by hilzoy
That was quick: the clock on my computer turned to 7pm, I clicked on MSNBC, and voila! they have called Vermont for Obama.
More as it develops.
***
UPDATE: CNN and MSNBC have called Rhode Island for Clinton.
« It Will Only Get Worse | Main | A Look Into the Abyss »
The comments to this entry are closed.
I love it when news broadcasts announces such and such candidate as the winner with 0% reporting. It makes me wonder if there wasn't some truth to that Onion story about Diebold leaking the 2008 election results.
Posted by: MeditativeZebra | March 04, 2008 at 07:38 PM
I'm bracing for the worst: Clinton wins OH, TX, and Wolf Blitzer talks about how the momentum has changed, though Obama came back from 20 pt deficits in both states.
Posted by: Ara | March 04, 2008 at 07:41 PM
Here's some light news for you from Akron. Let's all place our bets on Obama Supporter, McCain Supporter, Ron Paul Supporter, or Random Loon:
Of note in the Ohio races is the challenge to Dennis Kucinich's 10th District seat, with four challengers, the foremost among them being Cleveland City Councilman Joe Cimperman. Cleveland's SCENE Magazine had a decent cover story on Cimperman in last week's issue. I no longer live in "Dennis!"'s district -- I live in Ohio 19, where incumbent Stephanie Tubbs-Jones is running unopposed in the primary.Posted by: Phil | March 04, 2008 at 07:41 PM
This is interesting too, not so much for whatever proportion of these people are marching on Limbaugh's orders, but for the rest of them:
I particularly like the See family, voting on imaginary foreign affairs experience and gender. Ah, America!PS: If you want to get some real Cleveland-hate on, read the comments at that link. Or any item at Cleveland.com, really.
Posted by: Phil | March 04, 2008 at 07:49 PM
Rhode Island is looking like the surprise from the exit polls so far. I hadn't really been paying attention, because the impression I'd gotten from the news was that RI was about as solid for Clinton as VT was for Obama.
Posted by: Adam | March 04, 2008 at 07:53 PM
Ack, 60-38 for Clinton in Ohio... but with 0% reporting. Thanks for the heart attack, CNN.
Posted by: Adam | March 04, 2008 at 07:55 PM
Phil,
I'd say the options look more like Loon, Crazy, Nutball, or Psycho.
Posted by: A.J. | March 04, 2008 at 07:55 PM
As some folks know, I've just started seeing cable tv again for the first time since a few months in 2002, and before that not since the mid-Nineties.
So forgive me for being decades behind, but I'm fascinated that the Fox News Channel has a segment where the reporter was ostensibly going to give a "blog report" -- and I've now seen this at least 3-4 times in separate weeks -- but actually reported allegations from FNC blog comments.
Wow.
(Following with Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol as analysts is just expected.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 04, 2008 at 07:56 PM
"I love it when news broadcasts announces such and such candidate as the winner with 0% reporting."
When an exit poll makes it clear that it's mathematically impossible for a candidate to lose, it unsurprisingly gets reported.
"I hadn't really been paying attention, because the impression I'd gotten from the news was that RI was about as solid for Clinton as VT was for Obama."
Not in the past week.
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 04, 2008 at 07:59 PM
The one time I actually remember watching anything on CNN since 2000, I was eating my lunch at Texadelphia and looked up to see a segment on Russia, with "Russian Consultant" Vladimir Zhirinovsky.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky? I thought -- surely that isn't "Vlad the Bad" Zhirinovsky, he of the famous "reconquer Alaska and wash the blood off our boots in the Indian Ocean" platform? Yup, it was him.
No mention of his political career on CNN, no -- on CNN, they're equal-opportunity with their psychotic nationalists. They don't just get pro-American crazies, oh no -- they go for worldwide crazy. It's very egalitarian.
Posted by: Adam | March 04, 2008 at 08:04 PM
Dammit, Adam, now you've got me jonesing for some Texadelphia queso. Except I live in Atlanta these days.
Posted by: Priest | March 04, 2008 at 08:14 PM
Mmmmm, Texadelphia cheesesteaks with mustard blend and queso... my arteries are clogging up just thinking about it...
Posted by: Adam | March 04, 2008 at 08:16 PM
Politico has Obama up in Texas 150,000 to 100,000 (60%-40%) with 1% reporting, but I don't see those results anywhere else.
That can't be right. Anyone got any idea what's going on there?
Posted by: Adam | March 04, 2008 at 08:20 PM
Never mind, it's on CNN now, too. Wow. Are those early votes or what?
Posted by: Adam | March 04, 2008 at 08:22 PM
Oh, good grief...that made me HUNGRY....and I just ate!
Posted by: gwangung | March 04, 2008 at 08:24 PM
Now 440K to 300K -- TX comes through! Woo!
Posted by: Adam | March 04, 2008 at 08:25 PM
OK, no official results from Ohio until after 9pm -- there was a screwup in Sandusky County with a ballot printer, so they didn't have enough ballots at first; therefore, polls there will stay open until 9, and the other 87 counties can't release official results until after Sandusky County closes.
Posted by: Phil | March 04, 2008 at 08:36 PM
Causing political junkies the world over to get the shakes...
Posted by: hilzoy | March 04, 2008 at 08:38 PM
Cnn has called ohio for Clinton with %0 reporting and polls still open due to ballot shortage.
Posted by: gerbal | March 04, 2008 at 08:38 PM
And now, apparently, 15 precincts in Cleveland are being help open for voting until 9pm. No details as to why, but the title of the link appears to indicate that it has something to do with a suit by the Obama campaign. Can't find anything at Yahoo! News about it.
Any Ohio results you see right now came from early counting in Ohio 4, which includes a few smaller cities (Mansfield, Findlay) but is overall quite rural; they showed Clinton with a 62-36 lead, among ~8,000 votes.
Ohio exit polls appear to show Clinton winning among white women, older voters and whites generally.
Posted by: Phil | March 04, 2008 at 08:43 PM
Gerbal: according to their web page, it's still too close to call.
Posted by: hilzoy | March 04, 2008 at 08:43 PM
More details:
Posted by: Phil | March 04, 2008 at 08:49 PM
Keep in mind also that Northeast Ohio has been getting hit by snow and freezing rain since about 4pm, and commuting out of the city and around the county this afternoon was pretty slow. It's gotten bad enough that OHP and Cleveland police have asked drivers to stay off the roads for the rest of the night. That almost certainly has affected voting.
Posted by: Phil | March 04, 2008 at 08:52 PM
"Politico has Obama up in Texas 150,000 to 100,000 (60%-40%) with 1% reporting, but I don't see those results anywhere else.
That can't be right"
Sure it can. Why are you paying attention to 1% precincts reporting? Who cares? It's meaningless.
Setting aside that the primary vote in Texas is relatively meaningless anyway.
When the race can be called, it'll be called. Before then, it doesn't matter what the numbers are, because they won't have been enough to call it yet.
You don't know which order the precincts are reporting in, and which have which number of delegates, and which have what demography, and how significant those particular precincts are.
So the numbers are meaningless, absent that knowledge. Absent that knowledge, they might as well be random numbers. So why are you paying attention?
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 04, 2008 at 08:53 PM
It's actually the early votes. They don't count as precincts.
Posted by: Adam | March 04, 2008 at 08:59 PM
Or, according to TPM, they count as single precincts, so they don't really affect the percentage total.
Posted by: Adam | March 04, 2008 at 09:06 PM
So McCain is "official" finally and Huckabee is dropping out. An interesting question posed over at Marc Ambinder's was whether this makes Dem Superdelegates feel more pressure to end their contest.
Posted by: J.W. Hamner | March 04, 2008 at 09:26 PM
"So McCain is 'official' finally and Huckabee is dropping out."
Strictly speaking, he's "officially" the nominee now only in the sense that you use quotation marks, which is to say, in the sense that he's still the presumptive, not official, nominee, until the Republican National Convention vote actually officially makes him the official nominee.
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 04, 2008 at 09:51 PM
CNN's reporting (from its exit polls) that the gender breakdown of the Democratic voters is 41-59 male-female. Is that right? Because if so, I've never seen an American election swing that heavily towards the female side.
Posted by: Anarch | March 04, 2008 at 09:52 PM
The democratic electoric is very often 60-40 women
Posted by: yoyo | March 04, 2008 at 10:02 PM
"Because if so, I've never seen an American election swing that heavily towards the female side."
Yoyo's more or less correct about the electorate. Women were 57% of the New Hampshire primary Democratic electorate, for example. Here's some data from 2004 primaries: women ranged from 52% to 59%, mostly 54% and above. And the percentage of women voting has gone up.
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 04, 2008 at 10:21 PM
CNN, MS-NBC, and the rest, have called Ohio for Clinton.
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 04, 2008 at 10:54 PM