Obama wins TX with the final count

[Xisiqomelir]

AOL news

Clinton Will Lose Texas
By David Knowles
Mar 11th 2008 8:20AM

Filed Under:eHillary Clinton, Democrats, Barack Obama, Breaking News

Barack ObamaThe Texas Secretary of State will release the official results of the Democratic primary on March 29th. But if initial estimates hold, Barack Obama will beat Hillary Clinton in the race for delegates. CNN confirms what others have been seeing for days. While Clinton won the state's popular vote, Obama racked up more caucus support, so that, now that the dust is settling, the Lone Star state's delegate total reads:

Obama: 61 delegates from the popular vote + 38 delegates from caucuses = 99 delegates.

Clinton: 65 delegates from the popular vote + 29 delegates from Caucuses = 94 delegates.

So news people can now stop saying "two big wins in Ohio and Texas." Big win in Ohio, sure, but not Texas. Yes, Clinton could still pull it out, but that seems increasingly unlikely.

A further analysis of the delegate race over at DailyKos reveals that Clinton's supposedly big week has actually resulted in a net loss of 15 delegates to the front-runner. That's right, Obama continued to widen his delegate lead. Add to that another 5 delegate cushion after Mississippi, as well as another 99,000-vote-advantage to buttress Obama's overall lead in the popular vote, and one gets the feeling that Obama's momentum didn't really subside as much as was reported.

For those who have asked, roughly one-third of Texas voters participate in the state's caucuses.

So...are you going to issue any real retractions, Corpulent News Network (their "confirmation" mentioned in the article ran about 1/500th the time of their "Clinton wins TX" stories) and Faux? Probably not, since this flies in the face of the uncertainty you vampires need for the burnt offerings to the rating gods. Maybe you can even do some "popular vote" spin, since the Hildebeest campaign has already prepared the way.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Clinton is just going to drag this to the convention, where she will try to browbeat the uncommitted electors (i.e., the ones who were selected for Edwards, etc, who IIRC can now vote for anyone) and the superdelegates into support her enmasse by using the party machinery.

[cosmicalstorm]

I heard some radiohost tell republicans to go out and vote for Hillary Clinton, thats pretty funny, our elections here in Sweden are pretty boring in comparison

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Clinton is just going to drag this to the convention, where she will try to browbeat the uncommitted electors (i.e., the ones who were selected for Edwards, etc, who IIRC can now vote for anyone) and the superdelegates into support her enmasse by using the party machinery.

It's going to be dragged out to the convention regardless. Both of them need the support of superdelegates to carry the nomination. Though the only way this race will end decisively in favor of the Beast, before the convention, is if Obama was caught in a really nasty scandal; involving being caught in his office in the act of molesting an underaged boy while sacrificing puppies to Satan upon a bonfire of Bibles, American flags, and an original copy of the Constitution.

[Soontir C'boath]

I heard some radiohost tell republicans to go out and vote for Hillary Clinton, thats pretty funny, our elections here in Sweden are pretty boring in comparison

I had looked at the exit poll for Mississippi last night and I believe about 70+% of Republicans that voted in the Democratic primary were for Clinton. They're listening to those hosts all right...

[CaptainChewbacca]

So, I guess Texas doesn't count after all...

[Kodiak]

So, I guess Texas doesn't count after all...

Well, you know, there's so many black people in Texas, that's why he won

I can almost smell the BS radiating from the Hildabeast campaign now.

[Kuja]

This news gets the officals "FUCK YEAH!" seal of approval.

[K. A. Pital]

Hahah. Clinton "reinvigorated" the campaign.

That's like saying Romero's zombie is a person.

[Pablo Sanchez]

The best part of this whole story is the narrative structure that the print and television media dropped on the March 4 results. Hillary was back, Obama suffered a major setback, blah blah blah irrelevant horse-race bullshit that is only compelling to political junkies. This is the same tone-deaf utterly retarded reportage that was tossed around for TV's Fred Thompson, who was billed by credulous journalists as an up-and-coming star, but who in practice turned out to be more of a down-and-going somnambulist (actually that's a little unfair to sleepwalkers, they typically have a little more energy).

I could stand their style much more if the political beat journos managed to get it right once in a while. Hunter S. Thompson's gonzo coverage of the '72 campaign was just as ugly in terms of sport-section style handicapping but (A) he had an excuse, being a sports-writer by profession and (B) he was remarkably insightful and often prescient with his predictions. Plus he was hilarious. But looking at the sort of garbage that passes for political coverage is like reading the racing form, or something.

[The Yosemite Bear]

this just in from the Clinton Campaign, Texas no longer matters.

[Surlethe]

The best part of this whole story is the narrative structure that the print and television media dropped on the March 4 results. Hillary was back, Obama suffered a major setback, blah blah blah irrelevant horse-race bullshit that is only compelling to political junkies.

What's with the whole "big wins in Texas and Ohio" line in the media, anyway? Obama's win in Mississippi alone entirely negates every single gain Clinton made last Tuesday, even before this new Texas result was released. The man's campaign is a juggernaut, and if I didn't know that the media's just playing up the race like a sports tournament because the people need their circuses (and bread, too), I would be tempted to think that the media was pro-Clinton.

[Pablo Sanchez]

What's with the whole "big wins in Texas and Ohio" line in the media, anyway? Obama's win in Mississippi alone entirely negates every single gain Clinton made last Tuesday, even before this new Texas result was released. The man's campaign is a juggernaut, and if I didn't know that the media's just playing up the race like a sports tournament because the people need their circuses (and bread, too), I would be tempted to think that the media was pro-Clinton.

The media loves exactly two things: people who give them inside information, and a good narrative.

Getting inside information allows them to write more complete stories and feel cool (like real investigative journalists who get played by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman in big Hollywood films). However, it often results in an incestuous relationship between the journalist and his source. A great example is the recent story wherein The Scotsman quoted an "off the record" statement from a high-level Obama staffer that Hillary was a "monster". The staffer, experienced with the American media, thought she could just arbitrarily declare statements in the middle of an on-the-record interview as confidential, but that doesn't work anywhere but here. The reporter caught a lot of flak from the media here for doing that--much less than Tim Russert got for declaring that he automatically assumes that all information he gets from anybody is off the record unless he is explicitly given permission to use it.

The appeal of a good narrative is self-explanatory. A tight-run race sells more newspapers/magazines/advertisement than a blowout. A meltdown also sells very well--in the 2004 race Howard Dean's campaign was scuttled by expansive media coverage of the "Dean scream." In actuality what occurred was, he yelled because he was talking to a loud audience of hundreds who were having trouble hearing him, but the microphone for television made him sound very loud and insane. In spite of the fact that this would take about five seconds to figure out and clear up, the media played the clip and his campaign was dead in the water.