The commentary this morning is cautious, but the results are clear. Barring accidents - such as John McCain's health or the Clintons' money - it will be a McCain-Clinton election this November. The latest figures from California have Hillary Clinton 13 percentage points ahead of Barack Obama. So the SurveyUSA opinion poll that gave her a 10-point advantage was, er, more right than the Zogby poll that put Obama 13 points ahead.
The next story, surely, is what a strong position Obama is in for the future. He may be chosen by Hillary as her running mate - and there is a strong case for defying the expectation of "balance" (which says she should choose a Southern conservative), as Bill did in 1992 by choosing Al Gore. But even if he isn't, he has the profile, the proven money-raising power and the rhetorical ability to be a formidable contender in 2012, when he will still be only 51. And he will have four more years experience in the Senate, and Hillary has given him a master class in how to make good use of that.
Repeating the question, and having sent numerous emails to different service addresses.
>All my hyperlinks to your pre-redesign news articles are still broken following your overhaul. Any idea when they are going to get mended?
Currently I have stopped linking to you.
Any progress?
Cheers
Matt Wardman
Posted by: Matt | Wednesday, 06 February 2008 at 11:23 AM
i think you are completely cluess. and know nothing about the electoral system in the u.s. obama won more delegates last night. he is ahead. the delegates in california are split proportionally.
Posted by: Michelle | Wednesday, 06 February 2008 at 12:14 PM
One should be a tad careful with the epithets. Obama is not leading in delegates, but he is only a 100 or so behind.
100 is (much) less than the number of uncommitted superdelegate votes (American over-the-topness for delagates who can vote anyway they want at the convention). Clinton does, however, have a lot more political favors in the bank to call in the superdelagates - dating back to when Bill was the Gov of Arkansas.
True, although Hillary carried Ca. in votes she probably won't get more than 60% of the delegates, but she did win the states popular vote convincingly - which matters. When the uncommitted (and committed) delegates vote in Colorado they will be thinking about that in terms of carrying the state in the election.
But the blog post *is* way too sure of itself. Clinton and Obama are in a dead heat for all intents and purposes.
Posted by: Rustyschwinn | Wednesday, 06 February 2008 at 01:56 PM
Clinton by no means has this wrapped up. Obama should be able to raise more money and carry a majority of the remaning states. Then come the superdelegates. What they have to balance is the wrath/favor of the Clintons vs the downticket benefits that would come from an Obama-McCain matchup (Hint: Limbaugh conservatives stay home while independents, Democrats and new voters come out en masse). Also, look for Obama to get endorsements from Edwards and possibly Gore in the coming week(s).
Posted by: Jim | Wednesday, 06 February 2008 at 02:15 PM
This race is far from over. The Hispanic vote, which has been a source of Clinton's strength, will only have real effect in Texas of the remaining primary states, while Obama will look forward to races throughtout the south where there are large African-American populations. Obama has done well in agricultural midwest, winning all of the states there by large margins and in the mountain states where he hs also done well. Border states have gone for Clinton.
The race will be decided in three states. Washington, Pennsylvania and Ohio. This race is not even close to being over. If Hillary Clinton does not come to the convention with a clear majority of delegates, she is in trouble. If Obama comes to the convention with a plurality, the democrats will be committing suicide by denying him the nomination.
Mr. Rentoul's analysis is appears to me to me naive and uninformed. For what it is worth, I am a Republican and would like nothing better than for the Democrats to nominate Hillary and leave Obama off the ticket, since with this scenario, McCain will be the winner in November.
Posted by: TOC | Wednesday, 06 February 2008 at 02:31 PM
What?
Sorry, you're completely wrong. The caucuses on this coming Saturday and the primaries this coming Tuesday (and throughout the rest of February) will give more clarity; right now, both candidates are essentially tied; the latest CNN delegate count shows Clinton has 38.67% of the delegates needed to win, and Obama has 35.01% of the delegates needed to win.
We've got quite a way to go.
Posted by: Ken | Wednesday, 06 February 2008 at 02:56 PM
Obama 's man who is suppossed to step in the shoes of mr bush if America is 2 move forwrad, go poeple of america vote him into power and the whole will shake .
Posted by: AMBROSE | Wednesday, 06 February 2008 at 03:20 PM
This is not the first foreign article I've seen written about our Super Tuesday that got it completely wrong.
California -- as big and important is it is -- didn't decide who won last night. It's all about delegates.
I'm sure you at least remember our presidential election in 2000 where George W. Bush won the presidency over Al Gore not by popular vote, but by delegates.
Barack Obama, by all projects, will walk away with more delegates earned on Tuesday than Hillary Clinton.
Add that to the fact that Barack Obama has raised more money than Mrs. Clinton to spend in the upcoming primaries and states that will favor him and it means that her inevitable nomination is in serious jeopardy.
Posted by: KISSman | Wednesday, 06 February 2008 at 07:57 PM
Who is this John Rentoul? What planet is he reporting from exactly? This is not European politics you are dealing with this is the USA you are dealing with and everything is in the details. Obama won more states and more delegates and he is better positioned to win the presidency than Hillary Clinton which ever way you look at it. Clinton proved last night that she can win in the states that democrats always win in and loose the election. States like New York, New Jersey, Mass and California are all regular democrat strong holds and for the last 8 years democrats have lost the White House because they can never get out of this box. Obama won in places that matter when it comes to presidential politics, States like Kansas, Missouri, Colorado etc. We all know that California, New York, New Jersey and Massachussets will go for the democrats in Novemeber so what we want to know is which other states can we win in order to win the White House. Obama proved that he can win and he can win very well in places democrats need to win in order to win the presidency. Please educate your self on US politics and rules before you comment on something you obviously know nothing about.
Posted by: Karen | Wednesday, 06 February 2008 at 10:15 PM
I just sent HRC a little more of my paycheck. I agree with Mr. Rentoul's analysis, McCain v Clinton, Obama in 2012. She should have him as VP too.
Obama supporters need a reality check, just like their candidate. He's hopeful allright, but some of us are just a little too cynical after the last 15 years of Republicans. Saying we're all going to get along doesn't make it so.
Posted by: MonaL | Thursday, 07 February 2008 at 01:11 AM
John Rentoul doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. The results are anything but clear, and will remain so for some time to come. California is important, but try to remember that there are 49 other states.
Posted by: Mark C. Eades | Thursday, 07 February 2008 at 01:23 AM