IN Vote total: Hillary won by 1.1% [Updated]

The actual vote totals from the Indiana Secretary of State are in at last.

They show that the final contest in Indiana was even narrower than the difference popularly reported.

Details after the fold.

According to the Indiana Secretary of State, the official totals were:

Hillary Clinton:   637,814        50.4%

Barack Obama:  626,642       49.6%

The difference:  11,152          less than 1 %

This difference, was almost surely caused by Rush Limbaugh and operation Chaos (who at least according to ABC made up 7% of Clinton's voting base.) So I think Obama's claim that Rush won it for Hillary is accurate.

UPDATE: Just to be clear Obama didn't say in person that Rush helped Hillary win. It was Axelrod.

http://www.newsmax.com/...

I know this is shorter than the conventional length for diaries and I apologize (although as a point of contrast I note that my last diary was on the very long side, so don't expect this to be a trend). So I've added a bonus:

UPDATE 2: My apologize. Seems I jumped the gun a bit to declare "final." The number above didn't include the last round of confirmed provisionals (although the source said final, but can't believe all that you read). So the numbers have changed slightly by about .3%.

Mea culpa.

Hillary Clinton:  643,797    50.5%

Barack Obama: 629,310    49.4%

The difference:  14,487      1.1 %

BONUS: in order to add something substantive. I want to suggest that we begin pre-framing expectations for West Virginia. Hillary will win West Virginia by a significant margin, yet her surrogates are gaming expectations by saying things like "if she wins." This is silly business and I wonder if Obama might get some benefit by publicly stating that he expects to lose by 20% or more. Hopefully, the media will remember that Hillary is finished, but I fear her camp (if they don't concede soon) will spin it as a comeback, Obama can't close the deal, white voters, blah blah. We need to do everything possible to de-legitimate this concern WITHOUT asking Hillary to concede or being negative. So maybe we need to remind friends and the press about Huckabee and other previous contests in which the candidate who had already lost the nomination managed to still win states. Also, we need to phone bank like crazy for Obama to GOTV in West Virginia. Anyway, just a small idea so that this diary would be longer.

•  When did Obama claim Rush won it

  for Hillary?

  I've heard that other places, but not from the Obama camp. Just looking for a source, if he said it.

  by Saska on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:51:59 PM PDT

  •  no, it would be dumb.

    MSNBC, CNN, and the entire MSM that reported the Rush story has a much bigger audience than Rush (no offense) and the story probably ended up helping Obama.

    by Wufacta on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:54:48 PM PDT

    •  There's no way to tell that either

      There's no possible way to determine whether Operation Chaos had an effect or not, whether it helped Obama or hurt him. I doubt it was a huge factor, but I wouldn't argue it benefited Obama somehow either. It's not like the MSM Wright'ed the story about Rush having his listeners vote for Clinton.

      by poxonyou on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:39:47 AM PDT

      •  See about Lake County ...

        
        -- may not have been a kosher vote

        by joan reports on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:58:40 AM PDT

        •  That's becuase Gary, IN came in first

          I don't think there was fraud. The first votes in from Lake County were apparently from Gary, IN which went big for Obama. Later Lake Co votes were from the suburbs where Hillary had all the mayors' support.

          by bethcf4p on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:51:49 AM PDT

        •  One thing no one has mentioned here

          about Lake County:  6 of the 7 mayors endorsed Clinton.  Gary's mayor is the only mayor who endorsed Obama.  Remember what Kos said about mayors - they have very powerful machines for the candidates they endorse.  Add to that - Lake County is the most racially polarized county in Indiana.  So the way the vote came in didn't surprise me at all.

          by ObamaManiac2008 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:11:54 AM PDT

          •  okay, maybe so. But I'd like to see which were...

            the precincts that were reporting late. So we can track the numbers against the locations. That would help verify the numbers.

            by joan reports on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:34:58 AM PDT

      •  Chair on the Indiana Democratic Party

        was interviewed a day or so ago by Ed Schultz.  The chairman said that Rush Limbaugh and Republican cross-over voters unequivocably gave Hillary her win.  I would think the man would know his own state.  

        by dkmich on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:07:07 AM PDT

        •  my county

          which is largely republican drew democratic tickets 2 -1, as well as some surrounding counties in southeastern Indiana. I believe that Obama would have won Indiana without Operation Chaos.

          by Loonesta on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:20:13 AM PDT

          •  My county had 3400 Dems vote

            the most we ever had before was 950. However these were not all cross overs. Many were Dems that don't vote in primaries usually We usualy have approximately a 34 to 3600 Dem Vot total every November election
            These new Dem voters we plan to poll to find out how to bring them into the party.This election can help many counties in Indiana identitfy new Democrat voters that were always Dems but never identified as such.

            by Lawdog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:47:49 AM PDT

            •  I agree

              that many new democrats came out to vote, even know a few republicans who crossed over to vote for Obama because they are sick of the bs going on in our government now, and generally like what Obama has to say. There are also a lot of yahoos walking aroung here bragging about how they supported Rush and voted for Hillary.

              by Loonesta on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:37:32 AM PDT

        •  Absolutely true in my county as well.

          I posted a bit about this upthread.

          I was a credentialed Dem pollwatcher with access to 20+ precincts. Admittedly, we had a huge Republican cross-over vote for Obama that was legit and our very Republican county went 2:1 for Obama.

          However, in one precinct there were 22 registered democrats and 100 Dem ballots issued. The Republican Poll Inspector was verging on gleeful when he told me that those were Limbaugh votes for Clinton.

          I didn't have access to the final tallies, but I passed that info on to the Obama staff who forwarded to the main campaign.

          If that precinct actually went for Clinton, when the rest of the county was going 2:1 for Obama, I would say that's pretty hard data.

          by annan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:01:53 AM PDT

          •  Our Republican majority North Central county

            reported 27k Dem ballots to 17k GOP ballots; this represents the first time the county has had more Dem ballots then Republican. With the narrow margin of victory I am convinced that un-converted Republicans swung the state for Hillary.

            Thankfully, it won't matter.

            by Stoy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:29:29 AM PDT

        •  One problem with that

          Rush said he is pulling for Obama.

          by gas28man on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:45:23 AM PDT

          •  Rush pulls for Rush...

            While I've become a strong Obama supporter, for reasons too many to recount here, having Rush say he is 'for' him, only raises suspicion and doubt in my mind.

            Isn't this the radio personality who chortles at being involved in causing 'collateral damage', frothing over how he's been able to organize his listernes to induce chaos, as agents provocateur gloating at causing situations which divide the Democratic party, that instigate turmoil and division and confusion.  And he's stated his hopes of to be so effective in creating choas and inter-party hatred as to precipitate riots at the June Democratic convention in Denver? When has he hesitated to say or do what hurts or restrains liberals and liberal agendas?  What does he do that doesn't reflect his hard-core hatred of all things liberal?  

            This man being 'for' any liberal candidate, makes such a statement if he felt there was some tactical aspect which helps weaken the Democratic Party, helps build or retain rightwing domination, helps retain control of 'the center' and shift it to the right. And if any liberal can be tolerated by Rush at all, it would have to be one who he'd deem unlikely to diminish his personal power.

            If Rush is for anything, it's for destroying tolerance of liberal thinking, tossing roadblocks in front of liberal agendas, assailing the character of leaders and nominees, and doing whatever is possible to build conflict and dissension within our party.  He'll do it if it causes confusion and dismay, and to prevent the liberating power that comes in sharing a common vision and agenda.  He'll do it to force unwanted competition and battles within our party's ranks and leadership. His mission is to promote whatever push off the table anything that's going to risk power-loss to the right, to limit what liberals can regard as possible to keep 'on the table', and impedes progress achieving 'bi-partisan' goals that include liberal agendas and values.  He has worked hard at disrupting attempts to find a true 'center' and common ground, but working to make sure whatever 'center' can be held is as pushed hard towards the right as possible.  The only 'common ground' he wants left standing would be one that's totally on the right side of the equation.

            So, his being 'for' Obama is likely for pure propoganda value.  Perhaps at best it might be a preference for what he'd consider a lesser evil, or more likely as a link to achieving a set of outcomes we'd actually not consider so good.  His objectives may include tormenting the Clintons, and also in tormenting the party base with disturbing nomination ambiguities, and also in generating bad feelings around Clinton name, and for any other leading Democratic leaders.  

            Also, I wouldn't put it past him to have a goal in diminishing the Clinton legacy, of pushing them where possible toward political ruin, and to disrupt the concentrated power they been able to garner and wield for the last decades.

            by antirove on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:08:21 AM PDT

            •  Don't overplay his hand for him

              Let's not give Rush more credit than he deserves.  Your lengthy discussion implies that Rush 1) has a plan; 2) has a large enough following to matter; and 3) has the means to execute his plan.

              I don't think he has any of these.

              I think current events are beyond his ability to influence, and his audience, while loyal, is small, and not large enough in any state to swing that state to one candidate or another, especially on the Democratic ticket.

              The fact that he can't have any influence must, I'm sure, be galling to him -- assuming he ever had such an ability to begin with.

              He's simply a rooster trying to find a way to take credit for the sunrise.  When the polling for a state favors Obama, he will say he's urging his listeners to vote for Obama.  When the polling favors Hillary, he will say he's urging them to vote for Hillary.

              He hopes his listeners are too dumb to realize that the results were inevitable with or without them.

              by gas28man on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:59:34 AM PDT

      •  There are clues but you can't be sure

        From the exit polls
        The question was
        Indiana    

        If these are the only candidates on the ballot in November, for whom would you  vote?

        The options were Clinton, McCain, won't vote

                  Total  Clinton  Obama
        McCain 16%    41%      59%

        The options were Obama, McCain, won't vote

                  Total  Clinton  Obama
        McCain 18%    88%     12%

        So of McCain voters in Clinton/McCain 41% had voted Clinton compared to 12% of McCain voters in McCain/Obama that had voted Obama.

        Which candidate do you think is honest and trustworthy?

                         % Total  Clinton Obama
        Clinton is not  44      26        74
        Obama is not  31       89         11

        Which candidate do you think shares your values?                      

                            % Total   Clinton    Obama
        Clinton does not   36    18         82
        Obama does not   31      93          7

        These aren't any proof, there can be many reasons that Clinton would get so many more votes from people who won't vote for her in November, don't think she is honest or shares their value compared to Obama voters who show that distaste for him

        by joynow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:25:14 AM PDT

        •  yes I dont think it matters if it was limbaugh

          or not.

          The point is that with the dem primary going on and the R primary wrapped up - "strategic voters" who will never vote for a democrat in the fall are influencing the selection process - and they are overwhelmingly voting for Hillary.

          This skews the results.

          by biscobosco on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:57:35 AM PDT

    •  Rush has a huge audience

      the only difference is, his audience listens on the radio, not watches on TV, which is where pundits live and breathe.

      So, to discount his influence is just plain ignoring that which you can't hear. It's there, and it's impossible to believe it didn't account for several thousand votes.

      Regardless, the results in Indiana were as close to a tie as it gets, outside of New Mexico.

      by KFlake on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:50:43 AM PDT

      •  Or Guam? eom

        by Neon Mama on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:37:36 AM PDT

    •  Yeah....but if you round this off....

      It's 60-40 Hillary.....

      by dweb8231 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:00:19 AM PDT

      •  Why stop at rounding up to the nearest 10?

        Might as well just round up to the nearest 100. I'm calling it:

        100-0 for Clinton in Indiana

        An impressive margin.

        by Caesura on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:16:02 AM PDT

    •  Obama's Campaign Is Right Again

      They predicted a loss by 15,000 votes in Indiana once Lake County had the only precincts unreported.

      by Craig Hickman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:09:45 AM PDT

  •  He posted it on his website. I don't know if

    he actually said it in a speech, I can't remember.  John Kerry definitely said it though.

    by ObamaManiac2008 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:55:11 PM PDT

    •  Link? <n/t>

      by Saska on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:56:35 PM PDT

      •  here

        from Barack Obama:

        http://my.barackobama.com/...

        Indiana remains too close to call. But what is clear is that we did much better than all the pundits predicted, despite Republicans changing parties to support Senator Clinton, believing she would be easier for Senator McCain to defeat.

        by distraught on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:04:28 AM PDT

        •  Thanks.

          I missed that one in the election-night flurry.

          by Saska on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:56:18 AM PDT

    •  I fully expect team Clinton

      to claim the same BS that they always claim after she wins her next state (WV).

      Hillary has rediscovered her voice
      blah blah blah etc etc etc.

      by Jeff Y on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:59:18 PM PDT

      •  How many voices does she have?? n/t

        by carolinadreamer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:05:16 PM PDT

        •  Sheesh. She's like freaking Sybil. /nt

          by Alohilani on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:26:19 PM PDT

          •  The Hillary Tabernacle Choir

            by CTMET on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:12:18 AM PDT

        •  Is that a new Friedman unit? n/t

          by gmhowell on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:46:13 PM PDT

        •  one per comeback / firewall state - primaries

          only; no caucuses.

          by JVolvo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:57:26 AM PDT

        •  Not even that, how many voices has

          she "discovered"? I imagine she's got millions, since she speaks millions of words a day, and they can all have a different voice.

          by Muzikal203 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:42:27 AM PDT

          •  Multiple personalities?

            by mselite on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:13:39 AM PDT

          •  And she does each one in a different dialect

            She thinks she is Meryl Streep.  Not.

            by houyhnhnm on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:08:35 AM PDT

            •  NPR carried HRC's speech in WV & she had twang

              cadence, and nuance that sounded very like West Virginians I've heard.  And quite different from how she sounded in Wisconsin, or Iowa or New Hampshire.  I personally found it disturbing to think that she alters her voice for each region and so specifically target the audiences she seeks as to affect their mannerisms, speech, cultural regionalisms.  It seemed odd for someone with Ivy league schooling, a long history in DC and NY to sound like West Virgnia's callin'

              I do have to wonder if West Virginians will hear her as speaking in her native voice, 'just like one of them', not thinkg of it, or even find it comforting in any way?  Or will they ascribe it to her Arkansas background?  

              Should HRC's campaign be concerned that West Virginians (and they do have quite a number of savvy folk amongst them) might instead find this an unconvincing attempt to overly closely identify with her target audience, to be bypassing a line where it appears she drop her authentic voice in order to affect theirs?  When does this act start to be felt to be ungenuine?

              What next?  NASCAR stickers on her bus?  Rolling her own at a bar, of federally subsidied WV smoke-weed, while taking in some live blue grass or fiddle music?  Well, no one can argue she'd didn't pull out all the stops and try everything she could, even though it's stretched kitchen sink supplies, and catapults are still on backorder.

              by antirove on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:27:19 AM PDT

              •  From what I've seen of her manual dexterity

                I wouldn't advise a photo-op in which she is rolling her own ciggies.

                Back to accents.  The most cringe-worthy example was the fake southern accent in Selma.  

                Was it Ohio/Texas or Pennsylvania when she started dropping her terminal g's, e.g., workin', payin'?

                by houyhnhnm on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:10:13 PM PDT

        •  Well, there are the ones

          in her head telling her she can still win.

          by conlakappa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:13:35 AM PDT

        •  she has at least two...

          ...she does, after all, talk out of both sides of her mouth.

          by teedz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:07:26 AM PDT

      •  She discovered Strom Thurmond's voice /nt

        by SLKRR on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:41:59 AM PDT

        •  That really is too bad,

          Shouldn't she have to "denounce and reject" those statements??  If I were from WV and hear her say that the "dumb, poor white people " are going for me, I would be offended.

          by gdwtch52 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:39:24 AM PDT

  •  Obama rush

    http://www.newsmax.com/...

    newsmax, but:

    "David Axelrod, Obama’s top strategist, told reporters that he attributed Clinton’s lead in Indiana to Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” — his campaign to have Republicans cross over and vote for Clinton to prolong the nomination fight and damage the Democratic nominee."

    by DrMoreau on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:56:18 PM PDT

    •  Thanks. That's Axelrod,

      not Obama.

      I might be alone here, but I don't attribute what Wolfson says to Hillary, no matter how tempting it is. And after today, I can blame Hillary herself.

      by Saska on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:57:42 PM PDT

      •  Ok. I'll edit in the diary.

        by DrMoreau on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:58:49 PM PDT

        •  :) Thanks. <n/t>

          by Saska on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:05:53 PM PDT

        •  by the way this diary is bogus.

          Not enormously so, but just fyi - I think you got some old numbers there.

          right now these are the numbers I got.

          Clinton 50.55 %  644,594
          
          Obama  49.44 % 630,399
          
          clinton has a 1.1% victory.

          
          The numbers you quote from TPM are smaller.

          by biscobosco on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:19:34 PM PDT

          •  oh by the way. these are not final numbers

            provisionals should be trickling in for awhile.

            by biscobosco on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:25:58 PM PDT

          •  What's the link where we can check

            the numbers from the Secretary of State of Indiana?

            by ybruti on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:03:05 AM PDT

            •  I posted this comment downthread

              suggesting people unrecommend this diary

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              It has links to SOS and CNN.

              You can see their numbers are more recent (larger).

              I would love for this diary to be true.. but right now It's wasting space on the Rec list.

              by biscobosco on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:05:28 AM PDT

  •  Plouffe mentions Rush in 5/7 Conference call ...

    >>> QUESTION: When did Obama claim Rush won it?

    Answer: Listen at 1m:11s into call ...

    Plouffe says ... "Rush's urgence was a clear factor in the outcome in Indiana"

    ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

    ~ if you're not outraged then you're not paying attention~move sooner, not faster~
    ~for those with eyes to see, let them see~

    by ArthurPoet on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:39:30 PM PDT

  •  You asked my question for me.

    That one statement is worthy of removing this diary from the recommended list.

    "Didn't say in person"? No. He didn't say it. Obama is not the Borg. The correction  is insufficient. It should read:

    CORRECTION: Obama did not say it. Axelrod did.

    by TocqueDeville on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:13:01 PM PDT

    •  I agree. also the numbers are old and incorrect

      so whadda we do? Doc Moreau aint answering the phone.

      by biscobosco on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:38:45 PM PDT

      •  "aint answering the phone"

        Good one.

        by TocqueDeville on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:45:54 PM PDT

        •  Well I posted an unreccomend comment

          that's the best I can do...I dont have any super powers...except, well
          I guess its time to pop into my own phone booth and head for another timezone...

          by biscobosco on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:49:37 PM PDT

  •  Unrecommend this diary

    It is incorrect and Dr Moreau seems to have passed out and left it in this sorry state.

    1. Hillary is currently standing at 1.1 % ahead both by

    CNN count and SOS count

    2. The diary states these are final numbers. These are not final numbers, not all provisionals or absentees have been counted.

    3.  It attributes a statement to Obama which was made by Axelrod

    by biscobosco on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:45:43 PM PDT

    •  still that's

      only a 1% victory, the media were reporting a 2% victory.

      by Huwcs on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:17:01 AM PDT

      •  Like her DOUBLE DIGIT win in PA?

        And how they stuck with 'She won TX!!' for waaaay too long?

        Are we surprised?

        by JVolvo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:59:52 AM PDT

      •  I noticed it was called 2%. I figured CNN was

        just rounding off in the mathematically correct way though it gave the wrong impression.
        .55 is correctly rounded up
        .44 is correctly rounded down
        Saying the difference is 2 is way off but CNN had an excuse on that page.

        Until I looked at some old results comparing them to NY times page with same results but decimals carried out. They use different math for Obama and Clinton on CNN. A few examples

        Clinton gets rounded up when she should be rounded down
        Arizona
        Clinton 50.4   51
        Obama   42.4   42
        Delaware
        Clinton 42.3   43

        Obama is rounded down when he should be rounded up
        Ark
        Obama    26.6   26
        Maryland
        Obama  60.7%  60

        Their .5's go different ways though that could be how it was rounded to .5, but it always went that way
        NC
        Clinton  41.5        42
        Idaho
        Obama   79.5%   79    

        It's not that I wanted to check them all, I was just determined to find some rounded wrong in Obama's favor...so I did end up going through them all and found many more pro-Clinton rounding but I DID find one that favored Obama!
        Georgia
        Obama   66.4%   67

        I want to think it's coincidental though

        by joynow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:03:15 AM PDT

      •  Their number was about 23K for 1.2MM votes.n/t

        by Christy1947 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:36:52 AM PDT

  •  Before McCain secured GOP nomination. Obama beat

    Clinton frequently 70:30% with Gop voters, and 66:34% with Independents. GOP voters, normally hated Clinton, and never voted for her, until then.

    That's the proof!

    by Excelscior1 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:06:26 AM PDT

•  Tip jar? Is anyone still awake?

  by DrMoreau on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:52:19 PM PDT

  •  You must be one of those

    elite eggheads who thinks that everyone slogs through a 9am-5pm job.

    :)

    by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:55:59 PM PDT

  •  Still awake?! It's 2:55 in the afternoon here!

    Or "arvo," as Australians say.

    Come to think of it, it's time for my mid-arvo desktop nap.

    Thanks for the diary--and remember: with HRC totals, always round up to the whole number beyond the nearest whole number.  Except when it comes to delegates, then forget about the math entirely.

    by Rick in Oz on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:01:16 PM PDT

    •  The sun never sets

      on the Orange Satan's empire. Lot's of international Kossacks. There is always someone awake.

      And it does seem that ole Rush L. tipped the scale in Clinton's favor.

      What a sad ending to her political career.

      by magurakurin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:36:01 PM PDT

      •  Lots ;o)

        by JVolvo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:00:36 AM PDT

  •  Just Checked The Indiana Website...

    It must not be the final total, because HRC is now at 643K, with Obama at 629K. Just under 14,000 votes, and just over 1% (about 1.1%).

    I am sure some provisionals are still being tallied.

    by Steve Singiser on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:03:34 PM PDT

  •  Please unrecommend, as others have suggested...

    As others in the comments have suggested, CNN and the SOS site do not support this diarist claims that the margin is less than 1%. It is also NOT an "official" or "final" tally, as provisionals and absentees are continuing to be counted.

    by ayjaymay on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:23:33 AM PDT

  •  What this says is that Obama's team guessed the

    IN margin within thirteen votes.  That's amazing.

    by ShadowSD on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:01:46 AM PDT

•  I don't think those are the official totals.

  They don't certify the totals for a few weeks.  They haven't counted provisionals yet, because those who cast provisional ballots have 10 days to validate them with the proper ID.

  by ObamaManiac2008 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:52:23 PM PDT

•  .8%

  I hope the media will say this instead of the 2% they have been saying.

  by Snickers77 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:52:52 PM PDT

  •  They won't, but

    "just under 1%" would be good.

    Not that it matters anymore.

    by DrJeremy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:01:02 PM PDT

  •  I wonder if there is any

    provision for an automatic recount in primary races? The difference is getting tiny.

    by Olds88 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:24:58 PM PDT

    •  what would be the point?

      Other than bragging rights.  It makes little difference ITO the number of delegates won.

      by ppluto on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:31:44 PM PDT

      •  It makes a difference.

        It wouldn't affect the Congressional District
        delegate splits, but the PLEOs would get split
        4-5 instead of 5-4, a net two delegate drain
        from Clinton.

        And hence two more nails in the coffin.

        by jpmassar on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:38:28 PM PDT

    •  There was something on CNN primary night

      stating that part of the state was voting on no-trail touchscreen machines. Depending on the area, there may be nothing to recount.

      by Cassandra Waites on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:45:21 PM PDT

  •  nope--they're still saying she won Texas!

    by zelda1010 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:22:57 PM PDT

  •  actually it is 1.1% right now

    but numbers are not final. provisionals not complete.
    also overseas military ballots.

    by biscobosco on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:32:29 PM PDT

•  West Virginia will be a lot closer than you think

  1.  Hillary is not going to win the nomination...that will keep people home.

  2.  Others that will vote realize Obama is the nominee and vote for him.

  3.  Obama supporters will be eager to GOTV.

  4.  While I don't think he will win, I bet he will keep it to single digits.

  by jalapeno on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:53:26 PM PDT

  •  If the Limbaugh listeners (robots) actually

    follow Limbaugh's advice, that could change things.  West Virginia has a lot of Limbaugh listeners.

    by ObamaManiac2008 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:54:21 PM PDT

    •  oops forgot that one

      Thanks.  I heard he is encouraging robots to support barack now.

      by jalapeno on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:55:44 PM PDT

      •  he is encouraging

        super delegates to support barack... I haven't heard him say anything specific about crossing party lines for either candidate in WV

        by dookphan on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:27:32 PM PDT

    •  But haven't you heard?

      Rush now supports Obama! He's such a schizoid.

      by ejsmom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:34:57 PM PDT

      •  Because he knows Obama is the nominee.

        I don't recommend that others do this, but I have listened to Rush's show from time to time over the years. A big part of his radio persona is based on the "I told you so" shtick, in which he makes big predictions that later come true, allowing him to crow for days that the "prediction" was correct. Of course most of his "predictions" are things that anyone with half a brain could have seen coming - but most of his dittohead audience is too fucking stupid to figure that out.

        Anyway it's clear that Rush now wants to take credit for having deviously helped nominate Obama. Soon he will be telling his listeners, "See, I told you the Democrats would nominate him, and now he's going to lose." He will work that shtick all summer while slinging all the mud at Obama that he can. But by the time fall runs around, Rush will drop that shtick and start working a completely different one. He always does.

        Most of his listeners are too stupid to catch on, although a few do. Rush's listenership is in decline these days. Who knows, it may rise again after Barack is inaugurated and provides him with a new target to rail against (as he railed against Clinton all through the 90s). But I hope not.

        by Night Train on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:10:33 PM PDT

        •  Rec'd for "Rush's listenership is in decline" eom

          by blueocean on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:59:15 AM PDT

    •  is west virginia

      an open primary where repubs are allowed to vote?

      by Huwcs on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:19:05 AM PDT

  •  1 and 3 are key...

    ...her base will be depressed by the people on the TV, a situation Obama supporters MUST take advantage of with as massive of GOTV as they can muster...

    by Aqualad08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:04:54 PM PDT

  •  single digits is asking for too much

    Some of the factors may come into play, but she will still pull out a double digit win because if voter turnout is slowed because he is basically the presumptive nominee, it will hurt him just as much.

    Double digit win.  Don't get too carried away, we need the expectations of her winning by those margins.... just incase.

    by ourhispanicvoices on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:06:04 PM PDT

  •  Really, eh?

    I will donate a handsome sum to the Obama campaign if they lose West Virginia by single digits.

    by PsiFighter37 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:07:10 PM PDT

  •  He'll be lucky to break 35%

    Seriously.  It's the worst state in the country for him.  

    by poblano on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:22:45 PM PDT

    •  Coming From You, poblano...

      this is very sad news indeed because you've done an outstanding job with all your statistical wizardry.

      OTOH, I prefer reality, but served with extra heaping scoops of Hope, please.

      by Empower Ink on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:30:32 PM PDT

    •  He should go there anyway

      A 50 state strategy, is a 50 state strategy!  He should at least try to push back on the whole "He's a muslim" thing there!

      BTW, props on your Indiana / WV calls this week. I love your site!

      by joyncassie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:52:12 PM PDT

      •  I mean NC - Ooops

        by joyncassie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:52:45 PM PDT

      •  He definitely should! I've been looking for

        planned stops in these states. I did see a WV article that said he plans to stop before the primary.

        I know he doesn't want to look like he campaigns hard and then gets trounced but he shouldn't ignore any state even in the primary. Just a couple of quick stops would be a good thing. States don't like to be ignored and I was reading supporters in those places saying "Wait till he gets here and people get to know him!"
        I am really hoping he will get there

        by joynow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:10:07 AM PDT

    •  Worse than Kentucky? n/t

      by not a cent on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:20:23 PM PDT

      •  Kentucky at least has Louisville

        where Obama should rack up a nice margin (not nearly enough to be competitive statewide though).

        Obama's got nothing going for him in WV, it's a likely 10-18 delegate loss.

        by Skaje on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:48:10 AM PDT

        •  I think it's more likely

          to be 60-40, giving him 11 of the 28 delegates.

          Won't matter.  The supers will make that up for him before Tuesday.

          by DrWolfy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:42:20 AM PDT

    •  Except for one factor, Poblano

      No one was expecting this, trust me. I'm a Barack Phone Banker since January, thousands of calls down.

      Every Hillary supporter we get now KNOWS she can't win, IS NOT planning to vote for her (by and large) but just stay home OR when reminded that John McCain now MUST be faught and a weak showing of Democratic votes from a fractured party in West Virginia will inspire him, they IMMEDIATELY are saying they'll go vote for Barack.

      We couldn't believe what we were hearing today.

      The party is unifying much faster than the blogs would have you think!

      Admittedly, it's not his demographic, but there ARE inroads to be made AND flat-out conversions from Hillary folk.

      One thing a lady told me was she would vote for Obama since she heard he "won" the race, more or less, and she didn't want ANYONE to think she was a racist.

      We might get votes off of reverse-racism here.

      I have no clue how you factor it, but I encourage more calls and polling to be done.

      by mahakali overdrive on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:06:10 AM PDT

      •  i hope this is the rule

        and not the exception. At this point, I have very low expectations for a win in West Virginia. Actually, I fear a drubbing. But anything close to 45 percent will be better.

        Never thought I'd think a state was worse than Mississippi for racial divisions (where I grew up), but this primary season has taught me differently.

        by CocoaLove on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:40:52 AM PDT

        •  If you're the calling kind

          Call.  People mythologize WV as the worst of the worst, but actually people are pretty nice there (a lot of them are just POOR as hell) and I bet there are more of them who would respond as described above, than you think.  I mean, they at least have two Democratic Senators (while Norbama Carolobama has two of the worst Republicans ever).

          by kismet on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:07:12 AM PDT

      •  I agree,it may be premature to draw

        conclusions based on previous polls. New polls taken after May 6 are likely to give a better state of the race in WV.

        by edfox on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:14:34 AM PDT

  •  From your lips!

    ok, keyboard..but you get my drift...

    by Dazy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:31:35 PM PDT

  •  is O even going to WV or conceding it?

    by reformerdc on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:38:16 PM PDT

    •  He'll be there Monday, I heard n/t

      by 57andFemale on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:08:51 PM PDT

  •  people calling west virginia

    are finding Clinton converters going to stay home, until reminded that McCain will be president, at which point ELEVEN out of ELEVEN today swore they'd haul on down and vote