To no one's surprise, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois won the caucuses in the western state of Wyoming today by a percentage of 58-40 percent. He picked up 12 convention delegates with his win over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
The total, according to RealClearPolitics.com, is 1588-1465 in favor of Barack Obama. That is the total of pledged delegates and those committted super delegates I have been posting about recently. It is 1378-1223 in pledged delegates.
This is Sen. Obama's 13th straight win in these small state caucuses. A caucus is different from an election in that in a caucus, participants gather in a public place, and publicly and in the open, declare their support for their candidate. It is more a display of organizational strength than voter support. A primary election is just that...an election in which voters cast secret ballots for the candidate of their choice.
Sen. Obama's overall lead is based on his victories in the Democratic Party caucuses; Sen. Clinton has only three caucus wins.
With this win, and an expected win on Tuesday in the southern state of Mississippi, which is a primary, it is likely Sen. Obama will erase any gains Senator Clinton made last week in her wins in Ohio and Texas.
But all eyes are anticipating the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania when 158 of 187 convention delegates will be at stake.
A good day for Sen. Obama.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A discussion of the U.S. elections and political process from Bill Wyatt, long-time reporter, writer and Supervisory Editor with the Voice of America.
Ask a Question: E-mail Me
Have a question or a comment for me? I would like to hear from you. You can contact me at VOAElectionBlog@voanews.com
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(117)
-
▼
March
(33)
- Wild Weekend, Wild Numbers
- Weekend Update
- Penn Pals
- McCain for a Change
- Sunday Update
- This and That
- The Speech
- Michigan Yes, Florida, No
- More Wright
- The Wright Stuff
- Questions, Questions
- Thursday Update
- So What's New in Pennsylvania?
- More on Mississippi's Demographic Divides
- As Expected Obama Leading or Has Won
- Mississippi
- New Scandal Snares Democratic Governor
- Thanks for the Comment
- Obama Wins Wyoming
- Funny Thing
- How America Votes
- Let the Super Delegates be Super
- The Day after Super Tuesday II
- Election Update
- Waiting for Texas and Ohio
- McCain Victory Amazing
- Huck Out
- Sen. John McCain Projected as Republican Party Nom...
- Super Tuesday Update
- Alright, Already--The Prediction
- Election Eve
- Reader Comment
- Some Tightening in Texas
-
▼
March
(33)
The VOA Election Blog
- Bill Wyatt
- Washington, D.C., United States
- Bill Wyatt has been a 25-year veteran of the VOA newsroom, beginning his career as a broadcaster, then writer, editor, and Supervisory Editor.
2 comments:
Neil,
It'd be more accurate to measure his victory in terms of his percentage of precinct-level delegates - 61-38 - because that's the ultimate currency in Wyoming. Either way, Obama didn't pick up 12 delegates. He won 7 pledged delegates, and will win an 8th UAD when the state convention convenes.
Not all caucuses work as you suggest; the 'firehouse caucus' model is essentially a party-run primary, and was used in states such as Minnesota. More to the point, in this cycle, caucuses have indeed reflected organizational strength - that's how Clinton has done as well as she has - but that factor has been overwhelmed by the impact of grass-roots enthusiasm. That doesn't make these processes necessarily more reflective of the primary electorate, but it does mean that Obama's strength has been enthusiasm more than organization.
Fly, I goofed. I have Sen. Obama now at 9 delegates in Wyoming--seven pledged delegates and two unpledged. Sen. Clinton is credited with five.
I have to get away from this winner take all mentality :-)
I would argue that the reason Sen. Obama leads this contest in delegate support is due to his campaign's superior organizational strength. He has demonstrated this over the numerous caucuses he has won over Sen. Clinton.
Sen. Clinton has won (sometimes by not so large margins) in the bigger states in primaries. She has won three caucus states. What does this mean in terms of enthusiasm?
I guess I would have to come down on the theory that if you are going stand all night in a firehouse or some other public place to show support for a candidate when you could be home, then that's enthusiasm! It seems Sen. Obama's supporters have lots of it.
The enthusiasm fuels the organization.
Sen. Clinton has advanced the argument that the caucus process is less democratic than a primary election because it means that, presumably, her supporters don't have the time or the ability to get to these caucuses and stay there the way Sen. Obama's backers do.
The exit polling hints at this--Sen. Obama's supporters are more upscale, economically prosperous, and could have the time to spend at a caucus evening event; Sen. Clinton's supporters, on the other hand, are less prosperous, may be working two jobs, can't spend the night at a caucus, etc.
I am not sure I buy this argument in its totality. They are two sides of the same coin--support for a candidate's campaign.
What I believe here, based on the campaign so far, is that Sen. Clinton planned for a wipeout of the opposition by Super Tuesday on Feb. 5, and was unprepared for this hand to hand, state by state, trench warfare in the caucuses that Sen. Obama is so good at. (Digression: I hate to end a sentence with a preposition.)
But I also think that the enthusiasm behind the campaign of Sen. Obama would have beaten her in the caucuses no matter what, given the nature of the caucus process.
Thanks again for the comment, Fly, come back anytime! Especially when I get things wrong! :-)
Post a Comment