Note: The Google advertisement links below may advocate political positions that this site does not endorse.

Date of Prediction: 2008-05-03 Version:64

Prediction Map

Confidence Map

Prediction States Won

		270 \|	538 \|
Dem	254
Rep	226
Ind	58

Confidence States Won

		270 \|	538 \|
Dem	254
Rep	226
Ind	0
Tos	58

State Pick-ups

	Gain			Loss			Hold			Net Gain
	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV
Dem	+4	+1	+27	-2	0	-25	18	2	227	+2
Rep	+1	0	+4	-6	-1	-64	25	2	222	-60
Ind	+3	0	+58	0	0	0	0	0	0	+58

Analysis

Please read all of my analysis before commenting!

This is an Obama / McCain matchup, but ---

as promised, here is my map based solely on the numbers from the second poll average convergence, from March to the end of April 2008, which I have now completed. I have combed through the polling data for all 50 states, including the 65 updates for the month of April. Out of the 341 polls I have studied, 159 of them fall within the time frame from March to the end of April 2008.

You can see every single poll number, with links to every pollster, and the averages and much more here at my blog. It would not be practical to post all of this data here for it would make this page far too long to be enjoyable, so stop by and check out the numbers at the link provided.

Before proceeding, please remember that this map is not based on intuition or feeling or personal bias. It is based strictly on the numbers and uses exactly the same methodology as the first poll convergence.

The percentages predictions are a little different. They are a reflection of the margin averages for each state:

Up to 1% - green, 30%
2%-5% - respective color, 40%
5%-13%- respective color, 50%
14%-24%-respective color, 60%
25% and above- respective color, 70%

There are currently three tossup states:

PA, with McCain at +0.70% margin*
ND, with McCain at +1.00% margin**
TX, with McCain at +1.00% margin***

*note: PA has been polled more than any other state in the union. for this time frame, there are 11 polls. The normal average of polls is 6 or 7. Alone in April there are 9 polls. Were I to take a snapshot of April only for PA, then Obama would be in the lead, but with only +0.30%. I am writing this only to illustrate how incredibly tight this one race is.

**Before anyone should decide to complain about ND, go to my blog and read the numbers first. There are two polls for this state, one with Obama ahead by 4, the next with McCain ahead by 6. Both have both candidates in the low 40s or high 30s and there are lots of undecideds. The principle is this: if a poll is an outlier, then successive polls will show us this. But with only one other poll with just as close a margin as the first poll, it is impossible to decide which poll would be an outlier. So, the average is indeed McCain +1.0, which makes the state currently a battleground. Do I think this state will be a battleground? No, probably not. But I am bound to present the numbers exactly as they are.

***TX: there has only been one poll, with only 1 point between McCain and Obama. I am surprised that no polling organization took the time to poll TX in April.

Now, some can claim that two months is a long time. Well, the first convergence covered three months, but there were less polls then, the pace of polling has picked-up since then and will accelerate toward November, but either way, I find such a time frame to be more than appropriate, for polls have their own ebb and flow and if you watch them long enough, you can start to see the pattern. Time and time again I have done calculations for two months as opposed to one and come up with almost the same results, and I am talking about contested states here.

If I were to make a complaint, it would be about the low number of nationally recognized pollsters doing state by state match-ups. SUSA and Rasmussen do the bulk of this work. It would be good to see three or four more reputable pollsters doing state-by-state matchups every month. It would provide a larger and healthier numbers pool.

The first posting here will be the polling table with a legend to know how to interpret it, plus some commentary.

---------------------

And a final note: I am a person very receptive to adult discussion and also agressive debate, but verbal attacks, insults, use of deragatory terms toward candidates et al... is just not kosher here. Please don't do it. When you read this analysis and also the first post, you will notice that I am sticking completely to the facts, nothing more and nothing less.

So keep it sane, keep it sanguine, keep it adult. Thanks.

Prediction History
Prediction Graph

Comments History - show

Version History

Member Comments

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-03 @ 18:41:54

Here is the poll margin convergence listing for the 50 states for March-April 2008, listed in descending order for Obama, and as of McCain wins, in ascending order for McCain. This is the third column in the table, shaded in very light grey.

The list also compares the results of the last poll margin convergence to the current one and then lists the difference, so BO/JM – 1 stands for match-ups between Obama and McCain in the first convergence, BO/JM – 2 for the second convergence and Diff for the difference between the two. Same layout for Clinton.

It is the BO/JM – 1 column that decides this map.

The three states where the margin average is 1% or less are in italic and separated by empty fields from the rest of the table.

Here the table:

State	BO/JM - 1	BO/JM-2	Diff.	HR/JM-2	HC/JM -2	Diff.
DC	--	--	--	--	--	--
VT	34.00	34.00	--	10.00	10.00	--
HI	30.00	30.00	--	4.00	4.00	--
IL	29.00	29.00	--	11.00	11.00	--
CT	16.60	16.60	--	4.70	4.70	--
RI	15.00	15.00	--	17.00	17.00	--
MD	9.50	13.50	+4.00	3.50	8.00	+4.50
ME	14.00	12.00	-2.00	6.00	5.50	-0.50
CA	13.70	10.50	-3.20	13.40	9.40	-4.00
DE	9.00	9.00	--	5.00	5.00	--
NY	12.00	8.90	-3.10	13.80	13.70	-0.10
OR	5.50	8.00	+2.50	3.30	1.00	-2.30
IA	10.30	6.80	-3.50	5.90	4.20	-1.70
MN	0.70	6.00	+5.30	0.50	2.40	+1.90
WA	5.50	5.70	+0.20	2.00	1.00	-1.00
MA	2.20	5.60	+3.40	13.50	16.80	+3.30
NJ	2.50	5.20	+2.70	6.50	6.30	-0.20
CO	4.50	4.50	--	4.00	10.00	+6.00
WI	4.80	4.30	-0.50	3.60	4.30	+0.70
NM	1.00	2.50	+1.50	3.80	0.50	+4.30
NV	7.00	1.40	+5.60	0.70	6.00	+6.70
MI	1.00	1.20	+0.20	2.00	3.80	+1.80
--	--	--	--	--	--	--
PA	*0.30*	*0.70*	*+0.40*	*0.20*	*3.80*	*+3.60*
TX	1.00	1.00	--	7.00	7.00	--
ND	*4.00*	*1.00*	*+5.00*	*19.00*	*24.50*	*+5.50*
-	--	--	--	--	--	--
OH	2.00	2.50	+0.50	1.70	4.50	+2.80
SC	3.00	3.00	--	6.00	6.00	--
NE	3.00	3.00	--	27.00	27.00	--
IN	8.50	4.00	-4.50	14.00	9.70	-4.30
VA	3.50	4.60	+1.1	9.00	11.60	+2.60
NH	2.60	5.00	+7.60	0.60	5.70	+5.10
AK	5.00	5.00	--	12.00	22.50	+12.50
NC	5.50	5.00	-0.50	12.40	12.00	-0.40
MT	8.00	6.50	-1.50	20.00	19.00	-1.00
FL	2.70	7.00	+4.30	3.40	3.00	-0.40
UT	11.00	11.00	--	38.00	38.00	--
MO	8.80	10.30	+1.50	3.90	2.50	-1.40
SD	7.00	10.70	+3.70	13.00	13.30	+0.30
UT	11.00	11.00	--	38.00	38.00	--
KS	10.20	12.70	+2.50	15.20	16.30	+1.10
MS	13.00	13.00	--	9.00	9.00	--
GA	13.00	13.00	--	20.50	20.50	--
LA	13.00	14.00	+1.00	16.00	13.00	-3.00
ID	14.00	14.00	--	35.00	35.00	--
AZ	17.00	15.70	-1.30	18.50	20.30	+1.80
WV	18.00	18.00	--	5.00	5.00	--
WY	19.00	19.00	--	33.00	33.00	--
TN	16.00	21.50	+5.50	*0.00*	7.00	+7.00
OK	23.00	23.00	--	8.00	8.00	--
AL	21.00	23.00	-2.00	16.20	17.40	+1.20
AR	24.50	24.50	--	2.00	2.00	--
KY	25.30	29.70	+4.40	9.60	7.00	-2.60

So, according to the statistics, Obama is winning in 22 states. McCain is winning in 26 states. 3 are statistical tossups.

Clinton is winning in 20 states, against her, McCain is winning in 31 states.

Obama / McCain:

Of the 14 states where Obama has had margin changes, 9 of them were improvements in his margin average. In 5 states, his margin has lessened.

Of the 17 states where McCain has had margin changes, 12 of them were improvements in his margin average. In 5 states, his margin has lessened.

Clinton / McCain:

Of the 11 states where Clinton has had margin changes, 6 of them were improvements in his margin average. In 5 states, her margin has lessened.

Of the 22 states where McCain has had margin changes against Clinton, 13 of them were improvements in his margin average. In 9 states, his margin has lessened.

Switchers, statistically:

NH has moved from DEM to GOP for both Obama and Clinton.

ND has moved from lean DEM (Obama) to lean GOP (tossup)

The entire trifecta goes for McCain against Obama, but for Clinton against McCain (OH, PA, FL). Of those three, PA is still the battleground state and also THE battleground state for the nation.

7 states that Obama wins switch to McCain in a matchup against Clinton: OR, IA, WA, CO, WI, NV, MI

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2008-05-03 @ 18:51:51
Very nice analysis and table. I am sure there will be more to do after next Tuesday but this certainly satisfies my political needs - for the moment. I presume three or four states switch to McCain going from Hilary to Barack- FL, OH, Missouri and WV....and Ark by your table... it will be interesting to see how this plays out through the summer and after the conventions....an interesting election for once although I still would have liked some different choices.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-03 @ 19:49:40

Obama won the GUAM Territorial Convention in a SQUEAKER of a vote. This is the second smallest margin of the season, right after Clinton’s win in NM (+0.14).

Candidate	Votes	%	Margin	Delegates
Obama	2,264	50.08	+0.16	2
Clinton	2,257	49.92	--	2
TOTAL:	4,521	100.00	--	4

Next: a map of Guam, depicting who won where:

Last Edit: 2008-05-03 @ 19:51:35

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-03 @ 19:52:42
Last Edit: 2008-05-04 @ 08:24:56

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-05-03 @ 20:31:33
7 Damn votes Will there be a recount?

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-03 @ 21:37:35
I asked myself this question as well, but the chances are that any change won't change the delegate split. To get anything than a 2-2 split, one would need close to 75% of the vote.

By: pacewicz (D-IL) 2008-05-03 @ 22:17:46
True - but the vote margin does count for the Guam suppers... and I think that is more winner-take-all.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-04 @ 03:31:24
Are there SDs from Guam ? And anyway I don't think this will have much influence overall (though you don't know how crazy Democrats can get). Anyway -first good news for Obama since a few weeks. Though unimportant. Thanks for the new map and analysis, Bonn. May I point out however that your three statistical toss-ups are leaning toward McCain and that in this case he would be the winner ? My point is, 254 without the big three is not bad, but it's a loss. And how about NE-2 ? Why do you make it Dem ? I think this map and analysis highlights a dilemma for the Democrats : either they lose all big three or 7 smaller swing states. So what do we do ? Well, wait, and hope it gets better. Any suggestions ?

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-04 @ 04:10:31
I understand there are 2 SDs from Guam -their newly selected party chair, an Obama supporter, and co-chair, who has promised to vote for the winner of the Guam caucus. So 2-0 for Obama on supers, 4-2 overall Guam delegates. Elsewhere today, Obama picked up an add on (super)delegate from each of SC & MD, & the chair of the NM party endorsed him. Clinton picked up an add on from MD. So they're score for the day is Obama +7, Clinton +3. Last Edit: 2008-05-04 @ 04:10:49

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-04 @ 05:44:18
Vote for Hillary & it gets a whole lot better watching states like Florida, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, & Arkansas come well into play. With virtually no states going out of play the other way. She is the stronger more competent candidate, & what a fighter! As they say this general election campaign is going to be real tough why put someone inexperienced in there to get thumped? You need someone that's going to fight fire with fire & stand up for what they believe in - Hillary's that candidate! Obama can't even put the Reverand Wright scandal to rest until weeks afterwards! Last Edit: 2008-05-04 @ 05:46:19

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-04 @ 05:47:09
Democrat Don Cazayoux won LA-06! The results, direct from the Louisiana SOS website: Cazayoux (D): 49,702 (49.20%) Jenkins (R): 46,701 (46.27%) Casey (I): 3,718 (3.68%) Aranyosi (unaffiliated): 448 (0.44%) Hayes (C): 402 (0.40%) Total Votes cast: 100,671 Margin: Cazayoux + 3,001 (+2.93%) And this was a CD with a PVI rating of R +6.5. Bush won this CD in 2000 with 55%. He won it again in 2004 with 59% Hordes of money got socked into this race and the GOP tried as hard as it could to pin Cazayoux to Barack Obama as a test to see what would happen nationally. They smeared the name Wright to Obama in every imaginable way. And we see the result. The democrat won. Last Edit: 2008-05-04 @ 06:50:14

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-04 @ 05:47:56
& on a 7 vote victory I'd hardly call Gaum a win for Obama, that's a tie in anyone's language. Still I'm surprised it was even this close there. I thought Hillary would win comfortably. Still they don't vote in the general election, & your talking about a caucus again of oh my gosh 4,500 votes.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-04 @ 05:49:22
No states going out of play ? Maybe not, but a tougher fight in Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan -not to say hopeless in a few of these. Each candidate has strengths in some states and weaknesses in others. Clinton is polling better than Obama now, but it was the contrary a few weeks ago and it might just shift again when Obama's reverend problem gets out of the scene. And Obama courageously challenged a well-funded frontrunner, made the necessary efforts to upset her campaign and is about to win the nomination. I want someome who is capable to win an election. Clinton can't even come to terms with a nomination.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-04 @ 05:51:49
demboy73: please go back and read the bottom of my analysis. You are welcome to post here - all are welcome and also to root for their guy (or gal), but statements like "why put someone inexperienced in there to get thumped?" -and- "Obama can't even put the Reverand Wright scandal to rest until weeks afterwards!" are not the type of statements we are looking for her. Keep it sane. Keep it sanguine. Keep it adult. Thank you. Last Edit: 2008-05-04 @ 05:52:50

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-04 @ 05:56:48
Hardly controversial comments. I'm simply commenting on the way I see it. It's an opinion. Gosh.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-04 @ 05:58:02
About Guam: winning is defined as getting at least one more vote than your opponent. Obama won Guam. But it was a squeaker, which I also noted right sway. And I also was surprised - had predicted a sizable Clinton victory here, based on the results of American Samoa. But all along we all knew here that the PDs would probably be split 2-2. To get anything more than 2-2, the winner would need close to 75% of the vote. And as CR is fond of saying, the all count, the big fish and the little fish. I did not belittle Clinton when she won American Samoa, and in that case, only 285 votes were cast instead of 4,521. So, the caucus in American Samoa was 15.86 times SMALLER than the caucus in Guam, just to note.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-04 @ 05:59:10
Und das darfst Du freilich, aber pass mal auf, was den Ton betrifft, und Du weißt GANZ GENAU was ich meine. Klar?

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-04 @ 06:01:11
I'm not belittling them & knew that that's how it would be perceived. I think it's great that they even take the process to Guam, American Samoa, & Peurto Rico, as they are not states, & do not vote in the general election. It's a small prize that's all. It's not going to effect the campaign one way or the other. But damn close.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-04 @ 06:01:57
Nein sprechen zie deutsch bitte.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-04 @ 06:09:28
Excuse me, I thought you were in Austria, but you are from Australia. Apologies.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-04 @ 06:11:14
Not at all. It's a common mistake. I have many German friends & have been there twice so I should be able to speak it better. I'll get out my translator but it better be nice! grin

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-04 @ 06:12:23
I don't understand why American territories are not allowed to vote for President and have no representation in Congress. In France, most oversea territories have parliamentary representation and all are allowed to vote for President.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-04 @ 06:14:20
Ok German to English translation not so good. Why is that? Obviously we don't have the same words. I think I pick up the tone though. Look a robust free discussion is always good in my opinion but I'm not into upsetting people so if I have caused any offense whatsoever I apologise.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-04 @ 06:20:53
You didn't offend, but on my last maps the discussion took a nasty turn, so I have decided to head off any small path that can lead to nastiness before it gets too bad. Only for this reason am I taking a more active role in keeping this thing sane, sanguine and friendly. Like I said, you are always welcome here. And if you are a Clinton supporter and all hyped up for her, more power to you. Great! French, there has been a lot of active discussion about the territories. The main argument, which I can understand, is that there is no 100% guarantee that the territories will remain our territories (see Panama Canal) and therefore should not get a foothold in the electoral college. On the other hand, large territories like Puerto Rico have just oodles of folks who serve in our military, etc... so there is also the argument for inclusion of the territories in the national election. I doubt that the average Joe thinks much about it though. There are just too many pressing issues on the mainland, so to speak.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-04 @ 06:22:58
Fair enough. I have heard of the nasty discussions out there - apparently there's a lot on the Huffington post. Cheers!

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-04 @ 06:28:08
You would have to think Guam & Puerto Rico are eligible candidates for statehood? But from what I've read there is just as much support for independence. I'm not so fond of the whole American Samoa concept or the French territories in the Pacific as this is getting closer to home, & I think they should be independent. But from what I've heard there's not much support for this at least in American Samoa anyway. New Caledonia is going to be very interesting when the vote comes up there in the not so distant future I believe as there is a strong bent for independence amongst the Kanak population.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-04 @ 06:40:10
I can talk about New Caledonia if you want to. It is true that the Kanak movement is striving for independence. It could have turned really nasty in 1988, but the Kanak, who are supported by left-wing parties, agreed to negociate with the French government when President François Mitterrand was re-elected and got rid of the right-wing Prime Minister, Jacques Chirac. We avoided major chaos in oversea territories, but it might happen again. However, in New Caledonia, where the right wing is associated with staying within the French Republic while the left is associated with Kanak independentists, Nicolas Sarkozy got 49% of the vote in the first round and two thirds in the second. If a referendum was held in New Caledonia for independence, it would certainly lose. As for the US: I don't think PR and Guam should be allowed state status. Historically, it doesn't fit. But they should be allowed voting representation in the House and Electoral College votes in proportion of their population. After all, they have the right to vote for who governs them -it's called democracy, isn't it ?

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-04 @ 06:52:07
Absolutely. Does American Samoa vote in the G.E? & going on the failed state status of some of it's neighbours NC may be better off staying with the Republique!

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-04 @ 06:53:34
I am doing intensive research on PR and all four political parties there. There is no 1:1 correspondence to the US political system in Puerto Rico, it's more complicated than one thinks. But actually, inertia has taken effect and most PRs are pretty much satisfied with the status quo. I agree with you, it's a thorny issue and there is no easy solution. This is another area not in our constitution as our founding father's did not have to deal with it at the time of the beginning of the republic.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-04 @ 08:04:34
POLITICO is now listing the superdelegate count as such: Clinton: 267 Obama: 252 Margin: Clinton +15 (one month ago it was: Clinton +27) Remaining undeclared Supers: 227 (Just one week ago we were at around 290-299) undeclared supers, so there has been more movement this week than most of us may realise) Clinton is leading among dignitaries (+4) and DNC members (+25). Obama is leading among current governors (+3), senators (+1), representatives (+5) and add-ons (+5) Politico also has an excellent state-by-state breakdown: States with the number/percentage (within the state) of undeclared SDs above 33% of the SD delegation left to go (alphabetical): AL: 3 (38%) AK: 2 (50%) AZ: 4 (36%) CA: 22 (33%) CO: 6 (43%) DE: 4 (50%) Guam: 5 (100%) HI: 5 (63%) IN : 3 (33%) KS: 4 (50%) KY: 3 (38%) LA: 6 (60%) MD: 12 (41%) ME: 4 (57%) MS: 3 (50%) MO: 6 (38%) MT: 5 (63%) NC: 9 (53%) OH: 9 (47%) OK: 6 (60%) OR: 8 (57%) SC: 4 (44%) UT: 2 (40%) VI: 3 (33%) VA: 6 (38%) WA: 7 (39%) WV: 5 (50%) WY: 2 (40%) 28 states, and a total of 158 SDs. That’s 70% of the SDs left to go. --------- And now, the same states, listed according to winner, alphabetically: Obama strong: AL: 3 (38%) AK: 2 (50%) CO: 6 (43%) DE: 4 (50%) HI: 5 (63%) KS: 4 (50%) LA: 6 (60%) MD: 12 (41%) ME: 4 (57%) MS: 3 (50%) MT: 5 (63%) SC: 4 (44%) UT: 2 (40%) VI: 3 (33%) VA: 6 (38%) WA: 7 (39%) WY: 2 (40%) Of these 17 states (78 SDs), Obama won 14 with more than 60% of the vote. The other 4 he won with between 53%-59% of the vote. Every single one of these 17 states represents at least a 10% (landslide) winning margin. Clinton strong: AZ: 4 (36%) CA: 22 (33%) OH: 9 (47%) OK: 6 (60%) Of these 4 states (41 SDs), Clinton won all four with between 51%-55% of the vote. Two of four she won with at least a 10% (landslide) winning margin. The largest numeric group of SDs within a state left to sway is the group of 22 from CA, and I can imagine that many of them will declare for her in the next days. Obama weak: Guam: 5 (100%) MO: 6 (38%) Obama won both of these states (11 SDs) with less than 0.5% of the vote. The decisions of the SDs in MO may prove to be especially interesting, as many look to MO to be the bellwether of the nation. Clinton weak: -none- Not yet run: IN : 3 (33%) KY: 3 (38%) OR: 8 (57%) WV: 5 (50%) NC: 9 (53%) 5 states: 28 SDs Two of these five states are trending solidly for Clinton, two are trending solidly for Obama, and one is trending somewhat for Clinton. Statistically, this means that of Clinton’s 17 wins, 13 are from states where the vast majority (more than 67%) of superdelegates have already declared. So, most of the SDs from 76% -or a majority, of her wins thus far are already allocated. Statistically, this means that of Obama’s 31 wins, 12 are from states where the vast majority (more than 67%) of superdelegates have already declared. So, most of the SDs from 39% -or a minority, of his wins thus far are already allocated. This does not have to have any bearing on the decisions of the individual SDs. For all I know, all 227 could come out tomorrow and declare for Clinton or Obama. This is however, statistically, very unlikely. However, if most of them go with the winner in their respective states, then among states with a higher percentage of outstanding SDs, Obama has the clear advantage here. Last Edit: 2008-05-09 @ 16:09:52

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-04 @ 08:40:22
Hey, why are the supers from Michigan and Florida excluded too ? They didn't decide the primary date and they have every right to represent their state at the convention. I'm an Obama supporter but I don't think that kind of method will do the Dems any good. Imagine how the GOP could use it. My personal opinion is that half of Florida's PDs should be seated as well as all SDs from Fla. and Mich. I think Obama is catching up fairly regularly in SDs and that when he has more than Clinton her final argument will have dried out.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-05-04 @ 14:50:35
It already did. The only way she is "ahead" in the popular vote is if you don't count uncommitted votes in Michigan for Obama. In either case, the popular vote is meaningless and counting Michigan and Florida in it is flat out absurd. Hillary Clinton is finished, regardless of what transpires between now and June 3rd... unless MI and FL are reseated.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-04 @ 17:07:52

NC and IN update, 04/04:

NORTH CAROLINA (115 Delegates)

As of 05/04, exact voter registration statistics, from the NC state board of elections website:

REPUBLICAN: 1,933,645 (33.30%) - +1,730 over 4/04

DEMOCRATIC: 2,632,238 (45.28%) - +78,929 over 4/04

INDEPENDENT: 1,244,517 (21.42%) - +32,586 over 4/04

TOTAL DEM und IND combined: 3,876,755 (66.68%) - +111,515 over 4/04!!

Total RV: 5,810,490 (100.00%)

Absentee By Mail Ballots Returned: 22,181

Absentee Onestop Ballots Cast: 466,396: 128,711 over 05/03

Here the poll numbers for NC (last 7, over 4 days):

Pollster	Date	Obama	Clinton	Und.	Margin
Zogby	05/04	48	39	13	+9
Insider Advantage	05/02	49	44	7	+5
ARG	05/02	52	41	7	+11
Rasmussen	05/02	49	40	11	+9
Research 2000	05/02	51	44	5	+7
Mason-Dixon	05/01	49	42	9	+7
Average:		49.7	41.7	8.6	+8.0

Based on the above statistics, if the Primary were held today:

Assuming that the undecided voters (8.6%) go for Obama 54%-46% (8 point spread) against Clinton, and adding 2% for the snap-back effect, then the election could look like this:

Obama: 56.3%

Clinton: 43.7%

Margin: Obama +12.6%

-------------------------------------

INDIANA (72 Delegates)

May 6 – OPEN PRIMARY

DEMOCRATIC: N/A

REPUBLICAN: N/A

INDEPENDENT: N/A

Registered Voters: 4,988,755

Here the poll numbers for IN (last 6, over 4 days):

Pollster	Date	Clinton	Obama	Und.	Margin
Zogby	05/04	41	43	16	-2
Insider Advantage	05/02	47	40	13	+7
SUSA / Downs	05/02	52	45	3	+7
ARG	05/02	53	44	3	+9
Teleresearch	05/01	48	38	14	+10
Rasmussen	05/01	46	41	13	+5
Average:		47.8	41.8	10.4	+6.0

IN has almost 5,000,000 registered voters and the IN primary is an open-primary. This means that theoretically, more DEM votes could be cast in IN as in either PA or NC.

Based on the above statistics, if the Primary were held today:

Assuming that the undecided voters (10.4%) go for Clinton 53%-47% (margin: +6.0) against Obama, and adding 2% for the snap-back effect, then the election could look like this:

Clinton: 55.3%

Obama: 44.7%

Margin: Clinton 10.6%

Last Edit: 2008-05-04 @ 17:24:50

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-04 @ 17:10:26
"Hey, why are the supers from Michigan and Florida excluded too ?" They are exluded, while even on POLITICO, they are both listed with Zeros (O) - because they, with their entire delegations are disqualified, and until the point that they are admitted, they do not come into the statistic. The way POLITICO and every other resource is doing it, btw, is correct, in my opinion. From the point of statistics, this is the appropriate way of going about it. I am talking about the statistical side of this. My personal feellings have nothing to do with that answer. My personal feeling is that the DNC made a major error in picking such a draconian punishment for the first time out of the gate with front-loading restrictions. So, I can almost understand Florida's situation, having been pressured into this by a GOP controlled statehouse. But that doesn't explain MI, with a democratic statehouse, which made it's decision AFTER the penalty had already been imposed upon FL. MI really shot itself in the foot, and it's nobody's fault by MI's for it's own schlamazel. And you must remember, French, the whole idea between front-loading restrictions is to reduce the length of primary seasons. The whole thing has gotten out of control. And my personal feeling is the same that I articulated months ago. What the h*** does it matter hanging a penalty if you don't follow through with it? Who will ever believe that you mean what you say if you don't stick to your guns? (This is the former teacher and coach in me speaking here.)Dean is doing the right thing, even if it is unpopular. Yes, FL and MI may hurt from this this year, but by God, I bet no state will try this stunt in 2012. I suspect they will find a solution on the floor of the convention, bring it to a vote, and probably allow 1/2 of the delegates to be represented, ala the GOP's penalty. But that's just a hunch on my part, a feeling. I have no data to back this up - yet. Last Edit: 2008-05-04 @ 17:19:26

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-04 @ 17:23:50
And please notice that in NC, 128,711 one-stops ballots were cast just yesterday, 4/03, bringing the total ballots cast to: 466,396. TO COMPARE: 544,922 total votes were cast in the 2000 NC primary. So, we can assume that turnout is going to bust all records for NC on Tuesday. Last Edit: 2008-05-04 @ 17:28:53

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-05-04 @ 17:58:02
Indiana is going to be much closer than you expect, bonn :P

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-04 @ 23:28:00
You also forget it's not only the SD's being punished in Florida & Michigan but the voters themselves, all of whom had nothing to do with this internal Democratic fiasco. This could come back to bite them in the fall if not before. As I've said before these voters should get a movement going that if their votes are not counted then they pledge not to vote Democratic in the general election! Simple as that. Bet something would get sorted out then real fast!

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-04 @ 23:29:24
It astounds me that the Democratic party is in the business of disenfranchisement. Unbelievable. I never thought I'd see the day, from the Republicans yes, from the Democrats no.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-05 @ 01:51:47
The Democrats set out rules by which each state could hold a nominating contest. FL & MI chose not to abide by these rules, and thus forfieted their ability to have a nominating contest. The idea that Democrats are thus "in the business of disenfranchisement" is non-sensical. They are, quite obviously, in the business of providing a way for voter input in their nominating process. MI & FL chose not to participate in that process. The calculation was that it would make no difference - each state would get media coverage, which has been the impotant thing in primaries - and the nomination would be settled and the nominee would seat the delegations. The authorities in these states played a game with peoples votes, and lost. It is unfortunate, but to blame the party for establishing reasonable rules for states to follow doesn't make sense. The rules committee will meet at the end of the month. It could fashion a remedy then. Otherwise, it goes to the credentials committee, with 25 members hand-picked by Dean. There is no chance that they will seat the full delegations according to the invalid contests. I suspect they seat half the delegates roughly split between the candidates. If Clinton concedes after Obama clinches the nomination, however, this could be moot. And this is not the first time that the party has imposed such "frontloading restrictions." I susopect that some guideline as to the dates of contests has been in place for many years. I do know that Carl Levin wanted to move up the Michigan primary in 2004. Then DNC chair McAuliffe told him MI would loose delegates, Levin said you wouldn't do that, McCauliffe held firm, and Levin backed down. Te converstation is from McAuliffe's own book. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/25/165935/668/909/503541. As Clinton's campaign manager, McAuliffe changed course, and wanted to count the votes. A few days ago, however, he stated firmly that there will be anominee by June 15. So Levin just tried to pull the same hyjinks, thinking he could put one over on Dean. Again, playing with the voters in his state. Incredible and irresponsible.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-05 @ 04:16:13
It's very unfortunate, & whatever the reason, voters are still being disenfranchised. The whole process is quite flawed anyway. The way it is you have some states having way more say & influence then others. This year has been odd because every state just about has been able to fully participate in the process. It certainly highlights the years when this has not been possible as the nominee is decided by a few states at the beginning of the process. Plus by drawing it out like this it wastes massive amounts of money that could be used to fight the Republicans in the general election.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-05 @ 11:17:50
Here is an interesting site that plots out possible resolutions of the MI/FL question. http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/fl-mi-by-numbers.html. Also on the site are quotes from a member of the Rules committee suggesting they seat Fla. delegates at 50%, in accord with the January primary results.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-05-05 @ 14:55:03
Any decision to reseat the delegations based on the old results will be overturned at the convention. Hillary doesn't have the votes to win on an appeal.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-05 @ 15:28:07
The author is of the opinion that Obama would agree to this arrangment: "This option would give Clinton +19 net pledged delegate votes, and +4 net superdelegates, with 14 Florida superdelegates uncommitted, cutting Obama's current lead from 130 to 107 votes. Assuming Clinton doesn't make significant inroads into Obama's lead over the next 2 1/2 weeks, I think the Obama campaign would jump at this. It would take Florida off the table as an open issue, and remove any possibility that the Florida delegation could be seated as is." Makes sense to me. I am actually getting nervous about tommorrow. I am confident, as you are, that Obama will win NC with a fairly comfortable margin. I hope he wins here though!!

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-05 @ 16:27:29

NC and IN update, 05/05: semi-final prediction

An in-depth analysis, including specific poll movement, will be posted with the final prediction.

There are lots of details in the crosstabs that lead me to believe that the results in both of these states could surprise us tomorrow. I will write about this is detail with the final prediction.

NORTH CAROLINA (115 Delegates)

As of 05/05, exact voter registration statistics, from the NC state board of elections website:

REPUBLICAN: 1,933,645 (33.30%) - +1,730 over 4/04

DEMOCRATIC: 2,632,238 (45.28%) - +78,929 over 4/04

INDEPENDENT: 1,244,517 (21.42%) - +32,586 over 4/04

TOTAL DEM und IND combined: 3,876,755 (66.68%) - +111,515 over 4/04!!

Total RV: 5,810,490 (100.00%)

Absentee By Mail Ballots Returned: 22,933

NOTE:

Absentee Onestop Ballots Cast: 470,033, 3637 over 05/04 - (466,396), 132,348 over 05/03

To compare: DEM vote, Primary 2000: 544,922

Only 74,489 less one-stop votes have been already cast in the NC primary than the total DEM vote for 2000! That's 86.26% of the 2000 total, before the official balloting begins tomorrow!!

Here the poll numbers for NC (last 7, over 5 days):

Pollster	Date	Obama	Clinton	U/O	Margin
PPP	05/05	53	43	4	+10
Insider Advantage	05/05	48	45	7	+3
Zogby	05/05	48	40	12	+8
ARG	05/05	50	42	8	+8
Rasmussen	05/02	49	40	11	+9
Research 2000	05/02	51	44	5	+7
Mason-Dixon	05/01	49	42	9	+7
Average:		49.7	42.2	8.1	+7.5

Based on the above statistics, if the Primary were held today:

Assuming that the undecided voters (8.1%) go for Obama 53.75%-46.25% (7.5 point spread) against Clinton, and adding 2% for the snap-back effect, then the election could look like this:

Obama: 56.1%

Clinton: 43.9%

Margin: Obama +12.2%

Proportionally split, that would mean Obama: 65 PDs, Clinton: 50 PDS, Margin: Obama +15 PDs.

-------------------------------------

INDIANA (72 Delegates)

May 6 – OPEN PRIMARY

DEMOCRATIC: N/A

REPUBLICAN: N/A

INDEPENDENT: N/A

Registered Voters: 4,988,755

Here the poll numbers for IN (last 8, over 5 days):

Pollster	Date	Clinton	Obama	U/O	Margin
SUSA	05/05	54	42	6	+12
ARG	05/05	53	45	2	+8
Suffolk	05/05	49	43	8	+6
Zogby	05/05	42	44	14	-2
Insider Advantage	05/02	47	40	13	+7
SUSA / Downs	05/02	52	45	3	+7
Teleresearch	05/01	48	38	14	+10
Rasmussen	05/01	46	41	13	+5
Average:		48.9	42.3	8.8	+6.6

IN has almost 5,000,000 registered voters and the IN primary is an open-primary. This means that theoretically, more DEM votes could be cast in IN as in either PA or NC.

Based on the above statistics, if the Primary were held today:

Assuming that the undecided voters (8.8%) go for Clinton 53.30%-46.70% (+6.6 point lead) against Obama, and adding 2% for the snap-back effect, then the election could look like this:

Clinton: 55.6%

Obama: 44.4%

Margin: Clinton 11.2%

Proportionally split, that would mean Clinton: 40 PDs, Obama: 32 PDs, Margin: Clinton +8 PDs.

The two contests combined: Obama +15 minus Clinton +8 = Obama +7 (Margin)

Last Edit: 2008-05-05 @ 16:51:56

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-05 @ 16:30:28
"Indiana is going to be much closer than you expect, bonn :P" That may be, but I have bound myself to the pure statistics. It is also a neutral approach.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-05 @ 16:44:48
Talk again of disenfranchisement, talk of FL and MI. Interesting discussion. I want to remind, respectfully, that with the civic right to vote comes also the civic responsibility to follow the process and guide it's course. OF the people. BY the people. FOR the people. I would like for just one poster to show me just one example of thousands upon thousands of Floridians or Michigians going onto the streets in protest over stupid decision that their state delegations made and the resulting penalty. I have not been able to find one single, ONE SINGLE demonstration to protest what happened. Where were all those voters between September 2007 and January 2008? THEY HAD FOUR MONTHS TO LET THEIR VOICES BE HEARD LOUDLY AND CLEARLY ABOUT THIS SCHLAMAZEL. Where were they? Where were the placards? The street chants? The million letter campaign? The sit-ins? The march on Washington? It's too easy to place blame on a couple of shoulders, but where Floridians and Michigians should be looking first is at THEIR OWN shoulders. There is also the argument that both states are important swing states, which leads me to ask if anyone would give a rat's rear-end about them if they were, say, WY and Guam instead of FL and MI. With all due respect to Clinton supporters, who are intelligent and articulate people, I find it crass, self-serving and utterly cynical that the Clinton team only began harping on the FL and MI issue first when it was clear that they were losing the battle for the nomination. Not to mention that, though it may not be intended so, it looks like a brazen attempt to change the selection process in mid-stream. Had the Clinton team done this last September, then they would be more believable, imo. In other words, they screamed "FIRE" long after the building was burned to the ground and even the smolders were cold. Last Edit: 2008-05-05 @ 16:48:53

By: jamespol (I-MO) 2008-05-05 @ 16:49:35
bonn, I am considering taking German as part of my fine arts/humanities requirement for the 42 hour general election requirement for Missouri Univerisities, that is why I asked you. Is German usually decently easy for an English speaker to learn?

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-05 @ 17:01:35
This isn't addressed to me and I'm not a German speaker but I learnt English and know a bit about German (though I can't speak it), and here is the only point I can make: there are quite a lot of similarities between English and German, because English largely derives from German. However, the German grammar is far more difficult to grasp especially for a non-native speaker. However, if your other choices are French and Russian, German is a safe choice ;-)

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-05 @ 17:09:38
Bonn, I agree 100% that the Clinton supporters arguing that the MI and FL delegates should be seated are behaving like unashamed opportunists, but I must also grant them that it would be most insensitive not to seat any of those delegates. The Republicans would use it and we can't afford any more bad publicity. I think a compromise should be found: seating all the SDs from the two states and half of Florida delegates sounds fair to me. And half of Michigan's if the unpledged agree to vote for Obama (that's only fair, people didn't vote for "unpledged" to get Clinton). And I would like to point out that in retrospect and with the benefit of hindsight these two states' behavior was quite silly since the last states prove to be most influential this year.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-05-05 @ 17:09:55
Lies, damn lies. And statistics :p

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-05-05 @ 17:23:47
The superdelegates from those states should have their "equal" voting rights as well.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-06 @ 04:36:09
It's a farce full stop. I will always stand up for the rights of the voters whether it's politcally motivated or not. Completely offensive. This would be wrong even if Obama won these states. It's the principle of the matter. You don't have millions of people turn out to vote for no reason. Talk about discouraging them to come back in the general election, maybe someone can cook up some more faulty machines, or hanging chads?

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-06 @ 06:53:54
Ah, James, now I understand your question. German has four cases, english has only one, in terms of grammatical adjustment. Most english speakers come to good terms with the german language. In spite of the reputation for harsh consonants (which is maybe 50% true), the language is a truly beautiful language and extremely colorful. I can highly recommend it. Russian (which I am singing right now, as a matter of fact) has softer consonants, but it has phonemes that are just a big mystery for us english speakers, for there is no correspondence to our language. Also, the flat-tongue "L" is a real bear for most of us americans to master. And russian has, if I remember correctly 7 cases. Finnish has 34. Good luck to you. If you need german help, let me know. Viel Glück! Last Edit: 2008-05-06 @ 07:07:25

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-06 @ 06:56:45
The absolute end-statistics for PA have been released, I have a write up about them here. Jist of the post: "I missed: Clinton’s percentage by only -0.39% Obama’s percentage by only +0.14% The percentage margin by -0.53% the PV actual vote margin by 28,885 out of a projected 2,760,000 voters (I projected 400,000 more voters who had voted) And would like to note that PA still provided no statistics for votes for “other”. It is extremely unlikely that not one single person did not vote for “other” out of 2.3 million votes cast. When the dust has settled on the primary season, I will write one last time about this."

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-06 @ 07:06:43
Demboy, I never said I liked the fact that FL and MI have been disqualified, I have only reported the events as they happened. Both the RNC and the DNC threatened penalties (written into their ground rules) for states that would attempt to front-load. FL broke the rules and decided to front load. Both the RNC and the DNC applied their respective penalties. MI, after having seen what already happened in FL, went ahead and front loaded as well. One can only describe this move on the part of the upper-ups in MI as extremely thoughtless, or better yet, stupid. And I stand by my claim that the citizens of those states had four full months to let their displeasure be known. Had millions gone out onto the streets, then the chances would be very strong that those states would have, under extreme pressure from their constituencies, rescheduled their primaries. But no, the decision makers in both of thoses states were just as stubborn as oxen. And the voters in both of those states were awfully quiet, don't you think? And I also notice that not one single poster has yet to provide evidence of large protests by voters in those states between September 2007 and January 2008, or after that, for that matter. I do wholeheartedly agree with you that voters should never be disenfranchised - but these states deliberately and willingly disenfranchised themselves. If I willingly jump into a huge tub of mud, I have no right to expect anyone else but myself to pull myself out of that mud. And as I already wrote, it is my opinion that the DNC put out a far too draconian penalty for the first time out of the gate with this new rule. One never start with the hardest penalty possible, otherwise you have no where to go the second or third time around, should a second or third time happen. This is a fact that schoolteachers and coaches know all too well. And for fairness' sake: I would still have the same opinion had Obama won either of these states, for the decision of the DNC had absolutely nothing to do with any of the (then) 8 or 9 democratic candidates. But we can assume that the DNC will cave at one point in time. Last Edit: 2008-05-06 @ 07:17:56

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-06 @ 07:15:45
Who: "Lies, damn lies. And statistics :p" rofl (lache*) german: laugh

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-06 @ 09:29:43
Dem, the problem is the races that took place in FL and MI (especially MI) are unfair because they were told they never counted in the first place. Many people who might have wanted to vote never did because they were told it didn't count. I for one, would have never voted if I lived in a state and they told me ahead of time my vote wouldn't have counted. Then on top of it, Obama wasn't all the ballot. The states never should have been denied their rights in the first place, but once it is done, you can't backtrack and then count votes, especially when the other major candidates weren't on the ballot. That's not fair.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-06 @ 09:38:59
This whole mess is the dumb Democratic parties fault. The primaries should be all held on one day, if not, within a month of each other, they should be all primaries, and not caucuses, and the person with the most votes should win. The whole process is a mess. The whole idea and meaning of the "superdelegates" is disenfrancising voters as well. It's a mess. The democrats have nothing but a big ol mess on their hands.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-06 @ 12:14:07
Five, for the record your statement that "Obama wasn't all the ballot", which I translated to usual English as "Obama wasn't on the ballot" (everyone makes mistakes, it's a forum and we all type quickly), is erroneous. Obama WAS on the ballot in Florida. However, he did not campaign in either, while Clinton campaigned in both. The point is the following: the decision to strip both states of their delegates was as preposterously stupid as the decision to break party rules and have the primaries earlier. Yet the primaries WERE held earlier and the states HAVE been stripped of their delegates. It was the rule, it has to be implemented. Not to do so because in hindsight a candidate would be favored by these delegates is breaking one of the most basic principles of law: a law cannot be applied to events which happened before it was voted and ratified. The situation is ironic and quite absurd: both Obama and Clinton supporters claim that "even if they were Clinton or Obama supporters" they would think the same. Right. And I'm the Queen of England. We need to be honest with each other here: yes, the decisions that were made were stupid and unfair. But it would be equally unfair to rescind them. Look at this: Clinton campaigned in two states against her party's rules and with the idea of forcing the MI and FL delegates into the convention once she had won them. That kind of behavior is classic Clinton: opportunist, treacherous, unashamed. Obama obeyed party rules and did not campaign. Only did he, like John Edwards, come on the Florida ballot. In Michigan, Clinton won against nobody. I'm sorry, but stripping a state of its delegates might be undemocratic, but winning an election unopposed by breaking a rule isn't any more democratic. The Michigan delegates cannot therefore be seated unless a new election is held. Or if they do, it cannot be entirely -and the unpledged, who were against Clinton, have to go to Obama. The Florida case is different. Clinton campaigned, Obama didn't, but both were on ballot. I think half of delegates could therefore be seated. That is the kind of compromise that must be found. To keep MI and FL out would be extremely insensitive and undemocratic, but seating all MI and FL PDs without another primary would be unfair as well. As for Supers, it is simply ridiculous that they are not allowed to take their seat. They have nothing to do with the process of primary voting. Five, I disagree that primaries should be decided so quickly. I think two months would be fine. The candidates must prove they can manage a long, tedious campaign like the one they will have to face in the GE. Also, if all primaries were decided on one day, I'm afraid the front-runner would win anyway. A longer process allows for the possibility of getting a long time to think about the candidates, to see them in actions and to look at their strategies. Giuliani was frontrunner and messed up, he would have been annihilated in the GE for lack of organization.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-06 @ 13:00:58
Good point French on the length of the primaries. BUT, my point is that the Democratic parties process is fucked up. Plan and simple. And you are right, anyone (or almost anyone) who wants to count FL and MI wants to do it because they want Clinton to win! It is equally as unfair to go back and change the rules in the end. But the Democrats shouldn't have been so stupid in the first place. They should have had clearer rules, without these superdelegates, and in my opinion, without delegates at all. It should be simple, there should be a clear winer, and that should be whoever gets the most votes. The problem here is that we have delegates, we have super delegates, we have states that do count and ones we said were not going to count because they "moved up their primaries", which translates into "They will offend people in Iowa". We have popular vote, and we have caucuses that screw over in this case Obama in the poplar vote count. Also, not to mention, we have a politically manipulative campaign, the Clinton campaign, that says that MI and FL don't count, until they win MI and FL, then they all of the sudden count! The states in which they consider small do not count, and the states that vote Republican don't count (unless its a state that votes Republican that the Clintons win, such as TX). The states that Obama is from don't count, but the states that Hillary is from do count. The swings states that Hillary won count, but the swing states like MO, Iowa and Colorado don't count. Caucuses don't count. They say the delegate count is what makes the nominee, until it was clear that Hillary couldn't win the delegate count, so then its the popular vote that counts, but only if you count MI and FL into the popular vote (yes, MI, the state that Obama was not even on the ballot in) And, the popular vote only counts if Hillary wins it (with MI and FL), if she doesn't win it, it doesn't count, then whoever wins the states that Hillary campaign says count wins the nomination. Last Edit: 2008-05-06 @ 13:08:24

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-06 @ 13:07:14
Oh, and, BTW, Obama is a racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, black liberation theology radical christian who is also muslim who is also an elitist who also doesn't have enough experience because he spent his whole life working for poor people and who is also unpatriotic and who only gets voters from the ghetto, according to some Clinton supporters like Doniki.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-05-06 @ 15:03:12
* Rolls eyes* To quote Mr Reagan There you go again...

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-06 @ 15:12:28
"black liberation theology radical christian" Well you got one right...

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-05-06 @ 15:21:40
"h, and, BTW, Obama is a racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, black liberation theology radical christian who is also muslim who is also an elitist" Gceres- no, he nailed it down 100%

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-06 @ 16:01:01
We're getting beside the point and into the gutter here. I'm not following and bonn won't be happy.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-06 @ 16:09:33
This isn't about name calling...it's about analyzing the election. I personally have no dog in this fight as I pretty much cannot stand any of the three candidates. But it is not beside the point that a sizable portion of the country, self included, believe Obama to be a radical black liberation theology Christian. As a matter of fact, it is likely to be the major contributing factor to his overwhelming loss. You simply cannot analyze this particular election without paying attention to this issue.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-06 @ 16:10:57
And I would like to add that this abrasive assertive style featuring no sustained argument but mainly name-calling and personal feuds is really uninteresting and irrelevant to the debate. Doniki, are you sure Obama is a muslim ? I think I might convert to evangelical baptism... This looks great for an atheist.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-06 @ 16:14:15
It is untrue that Obama is a muslim. His father was a non-practicing muslim.

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-05-06 @ 16:18:53
Sorry, Obama is all of the above, BUT Muslim...

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-05-06 @ 16:25:52
Getting back to the MI and FL comments, I think it is quite obvious that MI and FL will have NO representation in Denver. I happen to agree w/ Frenched, believe it or not that it would be very fair to give each of the punished delegates 50% representation, as the Republicans did. That would be fair to the candidates and to the citizens who voted. Mr. Obama should accept 100% of the unpledged, despite the fact that those "unpledgeds" were for Obama and Edwards. The problem is that Mr. Obama and his legal representatives will never allow ANY deal to be brokered on MI and FL, because in doing so would almost assure that Clinton is given the popular vote. And though the nominee is not decided by popular vote, it has been the liberal Democrats, supporting Mr. Obama that have been the most vocal in their assertion that Mr. Bush stole 2000 in Florida! It will be hypocrtical for the Dems to nominate the person that LOST the popular vote and only further divide the party. It is a fact that Mr. Obama has the financial resources to assure a legal battle will work in his favor in these two states... Again, I do not see that MI and FL will have any voice in deciding the Dem nominee. Mr. Obama has won that battle!

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2008-05-06 @ 16:59:26
Actually I am in favor of seating the delegations as is 100% even though they did not play by the rules. I forget the breakdown but I think it was something like 40% undecided in MI to 55% CLinton and 5% other....if you give that 40% to Obama is fine with me. In Florida no candidate campaigned and I have no problem as is....what I do not know is whether or not with these splits if Clinton has enough to be nominated or not-I do not think so but it would be closer for sure... The people should not pay for the politicians mistakes. Also, this was a deliberate attempt to thwart the Dem party in Florida by the Rep. governor. That was admitted at a Rep. party gatheing which one of my relatives was at. I do think that MI and FL will be seated for the conv.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-06 @ 17:27:00
The supers are not going to view the popular vote argument any differenctly regardless of whether FL or MI delegates are seated. One has nothing to do with the other. And all this argument about popular vote over all this time is ireelevent, as Obama has, is, and is likely to remain the leader in both pledged delegates and popular vote. Check DemocraticConventionWatch for delegate counts considering various possible resloutions of MI & FL.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-06 @ 17:28:04
Bonn, what's that final prediction??

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-06 @ 17:35:15
Doniki, Hillary is a racist, sexist, elitist, baby killing whore if Obama is all of the above. Oh wait, she is homophobic too because she goes to a homophobic church that she hasn't "disowned". Of course I am not being serious, but that is about as bad as you sound. How many abortions has Hillary had? 2 or 3? Last Edit: 2008-05-06 @ 17:36:49

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-06 @ 17:38:27
Since the Billary camp is saying they will lose NC by 15 points, that probably means they will lose by 5-10 points. So my final prediction is NC: Obama by 5-10 Indiana : Hillary by 3-8 Last Edit: 2008-05-06 @ 17:38:52

By: pacewicz (D-IL) 2008-05-06 @ 17:44:27
Clinton is so slimy. Early exits put obama up 12 in NC. So much for the comeback kid...

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-06 @ 18:04:28
that is no surprise...what is important... Did Reverend Wright affect your vote? 48% yes in both Indiana and North Carolina.... In Indiana they broke 71% for Clinton and in NC 59% for Clinton. Major importance.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-06 @ 18:39:08

Sorry it's taken so long, guys. The day was extremely long an I just got home now (23:00 GMT +1)...

Remember, my prediction is based purely on statistics and not on personal feelings, neither my own feelings or the feelings of others.

So, it's pretty cut and dried. And exactly the same methodology as was used in PA.

So, here goes:

Bonncaruso’s

FINAL NC / IN DEM PRIMARY PREDICTIONS 05/06, 18:30 EST

My predictions (based on months of calculations and watching like a hawk):

North Carolina: OBAMA wins

Obama: 56.1%

Clinton: 43.4%

Other: 0.5%

Margin: Obama +12.7%

Split proportionally, that would mean: Obama 65 PDs, Clinton 50 PDs. Margin: Obama +15 PDs.

------------------------------

Indiana: CLINTON wins

Clinton: 54.6%

Obama: 44.9%

Other: 0.50%

Margin: Clinton +9.7

Split proportionally, that would mean: Clinton 39 PDs, Obama 33 PDs. Margin: Clinton +6 PDs.

Total margin, between NC and IN: Obama + 9 PDs.

Here the details for both states:

NORTH CAROLINA (115 Delegates)

May 6^th – semi-open primary: those who already have a party affiliation must vote in the primary for that party. Those who has registered as “unaffiliated” (INDEPENDENT) can vote in either the DEM or the GOP primary. Demographic makeup: (estimated 2007): 70% white, 22.3% black, 1.2% american indian, 6.5% hispanic. Estimated population: 9,061,032.

As of 05/06, exact voter registration end-statistics, from the NC state board of elections website:

REPUBLICAN: 1,933,658 (33.27%)

DEMOCRATIC: 2,633,381 (45.31%)

INDEPENDENT: 1,244,739 (21.42%)

Total RV: 5,811,788 (100.00%)

TOTAL DEM und IND combined: 3,878,120 (66.73%)

Absentee By Mail Ballots Returned: 25,008

Absentee Onestop Ballots Cast: 471,749

Comparison to Pennsylvania: (registered DEMS) 4,200,109

Total votes cast in PA DEM primary: 2,307,759 (54.95%)

Turnout percentage required in NC to equal the number of DEM votes cast in PA: 59.51%

Votes for Kerry in 2004: 1,525,849 (43.58%)

DEM vote , Primary 2004: NC was a caucus in 2004, a comparison is not possible.

DEM vote, Primary 2000: 544,922

*From SUSA: If Obama wins the popular vote, it will be because of his 16-point advantage among Liberals. Clinton has increasing momentum among voters age 50 to 64, where she has gone from 30% in January to 51% today, her highest showing. Among those age 65+, Clinton leads by 20 points; the more seniors who vote, the better Clinton does. But there is offsetting momentum among younger voters, some of whom may be first-time voters, and not all of whom may show-up at the precinct. 1 in 4 of SurveyUSA’s likely voters say they have already voted. Among those who say they have already voted, Obama leads by 16 points. Among those who say they will vote on Primary Day, Obama and Clinton are effectively tied.

Projected NC turnout for 2008, DEM Primary - EXTRAPOLATED:

544,922 (from 2000) *4.5 = 2,452,149

Bush 2004 margin: +12.44

GOP combined margin average 1948-2004: +4.13

Here the poll numbers for NC (last 7, over 5 days). There were 45 polls of NC since the primary season began on January 3. Obama in 44 of those 45 polls. The possible reason for why Ramussen did not put out an end poll closer to 05/06 can be found within the INDIANA analysis:

Pollster	Date	Obama	Clinton	U/O	Margin
Insider Advantage	05/06	47	43	10	+4
Zogby	05/06	51	37	12	+14
SUSA*	05/06	50	45	5	+5
PPP	05/05	53	43	4	+10
ARG	05/05	50	42	8	+8
Rasmussen	05/02	49	40	11	+9
Research 2000	05/02	51	44	5	+7
Average:		50.1	42.0	7.9	+8.1



Insider Advantage	05/05	48	45	7	+3
Zogby	05/05	48	40	12	+8
Zogby	05/04	48	39	13	+9
ARG	05/02	52	41	7	+11
Insider Advantage	05/02	49	44	7	+5
Mason-Dixon	05/01	49	42	9	+7
SUSA	04/29	49	44	7	+5
Zogby	05/03	46	37	17	+9
Zogby	05/02	50	34	16	+16
Insider Advantage	05/01	42	44	12	-2
Rasmussen	04/29	51	37	12	+14
PPP (D)	04/28	51	39	10	+12
ARG	04/28	52	42	6	+10
PPP (D)	04/22	57	32	11	+25
SUSA	04/22	50	41	9	+9
ARG	04/16	52	41	7	+11
Insider Advantage	04/15	51	36	13	+15
LA TIMES	04/15	47	34	19	+13
Civitas (R)	04/14	45	27	28	+18
PPP (D)	04/14	54	34	12	+20
SUSA	04/08	49	39	12	+10
PPP (D)	04/07	54	33	12	+21
Rasmussen	04/05	56	33	11	+23
Observer/WCNC	04/02	35	26	39	+9
ARG	03/30	51	38	11	+13
Insider Advantage	03/27	49	34	17	+15
PPP (D)	04/07	54	33	12	+21
PPP (D)	04/01	54	36	10	+18
PPP (D)	03/25	55	34	11	+21
PPP (D)	03/19	44	43	13	+1
SUSA	03/11	49	41	10	+8
Rasmussen	03/06	47	40	13	+7
PPP (D)	03/05	44	43	13	+1
PPP (D)	03/03	47	43	10	+4
Civitas (R)	02/23	38	24	38	+14
Elon College	02/22	45	31	24	+14
SUSA	02/12	50	40	10	+10
Civitas (R)	01/22	29	28	21	+1

PPP (D)	12/04	24	31	45	-7
PPP (D)	11/06	21	30	49	-9
SUSA	11/06	19	43	38	-24
PPP (D)	10/04	20	32	48	-12
Elon College	09/28	18	37	44	-19
PPP (D)	09/06	21	30	49	-9
PPP (D)	08/03	23	29	48	-6
PPP (D)	07/03	27	27	46	-
PPP (D)	06/04	22	26	52	-4
PPP (D)	05/04	20	27	53	-7
Average		21.5	31.2	47.3	-9.7

Here the margin movement, in TABLE-FORMAT.

Insider Adv.				3/27		4/15	5/01	5/02	5/05	5/06
Margin:				+15		+15	-2	+5	+3	+4
Difference:						0	-17	+7	-2	+1

Rasmussen		3/06		4/05			4/29
Margin:		+7		+23			+14
Difference:				+16			-9

PPP (D)		3/05	3/19	3/25	4/01	4/07	4/22	4/28	5/05
Margin:		+1	+1	+21	+18	+21	+25	+12	+10
Difference:			0	+20	-3	+3	+4	-13	-2

SUSA	2/12	3/11				4/08	4/15	4/22	4/29	5/06
Margin:	+10	+8				+10	+15	+9	+5	+5
Difference:							-5	-6	-4	0

Civitas (R)	1/21	2/23					4/14
Margin:	+1	+14					+18
Difference:


ARG					3/30		4/16	4/28	5/02
Margin:					+13		+11	+10	+11
Difference:							-2	-1	+1

Zogby						5/02	5/03	5/04	5/05	5/06
Margin:						+16	+9	+9	+8	+14
Difference:							-7	0	-1	+6

Without a doubt, the polls have narrowed in NC. Extremely accurate predictions will be further compicated by the fact that over 470,000 North Carolina residents cast their votes in the “one-stop” registration and vote on the same day process, which means they had already made up their minds before any further poll movements on 05/04 and 05/05. From the SUSA quote above, if it is true that ¼ of those polled had already cast their votes and 58% of them went for Obama, then we can extrapolate, of the one-stop voters, 273,614 votes for Obama and a margin of 198,135 alone from this group of voters. So, even if all the other votes today will be exactly 50-50 for Clinton and Obama, he will still have a sizable lead in the PV. In order to erase this pre-programmed lead for Obama – again, assuming that the SUSA poll statistics are correct, then Clinton must do better than 50-50 in election day voting in NC.

Based on the above statistics my final prediction:

if there are still undecideds in a poll the day before an election, the chances are very strong that they will not vote. So, I see no need to calculate how the so-called undecideds may break. With so many conflicting polls, even on the day before the primary, it is impossible and would be unfair to say for which candidate they would break, if at all. With that in mind, and adding approximately 2% for the so called snap-back effect and expecting a minimal 0.5% vote for “other”, I predict:

Obama: 56.1%

Clinton: 43.4%

Other: 0.5%

Margin: Obama +12.7%

Split proportionally, that would mean: Obama 65 PDs, Clinton 50 PDs. Margin: Obama +15 PDs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDIANA (72 Delegates)

May 6 – OPEN PRIMARY

DEMOCRATIC: N/A

REPUBLICAN: N/A

INDEPENDENT: N/A

Registered Voters: 4,988,755

Demographic makeup: (estimated 2007): 89.57% white, 9.42% black, 0.63% american indian, 1.44% asian. Estimated population: 6,313,520.

Kerry vote 2004: 969,011

DEM Primary 2004 vote: 317,211

1^st Projected IN turnout for 2008, DEM Primary - EXTRAPOLATED:

317,211 (Primary 2004) * 4 = 1,268,844 (25.43%)

2^nd Projected NC turnout for 2008, DEM Primary - EXTRAPOLATED:

Total registered voters (open primary) * 40% = 1,995,502

Bush 2004 margin: +20.68

GOP combined margin average 1948-2004: +13.29

Here the poll numbers for IN (last 6, over 5 days / + an additional calculation including Rasmussen, for comparison purposes only – both without repeaters). There were 28 polls of IN. Clinton was ahead in 18, Obama was ahead in 9, and one poll was a tie.

Pollster	Date	Clinton	Obama	U/O	Margin
Suffolk	05/06	44	37	19	+7
Zogby	05/06	43	45	12	-2
Insider Advantage	05/06	48	44	8	+4
PPP (D)	05/05	51	46	3	+5
SUSA	05/05	54	42	6	+12
ARG	05/05	53	45	2	+8
Average (6 polls):		48.8	43.2	8	+5.6

Rasmussen**	05/01	46	41	13	+5
Average (7 polls):		(48.4)	(42.9)	(8.7)	(+5.5)

Suffolk	05/05	49	43	8	+6
Zogby	05/05	42	44	14	-2
Zogby	05/04	41	43	16	-2
Zogby	05/03	42	43	15	-1
Insider Advantage	05/02	47	40	13	+7
ARG	05/02	53	44	3	+9
Zogby	05/02	42	42	16	0
SUSA / Downs	05/02	52	45	3	+7
Teleresearch	05/01	48	38	14	+10
Howey-Gauge	04/29	45	47	8	-2
PPP	04/29	50	42	8	+8
SUSA	04/28	52	43	5	+9
Selzer	04/25	38	41	21	-3
Research 2000	04/25	47	48	5	-1
ARG	04/25	50	45	5	+5
SUSA / Downs	04/17	45	50	5	-5
SUSA	04/14	55	39	6	+16
ARG	04/04	53	44	2	+9
Research 2000	04/03	49	46	5	+3
SUSA	04/01	52	43	1	+9
Howey-Gauge	02/22	25	40	35	-15

From Election Inspection “…the state of Indiana does not allow automated calls, even for polling. This is probably why Rasmussen appears to be sticking with his 4/29 poll instead of doing one for the final few days of the race.”

Here is the margin movement:

Howey-Gauge	2/22				4/29
Margin:	-5				-2
Difference:					+3


PPP (D)					4/29		5/05
Margin:					+8		+5
Difference:							-3

SUSA		4/01	4/14	4/17	4/28	5/02	5/05
Margin:		+9	+16	-5	+9	+12	+7
Difference:			+7	-21	+14	-+3	-5

Research 2000		4/03			4/25
Margin:		+3			-1
Difference:					-4

Insider Advantage					5/02		5/06
Margin:					+7		+4
Difference:							-3

ARG	4/04			4/25
Margin:	-9			-5
Difference:

Suffolk						5/05	5/06
Margin:						+6	+7
Difference:							+1

Zogby			5/02	5/03	5/04	5/05	5/06
Margin:			0	-2	-1	-2	-2
Difference:				-1	+1	-1	0

Without a doubt, as is also the case with NC, the polls in IN have tightened, but Clinton is still the front runner.

IN has almost 5,000,000 registered voters and the IN primary is an open-primary. This means that theoretically, more DEM votes could be cast in IN as in either PA or NC. And the registration system in IN, which does not require a voter to declare a party, makes this state much more difficult to accurately predict. As I have written a number of times, it is entirely possible that 2,000,000 republicans in IN get out of bed today and say to themselves, “Hmmmm, I think I will go vote for Clinton just for fun, after all…”

Based on the above statistics:

Clinton: 54.6%

Obama: 44.9%

Other: 0.50%

Margin: Clinton +9.7

-----------------------------------------------------------------

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-06 @ 18:46:23
OH, and my goodness, I just noticed that Mike Gravel is STILL on the NC ballot. Oh, no, that just throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing!!!!!! g

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-06 @ 19:02:25
Exit polls for both NC and IN: Obama is pulling between 91%-92% percent of the black vote. So, all those polls that showed Obama only carring 80-85% of the AA vote in IN and NC, well, they have obviously deflated his numbers. So, now it will be critical to see how Clinton does with her core constituency. Especially important to see how the independents break in both states...

By: pacewicz (D-IL) 2008-05-06 @ 19:23:13
Its going to be close in Indiana. CNN puts Clinton at 58 to 42, but neither Indianapolis not NW Indiana has reported anything yet. She will probably win, but not by more than 5pts IMO.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-06 @ 20:01:45
Looks like the racist, sexist, elitist, homophobic, abortion doctor Hillary Clinton is done for!

By: pacewicz (D-IL) 2008-05-06 @ 20:05:57
OMG! Go on Clinton...try to move the bar on how many delegates are needed to win ON THE EVE OF A BIG DEFEAT! Way to play the media...

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-06 @ 21:45:04
YES WE HAVE! ;)

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-06 @ 21:47:52
The untold story...White Democrats in NC - 61% Clinton, 39% Obama Black Democrats - 7% Clinton, 93% Obama Not good news for Obama in the GE. Not at all surprised by the NC margin but I did think Hillary's margin in IN would be larger.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-06 @ 21:51:42
I will not be surprised if Obama pulls out a victory in Indiana too...apparently Lake County is not in yet...and that will be approximately 65 to 75 percent for Obama and ought to deliver large numbers.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-05-06 @ 22:12:54
A very good night for Obama supporters indeed Congrats-- Obama supporters As hard as it is, I will take the high road.

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-05-06 @ 22:22:51
Yes, Congratulations Five, Bonn, and especially wingindy and whoblitzel! You did a great job in Indiana! Best of luck to everyone in the GE! McCain '08!

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-06 @ 22:22:52
I would not be shocked if Hillary throws in the towel tonight...but, she is a Clinton so all bets are off ;-)

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-06 @ 22:40:25
Okay this woman has a set of cajones on her the size of grapefruits! LMAO....I am sitting here watching her say she's going full force ahead to the White House and claiming victory in IN but it isn't even a sure thing she's won yet! LOL

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-05-06 @ 22:43:32
Burn the party to the ground Hillary!!! McCain '08!!!

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-05-06 @ 23:10:18
Obama will win Indiana. I congratulate him and his supporters on a hard fought campaign. As hard as it is I again will take the high road. He inspires them I get that. He eloquently calls for "change" and is a master at his art. I however despite my candidates will to see a democrat in the white house will only be supporting her if she heads the democratic ticket. I will not be drinking the kool aide I will be as it appears be supporting volunteering and contributing to John Mc Cain this fall. As will the votes more then 30% of her supporters at this point that number seems to keep climbing each primary. I will take the high road on this as this is a tough night for me and many reagan democrats. Last Edit: 2008-05-06 @ 23:33:49

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-06 @ 23:13:20
Well I just listened to a great analysis of the remaining votes in Lake County from Michael Barone, arguably the best analyst of this generation, and he seems to think that the lower scale whites in the county will be heavily enough Clinton to keep the percentage overall for Obama down to about 60% which will give Hillary a small victory statewide.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-05-06 @ 23:20:22
I dont see that happening He will take the state. I will fight with her until forced to support John Mc Cain on principal. Again enjoy the victory obama supporters this is your night and likely your nomination.

By: pacewicz (D-IL) 2008-05-06 @ 23:28:24
Hats off to Clinton folks as well. Clinton is a tough as hell competitor, absolutely no doubt about that. But we all know who the real victor is tonight... that would be Zogby International.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-07 @ 00:45:18
Normally, I would ignore the Rush Limbaugh "Operation Chaos" for two reasons. I will not stoop as low as these hillary fanatics and make every excuse I can come up with to explain away why my candidate lost, like when Chicha made that outrageous claim that Republicans are voting for Obama to mess up the democratic party because they are "scared" of Hillary, and two, I never thought Limbaughs goons would make that much of a difference. But... With a race as close as this is, and if Hillary ends up winning, it is quite likely its because of Limbaugh.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-05-07 @ 00:51:33
If Obama wins Indiana its because of one demographic and one demographic only which dominates the democratic party and not the general electorate. Blacks. Last Edit: 2008-05-07 @ 00:52:26

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-07 @ 00:56:05
Its interesting that race is coming up in these particular primaries. I have rough exit poll data on my map page that shows Hillary is doing well with white voters while Obama is sweeping blacks and voters of all races ages 18-29. Hillary may yet win Indiana but its going to be very close, as it was here in Missouri and in New Mexico. Last Edit: 2008-05-07 @ 00:57:10

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-07 @ 01:00:39
Liberal, you are racist.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-05-07 @ 01:03:18
Five its fact look at the demographics anyone here knows that is fact. He's winning blacks 92/6 Gary is predominently black but if you want to accuse me of racism go right ahead your the one who looks ignorant.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-05-07 @ 01:04:30
Stateing the obvious and not afraid to do it. Dont think Im superior to anyone race, man or woman, never had. Last Edit: 2008-05-07 @ 02:00:11

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-07 @ 01:04:38

NC, 05/07 00:30, preliminary totals (98 of 100 counties):

Candidate	Votes	%	Margin	PDs**
Obama	889,905	56.19	+14.62	85
Clinton	658,308	41.57		73
Gravel	12,396	0.78
Other	23,039	1.45
TOTAL:	1,583,648	99.99*	---	158

*Due to near rounding, but only near rounding, of percentages in the 1/1000th of a percentage place for all four entries, 0.01% is currently missing from the calculation. When the last vote is in, this mathematical problem will probably fix itself.

**Estimate

PV Margin: Obama +231,632

Comparison to PA: PV Margin: Clinton +214,115

Voter turnout: 1,583,648 / 3,878,120 = 40.84%

With this victory in NC, Obama has erased the PV inroads that Clinton made in PA.

This was my prediction on 05/06:

Obama: 56.10%

Clinton: 43.40%

Other: 0.5%

Margin: Obama +12.7%

The difference:

Currently, I have missed:

The TOPLINE: Obama's percentage by only -0.09%

Clintons's percentage by only +1.83%

"Other's" percentage by –1.73%

The margin by –1.92%

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-07 @ 01:52:57
I just did some blitzmath: Take Clinton's PV margin (214,115) from PA on 4/22 and subtract it from Obama's current PV margin (236,270) from NC and then add her current margin (22,592) from IN and subtract his margin (7) from Guam: and this means that since Mississippi, Clinton has changed the PV margin by exactly 430 votes!!! 236,270 (NC) +7 Guam) _______ 236,277 - Obama 214,115 +22,592 ------- 236,707 - Clinton Difference: Clinton +430. That's it. 430 votes. As of 05/07, 01:52 EST

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-07 @ 01:57:26
Though I predicted a good while back that it would probably be close to a tie in IN, after looking at the polls, I really thought that Clinton was going to win in a blowout in IN, especially considering the black population: OH: 12% PA: 10.3% IN: 9.4% This means that Obama must have done considerable better among white voters than his detractors want to admit. No doubt about it. Surely the independents must have swung his way.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-07 @ 02:02:45
I have to agree bonn...I thought Hillary would win IN by 10 points at least. However, there is actually a trend that in states with large black populations, the black voters are overwhelmingly Obama and the whites very heavily Clinton. In states with low black populations, Obama still overwhelms the black vote but has won more white percentages. Such was the case going all the way back to Iowa.

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-05-07 @ 11:32:58
What was clear is that Obama doesn't win just because of blacks, but from wealthy, white elitist Democrats... In retrospect, the cities of IN are NOT as blue-collar as those in OH and PA, where Clinton did considerably better. There are a lot of white-collar Dems in IN. And for most of Obama's supporters, the economy was not as big of an issue as it was for Clinton's voters. The economy has NOT hit certain parts of the country as it has hit in MI, OH and PA... What was interesting is that the Republicans who were "messing" w/ the Dems in OH went about 80-20 Clinton, but in Indiana they were split almost 50-50 and in both states they made up over 10% of the voters in the Dem primary. Sorry CR, your operation chaos, didn't work! Poor Rush, should stick to his oxycontin. Five senses- Liberal is no racist! I'm a racist (as you point out) and so is Mr. Obama, but not liberalrocks. He is just stating the facts... When 97% of black men vote for Obama, they are NOT voting for him because of his ideas! Think about it!!! Hillary won 61% of white women in IN! Blacks are equally as racist, if not more than whites! But, Liberal and I have been very gracious towards you in your victory. We've all known that it was a matter of time. I had expected her to possibly step aside last night, but she's going to carry this all the way through June! I truly hope she makes Mr. Obama as unelectable as possible, but Mr. Obama will have at least 5 months to unite the party behind him, but the task looks daunting in that exit polls stated under 50% of Clinton supporters would support him in a GE... Personally, I think McCain has this entire election wrapped up. He can certainly afford to lose the far-right if he's going to carry a bulk of Clinton supporters... If I had to bet money, I'd say this is really McCain's race to lose (no pun intended). If McCain gets a woman on that ticket, Obama is done!!!

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-07 @ 11:47:10
Liberal: Gary is 84% black, but Lake County is 67% white with 25% blacks. Obama won Lake County by 56% (NYT). Even if he won all the black vote (25%) he still won 31% of non-blacks, which is 41% of non-blacks. Look at Kerry's figure: I'm not sure he won much more than that, and he didn't have the same black turnout. Bonn, I love how you counted Clinton's PV improvement since PA. 430 votes is an argument. After all 537 were in 2000. No joke, I think after last night she doesn't have much left to rely on. She should have won big in Indiana, one of these heavily white, neither elitist nor liberal states. Her arguments crumble with these results: her 1% lead only barely avoids a major blow. As for the polls showing a closing gap in NC (and even a Clinton victory) they were off the track and completely overestimated the effect of Rev. Wright's words. Overall, this is a satisfactory night for Obama. He is going to increase the delegate lead by 10 to 20 and that should balance the blowout he'll take in WV. Gceres, I think there is an interpretation to your remark which is indeed very accurate. The interpretation is not nice and I don't like it, but here it is: people are prejudiced against blacks mostly in states with heavy black population -like the Deep South. Where the blacks are very few, they are not so much put in ghettos, considered as potential criminals, etc, because they are not numerous enough. The prejudice cannot come to life where there is noone to be prejudiced against. And finally Five I have to defend liberal against your accusations of racism: it is true that 1) Obama wouldn't have won the primaries without the black vote. 2) Black people are more numerous among Democrats than in the overall population and therefore are less of an asset in the GE. That's all liberal said and though he said it bluntly, probably out of bitterness -and there's nothing wrong with being sour when you're losing-, there is nothing racist to it. It's fact, pure fact. I wish you too would be more tolerant and not fall into name-calling. After all, when you support a candidate, you speak for them in some way, and fair-play is de rigueur.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-07 @ 11:57:40
Everyone who knows at all what they are talking about, and who is sane, level headed, and clear knows that Obama needs Hillary's base to win, and at the same token, Hillary needs Obama's base to win. And I am might ad, neither Liberal nor Doniki is a 70 year old, white, catholic voter, so maybe they should stop speaking for those people. The reality of this race, which I have been stating over, and over and over and over and over again is this: Each candidate has a super strong base that will not go away as long as the other is on the ballot. I stated that Obama will win big in the states that are good for him, then the media will spin it up, like he a typical front runner, and he needs to win the next couple of states, which are ripe for Hillary. Then Hillary will win those states, and fools such as Pat Buchanan will say, "What is wrong with Obama? Why can't he close a deal"? Then, in turn, the expectations change again. THe Hillary camp trys to manufacture their own reality by repeating the same spin on TV show after TV show over and over and over and over again, hoping the media picks up on it, creating the illusion they have taken away Obama's momentum, hoping by creating this reality they will do so. What then happens? Obama wins big in states that are good for him. This is the reality. This is the same game that has been going on from the start. And it's sad that some random person such as me knows this and these pundants are too dumb to pick up on it.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-07 @ 12:01:20
French, come on buddy, you know I am not being serious. I am not calling Liberal racist. I am throwing what they have thrown at me right back in their faces. They have done nothing but acted like children, using the race card, sex card, acting like only the states that hillary has won matter, and only the voters that hillary has matters. With this kind of immaturity, I can not help by try to show them what retaliation would look like. It's obvious it was in jest. They are bitter, its quite evident, and they are stupid enough not to be able to tell reality from what the Clinton campaign dreams up in the back room just hours before it's spewed right back out of their mouths. And that is sad. It's not becoming to be played like a violin by the press and by presidential candidates.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-05-07 @ 14:03:40
We will see if were right come November when Mc Cain takes more then 10% of her voters As polling indicates many more of her supporters are willing to support the great maverick. Im prepared to donate and phone bank for him. Thank you French Ed for recognizing I was stating fact and yes I am blunt always have been but a racist No, no I am not I have many Black friends who prefer to be called Black over the title African American. Anyone would realize that he would have likely lost North Carolina if the Black vote had been similiar to the white vote spread there 60/40. I will not censor my thoughts for political correctness. I have always been a strong advocate for first amendment rights.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-05-07 @ 14:06:45
Five you have your nominee we will see if he can deliver, I am prepared to do everything in my small power to see that he doesnt. I will work just as hard for John Mc Cain, Why because yes I am "bitter" nothing is going to change that not even a powerful endorsement from my candidate. Lets see just how many of us he can pick up against maverick moderate republican John Mc Cain. Conservatives will come to realize they nominated the better option because I would have never considered a vote for Romney or Huckabee. Sorry Conservatives get over it yes he can win.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-07 @ 16:26:18
Against a liberal Democrat like Obama most conservatives will once again go with the lesser of two evils. Where the Democrats running Warner then we'd let him fry but that is not the case. And he'll pick a good VP that will satisfy a majority of the base. As a conservative myself I can say that with some level of certainty. We'll see how well the maverick does but I like his odds at the moment. As it turns out liberal is right about something. McCain was a good pick for this year. We had bad candidates all around anyway and even though he's my last choice we will be able to pick up more moderates and Reagan/Hillary Democrats with him. McCain just has to be able to hold the base. Five months till November. We shall see what we shall see. But to hold the White House against Obama or Hillary, I'll vote McCain. A necessary evil.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-07 @ 16:50:28
Yes Conservative, because what isn't evil is denying poor and middle class people health care, starting wars for no reason and killing tens of thousands of people, and excluding gay people from human rights. That's completely sane and moral. Last Edit: 2008-05-07 @ 16:51:23

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-07 @ 16:57:21
Yes Five, that's right. It isn't evil to keep the middle class that pays for its healthcare from yet another tax burden, fighting terrorism and extreme Islam that threaten Western society, and protecting traditional marriage. That is completely sane and moral to conservatives. Last Edit: 2008-05-07 @ 17:02:23

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-05-07 @ 17:13:42
Five- Mr. Obama does NOTHING to help middle and lower income families w/ health insurance. We will be no closer to uni-health w/ Obama than w/ McCain! And I do believe that McCain was one of a very small minority of GOP senators that voted AGAINST the marriage ammendment. What do you care about gays? You might be gay, but you treat the rest of us like shit, as does your candidate! Maybe you can get some of that conversion therapy that Mr. Obama's other "spiritual mentor" advocates... You know the same one that did outreach to blacks for George W. Bush!!!

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-07 @ 17:41:26

The numbers for NC have been revised DOWNWARD during the course of the day, but the margin in IN has also narrowed during the course of the day. Clinton has now, since Mississippi (March 10th) cut into Obama's PV margin by 5,444 votes, which is 0.0017% of 31,141,168 primary votes cast. So, all this money and time and energy moved the boundary by 0.0017%. Remember this.

Coming out of MS, Obama had a 168 PD lead.
Clinton shortened that lead by 12 in PA to +156. Obama extended that lead by 16 in NC to +172, which Clinton again closed by 6 in IN to +166.

So, 8 weeks after MS, we have practically the same PD margin and almost exactly the same PV margin of about 710,000 votes for Obama.

---------

Here the exact stats (lots of tidbits to read here, enjoy!)

NC, 05/07 totals (100% reporting):

Candidate	Votes	%	Margin	PDs*
Obama	875,683	55.99	+14.25	66
Clinton	652,824	41.74		49
Other	23,042	1.47
Gravel	12,409	0.79
TOTAL:	1,563,958	100.00	---	158

*Estimate

PV Margin: Obama +222,859

Comparison to PA: PV Margin: Clinton +214,115

PD margin: Obama +16

Voter turnout: 1,563,958 / 3,878,120 = 40.33%

Voter turnout as opposed to 2000 primary: 1,563,958 / 544,922 = 2.92 to 1= 2.87 to 1

With this victory in NC, Obama has erased the popular vote inroads that Clinton made in PA.

See the table at the end of this report.

Obama's win in NC was his 26^th highest winning percent of the 32 contests he has won to date. This means that at least 25 other primaries were even larger landslides for him than this one, and +14.25 is a large landslide by any measure.

This was my prediction on 05/06:

Obama: 56.10%

Clinton: 43.40%

Other: 0.5%

Margin: Obama +12.7%

The difference:

Currently, I have missed:

The TOPLINE: Obama's percentage by only +0.11%

Clintons's percentage by only +1.66%

"Other's" percentage by –0.97%

The margin by –1.55%

------------------------------------------------------

IN, 05/07 totals (100% reporting):

Candidate	Votes	%	Margin	PDs*
Clinton	644,590	50.56	+1.11	39
Obama	630,395	49.44		33
TOTAL:	1,274,985	100.00	---	72

*Estimate

PV Margin: Clinton +14,195

Comparison to PA: PV Margin: Clinton +214,115

Voter turnout: 1,274,985 / 4,988,755 = 25.57%

Voter turnout as opposed to 2004 primary: 1,274,985 / 317,211 = 4.2 to 1

IN was Clinton's second narrowest victory, right after New Mexico.

This was my prediction on 05/06:

Clinton: 54.6%

Obama: 44.9%

Other: 0.50%

Margin: Clinton +9.7

The difference:

Currently, I have missed:

The TOPLINE: Clinton's percentage by +4.04%

Obama's percentage by –4.54%

The margin by +8.59%

Quick math about the IN exit polls: they showed that the black vote was 15% of the electorate and that 90% of black voters went for Obama: 1,274,985 * 15% = 191,248 * 90% = 171,123 black votes for Obama, which means that the other 459,272 were votes from white voters. Alone, the white votes cast for Obama in the IN primary in 2008 was more than all the DEM primary votes in IN in 2004! It also means that 72.85% of all the votes for Obama in IN were WHITE VOTES and not black votes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

DEM primaries popular vote MARGIN composite, since Mississippi March 10, 2008:

State	Clinton	Obama	PV Margin
PA	1,260,937	1,046,822	214,115
Guam	2,257	2,264	7
NC	652,824	875,683	222,859
IN	644,590	630,395	14,195
TOTAL	2,560,608	2,555,164	5,444

Currently (05/07, 03:30 EST), after these four primaries, Hillary Clinton has reduced Barack Obama's national popular vote margin by 5,444 votes out of the 5,115,772 votes cast in these four primaries.

Last Edit: 2008-05-07 @ 18:03:25

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-05-07 @ 17:47:37
Obama will do about as much for gays as Mc Cain will. Nothing. So nothing vs nothing Ill go with mc nothing.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-07 @ 17:58:44
The math gets extremely easy at this point. PD margin: Obama +166 Number of PDs left to reap: 217 What does this mean for Clinton? It means that she must earn a MARGIN of 167 in the PDs to surpass. 167 / 217 = 76.96% MARGIN. In order to get a 76.96% margin, which means a 88.48%. This means, thinking proportionally, that Clinton must now win the remaining six contests with 88.48% of the vote in order to get 192 of the 217 PDs. Mathematically possible. Statistically practically impossible. After 5/20, it will be physically impossible. According to RCP, Obama is now 177 delegates from the nomination.I will put out a write up on the last 6, just as I did for the last 12 and the last 10, over the weekend, including my projection of what the PD count will look like after June 3rd. And congrats to Who and Wing among others for calling IN far better than I did. I really thought it was going to be a blowout for Clinton, since the state has an even smaller black population than either OH or PA.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-07 @ 17:59:05
"Yes Conservative, because what isn't evil is denying poor and middle class people health care, starting wars for no reason and killing tens of thousands of people, and excluding gay people from human rights. That's completely sane and moral." This passes for intelligent debate nowadays? Who is being denied healthcare? I just bought a catastrophic policy a few months ago for $48 a month. If you pay for it, anyone can buy it. Does it cost too much for a lot of people...of course...but that's mostly due to over-regulation and government collaboration with big insurance companies. The real question is how is taking away my money from me without my consent to pay for a poor person's healthcare moral? Killing people for no reason?....well that's just delusional...if you think there is no reason to kill fanatic Islamists who want to behead all non-believers in the West than I don't know what to tell you...even Obama and Clinton don't believe that... Excluding gay people from human rights? Are you joking? I have just as much rights as the next guy. Now if I traveled to Iran, they'd behead me...that's called excluding gay people from human rights.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-07 @ 18:10:09
In Iran, there is the death penalty for sodomy (read that as: gay - not my interpretation, but rather, theirs). In Iran, the life of a jew is worth only 1/17th of the life of Muslim. Nice people in Iran. But Bush's approach is not working nor did it ever work. Iran is not feeling the effect of an embargo because there is not one.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-07 @ 18:15:32
I agree bonn...the CEO of General Electric ought to be sitting in prison as far as I'm concerned.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-07 @ 18:24:59
The point being that actions speak louder than words. If you refuse to talk to the enemy (and I consider Achmedinijhad to indeed be the enemy), that's one choice, but if you do nothing to keep him from flourishing, that's yet another. But I would not jump too heavily on any of the three candidates for PRez over Iran yet - a lot is going to happen in the ME and talking is a priority, even if you can't stand the guy you are talking to. For if talks bring nothing, then action can. But that's just my opinion.

By: pacewicz (D-IL) 2008-05-07 @ 19:11:53
Re the Obama needs Clinton comment: Yes, I agree that Obama needs a VP candidate that is going to win over the same demographics that Cltinon was winning over - but why does it have to be Clinton herself? Lest we forget, Clinton the working class hero is a creation of her campaign just 4 months old. She started out running as a moderate or even conservative democrat and word on the street is she only brought out working girl, because one of her advisors advised her to "adopt John Edward's persona". Hats off to her though - her commercials were brilliant and half made me want to vote for her (then again, I started out an Edwards supporter so that checks out). I understand older working class voters might not like Obama, but who is to say that they have a specific attachment to Clinton? Lets not forget that some people voted for Obama, because they were voting against clinton. Why not pick a running mate that 1) has less baggage and 2) appeals to the same core demographic as Clinton (only maybe one that has been doing it for more than a couple months). Obama does not need BClinton skulking around like some creepy drunk uncle during the GE.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-07 @ 22:05:26
Gceres, I would back off that Iraq argument if I were you. Every single justification for going to war has been proven a lie and or wrong. It was for no reason, and people have died because of it. And if you think it's so justified, how about you go and fight in the war? And as I a gay person, a gay person who can be fired for being gay, or can not get married, or can not have the same property rights as a straight person, I would shut your mouth before you try to tell me I have the same rights as you. And it's even more insulting that your party uses homophobia to get elected, rather than trying to solve the problem. The next time you get a piece of mail in your mail box from the democrats that claims that straight people are a threat to the lives of gay people, like I got a piece of mail in my mailbox that said I am threat to families in the US for being born gay and minding my own business, then you will have room to talk.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-07 @ 22:09:33
The definition of insanity is to do the same thing twice and expect different results. Sane people warned you Republicans about the Iraq war, and everything we told you has come to pass. There are 4,000 dead US citizens and it's not funny. War should be an absolute last option. And like I said, I don't see either you Gcere or Conservative Republican off fighting in this war, if you feel so strongly about it you would be off fighting in it. It's sick. Absolutely sickening. You should be ashamed of yourselves. What more do you need? How many more lies will have to pass before you stop moving a goal post on why we even fought that war in the first place? This isn't even an issue that is arguable anymore, its almost as bad as trying to argue that the world is flat, or that global warming doesn't exist (oh wait, you guys do argue that global warming doesn't exist)

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-07 @ 22:55:34
You know Five I've heard just about enough. I know a lot of conservatives, I know a lot of moderates and liberals too. I know people from a variety of parties. And I know your type. You're an elitist, you think you're a lot smarter than the rest of us. That somehow because you're on the far left that you are enlightened. And when someone disagrees with you, you call them insane or nuts or uneducated. Why aren't I in Iraq? Because I'm not good at fighting. Never have been. That doesn't mean I can't do my small part here at home to help the troops. And before you get on your high horse my family sent three sons into the arm services so I know what it's like to have family overseas. Not everyone has to support the war by being in it. Besides someone has to be here at home to keep anti-war radicals like you in check. I'll be the first to be man enough to say Iraq is a problem. The war was mismanaged. We've had opertunities to leave. We can't nation build and that is what Bush is trying to do. Its for a good cause. But I guess some people, based on cultural differences, are not as inclined to democracy as we are. So yes, things in Iraq are not good. A lot of mistakes have been made. But at the end of the day the Middle East is better off without Saddam. He gased the Kurds. He had torture rooms. We found gas and chemicals. He was trying to develop a weapson's program. Good ridince to him. But if so many sane people warned us about this war then why did so many Democrats vote in favor of it? We have lost a lot of good people there and that is very sad. Those are our countrymen and women. I honor their service and sacrifice in the name of protecting America in the greater war on Islamic extremism which was in Iraq in one form or another. But like Vietnam I'm not sure we've listen to the military enough. Too much politics. We conservatives have many differences in opinion from you. Whether that is on the war or on gay marriage or on other issues. To sit there and degrade us just because we disagree is sickening. Its the left that politizes every single issue to the point of total gridlock. Republicans have as of late hardly acted littled better and of that I am ashamed. We use to be problem solvers. Many of the good conservatives still are but there are not enough. So what I find absolutely sick is all this leftist elitism. Normally I'm pretty laid back but I'll be damned if I'll let you sit here and let you insult me, Gceres, and our party in that manner. So before you go telling people to shut their mouths for expressing their opinions I'd watch my own if I where you. Last Edit: 2008-05-07 @ 22:59:41

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-07 @ 23:02:18
If the goal of Operation Chaos was to change the result in an election, it finnally achieved that goal. "Exit polls showed that 10% of voters were Republican... that'd make 127,247 Republicans voting. Exit polls showed that 54% of Republican voters voted for Clinton... which would make 68,713 Republicans voted for Clinton and 58,533 voted for Obama. Let's be generous and assume that 25% of the Clinton Republican voters were voting for her because of Rush... that'd be 17,178 Operation Chaos voters... and the current difference between Obama and Clinton as of a few minutes ago is 14,413." I think 25% is conservative. Think about it - how many Republicans are really going to vote for Clinton because they actaully want her to be president! Without them, Obama would have won Indiana by 30-40,000! By its name, Operation Chaos is meant to incite chaos. In that it has failed. Because of proportional allocation of delegates, the result in terms of delegates may not have changed at all. The primary contest is over, and Hill will be out by June 15, at the latest. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/hillary-will-drop-out-by_b_100625.html

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-07 @ 23:10:57
Wow wingindy, I'm impressed. You're right on the money. Operation Chaos was never about getting Hillary nominated. It was about causing chaos in the nomination process. Really I think its to get Hillary to beat up Obama as only the Clinton machine can. Whether it ends now or in June or at the convention, it has been a fun ride and interesting to watch.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-07 @ 23:19:40
I agree with much of what Five has to say about the war. The Middle East, Iraqis, and the United States are worse off because of the war. However awful Saddam was, and he was awful, the region was reletively stable before the war. Now, tens of thousands of live gone, chaos reigns, Al Queda, which was not in Iraq before the war, is there now, and our true target, Al Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Osama bin lade, is still in operation 6 years later. On sodomy, it was also illegal - a crime - in Georgia and other southern states until several years ago, when the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. With another justice or two like Scalia and Thomas, the law would still be on the books. Just an example of the kind of results homosexuals will get from a McCain presidency.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-08 @ 01:49:28
I guess I can add being told to shut my mouth as another thing an Obama cultist has said to me on these forums. It's also funny to read that as a gay man I don't have the same property rights as a straight man LMAO...you realize how uninformed that is right?

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-08 @ 03:12:27
CR, I don't think accusing someone who forcefully disagrees with you of being a far-leftist elitist is particularly intelligent or appropriate. Obviously you know nothing of what far-leftism is like and I wish I could send a few of our best French specimen to you if they would only agree to travel to the US (for them it's a bit like hell on earth). What Five said about the war was as usual not diplomatic but very true all the same. Your position on the war, CR, is more reasonable than usual conservatives because you are better informed. But some conservatives still think being against the Iraq War is tantamount to high treason. They know and understand nothing either of Bush's lies or the actual situation. They just enjoy watching the tanks on TV. That's fact and you can't deny it. Far-right nuts are as bad as far-left nuts (and I mean the real thing) in my book. And I'm tired of this myth of left-wing elitism. Rich and powerful people vote for the right-wing in every country where democracy exists. The left is fuelled with working-class and downscale votes. So quit the name-calling. What I'm tired of is the more underhand right-wing social darwinism, like "I don't want my taxpayer money paying for the health of a poor guy". Well if you prefer to stand right here and wait for him to die because the government wouldn't waste your precious money on him, alright, but I'll pay anytime. Or maybe you expect poverty to disappear this way ? Nice plan. I'm so stupid, why give them money to survive when you just can let them die... Social darwinism such as the one conservatives are advocating is outrageous. This philosophy is a denial of human dignity. And I'm also tired of the "intellectual left" cliché. It's about as bad as the "rich right" cliché. If intellectuals were enough for the left to win, or the wealthy for the right to win, politics would just be a paradise : everyone would be smart and affluent... Left-wing elitism as you call it is merely a vision of the world based on solidarity and respect for humankind. I'm not even talking about socialist intellectuals. The contempt of conservatives for intellectuals shows how their toughness and so-called rugged individualism is just a symptom of their intellectual insecurity. I see people who are less intelligent than me every day, and I have no contempt for them, but if they get on this "you think you're so smart" kind of talk, things get marred a little bit. Conservatives think they're better because they're "self-made" and owe their life only to themselves. That's not my way of thinking. I want people to benefit my help and my money if they need it. People who are in difficulty must not be despised because often life has been hard on them. They deserve a second chance and I'm prepared to pay for it. That's not elitism, it's just having a heart and trying to make the best of it. Last Edit: 2008-05-08 @ 05:58:37

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-08 @ 09:33:40
Gceres: you certainly can open your mouth here. Friendly, courteous, respectful and adult discussion- even when the debate itself may be agressive - is always welcome here. One can agree to disagree with you.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-08 @ 11:14:51
You know FrenchEd what I'm sick and tired of is you on the left with your continous lies about us on the right. You claim us to be the far right but its really anyone even slightly right of center. I have tried to be civil here, even when I get angry, but to see Five defended in this manner. Not one word said about how inapporpriate his language is, well that's enough of that. doniki, liberalrocks, Gceres, and the others where right. I can clearly see the battlelines have been drawn for this contest and I guess I should get on my side. And I stand completely by what I said. It is elitist to dimiss someone's comments as irrational or delusional or crazy, simply when you don't agree with the principle behind it. Of course some people are nuts but we here try to discuss policy here. And its always the same line or label: this denies human dignity, that is homophobic, well the religious right this, evil powerful wealthy people, Bush lied, etc. etc. etc. You have no idea what we really believe in. We believe in personal responsibility. We don't believe in punishing people for success. We believe in individual rights and freedom. So yes the taxpayer's dollars are of concern to us. Yes we debt where we spend them because the federal government is not that effiecent. And everything we surrender a power to the all mightly DC we loose a little bit of control. And yes conservatism seems harsher but the goal is to make every American self-suffient if possible and it is possible for most. And enough with that stuff about leftism being for the working man and the common cause. The left is just as full of wealthy, powerful people the world over and we both know it. Hollywood, George Soros, Democratic members of congress, Bill Gates, and so forth. All Democrats. Most liberals. And you just confirmed it. You called most conservatives under-educated and that is why we are bitter towards the wonderfully enlightened liberals. Well guess what, conservatives are a pretty smart bunch too. I didn't go to school to become a chemist for nothing. The higher, intellectual left does look down at the rest of us. I know because I live in one of the most liberal spots in the Missouri, in the Midwest. We're full of people from New York, California, Illinois, and the East Coast. Its a university town. You want to help people, fine, you give all your money away. But you can't sit there and tell the rest of us what to do. And for your information it is shown that year after year conservatives give more to charity than liberals. At least here in the United States we do. So you go pay for everyone else and leave the rest of us alone. You'll find if people have more money then they'll do more things with it. We don't need the government to tell us how to live and how to serve others. Its suppose to serve us all. So I'm sorry you don't like the elist title for the far left. I don't like the religious right title for conservatives. I don't like being told my ideas are stupid or inhumane. I get tired of being called a lier and I really don't like it when someone is told to shut their mouth for their opinions. Its a tough world.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-08 @ 11:26:04
I agree with the point French make re Health care. To me, it is immoral that we, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, allows some of our citizens to suffer and yes even die due to lack of healthcare. I don't care for all the labels and overgeneralizations about those attached to those labels - on either side. To claim that a policy lifts up human dignity is not one such label.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-08 @ 11:32:42
To make a claim like that gives one moral superiority. That is exactly what it is meant to do, shame people into favoring uni-health care. Sorry not going to happen to this conservative. We don't need nanny government to interfer in the medical world, my God they can barely run the post office. Give people healthcare tax credits and let them buy their own policies. The taxpayers have enough to deal with to keep their own families afloat. Oh and for the record on this whole Five thing. I would defend to the death Five's right to say what he wants. He's an American citizen and is equally protected under the first amendment. But I strongly disagree with the manner in which he says things. Last Edit: 2008-05-08 @ 11:50:11

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-05-08 @ 11:59:42
CR, you need to get used to those comments. They come w/ the territory. The easiest way to undermine someone is by questioning their "mentaly stability" or "sanity." Trust me, my dad's a psychiatrist! lol... It's going to be par for the course, here on out! No one will call out five on his poor behavior aside from myself, gceres and liberalrocks. Of course when we do, then we are branded "mentally ill" or "angry" but it is painfully obvious where the anger truly lies! The best thing I ever did volunteer for Clinton here in OH... I met some great people and I had a lot of eye opening experiences. A lot of the older women were quite conservative, socially, but were very devoted. Many of the Republicans I talked to were by far more respectful than Obamas' Dems and didn't use the profanity or exhibit the verbal abuse that the Obama Dems did. I no longer equate GOP with bad and Dem with good...lol... I can't believe I was so simplistic and am quite embarassed! Let me say something about Iraq. I don't agree w/ the war and I want our troops to come home. I think it was a mistake to remove Saddam. But, the fact remains that were are there and we have to deal with the reality of Iraq. That said, McCain was right about Iraq and had the war been executed in the manner in which he had advocated we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. And the facts are clear that despite some recent progress the past 6 months, Iraq is still a mess, but it is a mess we created. Of course I want the troops to come home, but I don't think its quite as simple as the Dems are advocating. I don't see how we can leave over 100,000 American civilians, in Iraq w/out military protection. And quite frankly the situation, which we created, is unlikely to be stabalized until an equally repressive Sunni regime, as Saddams, takes over Iraq, or Iran is permitted to engulf Iraq. The current government in Iraq is a failure and the only thing holding the country together is the presence of our troops. I strongly disagree that McCain is somehow a "warmonger" or "likes war." He is very knowledgable of the situation, though I do wish he would consider starting a timetable in the next year. I do think Clinton and Obama are doing their share of pandering in regards to the war, though when Clinton speaks of a "careful" withdrawal, I am lead to believe that she understands the delicate nature of the situation she would encounter. I have no idea what Obama believes.

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-05-08 @ 12:00:43
wingindy, what gives you the moral authority to speak of umiversal healthcare? Neither Obama or McCain supports uni-health.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-08 @ 12:02:35
So according to you it's alright to let someone die because they can't afford healthcare ? To let people with cancer being unable to afford a cure because the insurance companies just won't pay for it ? Then why are you whining about abortion ? Get consistent, at least. You think so-called self-sufficiency is enough. Then why make laws ? Oh yeah, to stop social progress. Gay rights, abortion, that is IMMORAL, so it should be prohibited. But then just let the poor die. What I think is immoral is this "self-made man" myth which lets all those crafty enough or smart enough or bully enough succeed and dumps the others. Some people can't be self-made men because they just don't fit in that model or because the society doesn't give them the opportunity. You're going to say they're useless, fine, but I don't. Until there are equal opportunities, which means everyone can get cured and not die merely because they are poor, which means being able to afford good schooling and college in good conditions, which means being helped out of misery to get to work, I will have no more respect for self-made men than for any other man. People who do not succeed are not lazy or stupid. They were either born poor or left with a different mentality from your social darwinist ideas. You claim you're educated, and I don't doubt it since you are articulate and a good debater, so you've probably read or seen Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman. Well, that's what your society is like. Dumping people who don't fit the model and showering them in contempt. Gays, leftists, blacks, people who are psychologically or physically weaker, all must fit in your "self-made man" model or die. Conservatives have respect only for their own conceited moral values and their taxpayer money. Oh, is Bill Gates a liberal Democrat ? Such a shame. Rich people know were their interest lie and they lie with conservatism: they can keep a money they often don't deserve because of the sacred right to do what they want with it. Now I haven't said you were delusional and I don't agree with that kind of name-calling. But I'm going to defend my ideas and I'm going to be tough on them. Candidates, analyses, courtesy is negociable, ideas are not. Oh, and final point: I'm not for wasting the taxpayers' money. That's another one of your worn-out clichés. I don't want it wasted on weapons and troops which cost more than any social or educational program and are totally useless -just look at the mess in Iraq. For instance, the French government wants to build a second aircraft carrier. Such a stupid idea! The aircraft carrier we had before the only one we have know only had one major mission: finding a place around the world where someone would agree to destroy it because it was full of asbestos. I know you Americans sink them at sea but somehow we were reluctant to sink tons of asbestos into the Atlantic. Stupid principled Frenchmen. So yes I want my money to be spent the way I want and I want it spent on education and social programs -programs that actually help the people go back to work or set up their own business. And yes I think the budget should be balanced -but you won't balance it until you cut huge and useless military costs. And I won't "give all my money away". I'll pay my tax bill and vote for the people who pledge to spend it the way I want it spent. That's democracy.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-08 @ 12:34:15
The assertions made are rather ridiculous but I'll take on a few. Firstly, this is what is wrong with politics today. People like myself and CR are accused of wanting to keep people from getting healthcare and from denying rights to people simply because we truly believe that government is a necessary evil that should do as little things as possible instead of a benevolent force for good as many liberals believe. To actually believe that most conservative do not want people to get healthcare is so off the mark and so absolutely extremist a view that it's almost laughable if so many people didn't actually believe it. What you fail to see is that we want people to have it just as much as you but simply believe that the path to getting it is MUCH better and provides for much cheaper and much more freedom through private sector means instead of the government. The US government is unable to deliver many of my post office packages on time and often loses them and yet I am to believe that this same government is capable of providing healthcare...sorry I don't buy that at all. As far as your assertions about the super rich being Republicans this also is funny and flies in the face of hard data. The Super Rich have been voting Democratic for more than 2 decades now along with the poor. It's been the middle and upper middle classes that voted Republican up until 2006 and voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. You talk about wanting poor people to die...it's just beyond my imagination that someone actually believes that conservatives want poor people to die. The truth is that many of us have far more faith in the abilities of people than many liberals. Many liberals feel good when they steal one person's money and then give just enough money to the poor for them to get by but still depend on government programs (and thus will vote to keep those programs going...no incentive to ever end the programs). Conservatives would rather create market conditions where poor people can succeed through lower taxes, less regulations, more education, and hard work instead of victimization. We both want the same things. Liberals just want to use government to solve these problems and conservatives believe government to usually BE the problem. To end this discussion I would ask you to name one single truly successful Socialist state in the history of the world...it simply does not exist...

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-08 @ 12:42:42
You've completely missed the point FrenchEd. And there is yet another phrase we always hear: let people die without healthcare. Sigh, no hospital will turn away anyone who needs help. I've heard many times that drug companies like Astra-Zenica are willing to help those that can't afford drugs. Wal-Mart, Shnucks, and other stores here in Missouri are offering $4 generic prescriptions. Free clinics are avalible. Cancer Centers for America doesn't just turn people away. My father has diabetes. My mother has auto-immune arthrities. One of my brothers is bi-polar. And I have sever allergies. We pay for our healthcare and we don't need anyone from the left telling us we need to pay more taxes. Its hard enough on us as it is. We give to charity as often as we can but that is our choice. And you bring up abortion, well the left screams about respect for human life and then gets ride of babies. But you see here is the difference between conservatives and liberals, we believe that all people can success if given the freedom and the chance. Liberals don't. They think the government has to step in at all levels. I didn't say those people are useless that have troubles, and I believe in helping those on hard times. The fact is there are equal opertunities to some degree (it will never be perfect because people are not perfect) but you'll never get equal out come because people are different. Lets face it, there are some people that need help. Fine, I'm good with that. There are some people that truely don't have the drive like others or they are lazy. That's their choice. Stop making victims out of everyone. Our society is nothing like Death of a Salesman. Our goal is for everyone to have the opertunity to make it. If they choose not to work hard then they won't get as far. That's call a choice and its called freedom. It has nothing do with death. If your mode of thinking on conservative ideas where actually true then most or all of those people you listed would be dead and gone. But conservatism is not the harbinger of death. It does require responsibility and there are consequences in life. That's the tough reality of the world. We help where we can. Liberals sit on this pedistal and they really should not. They are full of rich people just like we are. Some of the richest states in America vote Democratic time and again. Same with many upper class neighborhoods. You accuse conservatives of only caring about our money and morals. Well liberals seem to only care about other people's money and their own high minded ideas. Its called being human. And yes its such a waste to spend money on national defense because if we all just play nice then no one will ever get hurt. Here in America our social programs cost more than our military. In fact the armed services comes in third in total terms of spending. Wish it was first. You also realize that our ships are striped, cleaned, and then sank to become reefs right? Stupid Americans I forgot. Now I understand that you want to help people. I really do. So do conservatives. But I see your ways as creating dependence and never fully helping people out of poverty. In all the years we've had social programs and spent billions nothing has changed. They tell us we need to spend more money but it never helps. The system is broken. Now I don't want to let this spiral out of control. I don't accuse you of being anything but a passionate leftist. But I'm a proud conservative and that does create conflict because we see the world in different ways. I'll also defend my ideas and be tough. So I respectfully disagree with you.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-08 @ 13:24:00
Well apparently you didn't get my point either. I'm not a socialist, as Gceres suggested, and I can tell you that if someone ever tries to make my country socialist I'll flee to America and plead that they come to end it (yes, we Europeans are always running in our American friends' skirts when we have to ;-) ). I know billions are spent on programs that don't work. I know money is dropped down the drain because it doesn't help poor people getting a stable job and it creates dependence (or rather, as I would voice it, a perpetual state of need). And I know more money won't help. But that's not a reason to let them down. Efficient social programs are not just about money. They're about getting people to work as fast as possible so that they can be part of society again. Just to give them a SECOND CHANCE. And if they don't want to work, then don't be fooled: I help only those willing to help themselves, because they're the only ones worth the effort. Now coming back to healthcare: in France we have your hated socialized medicine system and it's not perfect -hell no. But in France everyone gets the same meds the same price and that is paid by the state -in part. For the rest we have a partly private (I believe there are funny regulations as always) system which pays for what the state can't afford. We're in debt, and in fact the system is screwed and we're still looking for how to fix it, but we won't change it because we think it's fair that way. Because when people are in difficulty we think it only normal to help them -and charity won't close the deal. Charities are a symptom of a society which can't take care of its members. Now don't forget I'm a liberal. I don't want to get into arrogant discussion of etymology, but liberal means advocating freedom. I'm not for the all-important welfare state invading every part of my life. I hate the Patriot act, for instance. I think it's undermining privacy and individual freedoms. And of course you disagree and think it's for your security. Well you have your conception of freedom and I have mine, but don't come saying I'm against freedom. The welfare state, which in French we call the "providence state" because of the expectation that everything will come from it, is a bankrupt system. When you expect everything from an abstract entity and just wait there whining until your dreams come true, then society is ruined and expectations of progress are remote. I know that as well as you do. But I want the state to: 1) Ensure everyone is given equal opportunities and can succeed in life the way they want, as far as that is possible (I've seen enough dumb and lazy people to know that's a long shot, I'm as cynical as you are, don't worry). 2) Give everyone a second chance if they need it, because circumstances are often hard. 3) Provide for help when something happens to us, like diseases. They're nothing moral or immoral to diseases, they just happen and they're always unfair. To make it fair we have to help each other. That's the way I see things. I don't think it's extreme. When I said you were willing to let people die, I was trying to make a point more than to vilify you. Please don't take offense. But when you say I hold extreme views and you're calling Obama a black nationalist, a view which he has never expressed or condoned, I find it both disturbing and wryly funny. Final point: I'm a liberal, as I said, and my Wonderland is not Marxland as much as Smithland. Adam Smith's theories inspire me and I truly think that's how the world should work. But the problem is, the invisible hand does not exist. The market does not regulate itself as it should and we have many economic crises to bear witness to that. People use the market to get rich without improving overall wealth. Some left-wingers are marxists who have renounced marxism and turned to welfare-state market economy. I'm a Smith liberal turned to a Rawls liberal because I don't trust people to make the market work. And so I think if fairness can't come from the market it must come from the state. I've learnt not to rely on human goodwill -my age has two ciphers, you know. Which means that when you say companies are willing to help people that makes me smile. Companies are willing to make profit and that's what they're here for. Honestly, I don't think if companies were SO generous health care would even be an issue. People can't get cures and can't afford private health care and that's why the issue is so important. America is a conservative country. If this didn't matter, nobody would speak about universal health care.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-08 @ 13:40:24
I would argue that a free market economy only works with a strong moral base...hence the chaos that followed in Russia after the demise of the Soviet Union. There were no civic institutions to provide a moral foundation for free markets. The United States is admittedly an exception to virtually the rest of the world with the possible exceptions of Australia and Canada. Europe has had a very lengthy tradition of dependence on government in part or in full for its economic life dating all the way back to the Roman Empire, continuing through the Dark Ages and feudal periods, through the Imperial Age and Napoleonic Wars, into the 19th and 20th centuries and into today's world of mixed economies. There have been periods of success and periods of failures. But there has been no more successful economies than two which are virtual miracles...these being the United States and Japan post World War II and modeled on the American brand of free markets. The United States was basically formed as a reaction against strong central governments and government interferences in daily lives and thus is the only nation save the two earlier mentioned that was founded with deep seated fear and distrust of large government. Thus the fundamental difference with Europe.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-08 @ 13:48:51
Agreed. Especially in France there is a natural tendency to expect a lot from government. People who have a problem and want people to know about it like to write to the President (especially President Sarkozy would likes to act like a savior). The President is considered a messiah and always disappoints us because he is not a reincarnation of Jesus. I'm truly exasperated by that, trust me. But all the same we would need a moral consensus and very tight moral laws to make a market system work fairly. Which means we would need tight laws instead of a strong state. The result would largely be the same, but since men are only men, you need a strong state to implement the tight laws. It's too bad, honestly, but you can't help it. Japan is interesting: they have very tight social and moral codes and their society thrived for a few decades, but now it seems to be attaining a Westernlike moral and economic crisis -corruption, recession etc.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-08 @ 13:58:42
For all though that's made of Japan's demise, I'd argue it has much more to do with a shrinking workforce (their population is actually on the decline) than anything else...and despite all their economic woes, they still have the second strongest economy in the world and a much lower unemployment rate than virtually all of Europe. On that note, if the United States had an unemployment rate anywhere near that of France, there would be a rebellion. We here virtually want to string up the President because the unemployment rate is near 6% (which historically is almost full employment). In France, it typically tops 11%.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-08 @ 14:09:45
Currently, the unemployment rate in France is 7.8%. It has decreased a lot but it is my own feeling that the French government is understating the ciphers, because social unease is still strong. However, while we have big government, it does not try to make society efficient as much as please everyone -the bosses who want tax breaks and less regulations, the unions who want more. All that amounts to corruption+heavy spending+economic inefficiency+social injustice. France is screwed, I'm the first to say it. Sarkozy promised full employment but he won't succeed -the French political microcosm won't allow the necessary reform. Japan, as well as Europe, is getting older. We have heavier pensions (especially in France where as usual it's entirely PUBLIC -and that sucks, I'd agree any day). We have less people working. We've got unions whining because the retirement age is postponed two years over two decades. It's a hell. We're not getting anywhere and we won't be able to pay the pensions, and we'll end up working until 70 when most companies don't want workers over 55. This is a vicious circle with a dead end.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-08 @ 14:21:49
There is also the problem of massive Muslim immigration...which, without getting into the political, religious and culture disasters that await Europe as a result; will have far-reaching economic impacts.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-08 @ 14:58:29
Muslim immigration is less and less of a problem. Massive immigration was between 1950 and 1970 and it was wanted by the European governments. Muslims generally do the jobs others are reluctant to do -building, cleaning, etc. So the immigration problem is more stirring bigotry than having actual economic impact. The main problem is integration. I went to a school with an 80% Muslim population (I'm not exactly the elite, you see) and it was mediocre by all accounts but we learnt to be tolerant. I think anti-immigration feeling is very irrational -all we must avoid is ghettos and religious conflict. For Muslims, the choice is simple and not really a choice: adapt or shun themselves -become Europeans in culture if not in religion or try to be culturally independent. In France, that won't happen: we have a strong republican tradition which most Muslim respect and only a few radicals refuse -and they'll get what is coming to them. From a religious point of view, atheism is gaining ground on every single religion but more particularly on Catholicism because that religion is so rigid. Politically, Muslims don't have much impact but like the blacks vote massively for the left. Only natural.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-08 @ 18:22:25
"I would argue that a free market economy only works with a strong moral base...hence the chaos that followed in Russia after the demise of the Soviet Union. There were no civic institutions to provide a moral foundation for free markets." Strong agreement on my part. Communism was on it's deathbed the moment it was born, it just took 70 years for people to realize it. Last Edit: 2008-05-08 @ 18:25:56

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-08 @ 18:23:46

So, time for some more statistics:

THE LAST 6 RACES, also known as 88.52%!!

On March 8, I wrote a blog entry called A look at the last 12 states or territories in the DEM primary race, which I then updated on March 17 to The final 10 races in the DEM primary season - three scenarios., which I then again updated on April 24 to The new math for Clinton: 69.25% (the last 9 races)

In all three post posts, I had a table showing what percent will be necessary to get a certain margin of delegates, based completely on proportionality.

So, here's the table for the last six, in ascending order of delegation strength:

STATE	DEL	+ PD MARGIN
--	--	2	4	6	8	10
SD	15	56.7	63.4	70.01	76.7	83.4
MT	16	56.3	62.6	68.8	75.1	81.4
WV	28	53.6	57.2	60.8	64.4	68.0
KY	51	52	54	55.9	57.9	59.8
OR	52	52	53.9	55.8	57.7	59.6

STATE	DEL	4	8	12	16	20
KY	51	54	57.9	61.8	65.7	69.6
OR	52	53.9	57.7	61.6	65.4	69.2
PR*	55	53.7	57.3	61	64.5	68.2

There are currently 217 PDs left to win. Here is a table simply showing how many delegates will be left win after each primary:

State	Date	REG.	PD	PDR*
WV	5/13	NE	28	189
KY	5/20	MW	51	138
OR	5/20	W	52	86
PR	6/01	--	55	31
MT	6/03	W	16	15
SD	6/03	MW	15	0
TOT			217	0

*= pledged delegates remaining to be won.

This means that after May 20, there will only be 86 PDs left to fight for. Remember this number.

First, I feel that I can predict the last 6 with more and more confidence, as I predicted 5 of the last 6 correctly (I missed Guam, with it's 4 PDs).

Second, by my calculations for the PDs, it's now (05/09, 18:30 EST):

Obama: 1628

Clinton: 1458

Margin: Obama +170

Real Clear Politics has the PD race currently at:

Obama: 1589

Clinton: 1425

Margin: Obama +165

The Wikipedia for the DEM nomination race has the PD race currently at:

Obama: 1,590.5

Clinton: 1,426.5

Margin: Obama +164

So, how can I have 37-38 more delegates already assigned for both Obama and Clinton than the others?

Because for many states, the selection of a few last delegates has yet to be official, but it is only a formality, and will be based on the proportional divvying up of delegates based on the PV results in those respective states.

However, I will now take the mean of these three totals: 170 + 165 + 164 / 3 = 166

So, for the purpose of estimating, I will use the PD margin: Obama +166

In order to overcome this PD gap, Senator Clinton must win a 167 PD MARGIN:

167 / 217 = 76.96% MARGIN. 88.52% - 11.28% = 76.96%

So, assuming that the delegate allocation is purely proportional, this means that Clinton must win all six remaining contests with 88.52% of the popular vote.

This is the new bar that the math has set for Senator Clinton: 88.52%

The third scenario I wrote, was a table of my view of the likely outcomes of these states. Here is the table as it was back then (Gold = proj. Clinton win / Aqua = proj. Obama win):

State	Date	REG.	PD	BO-%	HC-%	Del.Mar.	BO-PD	HC-PD
PA	4/22	NE	158	45.66	45.34	+12	73	93
--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
GM	5/03	--	4	65	35	-0	2	2
IN	5/06	MW	72	48	52	+2	35	37
NC	5/06	S	115	61	39	-25	70	45
WV	5/13	NE	28	30	70	+12	8	20
KY	5/20	MW	51	33	67	+17	17	34
OR	5/20	W	52	57	43	-8	30	22
PR	6/01	--	55	39	61	+13	21	34
MT	6/03	W	16	60	40	-4	10	6
SD	6/03	MW	15	60	40	-3	9	6
TOT			408			+4	202	206

So, here is the table as I see it now, revised (Gold = proj. Clinton win / Aqua = proj. Obama win / grey: recent state results):

State	Date	REG.	PD	BO-%	HC-%	Del.Mar.	BO-PD	HC-PD
PA	4/22	NE	158	45.66	45.34	+12	73	85
GM	5/03	--	4	50.08	49.92	-0	2	2
IN	5/06	MW	72	49.44	50.56	+6	33	39
NC	5/06	S	115	55.99	41.74	-16	66	49
--	--	--	--	--	--	(+2)	--	--
WV	5/13	NE	28	30	70	+12	8	20
KY	5/20	MW	51	32	68	+19	16	35
OR	5/20	W	52	55	45	-6	29	23
PR	6/01	--	55	42	58	+9	23	32
MT	6/03	W	16	60	40	-4	10	6
SD	6/03	MW	15	64	36	-5	10	5
TOT			217			+25	96	121

By my projections, if the races run with absolute blow-out landslides for Clinton and average wins for Obama then, going into the convention:

Obama: 1,724 PD (excluding SDs, 301 from the nomination -- 2,025)

Clinton: 1,579 PD (excluding SDs, 446 from the nomination -- 2,025)

Margin: Obama +145 PD

-----------------------------------

Now, there has been considerable talk in the Clinton camp about the magic number jumping from 2,025 to 2,209 (including FL and MI, PDs and SDs). Now, let's accept their argument for the moment and assume that we end up throwing in FLA and MI after all and use the current proposal to divide MI's delegates 69-59:

State	Date	REG.	PD	BO-%	HC-%	Del.Mar.	BO-PD	HC-PD
PA	4/22	NE	158	45.66	45.34	+12	73	85
GM	5/03	--	4	50.08	49.92	-0	2	2
IN	5/06	MW	72	49.44	50.56	+6	33	39
NC	5/06	S	115	55.99	41.74	-16	66	49
--	--	--	--	--	--	(+2)	--	--
WV	5/13	NE	28	30	70	+12	8	20
KY	5/20	MW	51	32	68	+19	16	35
OR	5/20	W	52	55	45	-6	29	23
PR	6/01	--	55	42	58	+9	23	32
MT	6/03	W	16	60	40	-4	10	6
SD	6/03	MW	15	64	36	-5	10	5
TOT			217			+25	96	121

FL	1/29	S	185	32.93	49.77	+38	67	105
MI	1/15	MW	128	--	55.23	+10	59	69
			313			+48	126	174

Were this the case, then the PD count could look by this:

Obama: 1,850 (excluding SDs, 359 from the nomination – 2,209)

Clinton: 1,753 (excluding SDs, 456 from the nomination – 2,209)

Margin: Obama + 97

Please notice that, only in terms of PDs, this would narrow the PD gap between Clinton and Obama but not close the gap. And, phenomenon of math, adding these two states as they went puts Obama 58 PDs farther from the finish line and Clinton 10 PDs farther from the finish line, which will make the SUPERDELEGATES even more important.

---------------------------------------

Now, back to the first calculation (without FL, MI), plus the current pledged SDs:

Obama: 1,724 PD + 261 SD = 1,985 (40 from the nomination)

Clinton: 1,579 PD + 272 SD = 1,851 (174 from the nomination)

Margin: Obama +134

Which means, of the 262 as of yet undeclared SDs, Clinton needs to get 174 of those 262 undecided SDs, or 2/3^rd of them.

------------------------------------

Now, to the second calculation:

Obama: 1,850 + 261 = 2,111 (98 from the nomination --- 2,209)

Clinton: 1,753 + 272 = 2,025 (184 from the nomination --- 2,209)

Margin: Obama + 86

There are 55 more supers with FL and MI, bringing the current undecideds to 317. In order to win under this scenario, Clinton must sway 184 of those 317 undecideds, or 58%.

In the second scenario, Clinton has a better shot at the nomination, but this all is based on not one single further SD declaring between now and the convention. For every SD that declares for Obama, the math gets exponentially harder for Clinton.

I will do a final-write up after the last contest, assuming that not all SDs have declared.

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2008-05-08 @ 19:08:24
Thank you for the detailed analysis. I feel for Clinton as she has run a campaign that in ordinary times should have brought her the nomination. But Americans are starved for something different even if untested. By that I mean a number of americans who were motivated to vote in caucus, caucus-primary or primary states. the turnout has been amazing....

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-09 @ 02:15:39
FrenchEd, I never meant to call you an elitist outright, only some of your fellow members in the left-wing. You in your writings have believe it or not found some common ground. We both want the same thing and have the same realizations about people. We just have different ways of getting there and I suspect it may have a lot to do with the fact that you where born in Europe and I in America. Look we all want a better world, a better society. But lets face some facts. We here in the West are the expection to the rule. The rest of the world is the Third World. Its mass poverty, starvation, war, conflict, genocide, and oppression. And some cultures don't long to be free as we do, sad to say. But the world is changing and fast. So here is what I want for America, my top priorities if you will: 1. I want the United States to be completely 100% energy independent. Its first on my list of priorities. I want us to drill for our own oil, refine our own oil, use more clean coal, use natural gas, use non-food source biofuel, recycle carbon, and like Fance/Japan be 80% nuclear. We can do it, we sit on so many resources. 2. I want a secure and safe America. I believe that comes through a strong military with the best technology and training the world over. We need more alliances with new emerging nations like Colombia, Chile, India, Ethiopia, and so forth. And its time to come home from Europe and be in places we need to be like Israel and Korea. Not only that but its time to let one of our closest allies rearm: Japan. 3. We need a strong free market based economy where regulation is low and entepenuership is encouraged. The private sector is where our inovation comes from because it lets people excelle. We need lower taxes for the citizenry and tax breaks wherever we can for things like healthcare. The reduced relugation will promote more competition and being companies back to America. And we need to be engaged in the global market. That means more free trade with countries like India, Japan, Colombia, and so forth. 4. Immigration is a wonderful thing but we need to be able to control who is here legally or not. We need to protect our southern border and we need to enforce our laws more strictly. We need the fence. And we must encourage more assimilation in things like making English the official language. 5. We need to return power to the states. Let gay marriage, abortion, healthcare programs, the death penalty, and so forth be handled at the state level where the people are far closer to those governments than we ever where with DC. Let liberals states be liberal and conservative states conservative. Then people can move where they choose. It need not be one size fits all and it will promote unity. 6. Finally we need to trim the federal government. Term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court to ensure they never get too out of touch with the people. We need less spending. If we want to help the poor with healthcare or buying a hybrid or whatever, give them tax credits. We can still have emergency programs to help out those in hard times or need to get back on their feet. But we can't have this generation after generation dependency which is shallowing the budget. Its not a perfect list because people are not perfect. It won't always be fair either. But it allows for as much freedom of the individual as possible and I believe it would make America strong. What I want most is to see the United States engaged and yet self-reliant. Sometimes we get lost in the heat of debate and the exchange of ideas. But I still believe that we have the same goals for a better world. I hope that at the end of the day we can find a way back to some sort of civil discourse.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-09 @ 02:19:06
I am somewhat amazed at what a banner year we have had and what a banner year we are about to have. 2 excellent candidates, both trailblazers. Says alot of good things about a whole lot of americans to accept the idea of both a woman presidential candidate and a black male presidential candidate, both of whom have won states in primary elections. I think it's good to stop and pause and remember that this is the first time ever that this constellation has happened. CR: "Sometimes we get lost in the heat of debate and the exchange of ideas. But I still believe that we have the same goals for a better world. I hope that at the end of the day we can find a way back to some sort of civil discourse." Indeed we do, and with me, you can always have a civil discourse. Agreeing to disagree is the first step to finding common ground, imo.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-09 @ 02:22:55
CNN is reporting that Obama has picked up two more SDs, thus narrowing the SD gap from 9 to 7. I want to remind that just a few short weeks ago, the gap was around 30. If CNN is correct, then the SD count is now: Obama: 265 Clinton: 272 but I have seen different tallies from different sources. 795 - 265 - 272 = 258 remaining undeclared SDs.

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2008-05-09 @ 07:14:49
CR- What a good list and thoughtful at that! I whoelheartedly agree with 1,2,3 and would add energy effieciency and conservation promotion. A car getting 50-75 miles a gallon of whatever fuel it uses. Plus back off ethanol-unless you use grasses instead of food. Japan rearming will drive China nuts. In fact China and the US need a partnership for the future not tension. 4,5 and 6 I favor an electronic fence as I fear any fence to keep out will be used to keep in...I agree with Ventura on that. But strong border security is needed whether water, land or air. Punishment of companies would be appropriate too. Of course we need a fair immigration policy and one that does not necessisarily lessen American wages. I certainly see less spending as necessary as the money trail is one of the most corrupting influence in our society. Lessen the impact of the federal government with states rights as you propose. Term limits but reasonable ones where 16-20 in government is enough - like SUpreme COurt or COngress as a whole. If a President is only allowed 8 I can see 16 cumulative years in Congress enough too-or the SUpremes. Nice thoughts and basically touches what most Americans want a government that works for them not against the majority will.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-09 @ 08:07:37

Obama and the white vote.

There has been a considerable amount of chatter about how badly Obama is doing in the white vote, but exit polls are not showing this. Quite the contrary, exit polls are showing a steady and measurable increase in his take of the white vote, both among white democrats and among white independents. Here a comparison of 6 key states, from 2/05 to 5/06, first chronologically, and then by region.

Dark blue = strong Obama win

Dark green = strong Clinton win

Light green = weak Clinton win

Obama's take of the white vote, chronologically:

State	Date	White DEM	White IND	White TOT	% change
AL	2/05	21%	31%	23.2%	--
MS	3/11	23%	40%	29.9%	+7.7
OH	3/04	27%	45%	31.8%	+1.9
PA	4/22	35%	48%	36.8%	+5.0
NC	5/06	37%	38%	37.3%	+0.5
IN	5/06	35%	48%	38.8%	+2.0
				Total:	+15.6

By region:

THE SOUTH
State	Date	White DEM	White IND	White TOT	% change
AL	2/05	21%	31%	23.2%	--
MS	3/11	23%	40%	29.9%	+7.7
NC	5/06	37%	38%	37.3%	+7.4
THE RUST BELT
OH	3/04	27%	45%	31.8%	--
PA	4/22	35%	48%	36.8%	+5.0
IN	5/06	35%	48%	38.8%	+2.0

In total, we see a clear and chronological improvement in Obama's take of the white vote in key states by about 15-16%.

In the south, in states with over 20% black population, he has improved his take of the white vote by 15.1%

In the rust belt, which is between 9%-11% black (right in the middle of the so-called "RACIAL GAP") he has improved his take of the white vote by 7%. And it is interesting to note that the successive order of rust-belt states reflects a DECREASE in the black percentage of each state's population, while at the same time, Obama's white vote intake has increased. And a flip of just 7,111 votes in IN would have swung the state to Obama.

Not only that, PA was after "Wright-Gate I" and "Bitter-Gate". NC and IN were after both of those plus "Wright-Gate II". And in spite of this, Obama continues to improve in his take of the white vote.

I do not think that this pattern will hold for either KY or WV.

Please note that the Total White Vote percentage is not a pure average of the two percentages before it (White DEM / White IND), but has to be weighted, depending on what percent of the total PV each group represents. It's easy math, but requires extrapolations based on exit poll percentages. For anyone who asks, I can show one easy method for doing this. Please also note that the exit poll percentages that we are given to work with are most likely rounded to the percent instead of to the 1/100^th of a percent, as is my preference. This means that every percentage here is +/- 1%. So, Obama's improvement could be 14.6% or 16.6%, the mean being of course, 15.6%.

I do not have time to analyse all 47 contests thus far, but the next post will be a comparison of Obama's take in the hispanic vote in key states, looking ahead to the contest in Puerto Rico.

Also coming up: Can Clinton catch-up in the PV, or maybe even overtake Obama? Answer: yes, it is still possible. Stay tuned.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-09 @ 12:30:00
Thank you dnul. Its really nice to see that we agree on so many of the issues. At least to an extent. We have a lot of work to do to meet the challenges of the 21st century. But I'm am confident that just as we rose to the occation in the past that the United States will once again rise to meet these new challenges. Last Edit: 2008-05-09 @ 12:30:23

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-09 @ 13:15:14
I'd say I agree on 1,4 and 6. I agree on energy independence. In France we have some ecologist nuts and far-left fools who try to make us believe we can survive without nuclear energy when it's making us the most powerful electricity producer in Europe. I call these watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. They're completely out-of-touch with reality and their only concern is to undermine the French economy so that they can claim their system is better. 4. Agreeing on immigration but if I may add a personal note I wish immigration policies would be more humane. We're having a debate currently in France with people who are illegal immigrants but legal workers and who've been here a long time and have assimilated. For me these people must be allowed citizenship. I also believe in stronger integration policies -immigrants must be made a full part of our society. Ghettos breed only violence and resentment. And finally, we must make the people in the South understand that we're not the promised land and that if they want to come here they'll have to do it the legal way because we have laws and won't be afraid to implement them. But we must also help them find a way toward economic development. Implement the law, but in a understanding and humane fashion. 6. Enough of legislative and executive branches which are completely out of touch! Our deputies are just party officials who get a constituency at a party lottery. And enough of big parties and their spoil system. If small parties were heard the political debate would be more interesting and there would be a point in electing a Parliament. Nowadays, especially in France, parliaments are just there to say "ay" to everything the government says. I'm more suspicious of point 2 3 and 5. I'm in favor of cutting military spending, but I'm talking about France: we are trying to maintain an international status we can't afford and we should concentrate on our deep domestic crisis. Our government has undertaken a neo-colonial policy with Africa which is illegitimate, ridden with corruption and costly. 3. I'm in favor of stimulating innovation and free market/competition but I believe in sharing wealth to an extent, keynesian economics when necessary and some regulations to make the system both efficient and fair. Don't sacrifice fairness for efficiency and efficiency for equality. Because fair is not equal. 5. Don't have that problem in France but I think that's up to the local people to decide -Americans, that is. France is extremely centralized, it's a disaster, so in the end I agree with you -but I don't like the bit about abortion :-). Message to Bonn: Research 2000 poll showing McCain leading Obama in Texas by 13. Time for an update, dude.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-09 @ 16:04:45
The update comes once a month and once a month only.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-09 @ 16:13:15
On 5/04, I posted the following: POLITICO is now listing the superdelegate count as such: Clinton: 267 Obama: 252 Margin: Clinton +15 (one month ago it was: Clinton +27) Today, POLITICO lists the delegate spread as such: Clinton: 268.5 Obama: 265 Margin: Clinton +2.5 So, the 27 SD spread from one month ago is now 10 times smaller. The SDs are not breaking for Clinton. Of course, the mathematical possibility for a Clinton comeback to take the delegate lead still exists, but the statistical possibility is getting lower from day to day. This leaves the DEMS with 213.5 uncommitted SDs and 49 as of yet unnamed add-ons. So, what was a 7 delegate gap this morning is a 2.5 (3) delegate gap tonight. Yup, the pace of SD declarations is moving along. Last Edit: 2008-05-09 @ 16:22:00

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-09 @ 17:12:30
Fascinating pre-statistics out of Oregon: Number of registered voters: 2,048,067 Number of ballots already returned: 136,386 (to compare, in 2004, a total of 368,544 DEM ballots were cast in the primary). It is estimated that these 136,386 returned ballots are 7% of the total return, which makes for 1,948,371 ballots. Assuming that the split between the DEM and the GOP primary is 65% - 35%, then we can expect 1,266,421 votes (maximum) cast in OR in the DEM primary, breaking all records! I am predicting a more moderate outcome: 3 times that of 2004: 1,105,632 votes.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-05-09 @ 17:26:13
Hillary is screwed. Srsly.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-10 @ 16:19:16

From my blog:

Thinking of the last 6 races, in light of the fact that the superdelegates are turning to Obama quicker and quicker, that there have been SD defections from Clinton to Obama but not visa-versa, the question has been raised: Can Hillary Clinton pull ahead of Barack Obama in the popular vote?

Well, the answer is yes and no. It depends on how you calculate the PV to begin with.

Without FL or MI in the mix, Obama currently has a PV lead of 710,557 votes out of 31,149,925 primary votes, or a 2.3% lead over Clinton. If you include the estimated votes from the caucuses in IA, NV, ME and WA, then his lead jumps to 820,779 out of 31,707,871 votes. Without the caucuses, but with FL, his lead shrinks to 415,785 out of 32,597,125 votes. Add MI into the mix, and his lead shrinks to 87,476 out of 32,925,434 votes. This would of course be ridiculous, since Obama was not even on the ballot in MI. And if you throw in the entire kitchen sink, caucuses and all, then his lead is 197,698 out of 33,483,380 votes. Can give one a headache, eh?!?

Note that Obama is ahead in the PV, no matter how you slice it.

Before bracing two possible scenarios, 5 important points:

-All six remaining races are PRIMARIES. MT and SD are not caucuses.

-5 of 6 are CLOSED PRIMARIES. MT is an open primary. And is posting record breaking registration numbers.

-OR votes through the post and keeps up-to date statistical details on ballots that have come in.

-for 5 of these 6 contests, we have exact data from the 2004 primary. For Puerto Rico, we do not.

-every single contest so far has had far more votes than the 2004 primary. Anywhere from 1.9 times as many to 5.1 times as many. The mean average is around 3 times the 2004 primary vote in most states.

As most of us political junkies are probably thinking, it is looking like three solid Clinton wins to three moderate to solid Obama wins. I have worked up two scenarios, or mathematical extrapolations, of the last 6 races.

First, the baseline data for each state:

RV = current registered democrats (for MT, registered voters)

2004 (D) = number of DEM votes cast in the 2004 primary.

State	RV (D)	2004 (D)
WV	1,137,371	252,839
KY	1,622,283	229,916
OR	803,042	368,544
PR*	2,000,000	---
MT	519,000	93,543
SD	190,421	84,405

TOT :	6,272,117	---

*estimated value.

In the first scenario (or extrapolation model) , I have multiplied the 2004 primary vote by 3, assigned winning and losing percentages to this and extrapolated the totals. In this scenario, Clinton cuts into Obama’s margin by about 692,000 votes:

Italic = open primary

State	2004 (D)	Turnout (3 X 2004)	BO %	BO Vote	HC %	HRC Vote	Margin
WV	252,839	758,517	30	227,555	70	530,962	303,407
KY	229,916	689,748	30	206,924	70	482,824	275,900
OR	368,544	1,105,632	52	574,929	48	530,703	44,266
PR	---	1,000,000	40	400,000	60	600,000	200,000
MT	93,543	280,629	55	154,346	45	126,283	27,523
SD	84,405	253,215	55	139,268	45	113,947	25,321

TOT :	---	4,087,741		1,703,022		2,394,719	691,697

About the first scenario: it reduces Obama’s PV margin down to 18,860 out of a projected 35,237,666 primary votes total, or 0.05% of the popular vote.

As you can see, Clinton wins huge blowouts in both WV and KY but also a major landslide in Puerto Rico, which will be key to any kind of meaningful gain for her. We do not have exact voter statistics for Puerto Rico yet, but in the PR press it is being reported that there are about 2,000,000 registered voters, and that the vast majority of them are democrats.

Now, the expected turnout number in OR looks high, but this may actually be correct. Although the last official DEM RV count (from March, to note) is 803,042, according to the daily report out of OR from May 9, 198,366 ballots have already been returned in the mail, and this is listed as 10% of the total ballots sent out, which, when you account for rounding up and down to .5%, means anywhere from 1,891,000 to 2,088,000 registered voters, the mean being just about 2,000,000. So, if all the ballots come in and the DEM primary comprises 75% of the vote take as has been the case throughout the union, it looks like OR will have a record breaking primary.

Both MT and SD are displaying record registrations for a primary season. Obama has won every contest in this region, but most of them were caucuses. A primary in this corner of the country could be closer, and for this reason, instead of 65-35 for Obama, I have calculated 55-45 for him.

--------------------------

The second scenario takes a different tack, and instead of using the ratio of 3:1 vs. the 2004 primaries, it calculates 42% of the current voter registration, which is just around the mean average for the last 20 contests:

State	RV (D)	Turnout (RV x 42%)	BO %	BO Vote	HC %	HRC Vote	Margin
WV	1,137,371	477,696	30	143,309	70	334,387	191,078
KY	1,622,283	681,359	30	204,408	70	476,951	272,543
OR	803,042	337,277	52	175,384	48	161,893	13,491
PR	2,000,000	840,000	40	336,000	60	504,000	168,000
MT	519,000	217,980	55	119,889	45	98,091	21,798
SD	190,421	79,976	55	43,987	45	35,989	7,998

TOT :		2,634,288		1,022,977		1,611,311	588,334

In this scenario, Clinton pulls up by 588,334 votes and would reduce Obama’s lead to 122,223, but there are considerably less votes total in this scenario than in the first one.

Why 42%? Here are the turnout statistics for some some of the last states, in reverse chronological order:

State	Turnout - % of RV (RD)
IN	25.57% (est. 49% DEM)
NC	40.33% (semi-open primary)
PA	54.95% (closed primary)
OH	46.04% (DEM and GOP)

Most states are above 42% turnout, so I picked it as a conservative mean value.

Now, neither of these two scenarios put Clinton ahead of Obama, unless you include FL. And since FL is a state where both candidates names were on the ballot, a calculation with FL in the mix would put Clinton, in the lead by 275,912, using the first scenario, or by 172,549 using the second scenario.

I wish to point out that neither of these scenarios is a prediction on my part. It is a “what would be when…” scenario. But this is math for what it would take for Clinton to erase Obama’s PV lead.

In both scenarios, PUERTO RICO plays the pivotal role. For this reason, I suspect that both teams will be converging on PR with a vengeance very, very soon.

On Monday or Tuesday I will post my predictions for WV, KY and OR.

Last Edit: 2008-05-10 @ 16:22:16

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-10 @ 17:00:47
FOXNEWS, among others, is reporting that Obama has definitely taken the lead in SDs: Obama: 275 Clinton: 270 Margin: Obama +5 (this was Clinton +27 one month ago). Remaining SDs to declare: 250 Last Edit: 2008-05-10 @ 17:01:13

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2008-05-10 @ 19:15:39
This will keep drifting Obama's way until the end of primary season when they will finally settle the Michigan and Florida thing...Florida easier than Michigan.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-10 @ 20:43:21
Since Clinton can't seem to beat him anyway they ought to just seat Florida and Michigan. They won't change the end result if the supers hold and then Hillary couldn't complain about it any more. But the only way to force Hillary out at this point is to get Obama over that 2025 mark.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-11 @ 12:17:15
It'll happen by the first week of June.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-11 @ 12:20:40
Or immediately following May 20.

By: pacewicz (D-IL) 2008-05-11 @ 12:32:19
Depending on how WV and KT go, I could see her dropping out May 20th as well (if the margins of loss for Obama are within 15-20 pts)...

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-11 @ 12:55:50
Well, if she wants an opportunity to leave with the honors, the 13th and the 20th might be the last options. By the 20th Obama will have a majority of pledged delegates and will probably have strengthened his lead among superdelegates. Clinton could agree to withdraw at that point, after winning WV and KY handily, so that Obama could claim the nomination. If she wants to be Vice President or if she wants a good legacy as a candidate (maybe to target 2012) she shouldn't play dirty and an honorable withdrawal would be of the best effect on Democratic voters.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-11 @ 14:08:02
But if she wants to run in 2012 then she's invested in an Obama defeat in 2008. Not only that but so much bad blood exists there will be no "dream team." I doubt that Hillary will play second banana to anyone. I think its make or break for Hillary. At this point so much has happened and with the dislike she's encoured from her own party I doubt she has the resources to do this again. And she knows it.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-11 @ 14:48:37
Well then she has lost now and forever. I won't cry. But her only chance if unlikely is 2012. So we'll see what she does. I think she'll be gracious to Obama but secretly hope for him to lose.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-11 @ 15:59:34
Drink tea... and wait.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-11 @ 16:53:43
Hillary has no chance even in 2012. The reason being, if she really is going to try to have Obama defeated in 08 in order to run in 2012 (which I seriously doubt even she is stupid enough to do) it will be perceived as so. The democratic party will not look kindly at all at someone who is willing to destroy their own party in order to have the chance of getting the nomination 4 years later. The whole party, or a large majority of it, will turn against her. And, again, if this hypothesis were so true, Hillary would have tried to ruin Kerry's chances in 04 in order for her to run in 08, which she did not. She was fully behind Kerry in 04. I think people are putting too much into this. Hillary isn't going to commit political suicide, and she is going to try to make up for whatever damage she has done in the primary in order to gain political power in some other way (leader of the senate, whatever it may be)

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-11 @ 16:56:06
They tried to make a deal with Mich just the other day. Hillary of course denied the deal.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-11 @ 17:17:45
Well, maybe she's hoping Obama will lose but will help him somewhat anyway. Who knows ? Hillary as Majority Leader would be fine with me. She has the right kind of background for that and she's very competent.

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2008-05-11 @ 17:35:45
Timing is everything...if Obama loses in 2008 CLinton may be blamed no matter what she does and thus no 2012. A brillant long senate career is possible though...

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-11 @ 21:08:56
There is no doubt Hillary is competent savvy and intelligent. But I have no doubt she can change her perception. She has proved as a master of that, more than anyone else. She is now perceived as being a politically moderate, populist Democrat who appeals to the working class. This is a far cry from the Hillary who was perceived as a far left feminist liberal (which is probably closer to her real self) just a short time ago. So there is no doubt in my mind if she campaigns hard for Obama, and Obama loses she is good for 2012, but she must campaign for him and do it hard and authentically (or appear authentic). But if Hillary does do this, she, imo, Obama will almost surely be president. So in terms of Hillary's presidential prospects, It appears they are over. Americans forget quickly, we know this. In a matter of days the publicans perception of a candidate can change, and old grudges can be forgotten, and aliances can be easily broken. But what I was referring to is that if Hillary only have ass supports Obama. In that case I think there is little doubt she is toast for 2012, and she will be blamed for his loss. Last Edit: 2008-05-11 @ 21:15:46

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-05-12 @ 09:43:07
You all have been bashing this woman into the ground for months, and now she is a "brilliant, competent, savvy, capable politician?" lol.. Oh my god, you people are more pathetic than I thought!!! What a joke! I don't think you have to worry about Clinton... I'd worry about Obama at this time, because the Clinton's aren't going down w/out a fight, its doubtful they will campaign for Obama, and you all are going to have to make some serious concessions to bring Clinton's broad coalition of women, elderly, conserative, blue-collar Dems on board. Unless Mr. Obama has so broadened the political map that he doesn't need conservative Dems, blue collar worker, and women anymore? If Mr. Obama loses, it is his own fault and NO ONE elses. It's not Clinton's fault if he loses. I know you hate the woman, but Mr. Obama has serious problems connecting w/ the traditional demcocrats and Clinton isn't going to be able to bridge the gap for him. It's not her race and its not her priority to get Mr. Obama elected. You ALL have asserted that Obama is the most electable candidate that can win the deepest "red" states in the nation, so if that holds to be true he does NOT need Clinton's support or campaigning. Afterall, he has Oprah, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry! :)

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-12 @ 10:05:18

On the eve of the WV primary, which is sure to be a blowout for Clinton, but with very little effect on the democratic nomination as a whole, here once more the data thus far on the 49 qualified races that have happened. Included at the bottom are statistics based on these results, including how far each of these candidates are from 2,205 and 2,209 (the Clinton camp's sudden magic number), respectively. After the WV primary there will be a district caucus on June 13 for for the 18 district delegates, then a state executive committee meeting on June 14 for the over 7 pledged delegates and and 3 pledged PLEOs and the one add-on (total: 29). The other 10 are superdelegates.

Right now, it's

OBAMA: 1,867

CLINTON: 1,698

Margin: Obama +169

- 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination contests –

- as of 05/11/2008 –

- categorized by winning %, descending, for Obama -

Legend:

Grey shading = Obama win

Unshaded = Clilnton win

yellow = currently disqualified states / delegate slates.

+margin= Obama winning margin / -margin=Clinton winning margin

bold PD no.= winner in the PDs / italic PD no. = tie

( ) = state which has voted but still has state conventions or the like to finish off the final tally. The number in the ( ) is a very, very good projection of the final outcome. The states to still produce the final tally: ID, KS, NE, WY. For more details, see the wikipedia site for the DEM primaries. The chances are close to 100% that these projection are correct.

State		Reg.	PD	BO-%	HC-%	Margin	BO-PD	HC-PD	JE- PD
VirI	C	T	3	90.10	7.40	+82.70	3	0	-
ID	C	W	18	79.53	17.22	+62.31	(15)	(3)
HI	C	W	19	75.74	23.61	+52.13	14	6	-
DC	P	NE	15	75.31	23.77	+51.54	12	3	-
AK	C	W	13	74.45	25.30	+49.15	9	4	-
KS	C	MW	32	73.99	25.77	+48.22	(23)	(9)	-
WA	C	W	78	67.56	31.15	+36.41	52	26	-
NE	C	MW	24	67.53	32.21	+35.32	(16)	(8)	-
CO	C	W	55	66.53	32.26	+34.27	35	20	-
GA	P	S	87	66.39	31.11	+35.28	60	27	-
MN	P	MW	72	66.39	32.23	+34.16	48	24	-
DAB	P	--	7*	65.85	32.46	+33.39	5	2	-
IL	P	MW	153	64.57	32.87	+31.70	104	49	-
VA	P	S	83	63.65	35.47	+28.18	54	29	-
WY	C	W	12	61.44	37.38	+24.06	(7)	(5)	-
ND	C	MW	13	61.15	36.55	+24.60	8	5	-
MS	P	S	33	60.71	37.10	+23.61	20	13	-
MD	P	NE	70	60.45	35.95	+24.50	42	28	-
ME	C	NE	24	59.43	39.91	+19.52	15	9	-
VT	P	NE	15	59.37	38.71	+20.66	9	6	-
WI	P	MW	74	58.13	40.75	+17.38	42	32	-
LA	P	S	56	57.39	35.63	+21.76	34	22	-
AL	P	S	52	56.96	41.57	+15.39	27	25	-
UT	P	W	23	56.61	39.19	+17.42	14	9	-
NC	P	S	115	55.99	41.74	+14.25	66	49	-
SC	P	S	45	55.44	26.52	+28.92	25	12	8
TX	C	S	67*	54.71	44.93	+9.78	37	30	-
DE	P	NE	15	53.07	42.29	+10.78	9	6	-
CT	P	NE	48	50.70	46.66	+4.04	26	22	-
GM	C	T	4	50.08	49.92	+0.16	2	2	-
IN	P	MW	72	49.44	50.56	-1.11	34	38	-
MO	P	MW	72	49.27	48.97	+0.30	36	36	-
NM	P	W	26	47.86	49.00	-0.14	12	14	-
TX	P	W	128*	47.09	50.89	-3.52	61	65	-
PA	P	NE	158	45.34	54.64	-9.28	73	85	-
NV	C	W	25	45.33	50.82	-5.49	13	12	-
OH	P	MW	141	44.00	54.29	-10.29	67	74	-
NJ	P	NE	107	43.95	53.81	-9.86	48	59	-
CA	P	W	370	42.99	51.62	-8.63	166	204	-
AMS	C	T	3	42.45	57.19	-14.74	1	2	-
AZ	P	W	56	42.39	50.37	-7.98	25	31	-
MA	P	NE	93	41.06	56.52	-15.46	38	55	-
TN	P	S	68	40.52	53.76	-13.24	28	40	-
RI	P	NE	21	40.37	58.45	-18.08	8	13	-
NY	P	NE	232	39.90	57.38	-17.48	93	139	-
IA	C	MW	45	37.58	29.47	+8.11	24	14	7
NH	P	NE	22	36.45	39.09	-2.64	9	9	4
OK	P	W	38	31.19	54.76	-23.57	14	24	-
AR	P	S	35	26.25	70.05	-43.80	8	27	-
SUB:		--	3036	--	--	--	1591	1426	19

WV	P	MW	28
KY	P	MW	51
OR	P	W	52
PR	P	T	55
MT	P	W	16
SD	P	MW	15
SUB:		--	217
TOT :		--	3253

SD		--	--	--	--	--	276	272	--
both		--	--	--	--	--	1867	1698	19

DISQUALIFIED DELEGATIONS:
FL	P	S	185	32.93	49.77	-16.84	67	105	13
MI	P	MW	128	--	55.23		59	69	--

Current Tot.	Current BO	BO%	Current HC	HC %	Margin	Margin %
PD - 3036	1591	52.40	1426	47.60	+165	+4.80
SD – 548	276	50.36	272	49.64	+4	+0.72

SUBTOTAL
3584	1867	52.09	1698	47.91	+169	+4.18

Total	Current BO	2025 -	2209-	Current HC	2025-	2209-
4048	1867	-158		1698	-327
+FL, MI	1993		-216	1872		-337

And here are the percentage averages to date (04/28/2008):

Contest Type	O	O-%	O-Mar	C	C-%	C-Mar
ALL	32	62.38	28.13	17	53.72	12.08

Primary -all	18	59.79	23.47	15	53.68	13.44
Primary -NE	6	59.78	22.30	6	53.32	12.13
Primary -South	7	59.50	23.91	2	61.91	28.52
Primary -Midwest	4	59.59	21.14	2	52.43	5.70
Primary -West	1	56.61	39.19	5	51.33	8.77

Caucus -all	14	65.90	35.83	2	54.00	10.12
Caucus -NE	1	59.43	19.52	0	--	--
Caucus -South	1	54.71	9.78	0	--	--
Caucus -Midwest	4	60.06	29.06	0	--	--
Caucus -West	6	70.88	43.06	1	50.82	5.49
Caucus-Territory	2	70.09	41.43	1	57.19	14.74

49 contests	Obama	Clinton	Tie	Total
Total contests-PV	32	17	--	49
Total contests-DEL	32	16	1	49
Primaries-PV	18	15	--	31
Primaries-DEL	18	14	1	31
Caucuses-PV	14	2	--	16
Caucuses-DEL	15	1	--	16
Landslide- 10% +	27	8	--	35
Landslide- 20% +	21	2	--	23
Landslide- 30% +	13	1	--	14
Landslide- 40% +	6	1	--	7
Mod. Wins- 5-9%	1	4
Narrow wins – 2-5%	1	3	--	4
"Squeaker" – 1%-	1	1	--	2

I thought long and hard about the "Texas 2-Step", and after long deliberation, have split TX into 2 contests: the primary and the caucuses. I feel this is justified as the number of PDs to be gleaned from the TX caucus virtually equals the delegate strength of states like TN or MD and was the second largest caucus haul of the season, after WA. We know that Obama clearly won the TX caucuses, but can only estimate the percentages – and for this reason, they are in (parentheses).

That makes 51 contests to date, 49 of which are in the statistics. Until such time that FL and/or MI are seated at the convention, they stay out of the rating statistics. PS: This is categorised after the candidate who has won the most contests, the most states, is ahead in the popular vote and in the overall delegate count. That's 5 of 7 possible categories, and Obama is currently ahead in all 7. Were Hillary Clinton in the lead, then I would have organised the chart with her wins at the top.

Notice the number of states that Obama has won with a margin of 10% (landslide) or more: 27 of his 32 states (84.38%). For Clinton, it's 8 of her 17 states (47.06%).

The chances are very strong that when all 55 qualified races are over with, it will be Obama with 35 wins and Clinton with 20 wins.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-12 @ 16:15:48
Thanks, Bonn. I did notice that after provisional ballots were counted, Clinton's margin in Ohio slipped below 10%, so she has actually won 7 contests by more than 10%, to Obama's 27.

By: pacewicz (D-IL) 2008-05-12 @ 22:53:56
Man - I hope a major scandal hits tomorrow and keeps the media focus away from the upcoming WV trouncing! Ugh - this is going to be embarrassing ;). . .

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-12 @ 23:03:27
Gore, Carter and Edwards (okay maybe leave Carter out) endorsing in unison on Wednesday would be nice to quell the WV news!

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-13 @ 13:31:09
Wow, Wing, I missed that Ohio data. Can you send me the link? I will update the data immediately. Sorry for the discrepancy, I really try to stay very exact. pacewicz: I do not find a trouncing for Obama any more embarressing than the trouncing that Clinton got in the 18 primaries/caucuses that Obama won in absolute blowouts of 60% or more (VI, ID, HI, DC, AK, KS, WA, NE, CO, GA, MI, DAB, IL, WA, WY, ND). How many blowouts of 60% or more does Clinton have to date? 1. Arkansas. That's it.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-13 @ 13:32:38

The salient facts on todays contest:

WEST VIRGINIA (28 PDs)

May 13, but after the primary there will be a district caucus on June 13 for for the 18 district delegates, then a state executive committee meeting on June 14 for the over 7 pledged delegates and and 3 pledged PLEOs and the one add-on (total: 29). The other 10 are superdelegates. This means, it will take about one month to completely divvy up the delegates.

Voter registration statistics as of May 12:

RV: 1,137,371

DEMOCRATIC: 665,234

REPUBLICAN: 347,760

Unaffiliated: 156,199

Mountain: 931

Other: 13,371

WV’s voter registration rate: 77%. It has one of the highest VR rates in the union.

Demographic makeup: 95.04% white, 2.99% black, 0.43% hispanic, 1.54% other. West Virginia is one of the most homogenous states in the union.

Votes for Kerry in 2004: 326,541

2004 margin: Bush + 12.86

DEM margin average 1948-2004: +3.81

DEM votes , Primary 2004: 252,839

For the projected turnout, using the formula of 2004 primary times 3 doesn’t work, as that would be more voters than are currently registered in WV, and WV is a closed-primary, so the unaffiliated voters cannot vote in this primary.

Projected turnout: 665,234 * 65% = 432,402 up to 80% = 532,187

Any any rate, more votes will be cast today for the DEM primary than were cast for Kerry in 2004, I would bet.

Here the poll numbers for WV:

Pollster	Date	Clinton	Obama	Und.	Margin
Suffolk	05/12	60	24	16	+36
ARG	05/09	66	23	11	+43
SUSA	05/06	62	28	10	+34
Rasmussen	05/05	56	27	17	+29
TSG cons.	05/04	63	22	15	+41
		61.4	24.8	13.8	+36.6

Rasmussen	03/13	55	27	18	+28

Obviously, this will be a massive landslide for Clinton. The reasons for this small but important swing state swinging so wildly to one candidate and so wildly against another, we can discuss at another time.

With such enormous poll ratings, it is hard to make an accurate prediction, as blowouts of this type can snowball even more on election day, but….

Prediction?!? Prediction?!?

Based on the current data, and assuming that undecideds the day before an election more likely than not will not vote, we splitting the 36.6% margin directly over the 50% margin and adding 2% for the snap-back effect, we then have:

Clinton: 70.3%

Obama: 29.7%

Margin: Clinton +40.6%

Clinton won Arkansas with 70.05% of the PV and a +43.80% margin. There is the possibility that she could win WV with a slightly higher PV % than AR, but it would be difficult for her to top her AR margin.

The delegates, is split proportionally, after the ensuing caucuses and committee meetings:

Clinton: 20 PD

Obama: 8 PD

Margin: Clinton +12 PD

So, this win will most likely net Clint 12 PD, bringing Obama’s PD lead down from +165 to +153.

To compare: Obama won this same PD margin in Louisiana (34-22) with “only” 57% of the PV, which was one of his smaller landslides. So, Clinton’s win will be big and impressive, but the take will be limited, as this is a small state. That being said, every state is important.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-13 @ 18:05:57
I just read a blog entry on "The Field" that just amazed me. It speculates about Ohio Governor Strickland as a possible VP candidate for Obama, but in the entry is also a map of the Union showing all the CDs where Clinton won 65% or more of the PV, and that is the map above. So, what do you think are Clinton's chances of nailing a lot of 65%+ CDs in WV and KY? And do you notice a real geographical phenomenon here? Wow. The map just blew me away.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-14 @ 01:11:13
This is a very interesting pattern you've found Bonn and one that I would not expect. It would seem the Appalachian Mountains backbone merging into the upper south and expanding into both the Rust Belt and the southern plains. A very culturally unique area. I wonder if this region may prove difficult for Obama during the general election given what we know of Hillary's demographics and the possibility of McCain's crossover appeal.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-14 @ 05:53:11
CR, you wrote such a nice post, I thought to reply personally as quickly as possible. BTW, nice to hear from you: my feeling is that until the party has selected it's presidential and vice-presidential nominee, I cannot answer this question. We must first see hard empiric data from this region after both conventions, and that from more than one source, and that over more than a six week spread, so as to be able to gauge trends. I feel that is the most honest, neutral, non-hack answer that one can provide. And if it really is the case that McCain has so much crossover appeal, which I do not believe is the case, then a Clinton candidacy would be just as much in danger as an Obama candidacy. That being said, the stupendous gains that Obama has made in other regions of the country are not to be played off. He already won 6 races with much more than a 40% winning margin, she has now won two in this category. He has won 18 contests with a blowout of more than 60% of the PV, she has won 2. 26 of his 32 wins are with more than 55% of the PV (beginning of a true landslide in a two way race) - that's 81.25% of all his races. Clinton has won 5 of her 18 with over 55% - or 27.77% of her races. In the next days I am going to provide a table with Obama's landslides next to Clinton's, descending, chronologically, and it will be obvious to all which candidate has won by far many more, and just as importantly, far more stunning blowouts. And please notice that FL and MI are on the map also, and there was not one single 65+ district for Clinton in FL. And were we to map a corresponding map for Obama, I think the results would be very embarrassing for Clinton. Very embarrassing indeed. Further, Clinton's stunning win in WV, which is a compliment to her and her team, only supports my argument that the core constituencies for these two candidates have barely budged during the season. WV only strengthens my predictions for the last 5. After 11 straight Obama wins following ST, Clinton still won OH with a convincing margin. We all knew that would most likely be the case. In my case, I let my emotions get ahead of the data and called OH falsely, a mistake I have since that date have not repeated. But after OH and TX, these two races had absolutely no effect on MS, which still went for Obama in a resounding landslide. This landlide, in turn, had little effect on PA, which still went for Clinton in spite of the longest one state primary dogfight in the history of our union. And immediately after PA, in spite of three so-called scandals, Obama still won NC in a landslide, and Clinton sill won IN, though somewhat narrowly. And so, the huge win in WV is not surprising, just as a big win for her in KY and a big win for Obama in OR is easy to see in advance. And the more I look at the last 6, the more obvious it becomes to me that Puerto Rico, a territory that has no voice in the GE, will be the maker or breaker for Clinton in the PV, if at all. So, I have decided to look at it much more simply: MT and SD have roughly the same SD strength as WV (31 for MT/SD to 28 for WV). Obama is guaranteed strong wins here, especially after the SD avalanche that is practically guaranteed to fall his way after May 20 - the day after which he will without a doubt hold the absolule majority in the PDs and it will be physically, mathematically and therefore, statistically impossible for Clinton to catch up. I think Obama will win a +5 PD margin in each of these states, which will mostly negate Clinton's +12 in WV, reducing it to +2 for Clinton. Likewise, OR and KY have almost equal delegate strength (52 as opposed to 51 PDs) and both will win landslides in their respective strongholds, of this I no longer have any doubt. A 58-42 landslide for Obama in OR means 30-22, or a +8 PD margin. A 61-39 landslide for Clinton in KY means 31-30, or a +11 PD margin, giving Clinton a net of +3 from these two states and a net of +5 from all of these states except Puerto Rico. Yup, all this time and money for 5 delegates. And then there is Puerto Rico. I used to think that Clinton would landslide here, but since IN I am not sure anymore. She is still the clear favorite here, but it could be more close than people think. Apparently, puerto ricans are following the race much much more closely than we mainlanders realize and the editorials I have read in a number of spanish speaking newspapers tell me that Obama is gaining headwind. Probably too little to late for him to win, but probably enough to kill her possibility for a crushing landslide. However, if Puerto Ricans turn out in massive numbers, she could then still cut deeply into Obama's PV lead. But since the turnout in WV was LESS than I expected, if this trend continues, then she will not be able to overtake him. And if the SD trend continues, then Obama may even go over 2,209 before the convention. So, checkmate in 4 moves. That's the math. And I am the math-man. :)

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-14 @ 10:13:44
MS-01 Childers (D): 57,276 - 53.73% Davis (R): 49,314 - 46.27% Total: 106590 - 100.00% Margin: Childers +7,962 votes = +7.46% PVI rating for MS-01: R +10 Bush % - 2004: 62% The GOP threw the kitchen sink at Childers, and it didn't work. They tried their hardest to link Childers to Obama/Wright, and it didn't work. They poured a ton of money into this race, more than into LA-06, to no avail. Obama does not hurt downticket races, he helps them. This is a MAJOR and embarrassing upset for the GOP. And puts every R +10 CD into play. It is also the third upset in a row. Pretty soon, the GOP will run out of excuses for losing what should be rock-solid republican districts. And I bet this race has also caught the superdelegates attention. Last Edit: 2008-05-14 @ 10:18:26

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-14 @ 10:25:42
Obama counties at +55%, then at +65%, as a comparison to Clinton counties. Courtesy of DailyKOS.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-14 @ 11:31:52
Thanks Bonn for that nice and detailed response. We're right, we'll have to wait till after Labor Day as we get into the general election before we see anything developed that we can anaylize for real. As it stands I think Obama has the nomination and I think he's had it for a while. But still contend that until he gets to 2025 that Hillary will stay in for whatever the reason. As for MS-1 you're right about that too. It is embrassing. But all election are local so I'm not sure it puts all R+10 districts in play. In total we've kept our seats in Ohio and Virginia and lost the ones in Illinois, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Democrats +1. But I don't like to see things like this out of a safe district. Now there is plenty of time to get this thing turned around. The GOP needs to make a national campign of the congressional races and McCain ought to be in on it. I hope that is the summer suprise the GOP is planning. We'll see. Trouble is Democrats keep nominating this blue dog conservative Democrats in our districts. But we have a chance to stop it. I hope we take advantage of the opertunities we have otherwise its going to be a long November night. For the moment I'm focused on damage control. Last Edit: 2008-05-14 @ 11:32:23

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-14 @ 11:37:55
I agree with you, and am sure there are GOP districts with good and decent people manning them (OH-03, Turner, comes to mind) that will stay safe. But my predictions about the blowing of the winds for 2008 are coming true, as you see. These cyclical things are pretty easy to map out, after so many intense years of american electoral politics. As always, great to hear from you, I always cherish our discourse.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-14 @ 13:07:18
For the House, there are two issues: Congress control and public policy. For Congress control, I prefer to have Blue Dog Democrats than Republicans -for the sake of the D after their name, as I like to say. But for the issues -no difference. Childers, the guy who has just been elected in MS-01, is pro-life and pro-gun. Sorry, but DINOs don't help pass progressive bills. And seeing as Congressional control is about to explode in our hands, I almost wish he had lost. CR, of course there's nothing to concede yet. Things can change overnight and every national poll margin is within single digits. Don't count too much on disappointed Clinton fans, however. Of course a few specimens will vote for McCain because they're racist or sore loser or whatever chimaeric reason they come up with, but main block will vote for Obama. In France, when we had the presidential election, many left-wing people I know voted for the centrist candidate, François Bayrou, over the socialist candidate, Ségolène Royal, or just stayed home, or voted for a far-left candidate. In the second round campaign, the last polls showed Sarkozy's lead increasing (Royal was the poorest second round candidate ever), threatening to break into double digits -showing +9 or +10. The eventual result was +6. I can assure you that people who hesitated, on election day, whether to vote for Royal or stay home, just thought, "hey, we're not going to let Sarkozy have his way". And they broke heavily for Royal. The same will happen with Clinton supporters. Until the very end, many will sulk and say they'll sit the election out, but after months of campaign, showing McCain trying desperately to please both conservatives and independents, they'll break for Obama as well in the end. Enough to compensate any so-called Bradley effect.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-14 @ 15:01:01
I've deleted my previous post because to be honest I just can't paint things that rosy any more. I've tired, God knows I've tried, but the GOP is in bad shape. We really are. Now I'm a trooper, I still believe McCain can win but I doubt we'll be able to do much else. There is a serious problem. A few months ago I told all of you that we had gone back in the Republican establishment to the pre-Reagan party of losers that we were. Now that's the party not the people of the conservative movement. I've since tried to be optmistic but the fact is I was right. McCain, especially after that little global warming speech the other day, is no conservative. The party thinks we have to go leftward to win. We have abandoned conservative principles. The sad truth is the base is not turning out in full force. We are losing to conservative Democrats or just not voting because the RNC has left the base. McCain and his ilk will look at our three loses as the fact that we have not moved to the center/left enough when in fact that is the very problem. It has been the problem all along. We had no good candidates this year. Romney was close but that Mormonism killed him off. And then there is Blue Blood George Bush. The man who never gives us any hope to a war that looks to have no end, nominates Harriet Meirs, tries to throw open the border, protects Arlin Spector, doesn't get a young VP, brought back his daddy's blood blue group of Rockefeller losers, and it just goes on. Not to mention that our people got in 1994 and then after 2000 started to act like Democrats. God in Heaven help up! There is a lot of work to do to rebuild the Republican party and I intend to do just that. Support conservatives wherever possible and try to bring up the grassrooters while throwing out the RINOs that have now completely hijacked the party. I still think McCain can win. Enough people in the base will rather have him than Obama and I think we can get a lot of independents and conservative Democrats. He'll be one term. Hope he gets a good VP. But our chances in the Congress are grim. My best hope is that we have 190 House seats and 45 Senate seats. Although with Collins, Smith, Snowe, and Specter it will be more like 41. Let's face it my fellow conservatives, things are going to get worse before they get better. But they will get better. We have to fight for our party and return it to conservative Reagan principles. Then we will start to win elections and we need leadership. Real leadership not Bush, not McCain, not the other losers. The country will be in trouble under the heavy hand of liberalism but we'll be back. We just have to do some house cleaning first. The best thing about 2008 though is that we'll finally be done with the Clintons and the Bushs. Now if we can just get through Obama or McCain. Last Edit: 2008-05-14 @ 15:08:17

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-05-14 @ 15:05:15
CR You just named all my favorite republican senators all in one swoop ! Dont forget Chuck Hagel ! One of them would make a great vice president

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-14 @ 15:09:43
Being a liberal I though you might like them liberal, lol. No offense but we were going to throw that bum Hagel out and thank God he's retiring. But to make one of them VP would completely shut down the base. The GOP would be crushed. We already have one Democratic party, we don't need one and half Democratic parties. Last Edit: 2008-05-14 @ 15:10:14

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-05-14 @ 15:19:54
I have to comment that The GOP is in BIG trouble this year especially in the House/Senate races. If the Republicans can't get it together in Mississippi and Louisiana, where are they safe? If they can't hold a seat that went to Bush w/ 60% of the vote, what Republican seats are not in danger? If their only hope is to rely on self funded millionaires to finance their own campaigns and not have assistance from the RNCC what hope do they have to fend against the millions of dollars the DNCC is bringing in??? I'm amazed that McCain does as well as he does. The GOP saved itself w/ McCain this year in that he is the only GOP candidate that could give them hope of holding on to the White House. The House and Senate- House in particular look like they are in a free-for-all. I have to guess that the GOP could lose another 20 House seats and maybe retain only 43-44 Senate seats w/ losses, in NH, CO, VA, NM, OR, MN, AK. I still say that Lieberman flips over to the GOP after the fall election.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-14 @ 16:18:36
The sad fact doniki is that we didn't save ourselves with McCain. We've seriously hurt the base. But we can win the White House becaues like it or not McCain can put together a coalition of Hillary Democrats, blue dogs, indepednents, moderates, Rockefellers, and base conservatives that are opposed to Obama in order to save his bacon. Not only that but I really don't think Obama is all that electible imho. But congressionally we'll pay a heavy price for our abandonment of conservative priciples. That is why the RNC is having money troubles despite the fact that we do have a war chest that is much larger than the DNC's at the moment. This is what happens when the party tries to be moderate. The base gets pissed and you don't piss off the base. If we had a real true conservative that is a real Reaganite (not like Bush or McCain or their ilk), we'd be in fine shape. But Bush has so damaged us as a party with lack of leadership and abandonment of our principles that he has allowed the big-government Rockefellers to take charge again. And we don't win elections by acting like Democrats. That was our problem in the 1960's and 1970's. Did we learn nothing from 1980, 1984, or 1994!?! Unfortunately we'll have to deal with McCain in order to keep Obama out of the Oval Office. But its a price that I'm willing to pay, much as I don't like it. Last Edit: 2008-05-14 @ 16:23:48

By: doniki80 (I-OH) 2008-05-14 @ 18:01:40
Well CR, I don't know what to tell you... George Bush has done tremendous harm to your party. He has done tremendous harm to many things, but that is beside the point. The fundraising gap is a BIG issue that is going to be hard for your party to overcome... On the bright side for you, you have at least a 50-50 chance (if not greater) of keeping the White House. I just don't see how the GOP is going to be competitive in the House/Senate when the RNC will be giving all its resources to McCain (as they should). Though I plan on voting for McCain, I probably will still vote Dem down ticket, and I know a lot of people who say the same thing. I'd like to see the Dems make some advances, and maybe they'd finally get their act together and get something done... I do hope that Susan Collins can hold her seat!

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-05-14 @ 18:10:03
Yeah I know I really dont want to see a democratic pickup of her seat. She is a voice of moderation in the senate something that is needed a unifying voice of bipartisanship. Last Edit: 2008-05-14 @ 18:11:04

By: pacewicz (D-IL) 2008-05-14 @ 18:19:27
Everyone see that map Bonn put up? Anyone wanna call my GE map crazy now ;)... and note that mine was made before the primaries in PA and OH even happened! Ok, so my map is still crazy, but at least not totally without some justification. On another note - media cycles, media cylces. I'd be mad today if I were a Clinton supporter. She wins WV by almost 40pts and the big news is the Edwards endorsement (my man! good timing...). True, it does not change the nomination game, but her WV win is a much better "electability" argument than the innane crap she has been spinning the last couple months (and that sure got a lot of press). I guess the media door swings both ways... unfair.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-14 @ 19:18:58
I do not want in any way to take away from Clinton's win in WV. It is a MASSIVE landslide. But it comes nearly at the end of a cycle of events that prognosticate that regardless of the outcome of WV, KY and PR, Obama will clinch the nomination. And since the actual number of votes was not nearly as high as I thought they would be, I think it is also a sign that many know that this thing is winding down. I predicted that around 530,000 DEMS would vote, and at the end of the day, there were 357,031 votes cast (53.67% turnout), which is still 104,192 more votes than were cast in the DEM primary 2004, but 172,969 than I predicted. Add to this the unusually high number of votes for John Edwards (7.33%), despite the fact that he has been out of the race for a long time now... On the flip side, OR now reports that 441,292 ballots have now come in, and that is 22% of all registered voters in OR. I bet that OR will come well over 1 million ballots that come in, most of them for the DEM primary. I am personally very curious to see what Edwards' endorsement of Obama will do to the poll numbers in KY, if at all. I am not sure if it will have a major effect, but could cause both KY and OR go go with absolutely identical percentages/margins to their respective favorites. Facit: those two states will essentially cancel each other out.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-14 @ 20:38:48
I bet Edwards will be campaigning with and for Obama in Kentucky, and we see that margin thin a bit. Obama said he felt bad he couldn't campaign in MI so he wanted to do something special there. What does he have in mind for Florida??

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-15 @ 01:36:43
A fly-in of Hillforce 1 for an endorsement?

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-15 @ 16:43:08

91.74%

Following the results of the West Virginia primary, here is the math as it now stands, 05/15, 16:45 EST:

Current Tot.	Current BO	BO%	Current HC	HC %	Margin	Margin %
PD - 3064	1599	52.19	1446	47.19	+153	+5.00
SD – 563	290	51.51	273	48.49	+17	+3.02

SUBTOTAL
3627*	1889	52.08	1719	47.39	+170	+4.69

*not graphed: the 19 delegates pledged to John Edwards.

Total	Current BO	2026 -	2210-	Current HC	2026-	2210-
4050	1889	-137		1719	-307
+FL, MI	2015		-195	1893		-317

This places Obama 139 delegates away from the nomination (2,026). If you include both MI and FL and assign delegates proportionally for FL and the delegates for MI according to the latest proposal, then he is 195 delegates away from the nomination (2,210).

This places Clinton 307 delegates away from the nomination (2,026). If you include both MI and FL and assign delegates proportionally for FL and the delegates for MI according to the latest proposal, then she is 317 delegates away from the nomination (2,210).

There are now 189 PDs left to win. The PD margin between Obama and Clinton is currently: Obama +153. In order to surpass Obama in the PD count, Clinton must win a 154 PD Margin in the remaining contests, or an 81.48% MARGIN in the PDs. That translates to a 91.74% winning percent.

91.74% minus 9.26% = 81.48% MARGIN.

So, the magic number for Clinton to win in the PDs is: 91.74% She must win this percentage in every one of the last five contests, if you split the PDs purely proportionally.

This is mathematically possible. It is statistically impossible.

This will be the last math for Clinton, for after KY and OR on 5/20, there will only be 86 PDs left to win, which will then make the challenge for Clinton physically impossible – there will simply not be enough PDs left to close the gap. And therefore, it will be mathematically completely impossible, which means that Obama will indeed win the absolute majority in the PDs when all the contests are over with.

Here is a table simply showing how many delegates will be left win after each of the last 5 primaries:

State	Date	REG.	PD	PDR*
--	--	--	--	189
KY	5/20	MW	51	138
OR	5/20	W	52	86
PR	6/01	--	55	31
MT	6/03	W	16	15
SD	6/03	MW	15	0
TOT			566	0

*= pledged delegates remaining to be won.

In the superdelegates, Obama now leads by +17: 290 to 273. This leaves either 233 or 234 SDs left, since DEMS won both the seats in LA-06 and MS-01, making both Cazayoux and Childers automatically superdelegates. Add-ons are included in this mix.

Last Edit: 2008-05-15 @ 16:43:54

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-15 @ 17:24:20

The last 5…

------------------------------------------------------------------

KENTUCKY (51 PDs)

May 20

Voter registration statistics as of April 15th:

DEMOCRATIC: 1,629,845

REPUBLICAN: 1,040,038

INDEPENDENT: 186,948

Total: 2,857,231

Demographic makeup:

Votes for Kerry in 2004: 712,733

2004 margin: Bush + 19.86

GOP margin average 1948-2004: +4.32

DEM votes , Primary 2004: 229,916

Here the poll numbers for KY:

Pollster	Date	Clinton	Obama	U/O	Margin
Research 2000	05/12	58	31	+19	+27
SUSA	05/12	62	30	8	+32
Rasmussen	05/06	56	31	12	+25
		58.7	30.7	10.6	+28

SUSA	04/29	63	27	10	+35
SUSA	04/15	62	26	12*	+36
SUSA	03/31	58	29	4**	+29

*9% for "other"

*10% for "other"

-------------------------------------------

OREGON (52 PDs)

May 20

Voter registration statistics as of March:

Total registered voters: 2,038,046

DEMOCRATIC: 803,042 ??

REPUBLICAN: 685,469

INDEPENDENT: 24,605

including independents:

Number of ballots returned: 441,292 (22%)

Demographic makeup:

Votes for Kerry in 2004: 943,163

2004 margin: Kerry + 4.16

GOP margin average 1948-2004: +1.58

DEM votes , Primary 2004: 368,544

Here the poll numbers for OR:

Pollster	Date	Obama	Clinton	Und.	Margin
PPP (D)	05/13	53	39	8	+14
Portland Tribune	05/13	55	35	10	+20
SUSA	05/12	54	43	3	+11
Rasmussen	05/03	51	39	10	+12
Average:		53.3	39.0	7.7	+14.3


SUSA	05/01	50	44	6	+6
SUSA	04/07	52	42	7	+10
Riley Research	01/30	28	36	16	-8

-------------------------------------------

PUERTO RICO (55 PDs)

June 1

Voter registration statistics as of March 24^th:

Estimate RV: 2,000,000

DEMOCRATIC: N/A

REPUBLICAN: N/A

INDEPENDENT: N/A

Demographic makeup: write-up to follow

DEM votes , Primary 2004: N/A

Here the poll numbers for PR:

Pollster	Date	Clinton	Obama	Und.	Margin
Le Empresa	04/10	50	37	13	+ 13

-------------------------------------------

MONTANA (15 PDs)

June 3

Voter registration statistics as of March 24^th:

DEMOCRATIC:

REPUBLICAN:

INDEPENDENT:

including independents:

Demographic makeup:

Votes for Kerry in 2004: 173,710

2004 margin: Bush + 20.50

GOP margin average 1948-2004: +9.54

DEM votes , Primary 2004: 93,543

No current poll numbers for MT:

-------------------------------------------

SOUTH DAKOTA (16 PDs)

June 3

Voter registration statistics as of May 9:

DEMOCRATIC: 190,421

REPUBLICAN: 236,083

Libertarian/Constitution/Other: 2.063

INDEPENDENT: 76,502

TOTAL: 505,069

Demographic makeup:

Votes for Kerry in 2004: 149,244

2004 margin: Bush + 21.47

GOP margin average 1948-2004: +13.31

DEM votes , Primary 2004: 84,405

Here the poll numbers for SD:

Pollster	Date	Obama	Clinton	Und.	Margin
Dakota Wesleyan	04/15	46	34	20	+12

-------------------------------------------

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-15 @ 17:41:55
At least 8 of Edwards pledged delegates have declared for Obama: 6 from SC, 1 from NH, 1 from IA. RCP shows "it" at: Obama:1,891 Clinton: 1,719 But RCP is not yet registering the PD change: I have: Obama: 1,899 Clinton: 1,719 But it could be that RCP listed the change among the SDs. So, it can be that neither of these calculations is exactly correct. I think my current calculation of 1,899 is closer, but I have refused to add the 2 PDs that have decided to switch sides to Obama, since this would be an obvious breaking of the DNC rules. For others who are calculating this change, then it would be 1,901.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-15 @ 22:18:44
I also understand that Obama was allocated another delegate in NC once the vote was certified. As for PDs, the number I have seen for Obama is 1603, which means he only needs 24 more PDs to clinch the majority of PDs, 1627. With 103 delegates at stake next Tuesday, he will clinch the majority of PDs that day, thereby invoking the endorsement of the "Pelosi club" of 6 or so SDs who have promised to support the winner of the PDs. Obama will then be within 75 delegates of 2025, with a little over 300 delegates remaining. This assumes no super endorsements between now and then.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-16 @ 03:31:09
HI Wing! Even assuming my lower number of 1,599, I agree with your assessment, it is mathematically extremely probable, even under the worst circumstances for Obama: Even if Clinton wins 70-30 in KY, that still means 15 PD for Obama, bringing his total to 1,614. And even if they just break even 50-50 in OR, then he still gets another 26 PD, bringing the total to 1,640, which is 13 more than the 1,627 needed for an absolute majority in the PDs, assuming that FL and MI are still out of the game. Surely the Clinton team will remind us of the unofficial number 2,210 after May 20. If they are smart, however, they will not, for adding FL to the mix actually puts Clinton 10 PDs farther from the nomination that she currently is and as long as the Clinton team doesn't accept a solution for divvying up delegates in MI after Obama played by the rules and Clinton did not, then that state will probably not be seated. Because those Clinton team members can see the math just as well as you and I, I am sure they are considering how to propagate the number 2,210 but be as quiet as possible while doing it. However, the more likely scenario is: KY: Clinton 61% / Obama 39%* Clinton: 31 PDs / Obama 20 PDs And we will see by the weekend what effect Edwards has in KY. Most polls in KY have shown around 10% for "other", meaning Edwards, so the race could come down to Clinton 57 / Obama 43. Wait and see. Either way, a Clinton win is pre-programmed here just as it was in WV, no doubt about it. OR: Obama 58% / Clinton 42% Obama: 30 PDs / Clinton 22 PDs An Obama win is pre-programmed here. Nuff said. Total: Clinton: 52 PDs Obama 50 PDs and therefore between 1,649 and 1,653 PDs total for Obama, a good 22-25 PDs over the absolute majority. And then the SD avalanche will begin. Last Edit: 2008-05-16 @ 08:01:10*

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-17 @ 04:38:42
CR wrote: "I've deleted my previous post because to be honest I just can't paint things that rosy any more. I've tired, God knows I've tried, but the GOP is in bad shape. We really are. Now I'm a trooper, I still believe McCain can win but I doubt we'll be able to do much else. There is a serious problem." CR: With truly good and intelligent people like you in the GOP, it will always be a strong and viable player in american politics. As I wrote to you some months ago, 100 years ago, without a doubt, I would have been a GOP man. Even 56 years ago, I probably would have been a zealous democrat for Ike. But your party has gone through such an unbelievable 180 in the last 56 years, it is simply hard to conceive the depth and breadth of it all. Go back and compare the GOP platforms from 1932, 1952, 1972 and 1992. On all major issues, esp. war. My take is this: the USA needs a strong (imo) 3-party system: one for the right, one for the left and one for the true middle. Probably won't happen for a while, which leaves only these two players, the elephants and the donkeys, for a while. I personally think we should choose the lion for the centrists. And in spite of some really whacked out things going on in your party, it's good people like you that cause me to still have respect for it.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-17 @ 05:54:03

This math is utterly fascinating. I encourage everyone to grab a calculator and go through my analysis, step by step.

(Ah, the math-man strikes again!!!)

96.14%

This is the percentage of the remaining Superdelegates that Clinton will need to get the nomination if the last five races goes as I think they will go. I have also done a mathematical work-up including FL and MI (two different scenarios) and have come to the mathematical conclusion that including those two states does not change her chances at all.

Here the complete math.

In my last scenario for the last 6 races, my predictions looked like this:

State	Date	REG.	PD	BO-%	HC-%	Del.Mar.	BO-PD	HC-PD
PA	4/22	NE	158	45.66	45.34	+12	73	85
GM	5/03	--	4	50.08	49.92	-0	2	2
IN	5/06	MW	72	49.44	50.56	+6	33	39
NC	5/06	S	115	55.99	41.74	-16	66	49
--	--	--	--	--	--	(+2)	--	--
WV	5/13	NE	28	30	70	+12	8	20
KY	5/20	MW	51	32	68	+19	16	35
OR	5/20	W	52	55	45	-6	29	23
PR	6/01	--	55	42	58	+9	23	32
MT	6/03	W	16	60	40	-4	10	6
SD	6/03	MW	15	64	36	-5	10	5
TOT			217			+25	96	121

FL	1/29	S	185	32.93	49.77	+38	67	105
MI	1/15	MW	128	--	55.23	+10	59	69
			313			+48	126	174

Now that WV has voted, I have reconsidered some states and am making the following predictions:

State	Date	REG.	PD	BO-%	HC-%	Del.Mar.	BO-PD	HC-PD
PA	4/22	NE	158	45.66	45.34	+12	73	85
GM	5/03	--	4	50.08	49.92	-0	2	2
IN	5/06	MW	72	49.44	50.56	+6	33	39
NC	5/06	S	115	55.99	41.74	-16	66	49
WV	5/13	NE	28	25.67	66.99	+12	8	20
--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
KY	5/20	MW	51	39	61	+11	20	31
OR	5/20	W	52	59	41	-10	31	21
PR	6/01	--	55	46	54	+5	25	30
MT	6/03	W	16	65	35	-5	11	5
SD	6/03	MW	15	65	35	-5	10	5
TOT			189			-5	97	92

FL	1/29	S	185	32.93	49.77	+38	67	105
MI	1/15	MW	128	--	55.23	+10	59	69
			313

Right now, it’s

OBAMA: 1,902

CLINTON: 1,719

Margin: Obama +183

Broken down as such:

Current Tot.	Current BO	BO%	Current HC	HC %	Margin	Margin %
PD - 3064	1608	52.48	1445	47.16	+163	+5.32
SD – 568	294	51.76	274	48.24	+20	+3.36

SUBTOTAL
3632	1902	52.37	1719	47.33	+183	+5.04

Total	Current BO	2026 -	2210-	Current HC	2026-	2210-
4049	1902	-124		1719	-307
+FL, MI	2027		-182	1893		-317

This means that of the 797 superdelegates (including Cazayoux and Childers), there are currently 233 SDs left. Assuming that not one single SD declares between now and June 3, then it will be:

Obama: 1,999

Clinton: 1,811

Margin: Obama +187

So, in order for Clinton to get the nomination based on the number 2,026, she would therefore have to get 216 of the remaining 233 SDs. 2,026-1,811= 215. Further, 215 / 233 = 92.27% margin. 233 minus 224= 9. 224 minus 9 = 216. (With an even number, she can only get to 214 or 216, and needs 215, so we must go UP one delegate).

She would have to get 224 of those 233 SDs (96.14%) in order to get to 2,026.

Now, if we include FL and MI in the math (magic number: 2,210), and give Obama ZERO delegates for MI, then, if my projections hold, it would be:

Obama: 2,059

Clinton: 1,985

Margin: Obama +74

This obviously will not happen. If MI is seated, then the delegates will have to be split, and with MI delegates alloted to Obama:

Obama: 2,118

Clinton: 1,985

Margin: Obama +133

But notice, either way, the Clinton number does not change. Only, if Obama gets no delegates from MI, there would suddenly be 59 new uncommitted delegates up for grabs, and this is Clinton’s hope.

But aside from this hope, with FL and MI in the mix, Clinton is still 225 delegates away from the nomination. Even if we give her the 11 Edwards delegates who have not declared for Obama, then she is still 214 away from the nomination and would need a 214 out of 233 margin in the SDs (91.84% margin). So, instead of needing 225 of 233 from the very first mathematical work up, she would need 224 of 233. FACIT: Adding FL and MI does not change Clinton’s chances.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-17 @ 07:32:36
And now I will show why MI could become incredibly contentious. The numbers will absolutely amaze all readers: When will the PD lock happen??? On next Tuesday, Obama will lock up the absolute majority, even if you include FL and even if you, using the MI proposal, include MI!! Here the math: Today, 05/17/2008, 07:20 EST: 3,253 pledged delegates, according to the current DNC rules. 3,253 / 2 = 1,626.5 Absolute majority: 1,627 Current PD count: Obama: 1,608 Clinton: 1,445 Edwards: 11 (That’s 3,064 PDs, 189 left to reap). Obama is 19 PDs away from an absolute majority, according to the current DNC rules. Clinton is 182 PDs away from an absolute majority, according to the current DNC rules. ------------------------ With FL, it’s 3,438 pledged delegates (3,253 + 185). 3,238 / 2 = 1,719 Absolute majority: 1,720 Taking the current PD count and adding the delegates from FL for Obama, Clinton and Edwards, then TODAY it would look like this: Obama: 1,675 Clinton: 1,550 Edwards: 24 Obama would be 45 PDs away from an absolute majority. Clinton would be 170 PDs away from an absolute majority. --------------------------- With FL and MI, it’s 3,566 pledged delegates (3,438 + 128). 3,566 / 2 = 1,783 Absolute majority: 1,784 Taking the second PD count and adding the delegates from MI for Clinton only, leaving the others as undecided, then TODAY it would look like this: Obama: 1,675 Clinton: 1,619 Edwards: 24 Undecided: 59 Obama would be 109 PDs away from an absolute majority. Clinton would be 165 PDs away from an absolute majority. This is the scenario that the Clinton team wants. They would want to try to sway those 59 MI-undecideds into the Clinton camp, but were they to succeed and MI were seated, then Clinton would come out 3 PDs ahead of Obama – but this is the longest longshot I have ever seen in my life and does not take into account that most of those 24 remaining Edwards delegates would probably go for Obama, thus destroying any chance for Clinton to pull off a PD coup here. ---------------------------------- Once again, Taking the second PD count and adding the delegates from MI for Clinton and extrapolating the rest delegates (undecided) for Obama, as was the MI proposal, then: Obama: 1,734 Clinton: 1,619 Edwards: 24 Obama would be 50 PDs away from an absolute majority. Clinton would be 165 PDs away from an absolute majority. FACIT: there is absolutely no realistic scenario where Clinton currently could come closer than 56 delegates away from Obama and closer than 165 to an absolute majority in the PDs. There is not one single mathematical PD scenario where she comes out on top. Obama will most likely net around 50 PDs on Tuesday (OR / KY), which guarantees him an absolute majority in the PDs as the DNC rules currently stand. NOT ONLY THAT, it already would give in an absolute majority in a scenario adding FL: If KY and OR split 50 for Obama and 52 for Clinton, then the count would be (in a FL scenario): Obama: 1,725 Clinton: 1,601 Edwards: 24 And 5 delegates over the necessary 1,720 in a +FL scenario. So, Obama will lock up the PDs on Tuesday, including FL. Not only that, but, adding MI with delegates for Obama and simply adding the projected delegates from coming Tuesday, in a scenario with FL and MI, Obama comes out at: 1,784 (1,734 + estimated 50), or, an absolute majority. So, if Obama nets 50 PDs on Tuesday, he locks up the absolute majority in 3 of 4 scenarios. I will put this out again tomorrow in table format.

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2008-05-17 @ 11:37:36
I have certainly enjoyed reading the stats and analysis from you Bonncaruso. WHich reminded me to ask you a personal question-why the name for the site...since I enjoy opera I was curious. I also wanted to say that I enjoyed your maps showing 55 and 65%'s for Obama counties. Here in MN he scored the highest in the rural counties among male independent voters....he will carry MN by over 5% and probably nearer double figures on the basis of his outstate rural support. A bone for CR- MN will re-elect Coleman! However four is the minimum pickup in the senate and 10 in the house for the Dems....even while McCain may win the whitehouse..

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-17 @ 13:35:44
Hi dnul: bonn=the city I live in. caruso=after the famous Opera singer. I am a solo tenor in Germany.

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2008-05-17 @ 15:21:20
thanks for the explanation-interesting...I enjoy listening to opera nowadays as my attendence was in the past. I love Donizetti, Puccini and some of the classics like Sutherland. I think her Lucia di Lammermoor was the best! I stared in fascination at your maps...recognizing which areas were which across the country...very telling, again thank you for the analysis and threads!

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-17 @ 17:36:19
Thanks for the kind words Bonn. I know my party history pretty well. I'd say we've made the changes we feel is best for an ever-changing world. I think that from its birth in 1850 right through to the present, with very little expection, I would have been a Republican. I just happen to agree with them even on a historic level. I'm not sure there will ever be a center party. Its wild enough with the two. But I honestly think we'd be in much better shape as a country if we had term limits for all elected officials and the judicial branch as well. If you're in DC too long you lose touch. Oh please God in Heaven I hope you are right dnul. I really want to stay around 200 seats but I'll take 190 over 180 anyday. And I hope three or four is the minimum senate gains. Glad to see Coleman will still be with us. Good old Norm. We'll see.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-17 @ 17:50:23
A centrist party exists only with a proportional voting system. But since there is no party discipline in the US, you don't really need it. However, there is a strong centrist movement throughout the world, especially center-left. As the last remnants of socialism wither away in blissful oblivion, we can expect a more moderate left to emerge (Clinton's New Democrats, Blair's New Labour, Schroeder's SPD, Rudd's ALP, Veltroni's PD). The debate would therefore be between a Rawlsian-Keynesian left and a classical liberal/conservative right. That would make sense to everyone. We should beable to pick Coleman's seat. Franken really is a poor choice. That's a disappointment.

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2008-05-17 @ 18:44:05
Coleman does get high marks like Wellstone did for constituent services. MN value that-both men worked hard for individual cases in DC and that plays well back home. I actually see the Reps picking up a few seats but losing even more in the House. Prime pickups are Kansas and TX with maybe one in Georgia, FL and possibly CA..... But Dems get seats in OH, NJ, NM, VA,AZ and IL with maybe more in MN, OH, NC and MO.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-18 @ 00:37:29
& perhaps IN-3 Mark Souder & AK-AL.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-18 @ 02:04:12
Well I'm not as optimistic of the GOP prospects in Congress... As it stands now I see two possible GOP pickups: Landrieu in LA but that is increasingly looking like she's got the edge. Johnson in SD though that's a long shot. I think the GOP will 100% lose the following seats: Incumbents: Sununu in New Hampshire Stevens in Alaska Open Seats: New Mexico Colorado Virginia Probable GOP defeats: Dole in NC Coleman in MN House projections: Minimum GOP loss of 30 seats...probably closer to 40.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-18 @ 03:34:44
Wow Gceres, even I wouldn't make such optimistic predictions. Surely you're a bit downcast lately. Cheer up... Coleman and Dole will have to fight but they can still win. And if Stevens is defeated in primary, you might just keep Alaska.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-18 @ 03:39:34
Oh I'm not downcast...just realistic...look the Republicans screwed up majorly in the last four years...despite conventional wisdom, Bush is NOT a conservative and his second term was a disaster. And the GOP in Congress went right along with all his big government programs and did nothing to stop illegal immigration...so they deserved to lose power...oh and they got so corrupt that there was no difference between them and the Democrats they replaced. But the GOP is toast this election down ballot. I still maintain though that Obama will lose at least as badly as Dukakis and likely as badly as McGovern when all is said and done. Had the Democrats not nominated a black nationalist President they would have handily won this election. That my never-to-be-humble opinion ;-).

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-18 @ 03:45:38
Well, we only have to hope most Americans will not share your biased and slightly laughable view that Obama is a black nationalist, so that we can have a Democratic President, Senate and Congress by heavy margins... Dukakis would have won had he been pro-death penalty. He just messed up on the issue. And Obama doesn't hold that view -when it becomes clear that he is a moderate, McCain will have a hell of a hard time.

By: Gceres (R-CA) 2008-05-18 @ 04:00:10
Well, for instance, 48% of DEMOCRATIC primary voters in West Virginia stated that they believed (as I do) that Obama shares at least some of Reverend Wright's views...and they voted heavily for Hillary AND stated that they would vote for McCain over Obama....just look at the CNN exit polls...

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-18 @ 05:31:48
CR wrote: "But I honestly think we'd be in much better shape as a country if we had term limits for all elected officials and the judicial branch as well." I concur with you. Absolutely. It is also in Sabato's book. Have you read the book?

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-18 @ 06:21:02
20% of the same voters said they had voted for Clinton because Obama was black. And more of them probably did unconsciously or without admitting it. West Virginia has the last Dixiecrat Senator. These guys are mostly old-style dixiecrats and I'm not surprised that they believe that. And of course they'll vote for McCain over Obama. What will that change ? They already voted for Bush over Kerry.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-18 @ 10:56:33

I promised to post the write-up on Obama’s lock on the PDs in table format. Here it is.

There have been ever-so-slight shifts in delegate counts in a number of states.

All but one of these shifts favors Obama – only one favors Clinton (in italics).

Here the changes:

5/15- 8 Edwards delegates switched to Obama: 6 from SC, 1 from NH, 1 from IA.

5/16- CO delegate change: from 35-20 to 36-19

5/17- NV statewide convention: delegate change: from 13-12 to 14-11

5/18- The Wikipedia site for the primary fight has published slight changes:

-DC: from 12-3 to 13-2

-MD: from 42-28 to 43-27

-LA: from 34-22 to 33-23

-NC: from 66-49 to 67-48

-SC: from 31-12-2 to 32-12-1 (another additional Edwards switch)

-IA: from 25-14-6 to 26-14-5 (another additional Edwards switch)

Foxnews confirmed the pick-ups in NV and MD and also reports that Obama has picked-up another delegate in KS, but Wikipedia has not listed the specifics yet.

This brings the PD count to:

Obama: 1,613

Clinton: 1,442

Edwards: 9

Margin: Obama +171

This means that the delegate shifts in 5 states (1 delegate a piece, meaning a +10 margin), plus the Edwards delegate crossovers, have almost completely erased the gains that Hillary Clinton made in WV last Tuesday.

I have created a table, based on these current PD counts (today, 5/18, 10:55 AM EST), showing how far away each candidate is from an absolute majority in the PDs, based on six scenarios:

1.) The current scenario, with FL and MI disqualified (3,253 PDs total) – this is the scenario that is reality at this moment.

2.) The current scenario, with FL added (3,483 PDs total).

3.) The current scenario, with FL & MI added (3,566 PDs total), but no MI delegates for Obama. (A)

4.) The current scenario, with FL & MI added (3,566 PDs total), including extrapolated MI delegates for Obama – Michigan Proposal. (B)

5.) The current scenario, with FL & MI added, but with the delegations halved as penalty (3,410) – and no MI delegates for Obama. (C)

6.) The current scenario, with FL & MI added, but with the delegations halved as penalty (3,410) – including extrapolated MI delegates for Obama – Michigan Proposal. (D)

Scenario	Tot. PDs	Abs. Maj.	Obama PDs	Diff.	Clinton PDs	Diff.
Current	3,253	*1,627*	1,613	-14	1,442	-185
+ FL	3,438	*1,720*	1,680	-40	1,547	-173
+FL, MI (A)	3,566	*1,784*	1,680	-104	1,618	-166
+FL, MI (B)	3,566	*1,784*	1,739	-45	1,616	-168
+50% FL, MI (C)	3,410	*1,706*	1,646	-60	1,530	-176
+50% FL, MI (D)	3,410	*1,706*	1,676	-30	1,529	-177

Obama is currently 14 PDs away from an absolute majority. He will probably net 50 PDs on Tuesday (Or / KY), which means that after Tuesday, he will achieve an absolute majority. Not only that, he would also have an absolute majority in a scenario with FL (full or half) in the mix and with FL and MI both in the mix (full or half), assuming that he is allocated the proposed 59 delegates from MI. The only scenario where Tuesday would not bring him over the top would be with FL and MI (full delegations, no penalty), but with no delegates from MI for him.

The closest Clinton comes to an absolute majority is –166 PDs, and that is with FL and MI in the mix and no delegates for Obama from MI.

Here the totals, including the superdelegates:

Current Tot.	Current BO	BO%	Current HC	HC %	Margin	Margin %
PD - 3064	1613	52.64	1442	47.06	+171	+5.58
SD – 569	295	51.85	274	48.15	+21	+3.70

SUBTOTAL
3633	1908	52.52	1716	47.23	+192	+5.29

Total	Current BO	2026 -	2210-	Current HC	2026-	2210-
4049	1903	-123		1718	-308
+FL, MI	2027		-182	1892		-318

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-18 @ 11:16:11
Rasmussen has put out a four way GE match-up: Obama (D): 42% McCain (R): 38% Barr (L): 6% Nader (I): 4% Margin: Obama +4% This kind of configuration reminds me a lot of 1992. Barr hurts McCain more than Nader hurts Obama. If we mentally incorporate their percentages into the big parties, then we would have: Obama: 46% McCain: 44% So, yes, I think a third or fourth party can play spoiler this time around. Last Edit: 2008-05-18 @ 14:46:45

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-18 @ 12:55:46
I'm not sure I'm so pessimestic as you Gceres. I think that we can hold the Alaska and Colorado seats if we fight for them, same with North Carolina and Minnesota. I think the worse projects have us lose 20 seats in the House. Again I don't think we'll get smashed that bad as I think we'll pick up some of our old seats we lost in 2006. Over all we are screwed congressionally. And you're right, its because we abandoned conservative principles as party. Did we learn nothing from 1980, 1984, and 1994? In anycase there is still some time for improvement so that it does not end up a blood bath as the public is very anti-incumbent right now. But its a lot of work for probably little gain. Still we must fight the good fight. Last Edit: 2008-05-18 @ 12:56:59

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-18 @ 12:59:08
The problem is, with health care problems, economic decline and the Iraq war fiasco, I'm not sure conservatism would be well received by most Americans. Though it is still very strong, of course. The Republicans can't afford to lose their fiscal conservative base to Libertarians or abstention.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-18 @ 13:44:16
The problem with talking about conservativism vis-a-vis liberalism or centrism is: in which area? There are independent minded voters who are either fiscally conservative but socially liberal, or visa versa. How do you want to classify them? There is no neat shoebox you can place them in. So, in a free society in the middle of a major "purple-ification", the terms themselves are not adequate anymore, in my opinion. And I agree with CR: there is an anti-incumbent mood, which, in line with anti-incumbent trends from the past, is more aimed at the executive than at the legislative, due to the pre-programmed US-American mentality, which has been gently massaged by the media into thinking that the main source of all things governmental is the executive, when in reality, the founding fathers placed more emphasis on the legislative, and for this reason, the legislative comes before the executive in the constitution. And, in closing, as my mentor has said many times over: conservative thought, in this form, is a relatively new appearance on the american platform as compared to liberal thought. It will need more time to take root more completely. Further, an idea can be a great thing: the application thereof can be a major disaster. This applies, of course, to all forms of ideology, including centrism, imho. Let's chew on this for a while...

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-18 @ 21:45:38
FrenchEd, that is assuming the American populace is left of center. I don't believe. The damage that has occured within the GOP is that we abandoned those conservative values. I honestly don't believe that majority totally agree with the Democrats on things like healthcare, the economy, and so forth. While I believe that the executive branch will take heavy fire I also have come to believe that most Americans, the majority are completely fed up with Congress as well. But Bonn is correct in that the media will tend to focus more on that particular branch. I just believe the people are tired of government in general. Reagan and the originial founders of the '94 Republican Revolution stuck to tride and true conservative principles. It resonnates with the people. However, when we abandon those principles and become big government conservatives, neocons, or Rockefellers then we are more like Democrats or centrists. Its like having one and half parties sometimes. But as with all things there are times of ups and downs. Right now we are in a down period. The party needs an overhaul and we'll get that done whether it takes us till 2010 or 2016. But it will happen and we will be back.

By: FrenchEd (D-NJ) 2008-05-19 @ 12:43:46
The USA are a conservative country, but that's not the point. We are in the middle of worldwide economic crisis which might just get worse. In the United States, the socio-economic problems stirred by laissez-faire in such areas as health care are getting too serious to be ignored. Working conditions are deteriorating, the purchasing power is down. The subprime crisis is costing us 1% in economic growth. In these conditions, conservative policies are never popular. In 1928, Hoover steamrollered Al Smith, but Roosevelt beat him badly in 1932 after the 1929 crisis. In 1992, George Bush was all-popular after the Iraq War but the recession killed him. Liberal policies always come back in times of crisis, get used to it. When people are helpless, they call for government help. And if you tell them to do it by themselves, they don't vote for you, however deeply the "self-made man" model is ingrained in them. Money first, ideology second.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-19 @ 16:54:37
No the problems in America are being caused by our big, intrusive government that can't leave anything alone. It has nothing to do with laissez-faire which hasn't truely existed since the 1920's. The problems are also being made out to be far far worse than they really are by our "friends" in the media. For example we are in an economic down turn. Certain states have been hit harder than others. And we do have an energy crisis. A lot of that is from big government but part of it is the business cycle. Most economists say that this down turn will be short and shallow, probably over by the end of the year. You can't have a true recession if you have economic growth and we have it if not as robusk as a couple of years ago. In 1932 Roosevelt beat Hoover because of the Great Depression, something we don't have today and something that even his liberal policies couldn't fix. That took WWII. As for 1992, we could have riden it out and Bush would have been fine had he not raised taxes with the Democrats in congress. And up pops Ross Perot not long afterward. Liberal policies worsen times of crisis, get use to that. Most of the problems today are not from a lack of government but from too much of it. Its not about not helping people but about giving them the tools to do it. Some people will always fall through the cracks because no system is perfect but the majority doesn't need nanny government. I always like the line: the government big enough to give you everything is also big enough to take it away. Moving on to Bonn's new map. Last Edit: 2008-05-19 @ 17:11:36

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-19 @ 16:55:41
New map, new luck, feel free to move on to the next version...

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-19 @ 20:14:00
Conservative Republican seems to be quite a bit confused about history and the current state of our government problems. Maybe he should take a look at the CIA worldfact book. And I love how once Bush screws up he is all of the sudden "not a conservative" Not only is he a Conservative, he is everything the Republican party stands for, with the except for one of two issues. And he is exactly what you guys deserved. Face it guys, conservatism is dead for a while. And the only way its going to come back when you guys change your party platform, which will happen. The special elections proves this in Mississippi. If your ways don't work, you make excuses and claim, "Well, we really didn't have conservatives in office, so lets elect some more of the same people, and then things will magically get better" And the more you say that, the more seats you will lose. You guys will have lost gay rights, and you will have lost on the environment, and you will have lost on health care. Oh, and BTW, Jesus was a liberal.

By: FiveSenses99 (--MO) 2008-05-19 @ 20:16:51
Reagan is responsible for the AIDS crisis getting worse, for the huge divide in rich and poor in this country, for the large deficit in this country and for jobs going over seas. He is also responsible for a lot of the loss of separation of church and state, the "war on drugs" that only makes more crime and for people voting against their own economic issues because they are too dumb to know any difference in the face of propaganda.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-19 @ 23:58:11
Bonn I'll move to your next map in a moment. I want to take a moment to hash this out with Five before I move on. I hope you don't mind. Now Five, Bush must seem to represent the GOP but the fact is that he is exactly as his father was, a blood blue. But lets go down the list. I'll show that while he meets conservative standards in some places he fails miseribly in many many places. First off Bush is a big government conservative. He's not quiet as Rockefeller as McCain and the other centrists but he is not a conservative. His programs such as no child left behind, medicare part D, and other programs are expansions of the federal government. He did nothing for our energy situation but caved into the "green" positions. He was horrid at spending. He tried to nominate Harriet Miers and refused to veto McCain-Fiengold. Not to mention that now he is nation building, not what this war was suppose to be about. And then there is amnesty.... Now he has done a few conservative things: the tax cuts (but not permenant), Roberts/Alito on the court, the federal marriage amendment (though I think that ought to be left us to the states), strong national defense stance, pro-free trade, and the ban on partial birth abortion. Otherwise he's been luke warm. Not to mention we've seen no leadership out of him. He's allowed party decent and let the congress go crazy. We got drunk with power, spent like crazy, lost touch with the people, and yes acted too much like Democrats. That is why we are losing special elections, not raising money, and have an angry base. But you're right about one thing, if we don't start acting like real conservatives we will pay for it.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-20 @ 00:07:35
As for Reagan he is hardly responsible for AIDS any more than Bill Clinton is responsible for antibodic resistant TB or bacteria in hospitals or GWB is for bird flu. It was a brand new disease in the 1980's and despite everything from then till now it is incredible difficult to find a cure. That is the nature of medicine. From 1983 to 1989 the total population under the poverty line decreased by 3.8 million, 20 million new jobs (82% of which where high-paying, high skilled) where created, the average real income for all Americans increased more than 15% from 1982-1989, and of the bottom 20% of income earners in 1979 65% jumped at least two income brackets during the 1980's. The first amendment ensures freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Reagan not more promoted a state church than he did higher taxes. But he did believe in American values, many of which are based on the Judao-Christian ethic. As for the war on drugs, he did what he thought was right to stop an evil in society and all presidents after Reagan have continued to battle it. People voting for their economic interests sounds a little Marxist to me. Reagan and conservative do believe in capitalism and the free market economies with reasonble regulation that doesn't drive industry overseas. So make of that what you will. Nice to talk with you Five, if you'd like to continue our discussion further I'd be glad to do so on Bonn's next map. Okay Bonn I'm done, thank you for the use of your map.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-05-20 @ 00:12:06
"caved in to green positions"?!?!?! You have got to be kidding me. Bush has been a nightmare to the environment. Denying global warming, attempting to disarm the EPA and drill in ANWR - I'm not sure how much farther right you want a president to go. Big intrusive governement is a problem in many areas such as the Patriot Act, wiretapping, torture, and efforts to define personal relationships and personal decisions. Conservatives rallied around Bush in 2000, and defended him deep into his second term. That they are now attempting to distance themselves and excuse Bush's presidency is no shocker. This diatribe could be easily adapted to describe the Reagan presidency. It seems there really is no such thing as a "true conservative".

By: CR (--MO) 2008-05-20 @ 00:27:07
Bush has in recent speeches said we have to do something about global climate change. He never pushed a drill in ANWR. There was one quiet vote and then nothing more after it was struck down. He's pushed ethanol which has caused problems with the food supply and I have seen nothing out of him about more clean coal, liquid coal, nuclear power plants, or new refinaries expect for talk. Nothing. I admit that I tried my best to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and defend him. But he is just becoming so ineffective and loose on conservative principles I can't stand it any more. Its one thing after another with this guy - NCLB, Medicare, Meirs, amnesity, no direction on the war, crazy spending, not using the bully pulpit. Conservatives don't do these things. No one is perfect all the time. Even Reagan had his faults. He was human after all. But Bush was only lukewarm. Like his daddy. Unfortunately he was all we had to work with and well we just move on from where we are. I've learned one thing - no more Bushs thank you. But I'd still vote for him over Gore and Kerry any day.

By: bonncaruso (D-DEU) 2008-05-20 @ 09:07:04
CR, you can continue here as long as you wish - you are always welcome on any map of mine, anytime. But it makes more sense to keep the moving debate on the newest map versions. What's all this about McCains team and ties to Indonesia? Did I read this right?

User's Predictions

Prediction Score	States	Percent	Total	Accuracy	Ver	#D	Rank		#Pred
2014 Senate	33/36	18/36	51/72	70.8%	1	32	200	T	382
2012 President	55/56	45/56	100/112	89.3%	7	0	115	T	760
2010 Senate	34/37	20/37	54/74	73.0%	11	0	151	T	456
2008 President	54/56	46/56	100/112	89.3%	75	0	13	T	1,505
2008 Senate	27/33	16/33	43/66	65.2%	3	326	303	T	407
2008 Dem Primary	45/52	16/52	61/104	58.7%	14	-	38	T	271
2008 Rep Primary	36/49	11/49	47/98	48.0%	10	-	64	T	235
Aggregate Predictions	284/319	172/319	456/638	71.5%

Links

Back to 2008 Presidential Prediction Home - Predictions Home

DC

CT

CA

DE

NY

OR

IA

WA

NJ

CO

WI

NM

PA

ND

-

OH

SC

NH

AK

FL

MO

KS

WV

TN

AL

AR

Clinton

Obama

41

43

47

40

52

45

53

44

48

38

46

41

Clinton

Obama

54

42

53

45

49

43

42

44

47

40

52

45

48

38

46

41

Bonncaruso’s

FINAL NC / IN DEM PRIMARY PREDICTIONS 05/06, 18:30 EST

North Carolina: OBAMA wins

Indiana: CLINTON wins

Clinton

Obama

44

37

43

45

48

44

51

46

54

42

53

45

48.8

43.2

46

41