the superdelagates, because they themselves are elected officials and if they go against the popular vote in their district so the popular vote will matter.

It’s the mathematics of hope. There is only one analytical judgement that can be deduced from this, about the Obama Campaign: “Liars, liars, pants on fire.”

“Obama officially lost both states, and lost the popular vote in both states, though he won one more delegate than Clinton in Nevada. ”
Wrong. Ever hear of the Texas two step?
You in the MSM are truly uninformed.

That is what I want to know what ever happened to the famous “the will of the people line” ???

from a Chicago Tribune article
“The day after New Year’s 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.
There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.”

Spock,
I do know how the Electoral College works. I was using sarcasm to make the point that this blog posting seems to come across especially biased. I believe that if Jake wanted to start a conversation among blog posters that would not totally descend into an Obama is totally trying to steal this, no Clinton is debate; he could have done so. He could have asked some of the questions I think he is trying to raise better.
Such as asking, should a victory be considered by total votes or total delegates? Is it a Pyrrhic victory to tear down your opponent to win the popular vote but still lose the delegates? There are other ways this could blog posting could have been done to start a conversation rather then having it as a piece that seems to slant as a bash against Obama. Perhaps Jake meant to bring these questions to the forefront, but I believe that I and many other posters disagree.
And I believe it was false to say that Obama is highlighting Texas when he has diagnoal lines going across showing that they both one. Perhaps the counting isn’t done from Caucuses, but he is leading in delegates. Plus the campaigns had their own teams on the ground and you can trust that they know approximately how many delegates they are getting from the each precinct in Texas even if they’re not yet official.
I merely wanted to make the point, what does officially lost mean? Is it votes or is it delegates. As you pointed out for me, in the Electoral College it is Electors and I would say the same holds true for the primaries, it is delegates.

If we were honest we would admit that the Obama campaign is coming apart under the tiniest pressure. I have seen blogs all over the place today trying to sling mud at Hillary with things that have been vetted and proven untrue months to years ago and beyond. I have seen all the whining about the “negative” campaign tactics of the Clinton campaign to win Ohio and Texas. So, the 3am phone call ad could have been done a tad more gently, but I would hardly call it negative. The rest of the issues? the Obama campaign did that to themselves. Now the Obama campaign tries to rile up their supporters by claiming false victories and sending their surrogates out into the blogosphere to argue ad nauseum with false information. The truth is that neither one of them will go into the convention with enough delegates to win. The reason the popular vote is so important is that the delegate distribution system, being as convoluted as it is, does not always reflect the will of the people, same thing for the caucuses. I dont know about you but I fail to see the fairness of an election that puts me in a room with ummm lets say my boss or worse my wife and asks me to publicly disagree with their choice. There is a reason that voting booths have curtains. The bottom line for me is that I am a Democrat, do I have a preference as to who I would like to see as the candidate, well yes I do and that preference is Hillary Clinton, and I will do all in my power to make that happen. If, however, it is not her name next to the D on election day, I will still pull the lever because any Democrat is better than the other choice. I think that is somethng we must all consider would we rather be paid attention to by a Democrat or have our mutual ideas and concerns ignored for another 4 years by a Republican?

He won the delegates in Nevada by winning in the rural areas. I think that graphic is really a smart way to rally your supporters. Look at how her colors are very pale and his are dark, Michigan and Florida are neutral. He’s allowed to have a bias on his map. I think his graphic designers are very skilled, very clever.

Today, in Wall Street Journal’s editorial:
“If the Clintons continue to keep his and her finances under wraps, the public would be wise, given their history, to assume they have something to hide.”

From what I know, the democratic candidate for president will be the one with the most delegates, not the one who wins the popular vote. By this measure, why shouldn’t Obama claim victory in these states? The media does not seem to get this. I do not recall the media declaring Al Gore the winner of the 2000 presidential race, much to my dismay, simply because he won the popular vote. Maybe it should be that way, but until the system is changed, rules are rules.

For those “haters” that are having a hard time keeping up with the “rules”….delegates are what determines the winner, NOT popular vote. Obama got the most delegates in Nevada, which means that he won Nevada, and as of right now, delegate numbers in Texas are tied, with the Caucus numbers heavily favoring Obama, so yes, he has won Texas. As soon as the numbers are officially released, he will be the Texas winner. So, there are no untruths in the statement that he won Nevada and Texas as long as you understand the rules. Some of you obviously don’t.

American Research Group has Barack Obama with a phenomenal lead in its first poll of the primary landscape:
Barack Obama 58%
Hillary Clinton 34%

Someone’s math is “fuzzy”. Obama does indeed come out on top with the popular vote, folks, at 13,000,655 and Clinton at 12,411,705. You can’t count Florida and Michigan. Obama didn’t even appear on our ballot in Michigan, causing many folks not to even show up at the polls and a RECORD number of people (me included) voting uncommitted rather than for Hillary. So, folks, Obama is on top with both the popular and the delegate count.

Let’s rap some things up.
1) Most of the “Big States” Clinton has won are not battleground states in the fall. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California are solid blue states where Obama would do as well or better than Clinton in a general election against McCain.
2) Of the states she’s won so far, the big exception to this rule is Ohio. Ohio is in fact a critical battleground state where Hillary has demonstrated that she has a leg up among lower income whites and older voters. But the polling also shows that in a general election, Barack offsets this advantage in Ohio among young voters and college-educated independents. In a McCain-Clinton match up the later group could gravitate heavily to McCain in Ohio.
In an Ohio general election, Obama’s ability to attract independents and mobilize young and minority voters will trump Clinton’s advantages among non-college whites — a group that will break heavily for either Barack or Hillary against the “free trade” McCain.
Just remember, in Ohio right now, “national security” is a job. The economy and trade — not “national security” — will almost certainly continue to be the overriding issues for non-college whites in Ohio this November.
3) Obama puts in play a panoply of states where Clinton would have a much tougher time. Obama could potentially win Virginia (13 electoral votes), Missouri (11 electoral votes) and even Mississippi (whose population is 40% African American — 6 electoral votes). He would be considerably more competitive than Clinton in other battleground states like Colorado (9 electoral votes), Iowa (7 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes). The same goes for New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) — a state where McCain will work hard to woo independents among whom Obama did much better than Clinton in this year’s primary.
4) Even in states where Clinton could make a case for some advantages relative to Obama, these “advantages” are far from certain. Take Florida where she might assert an advantage among Latinos. Florida also has up to 500,000 newly enfranchised ex-felons — many of whom are African American. The problem with these new voters is mobilization, not persuasion. Getting them registered and voting will be hard. Obama would obviously turn out many more African American mobilizable voters than Clinton. And when it comes to Latino voters, Obama’s clear record on immigration contrasts well with McCain who has thrown Latino immigration reform aspirations under the bus in order to pander to his party’s right wing.
5) Obama has the one quality that allows him to simultaneously motivate mobilizable base voters and appeal to persuadable independents — the ability to inspire. This quality allows him to broaden the appeal of his candidacy to swing voters. At the same time it allows him to expand the electorate with new young and African American voters who otherwise simply wouldn’t vote. Clinton is the anti-inspiration candidate. She will have a much harder time both expanding the electorate and appealing to swing voters. Obama’s ability to inspire — by itself — makes him a much stronger general election candidate.
6) Finally, let’s remember that the base of the Republican Party — cultural conservatives — is not so wild about McCain. They are accepting McCain with about as much enthusiasm as children take cough medicine. They know they need him, but they really aren’t happy about it. The one thing that could energize the Republican base is their inveterate hatred for Hillary Clinton. Clinton would mobilize right-wing base voters the same way that hatred for Bush motivated Democrats in 2006. Why should we help galvanize the Republican base by nominating Hillary Clinton when we have another great choice?

Clinton won the primary PORTION of the Tuesday election. But she lost the caucus PORTION of the election by a much more significant amount.
That’s a net gain in delegates for Obama in Texas, so he won Texas.
If the popular vote is all that matters, please put Al Gore back in the White House.

O – Yikes, that answer is:
The residents of Mississippi are Americans.
BTW, I hope that will learn you a lesson.

However, I do support Barack Obama!

What I find weird is that you’re making an issue out of it. We can debate the definition of “won”, as it applies to winning the Democratic nomination (that is the prize, isn’t it?), all day long, but Obama still won the only thing that matters.
No, what’s really weird is that you have a job with a major news organization and have nothing better to write about. What’s really weird is that you don’t consider Obama increasing his lead a win. What’s really weird is that, by your logic, you apparently think that Al Gore won the presidency in 2000, simply because he won the popular vote.
Poor ABC.

That’s so sad…I feel sorry for them.

“He won 98 to 95 in total delegates thru the ‘prima-caucus’. And he is projected to be ahead in the popular vote overall thru BOTH contests by about 7,600 votes…..so yeah, he won Texas but Nevada was a mixed bag. ”
If you know the people who voted in Caucuses are among the same people who voted in earlier primary, you understand Obama didn’t win more popular votes even if he won some people’s second votes in caucues.

this is for all the brilliant people out there who dont realize that texas has a two part election. that is why everyone was talking about the texas-two step & how confusing it is. when all is said & done barack would have won texas…as for rezko – check out everyone who is indicted & you’ll see MANY of the clintons’ friends/donors & also mccain’s who are friends w/rezko. we’re still waiting for so many documents/papers to be released by the clintons but they have mysteriously disappeared, waiting for the irs/whitehouse or just blatantly stated not for public record. i for one am tired of the excuses & would really appreciate a change in our country. also, nafta turns out clinton’s playing the wink-wink game not obama – the canadian government has not come to her defense…mmmmm

FYI, though Clinton has talked about how she won on Tuesday, breaking his momentum etc etc, Obama has actually WIDENED his delegate lead over her since before Tuesday’s contests.
This includes the Texas caucus, final counts in California, and the superdelagate endorsements he’s received this week.
If the media still wants to talk about how “Clinton’s back” I think it’s perfectly fair for Obama – on his OWN website – to acknowledge that the victories that count are still his.

Whats the big deal, it’s his web site and he did win more delegates, atleast he didn’t go there and give victory speeches like mrs. wonderful did in fla.
as a professional, i am really surprised that you would even make this an issue, did you not have alot of toys as a kid?

Well, what seems really odd is that the media has programmed us to give wins to whomever gets the popular vote, while we all know that it is delegates that matter. Hence, all of the incessant chatter about delegates and superdelegates, and the oh so elusive number of DELEGATES necessary to win the nomination.
Obama got more delegates in Nevada hence the lit up state.
Obama is likely to get the popular vote AND more delegates in Texas, hence the WIN and lit-up state. Looks like he will come out of the caucus with 37 additional delegates to her 30.
You can go here to see the caucus numbers:
http://precinctconventionresults.txdemocrats.org/election08district
and here to look at the Texas math:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/7/11339/50182?detail=f
Cheers.

Let’s do a little math (Primary vote totals from ABC News):
TX Primary Result
Clinton 1,459,814
Obama 1,358,785
TX Caucus Result
Not formally tabulated but if we derive from the available totals we have good approximate numbers
Clinton 440,000
Obama 560,000
Grand Popular Vote Totals (Primary + Caucus)
Clinton 1,469,814 + 440,000 = 1,909,814
Obama 1,358,785 + 560,000 = 1,918,785
Yippieeeeee!

and, i love texas, you “derive” caucus numbers that do not exist. looks like you just multiplied the current percentages, based on less than half the caucuses, by 1,000. more fuzzy math. actually, that’s too generous. just plain made up numbers.

This is another example of Obama’s deceit and the wool pulled over the eyes of his supporters. He has lied as often as it suits him, and behind closed doors his officials tell the truth to foreign governments that Obama’s public stances are just “political positioning” (i.e. lies to fool the public into supporting him), and not “a clear articulation of policy plans” (i.e. something he will actually do). This in itself is incredibly troubling, exposing the duality of Obama as someone that would lie and cheat to get himself elected. Now his “positive message” means even lying to his own supporters, fooling them that he won Texas and Nevada when he did not.

I had a dream or was it a just another failed desire for all political leaders to be honest with us [the tired and poor] Excuse me it should read the homeless, broke, abused, and ripped off American citizen. It’s time to put a woman in charge men! I can guarantee your wife or girl friend will treat you much better if you do. Anyway it’s worth a try! If anything goes wrong we can blame it on them. VOTE HILLARY!!!!

The winner should be decided by the one with the most pledged delegates. Here’s why:
1) The strongest argument is that the candidate with the most total delegates wins the contest. The nomination contest is a contest for delegates, not popular votes.
2) Texas has a primary and a caucus. What’s sent is the “Texas delegation” and therefore, the only objective evaluation by delegate.
3) One might argue that Superdelegates should be counted as part of the delegation, and therefore the winner of the state is the total of pledged + super delegates. However, as many remain uncommitted, and since even the committed ones may change their mind at an time, there isn’t any reasonable way of adding them in at this juncture.

Obama, and apparently his supporters in this comments section, cannot have it both ways, or is it three ways; it’s hard to tell with his campaign anymore. He has tried lately to make the claim that the will of the people shoulod be followed in determining who wins the nomination, meaning the nominee with the most pledged delegates should be thw winner, regardless of the superdelegates votes (or the superdelegates should automatically vote along the lines of the pledged delegates). He then takes the position that the number of delegates awarded more accurately reflects the will of the people in a given state than the popular vote of that state, which is ludicrous. Yes, it is the rule, but so is it a rule that Superdelegates can vote anyway they see fit, and it is just as legitimate as more pledged delegates being awarded to the candidate that lost the popular vote. I’m sure if, in the end, he has more pledged delegates than Hilalry, but she has more of the popular vote, which is still quite possible beleive it or not, he will say that the delegates reprsent the will of the people, while were it to be the other way around, which does not seem possible at this point, he would say the opposite. Okay how many positions is that? 2? 3? 4? I’m sure there will be more….

As an fyi, Obama has more delegates in Nevada and will pass Clinton in Texas.
Only the delegates matter. Therefore, Obama won both Nevada and Texas. This is not difficult to comprehend.
The thing that is ‘weird’ is that neither you nor the majority of the ‘MSM’ has chosen to report on this yet, most-likely because it hurts Clinton’s ‘comeback’ storyline that is so currently in vogue, and it might suggest to Clinton supporters that your reporting, though factual, has a decidedly pro-Obama slant.

Go Hillary…experience, real solutions to real problems not empty rhetoric smoke and mirrors.

Winning more delegates = winning the state. Those are the democratic party rules.
I agree with the Obama campaign. It’s inaccurate to report Clinton as the winner of a state she _hasn’t_ won.
If you don’t understand this, then check the constitution. The delegate system is similar to the electoral college, which also allocates votes in points, rather than as a popular tally.

I live in England. I turned on ‘Larry King Live’ this morning and almost choked on my cornflakes when I heard the disgusting comments made by Kellyanne Conway about ‘Obama getting on the back of the bus’.
Is that the voice of the Republican Party? If so the USA can keep John McCain. Europe loves Obama and we want Obama to be the next President of the USA.
Kellyanne Conway represents all that is wrong with the Republican Party. She should never appear on Larry King Live again. Conway should apologise to the world for the offence she has caused. Her comments were ugly – very ugly.
I think you should demand an apology and an explanation from Conway and CNN. ‘Larry King Live’ should not be made in to a platform where bigots can express their hateful views without being challenged.
Thank you.

I think Hillary’s resume has promise but she’s not quite ready to be president.
I want someone with a history of commitment to serving others. Someone who chose a path of service, not a path of self service. Clinton is doing well, in the beginning stages of her political career. Let’s see how she evolves.

To all of you who are assuming that some states are 100% blue or a 100% red, forget it! One of the most exciting achievements of Sen. Obama, whether his enemies like it or not, is that he has been able to defy partisanship, to build a bridge between Independents, Republicans and Democrats. That is where his strength lays, in the support of the people not of a particular party. You may notice that almost no independent or republican will waste his/her vote for HRC because all she preaches is hate, ‘hate one another’ is her motto. How can we ever survived as a country with such approach?

Obama will win Texas when the delegates are finalized at the State Convention. It should be pointed out in the media that Texas HAS NOT been decided yet.

Obama won 1 more delegate than Hillary in Nevada. It is projected that he will win more delegates in TX.
Does this journalist know the rules? The magic number of achievement is a DELEGATE number NOT a popular vote number.
Same is true for the national election.

I noticed Barack Obama alway talks too much on platforms. he talks about Hillary with negatives, peoples are laughing, that `s all. Why not peoples ask him many questions, also why not he tell peoples about his issues. He loves to talk about negative on Hillary and peoples laughing , Are their brain air?

I believe, Obama`s campgian stole or tore up people`s papers that are voting for Hillary. You never know. They should investigate or maybe they keep their secret for Obama.

I’m from Texas…and while this may be a tactical decision by Obama it is not wise to undermine the votes that were cast in these two states. Smacks of unnecessary desperation.
The delegate system of the Domocratic party needs to go.

The Republican Hispanic vote.

If the delegates are all that matter here I’m sure Obama wouldn’t be demanding that all the superdelegates go with the “will of the people” i think that he needs to wait until the results of the caucus are finalized to claim he won Texas.

Actually, if you include both the caucus vote and the primary vote together, Mr. Obama not only wins the delegate maths, but also the popular vote in Texas. What by tens of thousands of vote cast. If you have a problem with counting the caucus vote in the popular total, then you have a problem with the sate democratic party, not the Obama camp.

The race is for delegates right? You silly person.
Do you think Al Gore has been president for the past 8 years? He won the popular vote too.
By the way New Hampshire was a tie and Obama won super Tuesday.
Please write a big headline and an apology when you realize what you thought was weird is actually true.

US elections are won with super or pledged delegates; or electoral college NOT about popular votes. 2000, Al Gore won popular vote, Bush won electoral colege vote and the election….
Popular votes are merely used to work out delegate or electoral college votes as the case may be, then discarded.
So, you don’t have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. Forget the media spin…work the delegates maths out yourself……
The winner is…..Barack or Hillary

The only thing weird is the media facination with popular vote which has absolutely nothing to do with selecting the nominee.

OK, here is the scenario-Clinton and Obama both knew and agreed to the rules.Show of hands-how many think we should change the rules in the middle of the game ? Thought so-on with the game. Ms Clinton needs to go bake some cookies and iron some shirts, she is done here. Oh, and Obama does NOT want her on his bus-in front or in back-she is too divisive.

I mean really … do we want someone so good as sucking up humiliation running the country?
HRC is weak. The GOP knows it.

The argument that Hillary “won” in Texas rings as hollow as Al Gore’s “win” in Florida… especially since in this case, all the votes were counted.
The election has its rules, and what matters is not votes, but delegates.