Sunday, May 11, 2008

Other Massachusetts add-on revealed

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Attorney General Martha Coakley is Massachusetts's other add-on superdelegate. - Boston Herald

As far as we can tell, she is uncommitted.

Posted by Matt at 12:26 AM

Labels:

16 comments:

Brian Webster said...

Could almost declare her for Clinton based upon demography and geography alone!

May 11, 2008 1:17 AM
Unknown said...

I take it you're not from Massachusetts, George. There are plenty of statewide officials for Obama (some of them female and white). Coakley got elected the same year as Deval Patrick, and might just be leaning Obama. Talking to a couple people at the convention, there seemed to be a consensus that the second add-on would go to a prominent statewide official and yes, balance in the delegation's demographics would be a consideration. That's one reason Treasurer Tim Cahill did not oppose AG Martha Coakley after getting beaten for the first add-on by Arthur Powell, a vocal Clinton backer. Had this happened a month earlier, I'm not sure that Coakley would have run unopposed without declaring loyalty to either candidate.

Coakley hasn't tipped her hand yet...

May 11, 2008 1:43 AM
Amot said...

Oliver,
I agree. Martha Coakley is Obama leaner according to me. Thinking of her political career and her standings I think he will join Obama's camp in few days...

May 11, 2008 2:10 AM
DLAR said...

Funny, I thought there was a female unpledged and a male unpledged delegate elected. I was in the hall, and I'm pretty sure Tim is a guy.

May 11, 2008 7:22 AM
Unknown said...

Uh yeah. Balance="That's one reason Treasurer Tim Cahill did not oppose AG Martha Coakley". It was my first time at such a meeting, but I was under the impression that the gender balance thing was not pre-ordained, but rather, decided upon yesterday.

May 11, 2008 8:35 AM
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
May 11, 2008 8:36 AM
Dan Werner said...

What about the 2nd Ohio add-on? Do we have a valid source indicating that it is Basehin?

May 11, 2008 9:02 AM
Unknown said...

Speaking of Ohio: A diarist at DailyKos asserted yesterday that the final results of the Ohio primary yield another pledged delegate for Obama, taking one from Clinton. (Reason: The rules call for removing Edwards' votes since he was not "viable", then recalculating the percentages; doing so in the first district brings Obama over the threshhold of a 3-1, rather than a 2-2, split.)

Is this true? If so, is this change reflected in the pledged delegate counts on this site?

May 11, 2008 1:14 PM
Galois said...

Rachael,

Yes. This site uses The Green Paper for its pledged delegate count which already had that 1st congressional district in Ohio going 3-1 for Obama.

May 11, 2008 1:26 PM
Amot said...

Galois, Rachel,
that was not the reason!
Actually Obama get some absentees that lifted him over the breakpoint in CD1. As you know final results usually come later and are totally capable to change the outcome if the preliminary result is within 1% of the breakpoint. Ohio final results were posted several days ago. Beside gaining one more delegate, Obama was able to go below 9% margin in OH and the WV lose in three days will be his first double digit lose after Super Tuesday.
In NC there are also 5 CDs too close to call before the final results are not out. As you know I was following that close and I assume that Obama can actually take 3 of the 5 for a total win of 67/48. (In my dreams 69/46)
GP claim their result to be based on 100% precincts reported but if you check the numbers on other sources those are more like 92%. In NC additional trouble comes from the so called 'One stops' so I guess it will take as much as at least two weeks to get all settled.

May 11, 2008 1:46 PM
Galois said...

Amot,

I was just point out that GP already has Obama leading 3-1 in the 1st CD. There is no way he's going to make it 4-0 in the district. That's all I was saying.

May 11, 2008 2:22 PM
Amot said...

GP had CD1 2:2 until recently! Obama had less than 62.5% of the viable vote. They updated at the end of April after SoS gave the new information. DCW updated too. So the answer to Rachael is - yes, the new delegate is included in the count!

May 11, 2008 2:55 PM
tmess2 said...

North Carolina does have a mechanism to look at results by Congressional District. While those numbers do not match GP (and I am not sure where NC is on having a certified count including all absentee and provisional votes finally determined), most of the delegates seem to be pretty clear.

By my look at the district level numbers as shown on NC's website (last updated on Friday), Obama has 63 "safe" delegates, Clinton has 46 "safe" delegates. Obama is leading for three delegates (2nd, 11th, and 12th districts) and Clinton is leading for three delegates (6th, 9th, and 13th districts).

May 11, 2008 2:55 PM
Amot said...

tmess2,
your info is correct.
However CD11 is clear: Obama is 1.5% above the breakpoint with all precincts counted and I don't think absentees and provisional can change that. If those are 10% (too much in my opinion) he needs only 27% of them to seal the 3rd delegate, so I announced that delegate secured for him. All the others are too close to tell, but after manual calculations I can tell that CD2, CD12 and CD13 will each give one more to Obama, CD6 will probably go Clinton and CD9 is real toss-up!

May 11, 2008 3:15 PM
Galois said...

"So the answer to Rachael is - yes, the new delegate is included in the count!"

That's all I was trying to say.

May 11, 2008 3:59 PM
DLAR said...

Oliver, see the top of page 12 in our plan...

May 11, 2008 9:35 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)