With 90% reporting, Clinton up 67/26. 28 proportionally awarded delegates are up for grabs.
Clinton 216,202 66%!Presumably she will get 19 of the 28 and he 9, Netting her +10 for her blowout win.
Obama 84,061 26%
If you know what I mean, and I think you do.
This morning I personally checked John McCain's bearings, he has not lost any of them, they're all really in great shape -- Senator Joe Lieberman
Let people who want to believe its not over, believe its not over. Its does not matter. -- Joe Trippi.There's more...
Trouble in River City...
56% Reporting in Gary. 65%/35% Obama... If it stays abve 57% or 58%. Obama wins Indiana...
Clinton 606,497 51% 32Holy Crap.
Obama 589,888 49% 29
People in Indiana sure do count slow. You would think they would be faster, what with the Indy 500 and all.
There's more...Indiana is still too close to call. Another round on the house
Clinton 473,040 52% 15
Obama 429,093 48% 11
With 63% reporting.
Clinton 416,438 54% 7
Obama 359,589 46% 3
Question: How many more votes will the Democratic 2nd place finisher in Indiana get than Johnny "Free Ride" McCain?
Bonus Round: Will that number beat the Clinton/Obama spread?
With 50% Reporting
Clinton 320,596 55%
Obama 262,783 45%
With 11% Reporting, North Carolina is called for Obama.
Obama 215,330 63% 20There's more...
Clinton 120,657 35% 13
Here ya go, your first crappy exit polls.
North CarolinaThere's more...
Obama 52
Clinton 44
Indiana
Clinton 54
Obama 45
Basics of Supply and Demand
Anyone who has taken a survey econ course has seen diagrams like the one above, commonly called a supply and demand diagram or supply and demand curves.
The horizontal axis (Q) is Quantity supplied of a product. Q2 is a larger quantity (greater supply) than Q1. The vertical axis (P) is Price to purchase the product. P2 is a larger price than P1.
The blue line labeled S is a supply curve for our product. As with most supply curves, it increases monotonically and tells us that, as the price P rises, the quantity Q of the product supplied also rises. This makes intuitive sense: if someone will pay a lot more for a hamburger, more people go into business selling hamburgers and the supply increases.
The red line labeled D1 is a demand curve for our product. As with most demand curves, it decreases monotonically and tells us that, as the price P falls, the quantity Q of the product demanded rises. This also makes intuitive sense: if the price of hamburgers drops, more people buy them.
These are typical supply and demand curves. There are others. These are representative supply and demand curves, they do not represent any specific product and market. It is possible (given the right sort of data) to generate actual supply and demand curves for actual products.
The point where S crosses D1 is a market equilibrium, where the supply of and demand for our product are equal. At this point, the market price is P1 and the quantity supplied is Q1. Equilibrium indicates that the price and supply will stay there once they are there. If the price is below the equilibrium, less of the product will be supplied (a shortage) and the price will be bid up. The higher price will encourage entry of other suppliers (or current suppliers will increase production if possible), the quantity supplied will increase and the price will drop toward the equilibrium.
The red curve labeled D2 is an alternate demand curve. Suppose that our product is made available to a new market: at any given price, more people want to buy our product, and the demand curve is shifted right, representing an increase in demand. With this increase in demand comes a new equilibrium, where D2 crosses S. Notice that both the price and quantity produced have increased at this new equilibrium: price from P1 to P2 and quantity from Q1 to Q2.
Markets
"Free markets" are amazing things. Left to themselves, they establish price and production amounts magically, without human intervention. Or do they?
"Free" market sounds like something that is unfettered, unconstrained, unregulated, and well, unreal. Markets are unable to operate without certain preconditions: good governance, stable currencies, security, confidence, etc. Without security and stability, markets fail. Without contract enforcement mechanisms, markets fail. Without producer and consumer confidence, markets fail.
Free marketeers often complain about government regulation. Economists (and remember, there's a reason why economics is called "the dismal science") will use supply and demand curves to show you that almost any government intervention (taxation, price supports or caps, etc.) distorts the free market and generates inefficiencies. And according to the theory, they are correct. However, honest economists will also admit that there are good reasons for governments to regulate markets (pdf), reasons which may go beyond economics.
Market Failures
One of the biggest reasons for government to regulate markets is "market failure". We've just seen an enormous one in the US, the so-called "subprime meltdown". The Long-Term Capital Management fiasco of the late 1990s also comes to mind.
Market failures include things like:
John McCain wants to suspend federal gasoline taxes for the three months of the summer holiday. Specifically:
McCain urged Congress to institute a "gas-tax holiday" by suspending the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. By some estimates, the government would lose about $10 billion in revenue. He also renewed his call for the United States to stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and thus lessen to some extent the worldwide demand for oil.
Combined, he said, the two proposals would reduce gas prices, which would have a trickle-down effect, and "help to spread relief across the American economy."
What would such a "gas-tax holiday" actually do, economically, to supply and demand? Since economists aren't physicists, it's impossible to say for sure, but here are a couple of the more believable scenarios:
Realistically, the gas-tax holiday will have little effect upon the average American. The price of gas might go down, but if it does, the amount of gasoline used will go up, pushing prices back up and increasing the flow of carbon into the atmosphere.
Sounds like a losing proposition to me, on the merits.
But it does appear to be pretty good political theatre.
NOTE: Nothing in this post should be construed as an endorsement of any Democratic candidate for president. It is an article with facts and opinions about politics. I have not made up my mind, and GNB is not endorsing any candidate prior to there being a clear nominee.
When all of the ballots were finally counted -- a process that lasted through the night until well after the sun was up -- Sen. Barack Obama had the most votes from Guam Democrats in the party’s caucus held yesterday.
Obama finished with 2,264 votes to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s 2,257 votes – a 7-point difference. Obama never trailed from the first vote count on.
Obama won 14 of 21 districts. Most districts that were won by Clinton were by small margins.
Clinton 2,257There's more...
Obama 2,264
2004 Dem Primary (Kerry)
789,882
2004 General Election (Kerry)
2,938,095
2006 Mid-Term Elections (Casey)
2,431,974
Dem Primary 2008 (Clinton & Obama)
2,300,542
Damn near the record reached in the all out battle that was the general election in 2004. Pretty good for just a primary, in April. Late April.
98.91% Reporting
Clinton 1,232,681 54.3% 528.6% Spread.
Obama 1,039,151 45.7% 46
76% Reporting
Still no Chester. As you can see no large balance of delegates here. She needed to win by double digits... Probably going to be ~8 or ~9 points. She is also still short in the popular vote by 700,000 or so. Did not having the money to spend hurt her ability to increase the margin? There's more...
Clinton 900,924 54% 37
Obama 757,013 46% 31
|
