US (Super Tuesday) rivals fight on after key day

[Ghost Dog]

Source: BBC (Last Updated: Wednesday, 6 February 2008, 17:40 GMT )

... By some calculations, it looks as though Senator Obama may have ended up with more delegates than Senator Clinton, perhaps around 850 to 840. But the essential story of a race which is virtually tied does not really change.

Senator Obama's people might be a little concerned that his undeniable surge of the last few weeks did not carry him into a clear lead over his rival.

He had momentum in the build up to Super Tuesday, and now he needs to build it again before next month's battles in Texas and Ohio. On the plus side, he has plenty of money - he is said to have raised more than $1m a day in one recent month.

Senator Clinton will find plenty to encourage her too. She has shown she has a voter base which is loyal and determined - and perhaps one that becomes even more motivated when they see stories on their television news bulletins about Mr Obama's surging popularity.

Things have reportedly been a little tight for the Clinton camp financially, but first place finishes in California and New York should get the cash flowing again. ...

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7230203.stm

---

I thought it would be convenient to find this much data in LBN, rather than to have to go dumpster-diving in the Primaries forum hoping to find some kind of consensus...

[cloudythescribbler]

1. dumpster diving indeed, LOL!

I think Obama is in a much better position that otherwise thought. This issue of buildup and momentum overlooks that Obama started, even after the S Carolina victory and before Hillary's romp thru FL, behind, often WAY behind, in many key states AND nationally. But the TOTAL votes apparently broke about even. Hillary's people are probably pretty tense right now, perhaps making the kind of phone calls that W Bush people made when FL was called for Gore (the 'transition era American Way').

It's interesting how numerous people on DU could look at, say, MA, where I live, a state where just recently the whole gamut of polls were consistently showing HRC in the lead by usually more than 20%. Until recently, Hillary was ahead in places like this not only of Obama's total, but EVEN THE TOTAL POLL NUMBERS FOR OBAMA PLUS EDWARDS!

The Kennedy's weren't foolish in endorsing -- they could well sense the way the winds of popular opinion were blowing, along with no doubt their own ethical reasons. But this election hardly suggests that the Kennedys are all washed up, especially relative to the DLC Democrats. A lot of the venom on DU has, as its root among other things in the DLC Democrats, a CLEAR minority within the Democratic Party, holding on tight to control of the Democratic Party as completely as they can for as LONG as they can. The Lamont/Lieberman election was a bellwether of this.