Clinton's CA delegate edge is now less than what Obama earned in Idaho

[BeyondGeography]

+11 compared with +12...more proof that 35 years of experience didn't include how to run a presidential nominating contest in 2008.

Obama Picks Up A Delegate in CA-53
by: David Dayen
Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 23:34:18 PM PST

This is a quickie. I've been checking in on the final vote totals at the Secretary of State's website every day or so, and today was the first change I've noticed that actually effects delegates. In CA-53 in San Diego, additional votes have given Barack Obama a 443-vote lead in a district he trailed in. This being a 5-delegate district, he would get a 3-2 split there now if counting ended today. He's creeping up in CA-50 as well, within 556 votes.

Also, the statewide vote is down to a 9.2% spread, with Clinton at 51.9% and Obama at 42.7%. That extrapolates to the same delegate split of 71-58, for now, but it's inching closer to 70-59...

http://calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5133

The mastermind behind the small state/caucus strategy? A self-described "big fat goof" named Steve Hildebrand:

==Mr Hildebrand, 45, noted that Mrs Clinton largely turned her back on states that held caucuses — events with smaller turnouts where an organisational edge counts for more than in primary elections. Indeed, after spending up to $25 million (£13 million) losing in Iowa, she has railed regularly against the “unrepresentative” caucus concept. The result was that in the last eight caucuses Mr Obama picked up 209 delegates, compared with her 96.

When Mrs Clinton won New Jersey, which has a population of 8.7 million, rules that required delegates to be awarded proportionately meant that she made a net gain of just 11. By contrast, Mr Obama's huge margin of victory in Idaho — population 1.5 million — earned him 12 more delegates than Mrs Clinton.

Mr Hildebrand had set up five campaign offices in Idaho by last autumn, an unprecedented effort for a reliably Republican state that is usually ignored by Democrats. The benefits could be seen even before the vote on February 5, when Mr Obama staged a rally in Boise that was attended by four times more people than the entire turnout for the 2004 caucus.==

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3378912.ece

[Coexist]

1. kos is on this too - front page - check it out:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/18/4376/39697/784/458894

"I've been checking in on the final vote totals at the Secretary of State's website every day or so, and today was the first change I've noticed that actually effects delegates. In CA-53 in San Diego, additional votes have given Barack Obama a 443-vote lead in a district he trailed in. This being a 5-delegate district, he would get a 3-2 split there now if counting ended today. He's creeping up in CA-50 as well, within 556 votes.

Also, the statewide vote is down to a 9.2% spread, with Clinton at 51.9% and Obama at 42.7%. That extrapolates to the same delegate split of 71-58, for now, but it's inching closer to 70-59."

Since Obama's gain is Clinton's loss, that's a two-delegate swing in favor of Obama.

[billyoc]

2. Are there any accounts that still have Clinton ahead in delegate counts? nt

[Coexist]

3. I don't know - I like RealClearPolitics myself

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/