Atlas Forum

Election Archive => 2008 Elections => Topic started by: motomonkey on March 19, 2008, 08:20:21 am



Title: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: motomonkey on March 19, 2008, 08:20:21 am
Look at Reuter's latest poll numbers showing Clinton pulling even with Obama nationally. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1824791220080319?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112
 (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1824791220080319?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112)

And more, http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/10525 (http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/10525)

One week ago:  Obama 50% - Clinton 44%  (Gallup)
Today:  Obama 45% - Clinton 47%

And Rev. Wright is viewed as racially devisive and hurting the Obama Campaign http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/people2/just_8_have_favorable_opinion_of_pastor_jeremiah_wright (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/people2/just_8_have_favorable_opinion_of_pastor_jeremiah_wright)


Obama's numbers will continue to erode.  Clinton will chase and catch him like a hunter chasing a fatally wounded deer. 

Obama is running on a platform of "Change."  How are we supposed to believe he can "change" America and the way Washington works when he can't even change the mind of his pastor and friend of 20 years? 


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Meeker on March 19, 2008, 08:32:36 am
Even if Obama drops 10, 20 points in the polls, even if Clinton wins Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana, even if Clinton wins every remaining contest 60%-40%, Obama still leads in delegates. Obama wins. Game over.

Momentum, national poll numbers, etc. mean nothing at this point. They are not relevant. The only important number is the delegate count and the ONLY way Clinton can win is by having a Superdelegate  coup... which isn't going to happen.

Obama has won. It's just a waiting game now. The sooner Clinton realizes this and gets out so we can start the healing process the better.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: agcatter on March 19, 2008, 08:34:31 am
Too late for this to help Hillary get the nomination.  He's too far ahead.

Unfortunately fpr Obama, the GE is another story.  Working class Democrats and independents got to peak under the mask.  They didn't like what they saw.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: motomonkey on March 19, 2008, 08:40:40 am
Obama has the delegate lead but cannot get to 2,025 needed in the remaining primaries.  If Clinton wins the remaining contests 60/40, the super delegates will enough evidence to justify going with Clinton. 



Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Meeker on March 19, 2008, 08:42:35 am
Obama has the delegate lead but cannot get to 2,025 needed in the remaining primaries.  If Clinton wins the remaining contests 60/40, the super delegates will enough evidence to justify going with Clinton. 



It doesn't matter. There is no way in hell the Superdelegates are going to pick Clinton after she loses the pledged delegates. It would rip the party in two and these Superdelegates are far more loyal to the party than they are to any one candidate.

Besides, a ton of Superdelegates just don't like the Clintons. There's a reason hundreds of them didn't jump on board back during the "Clinton is inevitable" phase.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Good Grumps With A Gun on March 19, 2008, 08:49:38 am
Obama has the delegate lead but cannot get to 2,025 needed in the remaining primaries.  If Clinton wins the remaining contests 60/40, the super delegates will enough evidence to justify going with Clinton. 



It doesn't matter. There is no way in hell the Superdelegates are going to pick Clinton after she loses the pledged delegates. It would rip the party in two and these Superdelegates are far more loyal to the party than they are to any one candidate.

Besides, a ton of Superdelegates just don't like the Clintons. There's a reason hundreds of them didn't jump on board back during the "Clinton is inevitable" phase.

And let's not forget Convention Chair and Speaker of the House Pelosi has already declared that the supers shall not overturn the results of who leads in delegates.

Yeah Yeah Dean is DNC Chair, but she has power....he has no real power.  I bet the Beast wishes Bugsy Rendell was DNC Chair again.....he can't be pushed around.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: agcatter on March 19, 2008, 08:55:41 am
I don't think Obama has anything to worry about as far as getting the nomination.

Clinton will narrow the lead in delegates by around 40 by June.

She will narrow substantially the lead Obama has in popular vote.

Remaining primaries:

Obama wins Oregon by 5 pts, NC by 5,  narrow win in South Dakota and Montana - all much less than he'd have won by pre Wright coming out of the closet.

Clinton wins Pennsylvania by 12 - 14 pts, Indiana by 8 or 9.  Massive blowout wins in West Virginia and Kentucky.

Obama is limping to the finish line and is close enough to stumble over ahead of Clinton.

Wright hurt him badly among blue collar Democrats and independents and, as I said, bad news for him in the general - in particular, the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Ben. on March 19, 2008, 08:58:35 am
Wright hurt him badly among blue collar Democrats and independents and, as I said, bad news for him in the general - in particular, the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

I still fail to see the evidence for this... Obama been knocked badly the past couple of weeks, but its hardly terminal.

If he still wins the nomination he'll have his shot with blue collar Dems, folks on this forum overestimate this events impact... it's biggest problem for Obama is that its dragged on for so long. 


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on March 19, 2008, 09:00:50 am
It also won't help that the Republicans nominated the best candidate to attract those working class Democrats and independents. This is horrible news for the Democrats going into the general in which the Democrats should win.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: motomonkey on March 19, 2008, 09:29:45 am
The Rev. Wright video is the "Howard Dean Scream of the 2008" election.  His followers failed to understand how a single unguarded moment could undo all the good things that led to his leadership position. 



Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: agcatter on March 19, 2008, 09:33:23 am
Ben, I didn't say it was terminal.  I said he was hurt in those states.  These are three states loaded with working class lunchpale Democrats - the weakest part of Obama's Democratic coalition.  It just got weaker when the Wright videos came out.  Don't forget that these three states are states that George Wallace scored in double digits running on a third party the vast majority of which came from blue collar Democrats.  I don't think any objective observor disputes that Obama took a hit with this demographic.  The only question is how much.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on March 19, 2008, 09:36:10 am
The Rev. Wright video is the "Howard Dean Scream of the 2008" election.  His followers failed to understand how a single unguarded moment could undo all the good things that led to his leadership position. 



If there ever was one in 2008, this would be it. The more and more it's played on tv, the worse off Obama will be. The only problem is it came after the Dems have essentially chosen him as their candidate. With Dean, they had time to jump ship to John Kerry. Unfortunately, Obama's base of blacks and white liberals probably agree with Wright, so they'll give Obama enough votes to keep him ahead in delegates no matter what.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: MODU on March 19, 2008, 09:49:57 am
The Rev. Wright video is the "Howard Dean Scream of the 2008" election.  His followers failed to understand how a single unguarded moment could undo all the good things that led to his leadership position. 

I think the audio recording of Wright casting down the Jews is more influencial than the anti-US videos by Wright.  The Jewish vote is an important but less-covered block that can swing elections.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: agcatter on March 19, 2008, 09:58:15 am
Bye bye Florida.  If Obama even had a chance there anyway which I doubt.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Brittain33 on March 19, 2008, 10:11:50 am
New thread title, same people, same comments...


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: MODU on March 19, 2008, 10:16:29 am
New thread title, same people, same comments...

Stick around long enough, and you will be able to predict the order of the posters in each thread and their comments.  :)


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 19, 2008, 10:19:29 am
This isn't terminal. Incidents in March don't matter in the GE.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Brittain33 on March 19, 2008, 10:20:20 am
New thread title, same people, same comments...

Stick around long enough, and you will be able to predict the order of the posters in each thread and their comments.  :)

LOL. I've spent too much time in the geekier low-traffic corners of this site.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Michael Z on March 19, 2008, 10:21:23 am
The Rev. Wright video is the "Howard Dean Scream of the 2008" election. 

Wishful thinking.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: MODU on March 19, 2008, 10:21:44 am
New thread title, same people, same comments...

Stick around long enough, and you will be able to predict the order of the posters in each thread and their comments.  :)

LOL. I've spent too much time in the geekier low-traffic corners of this site.

Ewww!  I hope you washed before you touched this thread.  :P


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 19, 2008, 10:22:32 am
New thread title, same people, same comments...

Stick around long enough, and you will be able to predict the order of the posters in each thread and their comments.  :)

LOL. I've spent too much time in the geekier low-traffic corners of this site.

And what's interesting is that the posters, by post, are completely diferent on other parts. I, for instance, post A LOT, but rarely on this board.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Sam Spade on March 19, 2008, 10:23:47 am
New thread title, same people, same comments...

Stick around long enough, and you will be able to predict the order of the posters in each thread and their comments.  :)

Didn't you know that I have a list of ready-made comments on my clipboard that I just plug into the site for each thread topic?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 19, 2008, 10:25:09 am
I think to lock down the super delegates, Obama needs two things:

1.  To win the elected delegates by a 67-110 net delegate margin (MI/FL), or.

2.  Win after the MI/FL delegates are reselected.

If he doesn't, I believe Hillary wins.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: motomonkey on March 19, 2008, 10:46:31 am
This isn't terminal. Incidents in March don't matter in the GE.
Quote

Tell that to Howard Dean.  Here is a link to a CBS News report dated Jan 23, 2004 where Dick Meyer reports that the scream "is no big deal" and doesn't understand why the media is latching on to the story.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/23/opinion/meyer/main595508.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/23/opinion/meyer/main595508.shtml)

Or what about Ed Muskies, March 4, 1972 "tears?" 

It isn't fair, but when the media and the public get connected on one of these things it doesn't go away.  My opinion is we are on the front-end not the back-end of the Wright - Obama story.

Lot's of front runners fail in the spring of election year. 


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Brittain33 on March 19, 2008, 10:48:54 am
Lot's of front runners fail in the spring of election year. 

The examples you cited both fell in the primaries. That's statistically impossible for Obama at this point. We're talking about the general election.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: motomonkey on March 19, 2008, 10:55:04 am
My position is that this will cost Obama the Democratic nomination.  Neither Clinton nor Obama will have 2025 delegates.  The super delegates will decide and go with Clinton  to win the general election after she wins decisively in the majority of the remaining 10 primaries.

Obama does not yet have the nomination.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Brittain33 on March 19, 2008, 10:57:46 am
My position is that this will cost Obama the Democratic nomination.  Neither Clinton nor Obama will have 2025 delegates.  The super delegates will decide and go with Clinton  to win the general election after she wins decisively in the majority of the remaining 10 primaries.

Obama does not yet have the nomination.

Ok, fair enough.

I would respond that Muskie and Dean were felled for things they actually said or did, while Obama's problem is one of association. In addition, those both happened at the same time in the calendar year, but far earlier in the process. That was still in the Iowa-NH period, whereas most delegates have been assigned and Clinton would need to get a ridiculously high percentage of Democrats, something which does not appear to be happening following Wright. Finally, Dean was on his way out before the scream, that was just the nail in the coffin.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: The Voice of America on March 19, 2008, 10:58:00 am
It also won't help that the Republicans nominated the best candidate to attract those working class Democrats and independents. This is horrible news for the Democrats going into the general in which the Democrats should win.

Right. There are so many voters who would come out for Hillary in a state like Ohio...but would stay home or jump to McCain if Obama were the nominee. I know it's early...but a new Ohio poll shows Hillary edging McCain by 1 pt...while McCain decently beats Obama. A guy like Obama, an attractive candidate...with the same views as Clinton...can't have unstoppable 11-state wins...play ads every 5 minutes...campaign for two weeks non-stop...have the entire country say Ohio is a "close race" and then suddenly be shunned with an 11 pt defeat. There was an underlying cause...and sadly, we know what it was.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Michael Z on March 19, 2008, 12:59:38 pm
This isn't terminal. Incidents in March don't matter in the GE.
Quote

Tell that to Howard Dean.  Here is a link to a CBS News report dated Jan 23, 2004 where Dick Meyer reports that the scream "is no big deal" and doesn't understand why the media is latching on to the story.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/23/opinion/meyer/main595508.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/23/opinion/meyer/main595508.shtml)

Or what about Ed Muskies, March 4, 1972 "tears?" 

It isn't fair, but when the media and the public get connected on one of these things it doesn't go away.  My opinion is we are on the front-end not the back-end of the Wright - Obama story.

Lot's of front runners fail in the spring of election year. 

I was actually gonna address this point sooner, including the Muskie comparison, but felt it was unnecessary, but alas:

Firstly, unlike the Dean scream and Muskie's bawling, the Wright affair is guilt by association. Secondly, the way Obama has handled it has been marginally different from Dean and Muskie, and the speech has pulled large parts of the mainstream media back behind him. Thirdly, Dean and Muskie were never media darlings the way Obama is, and thus didn't get much of a free ride. Fourthly, it's very telling that the people here and elsewhere saying that Obama's "done" or "finished" are the exact same people who've laying into this guy from Day One (with the exception of someone like MODU, who's actually been very rational and objective throughout and doesn't get bogged down in emotions the way some people here do) - now they've found something they can finally latch on to, they're just jumping all over it like kids in a candystore - so I'm inclined to take their words with a pinch of salt. Fifth, Dean and Muskie were pretty s***y candidates compared to Obama, who has a mass following that some people have, admittedly not entirely without credibility, compared to a sort of cult. Dean did have a lot of appeal with the Democratic base, but nothing comparable to Obama's support.

While I won't try and indulge in the kind of smugness and self-satisfaction that some people here are guilty of, I will be confident enough to detract them and say that, yes, Obama will still win the nomination, he'll still become President, and the Wright issue will be remembered as something comparable to the Gennifer Flowers affair - a major issue that did set a campaign off kilter, but was eventually overcome through external factors and the candidate's overall popularity. But at the end of the day there's nothing you nor I can really say with confidence until the final numbers are in.

BTW, as far as GE polls are concerned, I'd take them with a pinch of salt, bearing in mind that a lot of polls predicted a convincing Dukakis victory this time in 88, for instance. Anything can happen between now and November.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 19, 2008, 01:10:22 pm
Firstly, unlike the Dean scream and Muskie's bawling, the Wright affair is guilt by association. Secondly, the way Obama has handled it has been marginally different from Dean and Muskie, and the speech has pulled large parts of the mainstream media back behind him.

Muskie's alledged crying happend during a press conference in which he was trying to defend himself and his wife from various vile smears put about in part (though this wasn't known at the time) by CREEP. By no sane standard (whether he cried or not) was anything that happend to Muskie even slightly his own fault.

Quote
Thirdly, Dean and Muskie were never media darlings the way Obama is, and thus didn't get much of a free ride

Seeing as Muskie was basically destroyed by the media, this is obviously true.

Quote
Fifth, Dean and Muskie were pretty s***y candidates compared to Obama,

If Muskie was such a sh**tty candidate, why did Nixon go to such lengths to eliminate him?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Michael Z on March 19, 2008, 01:12:25 pm
Quote
Fifth, Dean and Muskie were pretty s***y candidates compared to Obama,

If Muskie was such a sh**tty candidate, why did Nixon go to such lengths to eliminate him?

I was using hyperbole to make a point. Plus I was talking in comparative terms. ;) :P


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: motomonkey on March 19, 2008, 01:45:08 pm
Britain 33:  I agree with you that Muskie and Dean were earlier in the cycle and you make good points.  This would by comparison be a bigger fall happening later in the cycle.

Michael Z:  I have not been against Obama.  I began the season as a Gore supporter and actually voted for Obama in the Texas primary.  The Rev. Wright association and Obama's response has caused me to withdraw my support. 


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 19, 2008, 02:30:46 pm

If Muskie was such a sh**tty candidate, why did Nixon go to such lengths to eliminate him?

Because Nixon could.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: True Federalist on March 19, 2008, 03:09:20 pm
McCain has gained on Obama in the polls this month, but he's done the same on Clinton and by the same amount.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: agcatter on March 19, 2008, 03:10:43 pm
I voted for Hillary in the Texas primary also.  Two reasons - to finish off the Clintons and because I knew he'd be the weaker candidate in the fall.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on March 19, 2008, 03:31:20 pm
Look at Reuter's latest poll numbers showing Clinton pulling even with Obama nationally. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1824791220080319?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112
 (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1824791220080319?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112)

And more, http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/10525 (http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/10525)

One week ago:  Obama 50% - Clinton 44%  (Gallup)
Today:  Obama 45% - Clinton 47%

And Rev. Wright is viewed as racially devisive and hurting the Obama Campaign http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/people2/just_8_have_favorable_opinion_of_pastor_jeremiah_wright (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/people2/just_8_have_favorable_opinion_of_pastor_jeremiah_wright)


Obama's numbers will continue to erode.  Clinton will chase and catch him like a hunter chasing a fatally wounded deer. 

Obama is running on a platform of "Change."  How are we supposed to believe he can "change" America and the way Washington works when he can't even change the mind of his pastor and friend of 20 years? 

How indeed... :P


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Saff on March 19, 2008, 04:17:15 pm
I voted for Hillary in the Texas primary also.  Two reasons - to finish off the Clintons and because I knew he'd be the weaker candidate in the fall.

You voted for her to finish her? What?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: MODU on March 19, 2008, 04:24:49 pm
I voted for Hillary in the Texas primary also.  Two reasons - to finish off the Clintons and because I knew he'd be the weaker candidate in the fall.

You voted for her to finish her? What?

Makes sense to me.  *laughs*


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: agcatter on March 19, 2008, 04:34:47 pm
Oops - meant Obama.

LOL  At least I know you guys are reading my posts.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Michael Z on March 19, 2008, 08:14:07 pm
Michael Z:  I have not been against Obama.  I began the season as a Gore supporter and actually voted for Obama in the Texas primary.  The Rev. Wright association and Obama's response has caused me to withdraw my support. 

I stand corrected, but rest assured that my comment wasn't directly aimed at you, but rather some regs here, most of who have blue avatars, and who may as well fill in a pre-prepared form before commenting on Obama...


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Lincoln Republican on March 19, 2008, 10:01:41 pm
One thing to keep in mind, the Democrats want to win in November.

If Obama, due to a series of negative reports, beliefs, and actual events, is seen as a sure loser to McCain, who knows what the Democrats will decide, even if Obama does have a lead in committed delegates.

The Democrats want the White House back, and they are not about to let a little thing like committed delegates get in the way.

If Obama is damaged goods, the Democrats will no longer want him.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Snek! on March 19, 2008, 10:05:42 pm
Actually, if we can't win in November, we'll concentrate on modernizing the party. That's what the GOPPERs did in 1964. Sure, they were going to lose, but they started a movement.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 19, 2008, 10:12:28 pm
One thing to keep in mind, the Democrats want to win in November.

If Obama, due to a series of negative reports, beliefs, and actual events, is seen as a sure loser to McCain, who knows what the Democrats will decide, even if Obama does have a lead in committed delegates.

The Democrats want the White House back, and they are not about to let a little thing like committed delegates get in the way.

If Obama is damaged goods, the Democrats will no longer want him.

I think it will have to be shown that he's damaged goods.  If so, I can see this scenario:

1.  Obama drops below a net lead of 110 elected delegates.

2.  The convention seats the 110 MI/FL delegates (which is within the rules).  It is done with the consent of the super delegates.

3.  The Clinton forces proclaim that Hillary has a majority of the elected delegates.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Flying Dog on March 19, 2008, 10:16:48 pm
No dice.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 19, 2008, 10:26:48 pm
No dice.

And why not, because your candidate won't win it?

According to the Green Pages, Obama is up by 156 elected delegates.  Do you think his lead will shrink by 46 delegates? ;)

 (I do, and I've seen this as a problem for a few months.)


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: elcorazon on March 19, 2008, 10:32:21 pm
J.J. is quite likely right.  If Obama's numbers don't improve, Hillary picks up delegates from here on out and then there is a reason to give in to FL and MI so that the supers can justify going with hillary.

Obama's speech has left me not completely writing him off, but I still think he's on life support at this point.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Flying Dog on March 19, 2008, 10:33:45 pm
Michigan won't be seated as is. So you can get that idea out of your head. Most likely will be split 50/50. Florida is a  50/50 chance of only seating half the delegates with the Jan. 29th result or seated with full delegates.

I don't know why some people think everyone will be hunky-dory with seating MI/FL delegates to overrule the REAL elected delegates. I think it's just a fantasy of many.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 19, 2008, 10:55:06 pm
Michigan won't be seated as is. So you can get that idea out of your head. Most likely will be split 50/50. Florida is a  50/50 chance of only seating half the delegates with the Jan. 29th result or seated with full delegates.

I don't know why some people think everyone will be hunky-dory with seating MI/FL delegates to overrule the REAL elected delegates. I think it's just a fantasy of many.

Not if Hillary has the majority at the convention, including the super delegates, and would get a majority of the elected delegates with MI/FL they will most likely be seated.  And it's all within the rules.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Snek! on March 19, 2008, 11:10:10 pm
Would the DNC do that?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 19, 2008, 11:31:51 pm
Once the uncommitted in Michigan are seated, Hillary will not have a 110 delegate lead in those states together.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 19, 2008, 11:37:25 pm
Would the DNC do that?

Assuming Hillary has enough votes overall, with the super delegates, so that she can say that she has a majority of the elected delegates.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2008, 12:45:14 am
Once the uncommitted in Michigan are seated, Hillary will not have a 110 delegate lead in those states together.

They are not Obama's either, technically.  They one:

1.  Could be seated as unpledged.

2.  Only those pledged could be seated.  (The convention can do that).

Keeping in mind 55 unpledged delegates are out there, let's look at the situation:

FL give Hillary a net of +42.

Even if every MI unpledged delegate voted for Obama, Hillary won 80, so she has a net gain of a minimum of +25, for a total of +69.

Some of those 55 may have been truly uncommitted and some "really" Edwards.  Some might be pursuaded for Clinton, especially if she already has the majority.  Let's that only 20%, 11 delegates fall into these categories and the rest are die hard Obama supporters.  Hillary now has 91 (80+11=91) delegates and Obama has 44 (55-11=44).  Hillary now has a net gain of +47 from MI.  MI/FL net gain is now +89 Clinton, even using a relatively minor split, 80% in favor of Obama.

Obama has not been nearly as supportive getting these delegates seating; they won't be there but for Clinton's efforts.  The split might be greater.  Let's say it's a 20 to 35 split in favor of Obama.  Obama gets +35 and Hillary gets +100 (80+20=100).  Hillary's net is now +65 from MI.  Her MI/FL net is now +107.

What if (and we don't know) the split in the unpledged is about even, 28 for Obama, 27 Clinton.  Obama has 28 delegates out of MI; Hillary has 107 delegates.  Hillary's net gain +79 (107-28=79).  Her MI/FL net is now +121.  Obama is in the position of trying to keep all of these unpledged delegates out; the will not endear him to any of them.  It's around 110, but because of the situation, it could actually turn out to be worse. 

Technically, Obama need +178 to prevent this outright.  I think he can make a good political argument at +110.  He can't make it at all at anything less than +79.

If you've been wondering why I've been screaming about this for more than a month, that is the reason.  Obama will have to be in the position of having to anything to win, even if he has to deprive two states of their elected representatives.  He can't walk into the convention and do that, in full view of the TV cameras, and expect to look like anything except a vote grubbing politician, who's willing to anything to win the nomination. 

That is also why I have exceptionally critical of Howard Dean.  Dean should not be sitting back, but should actively working to prevent this.

I'm to the point where I doubt that Obama will even meet the +79 elected delegate threshold by the convention.  He might, but it looks like it's closing.



Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 20, 2008, 12:50:31 am
Erc's explanation of Michigan shows that's quite unlikely Hillary will take more than a handful of the uncommitted once they are seated. He's projecting at least 30 of the district ones for Obama, the at large ones come from the state committee so who knows, but Hillary needs a much better organization, which she doesn't have as her failure in caucuses shows.

Whatever the case, anyone with an IQ over 70 can clearly see that the Michigan delegates don't accurately represent the opinions of the Michigan electorate which is why one could validly argue for their exclusion. J. J. seems to think the DNC will always think like him.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2008, 01:06:52 am
Erc's explanation of Michigan shows that's quite unlikely Hillary will take more than a handful of the uncommitted once they are seated. He's projecting at least 30 of the district ones for Obama, the at large ones come from the state committee so who knows, but Hillary needs a much better organization, which she doesn't have as her failure in caucuses shows.

Whatever the case, anyone with an IQ over 70 can clearly see that the Michigan delegates don't accurately represent the opinions of the Michigan electorate which is why one could validly argue for their exclusion. J. J. seems to think the DNC will always think like him.

It really doesn't make a difference, because they are the elected delegates, and that is the standard Obama is trying to use. 

Even a "handful," puts it above 100; a 70/30 split, in favor of Obama, puts it above 110.  It's basically going to be up the super delegates to "save" him, and they might have to do so by staging a floor fight (and I really don't want to see it).

Actually, I think only hacks, morons, and Howard Dean don't see the potential problem here.  Obama needs that cushion, and I have serious doubts that he'll have it by the convention.

And the there are the Edwards delegates (18-31, depending MI/FL).  If they go to Clinton, that cushion could need to be much larger.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 20, 2008, 01:35:03 am
It really doesn't make a difference, because they are the elected delegates, and that is the standard Obama is trying to use.

It does because he's using only delegates that actually count on the floor and were elected in legitimate elections.

Once again, you need to realize the DNC does not agree with you on this. You can have whatever opinion you want, but you need to get over the idea that 100% of superdelegates will see things your way and reject Obama because of Florida and Michigan.

Even a "handful," puts it above 100; a 70/30 split, in favor of Obama, puts it above 110.  It's basically going to be up the super delegates to "save" him, and they might have to do so by staging a floor fight (and I really don't want to see it).

The superdelegates don't have to "save" the guy in the lead, rather that'd be Hillary who has done absolutely pitiful in superdelegates since Feb. 5th (and her victories on March 4th did not give her much of a boost. All it did was slow the trend in favor of Obama, not stop or reverse it.) The best Florida will get is half of their delegates and the current Michigan delegation will never be seated in a million years. Any Michigan delegation without a revote will be a 50/50 split.

Imagine this scenario: Obama leads in pledged delegates from states the DNC is actually seating, Hillary does if you include FL and MI. Pelosi has constantly stated that the superdelegates should not overturn the will of the pledged delegates, so she goes ahead and pledges her superdelegate vote for Obama. Then what? Are you going to throw a temper tantrum?

Actually, I think only hacks, morons, and Howard Dean don't see the potential problem here.  Obama needs that cushion, and I have serious doubts that he'll have it by the convention.

You mention Howard Dean, the guy running the whole thing. Since he doesn't agree with you, your spouting about those two states are moot.

Can you really imagine though Hillary arguing Obama doesn't really have a pledged delegate lead because of Michigan and thus the superdelegates are obligated to anoint her? She'd be laughed out of town trying to make such a claim.

And the there are the Edwards delegates (18-31, depending MI/FL).  If they go to Clinton, that cushion could need to be much larger.

Oh yeah they sure flocked to her in Iowa.

BTW I've been waiting more than a month for those polls that showed Wisconsin tightening. Obvious they were wrong assuming they even existed, but I'd be interested in seeing them any way. Of course you always ignore every single time this point is brought up like the hack you are.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2008, 02:13:39 am
If I were advising Obama, this would be what say:

JJ:  How many of those 55 unpledged MI will vote for you, if seated and don't object?

BHO:  At least 40.

JJ.  You'll call for them to be seated after NC (net of -105),  Seat Florida (net of  -42). what's your PA loss look like?

BHO: Net -25.

JJ.  Ok, concentrate on Phila, but begin to hit strongly in NC and IN.  And get me the, WV, KY and OR polls; we might advertise in Pittsburg to help out in WV.  How close are you to Edwards; he can help there and he has some delegates?  Can you get him to endorse you and ask his delegate to vote for you?

BHO:  That's a tall order but I think so.

JJ.  PA is gone, you numbers might even drop.  Greatly cut the ads in Phila,  I'll see about Pittsburgh after I see about WV.  Barack, you are going to make your first stand in NC and IN; if WV looks good, we might try for a hat trick.  Next clear stops a KY and OR; OR is the firewall.

The bulk of your resources are going into NC and IN, whatever's left, goes into KY and OR.  You might be broke after that, but it won't matter.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: bullmoose88 on March 20, 2008, 02:19:21 am
NC's a net of -105?

typo somewhere or what did I miss?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2008, 02:42:00 am
It really doesn't make a difference, because they are the elected delegates, and that is the standard Obama is trying to use.

It does because he's using only delegates that actually count on the floor and were elected in legitimate elections.


The delegates are seated by the convention, though initially by the credentials committee.

Quote
Once again, you need to realize the DNC does not agree with you on this. You can have whatever opinion you want, but you need to get over the idea that 100% of superdelegates will see things your way and reject Obama because of Florida and Michigan.

You don't understand that the seating of the delegates is left to the Democratic National Convention, ultimately.  If Hillary has a majority, even with the super delegates, THE Convention can seat them.


Quote


Imagine this scenario: Obama leads in pledged delegates from states the DNC is actually seating, Hillary does if you include FL and MI. Pelosi has constantly stated that the superdelegates should not overturn the will of the pledged delegates, so she goes ahead and pledges her superdelegate vote for Obama. Then what? Are you going to throw a temper tantrum?

The thing is that Pelosi is irrelevant if Clinton has more delegates; that majority gets to seat them.  I seriously doubt Pelosi is going to object to depriving several states of their delegations, when she is in the minority.

Quote

You mention Howard Dean, the guy running the whole thing. Since he doesn't agree with you, your spouting about those two states are moot.

I've said Dean has acted badly; he is in a position where he could arrange a solution.  He should have more greatly tried to

Quote
Can you really imagine though Hillary arguing Obama doesn't really have a pledged delegate lead because of Michigan and thus the superdelegates are obligated to anoint her? She'd be laughed out of town trying to make such a claim.


I can imaging Hillery saying "Let every vote count."  I vaguely recall that from some previous Democrat.  I can also here her saying "Obama is trying to deprive the right to vote of elected delegates of two (large) states."  And please understand that the super delegates wouldn't be "annointing" her, only letting those elected delegates from MI/FL serve as the elected representatives of their Democratic constituencies.


Quote
BTW I've been waiting more than a month for those polls that showed Wisconsin tightening. Obvious they were wrong assuming they even existed, but I'd be interested in seeing them any way. Of course you always ignore every single time this point is brought up like the hack you are.

I believe I did at the time.  Oh, yes, I just posted the 11 point drop in Obama.  It was Zogby unfortunately.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2008, 02:48:36 am
NC's a net of -105?

typo somewhere or what did I miss?

In the dialog, that was the net loss refers to MI and should be -55


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: bullmoose88 on March 20, 2008, 02:50:54 am
NC's a net of -105?

typo somewhere or what did I miss?

In the dialog, that was the net loss refers to MI and should be -55

I apologize, i'm not quite following...Clinton's going to gain delegates on Obama in North Carolina?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2008, 03:00:37 am
NC's a net of -105?

typo somewhere or what did I miss?

In the dialog, that was the net loss refers to MI and should be -55

I apologize, i'm not quite following...Clinton's going to gain delegates on Obama in North Carolina?

That would be the hypothetical loss of delegates Obama would have seating MI under this scenario.  I think MI/FL can be seated, and Obama can pull it out.

Obama actually has a reasonable argument in saying, "I should be the nominee, because I have the most elected delegates."  The argument he's making is, "I should be the nominee, because I have the most elected delegates, ah, if you don't count all the elected delegates."

If Obama comes out 15-50 delegates ahead, without MI/FL, his argument would be a joke.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: bullmoose88 on March 20, 2008, 03:03:50 am
NC's a net of -105?

typo somewhere or what did I miss?

In the dialog, that was the net loss refers to MI and should be -55

I apologize, i'm not quite following...Clinton's going to gain delegates on Obama in North Carolina?

That would be the hypothetical loss of delegates Obama would have seating MI under this scenario.  I think MI/FL can be seated, and Obama can pull it out.

Obama actually has a reasonable argument in saying, "I should be the nominee, because I have the most elected delegates."  The argument he's making is, "I should be the nominee, because I have the most elected delegates, ah, if you don't count all the elected delegates."

If Obama comes out 15-50 delegates ahead, without MI/FL, his argument would be a joke.


Sorry...I mean I just saw NC with a -105 net...and was confused.  I promise i'm not this retarded, I realize it must be taxing when I double the recent difficulty you're facing here,  when I'm awake and alert.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 20, 2008, 03:52:23 am
Even if Obama drops 10, 20 points in the polls, even if Clinton wins Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana, even if Clinton wins every remaining contest 60%-40%, Obama still leads in delegates. Obama wins. Game over.

Momentum, national poll numbers, etc. mean nothing at this point. They are not relevant. The only important number is the delegate count and the ONLY way Clinton can win is by having a Superdelegate  coup... which isn't going to happen.

Obama has won. It's just a waiting game now. The sooner Clinton realizes this and gets out so we can start the healing process the better.

Ummm... no.  It's not game over.  If Clinton has the momentum going in then there will be no delegate "coup" because a vast majority of the Super Delegates have already declared their allegiance to Clinton.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on March 20, 2008, 07:27:04 am
It's gonna come down to who can make the strongest case to the outstanding super delegates. Obama has the upper hand because he's likely to have a majority of the pledged delegates behind him. Clinton may be able to change this dynamic. That's my opinion, at least.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Meeker on March 20, 2008, 08:33:58 am
Even if Obama drops 10, 20 points in the polls, even if Clinton wins Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana, even if Clinton wins every remaining contest 60%-40%, Obama still leads in delegates. Obama wins. Game over.

Momentum, national poll numbers, etc. mean nothing at this point. They are not relevant. The only important number is the delegate count and the ONLY way Clinton can win is by having a Superdelegate  coup... which isn't going to happen.

Obama has won. It's just a waiting game now. The sooner Clinton realizes this and gets out so we can start the healing process the better.

Ummm... no.  It's not game over.  If Clinton has the momentum going in then there will be no delegate "coup" because a vast majority of the Super Delegates have already declared their allegiance to Clinton.

"A vast majority of Super delegates have already declared their allegiance to Clinton"? I wasn't aware 35% counted as a "vast majority" these days.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: motomonkey on March 20, 2008, 10:57:24 am
Obama's long ride down continues.  The numbers today show

 March 14-18 national survey of 1,209 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters gave Clinton, a New York senator, a 49 percent to 42 percent edge over Obama, an Illinois senator. The poll has an error margin of 3 percentage points.

Drip, drip, drip down he goes.  He was winning two weeks ago.
He was even last week
He is losing now. 
He will be losing by more next week. 
There is no stopping the drop and the slow, painful, loss of support.  The only hope is to get a repent Rev. Wright in front of cameras saying he is guilty of spreading anti-American hate, anti-semetic and anti-white hate speech and he has repented and joing Obama in his mission to unify. 

This is not likely to happen leaving Obama still a friend and member of his church.  It is like a Catholic continuing to worship and be friends at a church where the priest has been exposed as a child molestor.  No matter how much good the priest may have done in the community it is unacceptable to continue.






Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 20, 2008, 11:51:38 am
The scenario mentioned is a Catch-22 because it requires Hillary win a majority to get the Florida and Michigan delegates seated in the first place. Thus it's pointless.

I believe I did at the time.

Please show me where.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2008, 12:04:55 pm
The scenario mentioned is a Catch-22 because it requires Hillary win a majority to get the Florida and Michigan delegates seated in the first place. Thus it's pointless.

I believe I did at the time.

Please show me where.

You can check the polls yourself.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 20, 2008, 12:06:13 pm
I did, I even made a graph of them. Now explain how this graph shows a tightening:

(
Img
)


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Alcon on March 20, 2008, 12:11:16 pm
J. J., with all respect, it's virtually impossible (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008D/polls.php?fips=55) to justify saying that Wisconsin was "tightening."

You might as well just admit you were wrong so that BRTD will shut up for a while and we can all go on with our lives.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2008, 12:19:01 pm
J. J., with all respect, it's virtually impossible (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008D/polls.php?fips=55) to justify saying that Wisconsin was "tightening."

You might as well just admit you were wrong so that BRTD will shut up for a while and we can all go on with our lives.

You mean:

02-16   ARG   C +6   
02-14   Research 2000   O +5   
02-13   Rasmussen   O +4   
02-12   Public Policy Polling   O +11

I'm sorry, but a +6 Clinton is a tighter race that +11 Obama.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Joe Republic on March 20, 2008, 12:24:43 pm
J. J., with all respect, it's virtually impossible (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008D/polls.php?fips=55) to justify saying that Wisconsin was "tightening."

You might as well just admit you were wrong so that BRTD will shut up for a while and we can all go on with our lives.

You mean:

02-16   ARG   C +6   
02-14   Research 2000   O +5   
02-13   Rasmussen   O +4   
02-12   Public Policy Polling   O +11

I'm sorry, but a +6 Clinton is a tighter race that +11 Obama.

You neglected to include the following:

02-18   ARG   O +10
02-17   Public Policy Polling   O +13


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Alcon on March 20, 2008, 01:22:39 pm
J. J., with all respect, it's virtually impossible (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008D/polls.php?fips=55) to justify saying that Wisconsin was "tightening."

You might as well just admit you were wrong so that BRTD will shut up for a while and we can all go on with our lives.

You mean:

02-16   ARG   C +6   
02-14   Research 2000   O +5   
02-13   Rasmussen   O +4   
02-12   Public Policy Polling   O +11

I'm sorry, but a +6 Clinton is a tighter race that +11 Obama.

You neglected to include the following:

02-18   ARG   O +10
02-17   Public Policy Polling   O +13

Not only that, but he made that claim explicitly saying he was ignoring ARG.  And there are a number of other flaws in his analysis, but let's keep this to the other topic.  BRTD's messed up enough topics with this as it is.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: opebo on March 20, 2008, 01:31:12 pm
Obama's long ride down continues.  The numbers today show

 March 14-18 national survey of 1,209 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters gave Clinton, a New York senator, a 49 percent to 42 percent edge over Obama, an Illinois senator. The poll has an error margin of 3 percentage points.

Drip, drip, drip down he goes.  He was winning two weeks ago.
He was even last week
He is losing now. 
He will be losing by more next week. 
There is no stopping the drop and the slow, painful, loss of support.  The only hope is to get a repent Rev. Wright in front of cameras saying he is guilty of spreading anti-American hate, anti-semetic and anti-white hate speech and he has repented and joing Obama in his mission to unify. 

This is not likely to happen leaving Obama still a friend and member of his church.  It is like a Catholic continuing to worship and be friends at a church where the priest has been exposed as a child molestor.  No matter how much good the priest may have done in the community it is unacceptable to continue.

No, motomonkey, Obama's troubles with racist white voters are because he is black, not because of any specific act or speech.  All black people know other blacks who are intelligent enough to know and say that whites and america are the enemy. 


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2008, 01:52:48 pm
J. J., with all respect, it's virtually impossible (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008D/polls.php?fips=55) to justify saying that Wisconsin was "tightening."

You might as well just admit you were wrong so that BRTD will shut up for a while and we can all go on with our lives.

You mean:

02-16   ARG   C +6   
02-14   Research 2000   O +5   
02-13   Rasmussen   O +4   
02-12   Public Policy Polling   O +11

I'm sorry, but a +6 Clinton is a tighter race that +11 Obama.

You neglected to include the following:

02-18   ARG   O +10
02-17   Public Policy Polling   O +13

When I was posting the tightening, those four polls were the ones out.  PPP looked like an outrider at the time (2/12).  We did also have the ARG numbers all over the place.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Joe Republic on March 20, 2008, 02:05:21 pm
When I was posting the tightening, those four polls were the ones out.  PPP looked like an outrider at the time (2/12).  We did also have the ARG numbers all over the place.

No, you posted about the tightening on the evening of Feb 18th.  At that time, the PPP poll from 02-17 (which was consistent with their result from 02-12) had already been added to the forum database.  Even if we exclude ARG and give you the benefit of the doubt and exclude the 02-12 PPP poll as an outlier, we're left with a sum total of three polls for 2008; all of which had Obama holding steady with a 4 point and then 5 point lead.

On what evidence, therefore, were you basing the assertion that the race was tightening?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Alcon on March 20, 2008, 02:10:35 pm
When I was posting the tightening, those four polls were the ones out.  PPP looked like an outrider at the time (2/12).  We did also have the ARG numbers all over the place.

No, you posted about the tightening on the evening of Feb 18th.  At that time, the PPP poll from 02-17 (which was consistent with their result from 02-12) had already been added to the forum database.  Even if we exclude ARG and give you the benefit of the doubt and exclude the 02-12 PPP poll as an outlier, we're left with a sum total of three polls for 2008; all of which had Obama holding steady with a 4 point and then 5 point lead.

On what evidence, therefore, were you basing the assertion that the race was tightening?

Exactly.  And even if he wasn't, you'd have to put a huge amount of trust in the ARG poll.  And ignore the fact that all other pollsters were showing a trend that ARG wasn't.  And ignore the fact that J.J.'s original comment explicitly stated he wasn't referring to ARG.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2008, 02:55:03 pm
When I was posting the tightening, those four polls were the ones out.  PPP looked like an outrider at the time (2/12).  We did also have the ARG numbers all over the place.

No, you posted about the tightening on the evening of Feb 18th.  At that time, the PPP poll from 02-17 (which was consistent with their result from 02-12) had already been added to the forum database.  Even if we exclude ARG and give you the benefit of the doubt and exclude the 02-12 PPP poll as an outlier, we're left with a sum total of three polls for 2008; all of which had Obama holding steady with a 4 point and then 5 point lead.

On what evidence, therefore, were you basing the assertion that the race was tightening?

I was looking at the PPP as being possibly a bad poll.  We had Rasmussen and Research 2000 both showing it closer than the first PPP (I think by more that the MOE).  I wasn't looking too much at the ARG as showing Clinton was leading, but showing a tightening race.  It turned out that the PPP was right on the money. 

You had the PPP (2/12) showing an eleven point lead for Obama, then you had three polls that averaged a 1 point lead; the last one showed a greater difference.  Then I said, "It's narrowing."  Yes, at that point, it sure was, assuming the polls were right; they weren't.  :)


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 20, 2008, 02:57:18 pm
Except PPP even openly admitted in their poll writeups that they were getting radically different numbers than the other pollsters, due to a different model they were using (which was actually far more accurate). So comparing PPP to the other pollsters is pointless. So you have one set of polls all showing Obama with numbers within the MoE, PPP showing another set of numbers all within the MoE and ARG being all around the place and wrong as usual. No trend whatsoever.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2008, 04:53:13 pm
Except PPP even openly admitted in their poll writeups that they were getting radically different numbers than the other pollsters, due to a different model they were using (which was actually far more accurate). So comparing PPP to the other pollsters is pointless. So you have one set of polls all showing Obama with numbers within the MoE, PPP showing another set of numbers all within the MoE and ARG being all around the place and wrong as usual. No trend whatsoever.

Over those four days, it looked like a trend.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 20, 2008, 05:01:49 pm
Except PPP even openly admitted in their poll writeups that they were getting radically different numbers than the other pollsters, due to a different model they were using (which was actually far more accurate). So comparing PPP to the other pollsters is pointless. So you have one set of polls all showing Obama with numbers within the MoE, PPP showing another set of numbers all within the MoE and ARG being all around the place and wrong as usual. No trend whatsoever.

Over those four days, it looked like a trend.

(
Img
)

Trend or outlier? Anyone with common sense says outlier. Especially considering if it's not one than Obama mysteriously made a huge gain from the day before only to lose it. Not too mention as I said above the firm even admitted was so and explained why.

And your comments were made after the second PPP poll came out.

If you were thinking PPP was simply a bad poll as you stated and aren't including ARG either, then all the other polls have the race roughly the same. You can not create a trend by comparing the first PPP poll to the rest, and ignore the second. As I said before, you have two sets of numbers excluding ARG, none showing any statistically significant trend (the slight trend within the MoE in fact was in Obama's favor.)

Have you noticed by the way that not a single person is defending you on this while some people who normally don't get along with me are taking my side?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: True Federalist on March 20, 2008, 07:02:36 pm
At present, I just don't see anything in the polling to justify the superdelegates coalescing around Hillary.  Yes, McCain has been gaining on Obama over the past few weeks, but he's also been gaining on Hillary by the same amount or maybe even a little more.

The superdelegates, if they are deciding between the two on purely pragmatic grounds, are not going to decide who to go for because of who will win in a Clinton v. Obama race, but because of who has the better chance to beat McCain, and everything I've seen in the polling indicates that is still Obama for now.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2008, 07:26:03 pm
Except PPP even openly admitted in their poll writeups that they were getting radically different numbers than the other pollsters, due to a different model they were using (which was actually far more accurate). So comparing PPP to the other pollsters is pointless. So you have one set of polls all showing Obama with numbers within the MoE, PPP showing another set of numbers all within the MoE and ARG being all around the place and wrong as usual. No trend whatsoever.

Over those four days, it looked like a trend.

(
Img
)

Trend or outlier? Anyone with common sense says outlier. Especially considering if it's not one than Obama mysteriously made a huge gain from the day before only to lose it. Not too mention as I said above the firm even admitted was so and explained why.

And your comments were made after the second PPP poll came out.

If you were thinking PPP was simply a bad poll as you stated and aren't including ARG either, then all the other polls have the race roughly the same. You can not create a trend by comparing the first PPP poll to the rest, and ignore the second. As I said before, you have two sets of numbers excluding ARG, none showing any statistically significant trend (the slight trend within the MoE in fact was in Obama's favor.)

Have you noticed by the way that not a single person is defending you on this while some people who normally don't get along with me are taking my side?

Zach, I'm looking at all the polls.  We had the first PPP, then we had three that were notably lower, and with the first ARG poll, showing a solid decline in Obama's support.  It was a drop of 10-11 points when I made the comment.  Then we have the second PPP poll.  Now, were both of the PPP's using bad methodology?  It turns out no, but I couldn't tell that at the time.

There was, going by those polls a rather substantial tightening of the race.

I'm sorry if you cannot understand Obama +11, Obama +4, Obama +5, and Obama -6, really looks like a tightening of the race.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Alcon on March 20, 2008, 07:34:48 pm
J. J.,

So, in other words, it's irrelevant who does polls, and:

=THEORETICAL=
Pollster A, 1/1: D+6
Pollster B, 1/1: R+3
Pollster A, 1/8: D+9
Pollster B, 1/8: R+1
=END THEORETICAL==

Is a trend toward the GOP?  Especially if pollster B is crap?  That's a silly interpretation.

And you still are ignoring the fact that you said you were disregarding Zogby and ARG polls in the analysis, which makes for the following pattern (margin, followed by pollster in parentheses):

C+15 (A)
C+13 (A)
C+16 (A)
C+22 (A)
C+7 (A)
O+4 (A)
O+11 (B)
O+4 (C)
O+5 (D)
O+13 (B)

So, we have Obama's highest showing from pollster A, two new polls from pollster B showing a slight Obama trend, and polls C and D showing a closer race than pollster B.  But, after these polls were released, pollster B releases a poll corroborating the pro-Obama trend continuing.  Pollsters C and D's tighter showing is therefore not much of an indicator of trend, so much as pollster differences.

Confusing?  In other words:

1. Pollster A showed a strong, gradual trend toward Obama.  Their last poll showed Obama at his highest level ever.

2. Pollster B found Obama +11.  Afterwards, two pollsters found Obama +4 and Obama +5.  Then Pollster B, clearly finding more pro-Obama results as a whole, found Obama +13.

The only way we can find a pro-Clinton trend is by ignoring the second result from pollster B, and then comparing their first results to results from other firms.  That doesn't make a lick of sense! 


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2008, 07:57:53 pm
J. J.,

So, in other words, it's irrelevant who does polls, and:

=THEORETICAL=
Pollster A, 1/1: D+6
Pollster B, 1/1: R+3
Pollster A, 1/8: D+9
Pollster B, 1/8: R+1
=END THEORETICAL==

Is a trend toward the GOP?  Especially if pollster B is crap?  That's a silly interpretation.

And you still are ignoring the fact that you said you were disregarding Zogby and ARG polls in the analysis, which makes for the following pattern (margin, followed by pollster in parentheses):

C+15 (A)
C+13 (A)
C+16 (A)
C+22 (A)
C+7 (A)
O+4 (A)
O+11 (B)
O+4 (C)
O+5 (D)
O+13 (B)

So, we have Obama's highest showing from pollster A, new polls from pollster B showing a slight Obama trend, and polls C and D showing a closer race - but while pollster B shows an Obama-ward progression.  In other words:

1. Pollster A showed a strong, gradual trend toward Obama.  Their last poll showed Obama at his highest level ever.

2. Pollster B found Obama +11.  Afterwards, two pollsters found Obama +4 and Obama +5.  Then Pollster B, clearly finding more pro-Obama results as a whole, found Obama +13.

The only way we can find a pro-Clinton trend is by ignoring the second result from pollster B, and then comparing their first results to results from other firms.  That doesn't make a lick of sense!

First of all, let's go back:

02-12   Public Policy Polling   O +11

I don't recall PPP, but let's assume that it's a good poll.

02-13   Rasmussen   O +4 

Good company, did well in 2004

02-14   Research 2000   O +5

Not particularly good, but close to prior results.

02-16   ARG   C +6   

Bad polling in general.  I'm not saying, "Clinton's winning, because ARG is showing she's up six."

I'm also looking at ARG and saying, "It probably isn't 10-12 points off. Obama is probably around +3 to +6."  If the first PPP is correct, and these other polls are correct, Obama has dropped from +11 to +6, perhaps to +3.

Then we get the second PPP; it is Obama +13.  Is this bad methodology, an outrider, or it it right and the bots, ARG, Research 2000 all off?  It turned out to be the third option, which surprised me.  Or, in other words, the opposite of what happened in NH happened in WI.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 20, 2008, 08:22:07 pm
Except PPP even openly admitted in their poll writeups that they were getting radically different numbers than the other pollsters, due to a different model they were using (which was actually far more accurate). So comparing PPP to the other pollsters is pointless. So you have one set of polls all showing Obama with numbers within the MoE, PPP showing another set of numbers all within the MoE and ARG being all around the place and wrong as usual. No trend whatsoever.

Over those four days, it looked like a trend.

(
Img
)

Trend or outlier? Anyone with common sense says outlier. Especially considering if it's not one than Obama mysteriously made a huge gain from the day before only to lose it. Not too mention as I said above the firm even admitted was so and explained why.

And your comments were made after the second PPP poll came out.

If you were thinking PPP was simply a bad poll as you stated and aren't including ARG either, then all the other polls have the race roughly the same. You can not create a trend by comparing the first PPP poll to the rest, and ignore the second. As I said before, you have two sets of numbers excluding ARG, none showing any statistically significant trend (the slight trend within the MoE in fact was in Obama's favor.)

Have you noticed by the way that not a single person is defending you on this while some people who normally don't get along with me are taking my side?

Zach, I'm looking at all the polls.  We had the first PPP, then we had three that were notably lower, and with the first ARG poll, showing a solid decline in Obama's support.  It was a drop of 10-11 points when I made the comment.  Then we have the second PPP poll.  Now, were both of the PPP's using bad methodology?  It turns out no, but I couldn't tell that at the time.

There was, going by those polls a rather substantial tightening of the race.

I'm sorry if you cannot understand Obama +11, Obama +4, Obama +5, and Obama -6, really looks like a tightening of the race.

Once again, the Obama -6 is an ARG, which should be disregarded, something you even claimed.

Second of all, the Rasmussen was one day after the first PPP poll. Considering nothing major happened then that would result in Obama losing 7 points, it's safe to assume one of them is off. The PPP was an outlier, just the rare outlier than turned out to be correct. But you can not deduce a trend from an outlier. If the polls were switched and Rasmussen came one day earlier and PPP a day later, the results would be basically the same, but does that mean that there was a spike in support for Obama which then faded for some inexplicable reason? Of course not. It's just an outlier.

And you also ignore the last PPP poll. If you're going to compare polls from different firms, even when the firms are admittedly using different methodologies and expect to get different results, you can just ignore the last poll as well which showed the race was not certainly tightening. You're basically saying we should've taken the first PPP poll into account, but not the last one.

And no, PPP was not using bad methodology, and we couldn't have known that at the time. However if you believe they were using bad methodology, then you have to toss both PPP polls, resulting in a couple that showed no trend whatsoever. You can't simply draw a trend from the first PPP poll, then dismiss the last one as a bad poll.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Alcon on March 20, 2008, 08:30:10 pm
First of all, let's go back:

02-12   Public Policy Polling   O +11

I don't recall PPP, but let's assume that it's a good poll.

02-13   Rasmussen   O +4 

Good company, did well in 2004

02-14   Research 2000   O +5

Not particularly good, but close to prior results.

02-16   ARG   C +6   

Bad polling in general.  I'm not saying, "Clinton's winning, because ARG is showing she's up six."

I'm also looking at ARG and saying, "It probably isn't 10-12 points off. Obama is probably around +3 to +6."  If the first PPP is correct, and these other polls are correct, Obama has dropped from +11 to +6, perhaps to +3.

Then we get the second PPP; it is Obama +13.  Is this bad methodology, an outrider, or it it right and the bots, ARG, Research 2000 all off?  It turned out to be the third option, which surprised me.  Or, in other words, the opposite of what happened in NH happened in WI.

You are rewriting history.  You said (emphasis mine):

I'm not crazy about ARG or Zogby, but some of the other polls have been showing a tightening of the race.

So, you cannot keep using the final ARG poll as an excuse for your being wrong.  You were ignoring that at the time.  Now we also know you were ignoring PPP.  Either you were ignoring them entirely, or you wrongly failed to check the poll database before making your claim.

Removing PPP and ARG, we have:

Strategic Vision (2/10): Obama +4
Rasmussen (2/13): Obama +4
Research 2000 (2/14): Obama +5

In other words, no trend.

So, that leaves us with three options:

1. You were wrong for including the first PPP poll but not the second; or,
2. You were citing poll results that never actually existed.

Either way, you made a mistake, and the fact that you keep trying to defend it, is perplexing to me.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2008, 08:38:32 pm


Once again, the Obama -6 is an ARG, which should be disregarded, something you even claimed.


It should not have been considered to be accurate, and possibly an outrider; please note tht I didn't say, "Look at ARG; Hillart's winning."  It's trend could have been accurate.

Quote
Second of all, the Rasmussen was one day after the first PPP poll. Considering nothing major happened then that would result in Obama losing 7 points, it's safe to assume one of them is off. The PPP was an outlier, just the rare outlier than turned out to be correct. But you can not deduce a trend from an outlier. If the polls were switched and Rasmussen came one day earlier and PPP a day later, the results would be basically the same, but does that mean that there was a spike in support for Obama which then faded for some inexplicable reason? Of course not. It's just an outlier.

I think if the PPP poll would have happened mid cycle, I wouldn't have used the word "tightening."  :)

Quote
And you also ignore the last PPP poll. If you're going to compare polls from different firms, even when the firms are admittedly using different methodologies and expect to get different results, you can just ignore the last poll as well which showed the race was not certainly tightening. You're basically saying we should've taken the first PPP poll into account, but not the last one.

How could you tell if either was an out rider?

Quote
And no, PPP was not using bad methodology, and we couldn't have known that at the time. However if you believe they were using bad methodology, then you have to toss both PPP polls, resulting in a couple that showed no trend whatsoever. You can't simply draw a trend from the first PPP poll, then dismiss the last one as a bad poll.

Likewise, just looking at two polls, I couldn't tell if it was methodology.  I don't recall looking a PPP before WI.  I was looking, excluding PPP, at a 5-6 point race, with that first ARG poll popping up.  Not a great poll, but it look like is showing a trend.  Remember I said "tightening" not "losing."  It turned out that PPP was right on the money.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Alcon on March 20, 2008, 08:39:31 pm
Again, you specifically said that you were seeing the trend without ARG, Zogby and - apparently now - PPP.  That leaves three polls that came out Obama +4, Obama +4 and Obama +5.  Please explain how this constitutes a trend.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2008, 09:00:31 pm
Alcon, here is my initial comment, which Flem responded to:

I'm not crazy about ARG or Zogby, but some of the other polls have been showing a tightening of the race.
  All the polls have show'd a basic 5-7 pt Obama lead. No tightening of what you speak.

In that time, we had the bots with 4, a second with 5, and that ARG poll that I wasn't crazy about, showing a -6.  To me, that was a sign of tightening.  Didn't call it a sign of an impending Clinton victory, though I thought it was possible.

That PPP was out there, but quality was unknown.

BTW:  We were discussing the first ARG poll on that thread when I made that comment. 



Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 20, 2008, 09:55:52 pm


Once again, the Obama -6 is an ARG, which should be disregarded, something you even claimed.


It should not have been considered to be accurate, and possibly an outrider; please note tht I didn't say, "Look at ARG; Hillart's winning."  It's trend could have been accurate.

It's a garbage poll by your own admission. Garbage polls shouldn't be looked at all, you can't say "well the poll is crap so it's probably not right but it might show some trend...", if the poll is crap, it's crap, the end.

I think if the PPP poll would have happened mid cycle, I wouldn't have used the word "tightening."  :)

Once again, why does it matter when the PPP poll came out? The results would've been the same.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can tell that if two polls come out a day apart with a 7 point difference and no major events have happened to cause that drop in support, one is an outlier and wrong. Now we didn't necessarily know at the time which one that was, but it's ridiculous to draw a trend from that.

Quote
And you also ignore the last PPP poll. If you're going to compare polls from different firms, even when the firms are admittedly using different methodologies and expect to get different results, you can just ignore the last poll as well which showed the race was not certainly tightening. You're basically saying we should've taken the first PPP poll into account, but not the last one.

How could you tell if either was an out rider?

Wow, did you even read the post? Try the bolded part again. PPP admitted to using a different turnout model from all other pollsters and even outright said so as an explanation for why their results were so totally different. We didn't have any way of knowing at the time that PPP's model would be more accurate yes, but that's clearly an outlier since their results were outside the MoE of the rest of the polls. This is a rare instance where the outlier turned out to be correct, but that's beside the point.


Quote
And no, PPP was not using bad methodology, and we couldn't have known that at the time. However if you believe they were using bad methodology, then you have to toss both PPP polls, resulting in a couple that showed no trend whatsoever. You can't simply draw a trend from the first PPP poll, then dismiss the last one as a bad poll.

Likewise, just looking at two polls, I couldn't tell if it was methodology.  I don't recall looking a PPP before WI.  I was looking, excluding PPP, at a 5-6 point race, with that first ARG poll popping up.  Not a great poll, but it look like is showing a trend.  Remember I said "tightening" not "losing."  It turned out that PPP was right on the money.
[/quote]

As I said, PPP openly admitted in their poll write-ups they were using different methodology. As for the ARG poll, you have admitted it's garbage and worthless and were excluding it, so why even mention it?

In that time, we had the bots with 4, a second with 5, and that ARG poll that I wasn't crazy about, showing a -6. To me, that was a sign of tightening.

If it came from a half-decent pollster, yes, that might be a sign of tightening. 100% worthless ARG doesn't fit into that category.

And please note this in your post:

I'm not crazy about ARG or Zogby, but some of the other polls have been showing a tightening of the race.

So you're basically saying ARG is a joke but the other polls are showing that it's tightening. Yet you can't bring up any such evidence of this "tightening" without mentioning ARG.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 21, 2008, 10:08:02 am

It's a garbage poll by your own admission. Garbage polls shouldn't be looked at all, you can't say "well the poll is crap so it's probably not right but it might show some trend...", if the poll is crap, it's crap, the end.

Except I didn't call it "garbage."  I said I was not "crazy" about it.  did it carry some weight, yes; did I give it a lot of weight and say, "This means Hillary will win?"  No.

[

Once again, why does it matter when the PPP poll came out? The results would've been the same.

Quote

Once again, I was looking at a trend.  Therefore, I look at time.

 
[



Wow, did you even read the post? Try the bolded part again. PPP admitted to using a different turnout model from all other pollsters and even outright said so as an explanation for why their results were so totally different. We didn't have any way of knowing at the time that PPP's model would be more accurate yes, but that's clearly an outlier since their results were outside the MoE of the rest of the polls. This is a rare instance where the outlier turned out to be correct, but that's beside the point.

If you would would have asked me which poll I trusted least at the time, it was PPP.  The reason was the difference between it and the other polls.  I actually had more faith in ARG than I did PPP at the time (and yes turned out to be wrong).

I saw one poll, that might or might not be correct that showed +11 for Obama, I saw a number of other polls, taken later, showing Obama much closer.

Now, that is the reason I said "tightening" and that is what I said at the time.




Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 21, 2008, 11:29:55 am

It's a garbage poll by your own admission. Garbage polls shouldn't be looked at all, you can't say "well the poll is crap so it's probably not right but it might show some trend...", if the poll is crap, it's crap, the end.

Except I didn't call it "garbage."  I said I was not "crazy" about it.  did it carry some weight, yes; did I give it a lot of weight and say, "This means Hillary will win?"  No.

LOL. It's ARG! So totally worthless many want to ban their polls from the database.

Once again, I was looking at a trend.  Therefore, I look at time.

Unless you can give a valid reason why you would believe a 7 point drop for Obama in one day with nothing major happening is a realistic scenario, then you are basically admitting you're so dumb you can't spot an outlier.

 
If you would would have asked me which poll I trusted least at the time, it was PPP.  The reason was the difference between it and the other polls.  I actually had more faith in ARG than I did PPP at the time (and yes turned out to be wrong).

OK, first you're saying the gap between PPP and the other polls is sign of a trend. Now you're saying the difference between PPP and the other polls is why you didn't take it seriously. LOL!

This has more holes in it than than the claims about the supposed Duke rape case. And have you stopped to consider why absolutely no one is defending you on this including many people who are also attacking me as a hack?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: motomonkey on March 21, 2008, 01:07:13 pm
The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA)


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: True Federalist on March 21, 2008, 01:27:02 pm
The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA)

I repeat, why will the superdelegates care about this?  They ought to be wondering about which of Obama and Clinton will do best against McCain, and there the trend has been that McCain has been gaining on both of them, and possibly gaining more on Clinton than on Obama (tho that subtrend is within the MoE).


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 21, 2008, 04:11:10 pm
The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA)

I repeat, why will the superdelegates care about this?  They ought to be wondering about which of Obama and Clinton will do best against McCain, and there the trend has been that McCain has been gaining on both of them, and possibly gaining more on Clinton than on Obama (tho that subtrend is within the MoE).

Exactly. People often fail to realize that the superdelegates are not your typical politically uninformed voter. They don't care about momentum or anything, they look at the big picture.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on March 21, 2008, 04:21:53 pm
The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA)

I repeat, why will the superdelegates care about this?  They ought to be wondering about which of Obama and Clinton will do best against McCain, and there the trend has been that McCain has been gaining on both of them, and possibly gaining more on Clinton than on Obama (tho that subtrend is within the MoE).

Exactly. People often fail to realize that the superdelegates are not your typical politically uninformed voter. They don't care about momentum or anything, they look at the big picture.

Honestly, I suspect that's giving them way too much credit. They may be realistic at reading their own races, possibly, but not in other terms. Just ask Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. By all accounts, competent, experienced politicians, yet they all thought they had a chance in the primaries. And were wrong.

If Clinton can get the media picture against Obama by big wins it will have an effect on super delegates. She's gonna throw other numbers at them too, as long as she has them. Losing Pennsylvania will certainly not kill Obama's candidacy, but it'll be another blow.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 21, 2008, 04:26:47 pm
The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA)

I repeat, why will the superdelegates care about this?  They ought to be wondering about which of Obama and Clinton will do best against McCain, and there the trend has been that McCain has been gaining on both of them, and possibly gaining more on Clinton than on Obama (tho that subtrend is within the MoE).

Exactly. People often fail to realize that the superdelegates are not your typical politically uninformed voter. They don't care about momentum or anything, they look at the big picture.

Honestly, I suspect that's giving them way too much credit. They may be realistic at reading their own races, possibly, but not in other terms. Just ask Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. By all accounts, competent, experienced politicians, yet they all thought they had a chance in the primaries. And were wrong.

If Clinton can get the media picture against Obama by big wins it will have an effect on super delegates. She's gonna throw other numbers at them too, as long as she has them. Losing Pennsylvania will certainly not kill Obama's candidacy, but it'll be another blow.

Richardson was always running for VP or a cabinet position. Dodd was most likely trying to build up name recognition to help him take Senate Majority Leader (he wasn't too successful, but it wasn't a bad idea in itself.) For Biden, well yeah he was quixotic, but he's had some success in the past. And he's still mentioned for VP or Sec of State.

At the very least, superdelegates are aware of the total delegate count. You aren't going to see hordes of superdelegates say "OMG, HILLARY WON PENNSYLVANIA, NOW WE MUST ANOINT HER AS THE NOMINEE!"

Here's a useful graph:

(
Img
)

Hillary's victories on 3/4 didn't result in hordes running toward her. Sure she slowed the trend toward Obama, but Hillary needs to do more than simply slow it now, hell she can't even halt it.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on March 21, 2008, 04:31:44 pm
The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA)

I repeat, why will the superdelegates care about this?  They ought to be wondering about which of Obama and Clinton will do best against McCain, and there the trend has been that McCain has been gaining on both of them, and possibly gaining more on Clinton than on Obama (tho that subtrend is within the MoE).

Exactly. People often fail to realize that the superdelegates are not your typical politically uninformed voter. They don't care about momentum or anything, they look at the big picture.

Honestly, I suspect that's giving them way too much credit. They may be realistic at reading their own races, possibly, but not in other terms. Just ask Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. By all accounts, competent, experienced politicians, yet they all thought they had a chance in the primaries. And were wrong.

If Clinton can get the media picture against Obama by big wins it will have an effect on super delegates. She's gonna throw other numbers at them too, as long as she has them. Losing Pennsylvania will certainly not kill Obama's candidacy, but it'll be another blow.

Richardson was always running for VP or a cabinet position. Dodd was most likely trying to build up name recognition to help him take Senate Majority Leader (he wasn't too successful, but it wasn't a bad idea in itself.) For Biden, well yeah he was quixotic, but he's had some success in the past. And he's still mentioned for VP or Sec of State.

At the very least, superdelegates are aware of the total delegate count. You aren't going to see hordes of superdelegates say "OMG, HILLARY WON PENNSYLVANIA, NOW WE MUST ANOINT HER AS THE NOMINEE!"

Here's a useful graph:

(
Img
)

Hillary's victories on 3/4 didn't result in hordes running toward her. Sure she slowed the trend toward Obama, but Hillary needs to do more than simply slow it now, hell she can't even halt it.

No, they're not going to anoint her. But if they sit down at the end of day and her wins in places like Pennsylvania has blurred the media picture so that people do not percieve Obama as the clear front-runner and choice of the people, then they will have to take in lots of factors, including electability, possible scandals, national polling, etc. And at that point she will be able to make her case to them.

As for supers flowing towards Obama, he had a bandwagon rolling during February. That doesn't get halted over-night. He was always going to catch-up with Clinton in supers given her headstart. The remaining ones are still waiting in the wings and I can't see the following primaries making them more likely to swing to Obama.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 21, 2008, 04:39:04 pm
The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA)

I repeat, why will the superdelegates care about this?  They ought to be wondering about which of Obama and Clinton will do best against McCain, and there the trend has been that McCain has been gaining on both of them, and possibly gaining more on Clinton than on Obama (tho that subtrend is within the MoE).

Exactly. People often fail to realize that the superdelegates are not your typical politically uninformed voter. They don't care about momentum or anything, they look at the big picture.

Honestly, I suspect that's giving them way too much credit. They may be realistic at reading their own races, possibly, but not in other terms. Just ask Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. By all accounts, competent, experienced politicians, yet they all thought they had a chance in the primaries. And were wrong.

If Clinton can get the media picture against Obama by big wins it will have an effect on super delegates. She's gonna throw other numbers at them too, as long as she has them. Losing Pennsylvania will certainly not kill Obama's candidacy, but it'll be another blow.

Richardson was always running for VP or a cabinet position. Dodd was most likely trying to build up name recognition to help him take Senate Majority Leader (he wasn't too successful, but it wasn't a bad idea in itself.) For Biden, well yeah he was quixotic, but he's had some success in the past. And he's still mentioned for VP or Sec of State.

At the very least, superdelegates are aware of the total delegate count. You aren't going to see hordes of superdelegates say "OMG, HILLARY WON PENNSYLVANIA, NOW WE MUST ANOINT HER AS THE NOMINEE!"

Here's a useful graph:

(
Img
)

Hillary's victories on 3/4 didn't result in hordes running toward her. Sure she slowed the trend toward Obama, but Hillary needs to do more than simply slow it now, hell she can't even halt it.

No, they're not going to anoint her. But if they sit down at the end of day and her wins in places like Pennsylvania has blurred the media picture so that people do not percieve Obama as the clear front-runner and choice of the people, then they will have to take in lots of factors, including electability, possible scandals, national polling, etc. And at that point she will be able to make her case to them.

As for supers flowing towards Obama, he had a bandwagon rolling during February. That doesn't get halted over-night. He was always going to catch-up with Clinton in supers given her headstart. The remaining ones are still waiting in the wings and I can't see the following primaries making them more likely to swing to Obama.

Lots of the remaining ones WANT to remain neutral for fairly obvious reasons. If forced to choose most would probably just go how their state voted or follow Nancy Pelosi and vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, which is going to be Obama (Sorry J. J., you aren't a superdelegate so your opinion here doesn't mean sh!t.) And that's not even counting the 70+ add-ons who are actually somewhat elected and Obama holds the edge in.

The following primaries after Pennsylvania are pretty split too. Hillary has Indiana, those hick states and Puerto Rico, Obama has North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 21, 2008, 05:04:36 pm
those hick states

Says the man from North Dakota.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on March 21, 2008, 05:07:27 pm
The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA)

I repeat, why will the superdelegates care about this?  They ought to be wondering about which of Obama and Clinton will do best against McCain, and there the trend has been that McCain has been gaining on both of them, and possibly gaining more on Clinton than on Obama (tho that subtrend is within the MoE).

Exactly. People often fail to realize that the superdelegates are not your typical politically uninformed voter. They don't care about momentum or anything, they look at the big picture.

Honestly, I suspect that's giving them way too much credit. They may be realistic at reading their own races, possibly, but not in other terms. Just ask Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. By all accounts, competent, experienced politicians, yet they all thought they had a chance in the primaries. And were wrong.

If Clinton can get the media picture against Obama by big wins it will have an effect on super delegates. She's gonna throw other numbers at them too, as long as she has them. Losing Pennsylvania will certainly not kill Obama's candidacy, but it'll be another blow.

Richardson was always running for VP or a cabinet position. Dodd was most likely trying to build up name recognition to help him take Senate Majority Leader (he wasn't too successful, but it wasn't a bad idea in itself.) For Biden, well yeah he was quixotic, but he's had some success in the past. And he's still mentioned for VP or Sec of State.

At the very least, superdelegates are aware of the total delegate count. You aren't going to see hordes of superdelegates say "OMG, HILLARY WON PENNSYLVANIA, NOW WE MUST ANOINT HER AS THE NOMINEE!"

Here's a useful graph:

(
Img
)

Hillary's victories on 3/4 didn't result in hordes running toward her. Sure she slowed the trend toward Obama, but Hillary needs to do more than simply slow it now, hell she can't even halt it.

No, they're not going to anoint her. But if they sit down at the end of day and her wins in places like Pennsylvania has blurred the media picture so that people do not percieve Obama as the clear front-runner and choice of the people, then they will have to take in lots of factors, including electability, possible scandals, national polling, etc. And at that point she will be able to make her case to them.

As for supers flowing towards Obama, he had a bandwagon rolling during February. That doesn't get halted over-night. He was always going to catch-up with Clinton in supers given her headstart. The remaining ones are still waiting in the wings and I can't see the following primaries making them more likely to swing to Obama.

Lots of the remaining ones WANT to remain neutral for fairly obvious reasons. If forced to choose most would probably just go how their state voted or follow Nancy Pelosi and vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, which is going to be Obama (Sorry J. J., you aren't a superdelegate so your opinion here doesn't mean sh!t.) And that's not even counting the 70+ add-ons who are actually somewhat elected and Obama holds the edge in.

The following primaries after Pennsylvania are pretty split too. Hillary has Indiana, those hick states and Puerto Rico, Obama has North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana.

I don't think he has North Carolina. And in delegate terms South Dakota and Montana are neglible. So I expect to CLinton to get a net gain out of those. Your other response doesn't really seem to answer my post to a great extent so I don't really have much to say to it. If Obama holds up, then yes, he'll likely get all those super delegates. But it's not a done deal yet.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Ben. on March 21, 2008, 05:10:25 pm


Lots of the remaining ones WANT to remain neutral for fairly obvious reasons. If forced to choose most would probably just go how their state voted or follow Nancy Pelosi and vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, which is going to be Obama (Sorry J. J., you aren't a superdelegate so your opinion here doesn't mean sh!t.) And that's not even counting the 70+ add-ons who are actually somewhat elected and Obama holds the edge in.

The following primaries after Pennsylvania are pretty split too. Hillary has Indiana, those hick states and Puerto Rico, Obama has North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana.

I don't think he has North Carolina. And in delegate terms South Dakota and Montana are neglible. So I expect to CLinton to get a net gain out of those. Your other response doesn't really seem to answer my post to a great extent so I don't really have much to say to it. If Obama holds up, then yes, he'll likely get all those super delegates. But it's not a done deal yet.

Dont think Clinton has Indiana locked up either to be honest... Clinton is favoured in a big way in KY and WV, Obama must be considered to have the advantage in SD, MT and OR (though MT is going to be closer than many of the plains states - and OR will be a scrap, then again so was WA)... but Indiana and North Carolina are not bankers for either campaign IMO.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 21, 2008, 05:11:42 pm


Lots of the remaining ones WANT to remain neutral for fairly obvious reasons. If forced to choose most would probably just go how their state voted or follow Nancy Pelosi and vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, which is going to be Obama (Sorry J. J., you aren't a superdelegate so your opinion here doesn't mean sh!t.) And that's not even counting the 70+ add-ons who are actually somewhat elected and Obama holds the edge in.

The following primaries after Pennsylvania are pretty split too. Hillary has Indiana, those hick states and Puerto Rico, Obama has North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana.

BRTD, opinions like mine effect what the super delegates think.  Right now, Obama has a 154 edge in elected delegates.  I fully expect that after PA, that number will be reduced.  Two weeks later, there is NC and IN.  I would have expected NC to go Obama before the Wright affair.  Now, I don't know.  A week after that, WV.

By May 14, Obama could possibly have that total reduced by 50-65 delegates.  It is possible that the "edge" will be below even the conservative estimates of FL/MI by mid June.  That may be some of the reason the super delegates won't budge.

I've been saying this would be a problem for a while; I think you are seeing the accuracy of that statement.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 21, 2008, 05:13:40 pm

Which voted for the black guy.

The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA)

I repeat, why will the superdelegates care about this?  They ought to be wondering about which of Obama and Clinton will do best against McCain, and there the trend has been that McCain has been gaining on both of them, and possibly gaining more on Clinton than on Obama (tho that subtrend is within the MoE).

Exactly. People often fail to realize that the superdelegates are not your typical politically uninformed voter. They don't care about momentum or anything, they look at the big picture.

Honestly, I suspect that's giving them way too much credit. They may be realistic at reading their own races, possibly, but not in other terms. Just ask Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. By all accounts, competent, experienced politicians, yet they all thought they had a chance in the primaries. And were wrong.

If Clinton can get the media picture against Obama by big wins it will have an effect on super delegates. She's gonna throw other numbers at them too, as long as she has them. Losing Pennsylvania will certainly not kill Obama's candidacy, but it'll be another blow.

Richardson was always running for VP or a cabinet position. Dodd was most likely trying to build up name recognition to help him take Senate Majority Leader (he wasn't too successful, but it wasn't a bad idea in itself.) For Biden, well yeah he was quixotic, but he's had some success in the past. And he's still mentioned for VP or Sec of State.

At the very least, superdelegates are aware of the total delegate count. You aren't going to see hordes of superdelegates say "OMG, HILLARY WON PENNSYLVANIA, NOW WE MUST ANOINT HER AS THE NOMINEE!"

Here's a useful graph:

(
Img
)

Hillary's victories on 3/4 didn't result in hordes running toward her. Sure she slowed the trend toward Obama, but Hillary needs to do more than simply slow it now, hell she can't even halt it.

No, they're not going to anoint her. But if they sit down at the end of day and her wins in places like Pennsylvania has blurred the media picture so that people do not percieve Obama as the clear front-runner and choice of the people, then they will have to take in lots of factors, including electability, possible scandals, national polling, etc. And at that point she will be able to make her case to them.

As for supers flowing towards Obama, he had a bandwagon rolling during February. That doesn't get halted over-night. He was always going to catch-up with Clinton in supers given her headstart. The remaining ones are still waiting in the wings and I can't see the following primaries making them more likely to swing to Obama.

Lots of the remaining ones WANT to remain neutral for fairly obvious reasons. If forced to choose most would probably just go how their state voted or follow Nancy Pelosi and vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, which is going to be Obama (Sorry J. J., you aren't a superdelegate so your opinion here doesn't mean sh!t.) And that's not even counting the 70+ add-ons who are actually somewhat elected and Obama holds the edge in.

The following primaries after Pennsylvania are pretty split too. Hillary has Indiana, those hick states and Puerto Rico, Obama has North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana.

I don't think he has North Carolina. And in delegate terms South Dakota and Montana are neglible. So I expect to CLinton to get a net gain out of those. Your other response doesn't really seem to answer my post to a great extent so I don't really have much to say to it. If Obama holds up, then yes, he'll likely get all those super delegates. But it's not a done deal yet.

A net gain? Maybe. A net gain of over 120? No. And what I meant in my first part was that currently undecided superdelegates probably want to stay out of the mess but if forced to choose then they'd either go for the delegate winner or winner of their state, both of which should benefit Obama (since Hillary has already pretty much got all the superdelegates from New York and most from California.) And that's not even taking into account the 70+ add-ons, many of them elected at state conventions which are elected by pro-Obama conventions.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 21, 2008, 05:17:04 pm


Lots of the remaining ones WANT to remain neutral for fairly obvious reasons. If forced to choose most would probably just go how their state voted or follow Nancy Pelosi and vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, which is going to be Obama (Sorry J. J., you aren't a superdelegate so your opinion here doesn't mean sh!t.) And that's not even counting the 70+ add-ons who are actually somewhat elected and Obama holds the edge in.

The following primaries after Pennsylvania are pretty split too. Hillary has Indiana, those hick states and Puerto Rico, Obama has North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana.

BRTD, opinions like mine effect what the super delegates think.  Right now, Obama has a 154 edge in elected delegates.  I fully expect that after PA, that number will be reduced.  Two weeks later, there is NC and IN.  I would have expected NC to go Obama before the Wright affair.  Now, I don't know.  A week after that, WV.

By May 14, Obama could possibly have that total reduced by 50-65 delegates.  It is possible that the "edge" will be below even the conservative estimates of FL/MI by mid June.  That may be some of the reason the super delegates won't budge.

I've been saying this would be a problem for a while; I think you are seeing the accuracy of that statement.

Your numbers require not only a Hillary victory in NC, but a blowout. It won't happen. And my point being that most of the superdelegates don't seem to care about the FL and MI delegates, which makes perfect sense since many of them voted to strip them of their delegates in the first place, and no one can honestly say with a straight face Hillary had a fair victory in Michigan. You can say that Obama doesn't have a fair delegate lead if he doesn't with FL and MI included, but if Hillary's lead is below her 80 delegate lead in Michigan, you can't say Hillary does either.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 21, 2008, 06:06:43 pm


Lots of the remaining ones WANT to remain neutral for fairly obvious reasons. If forced to choose most would probably just go how their state voted or follow Nancy Pelosi and vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, which is going to be Obama (Sorry J. J., you aren't a superdelegate so your opinion here doesn't mean sh!t.) And that's not even counting the 70+ add-ons who are actually somewhat elected and Obama holds the edge in.

The following primaries after Pennsylvania are pretty split too. Hillary has Indiana, those hick states and Puerto Rico, Obama has North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana.

BRTD, opinions like mine effect what the super delegates think.  Right now, Obama has a 154 edge in elected delegates.  I fully expect that after PA, that number will be reduced.  Two weeks later, there is NC and IN.  I would have expected NC to go Obama before the Wright affair.  Now, I don't know.  A week after that, WV.

By May 14, Obama could possibly have that total reduced by 50-65 delegates.  It is possible that the "edge" will be below even the conservative estimates of FL/MI by mid June.  That may be some of the reason the super delegates won't budge.

I've been saying this would be a problem for a while; I think you are seeing the accuracy of that statement.

Your numbers require not only a Hillary victory in NC, but a blowout. It won't happen.

A fortnight ago, I would have agreed.  Now, I'm not too sure.  Also, no, not a blowout.  Both NC and IN are up, and I could see Hillary! (yes, I'm doing that just to annoy you) netting 25 from both.  65 is possible by May 14, but a 50-60 vote range is more likely.

Quote
And my point being that most of the superdelegates don't seem to care about the FL and MI delegates, which makes perfect sense since many of them voted to strip them of their delegates in the first place, and no one can honestly say with a straight face Hillary had a fair victory in Michigan.

I'd frankly expect Hillary to net 25-40 from MI, if there was a revote.  I'm not expecting Obama to break 65 elected delegates by the convention, without FL/MI.  Now, if he ends up with a 200 elected delegate lead, that would be different.






Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 21, 2008, 06:12:12 pm


Lots of the remaining ones WANT to remain neutral for fairly obvious reasons. If forced to choose most would probably just go how their state voted or follow Nancy Pelosi and vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, which is going to be Obama (Sorry J. J., you aren't a superdelegate so your opinion here doesn't mean sh!t.) And that's not even counting the 70+ add-ons who are actually somewhat elected and Obama holds the edge in.

The following primaries after Pennsylvania are pretty split too. Hillary has Indiana, those hick states and Puerto Rico, Obama has North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana.

BRTD, opinions like mine effect what the super delegates think.  Right now, Obama has a 154 edge in elected delegates.  I fully expect that after PA, that number will be reduced.  Two weeks later, there is NC and IN.  I would have expected NC to go Obama before the Wright affair.  Now, I don't know.  A week after that, WV.

By May 14, Obama could possibly have that total reduced by 50-65 delegates.  It is possible that the "edge" will be below even the conservative estimates of FL/MI by mid June.  That may be some of the reason the super delegates won't budge.

I've been saying this would be a problem for a while; I think you are seeing the accuracy of that statement.

Your numbers require not only a Hillary victory in NC, but a blowout. It won't happen.

A fortnight ago, I would have agreed.  Now, I'm not too sure.  Also, no, not a blowout.  Both NC and IN are up, and I could see Hillary! (yes, I'm doing that just to annoy you) netting 25 from both.  65 is possible by May 14, but a 50-60 vote range is more likely.

Please give delegate figures that make that possible. Also note Hillary hasn't led in a NC poll since January (with Edwards still in.)

I'd frankly expect Hillary to net 25-40 from MI, if there was a revote.

LOL! Hillary got 25 more projected delegates than Uncomitted. She's going to do better against Obama than she did against Uncomitted as the only serious candidate on the ballot (with about 30% of people who said they would've voted for Obama had he been on the ballot voting for her according to the CNN exit poll)? Oh and with the race basically starting out tied according to Rasmussen.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 21, 2008, 06:46:58 pm

Please give delegate figures that make that possible. Also note Hillary hasn't led in a NC poll since January (with Edwards still in.)

A bare victory in both could give her the net 25 from both states.  You are talking about more than 220 delegates.  Like I said, a fortnight ago, I had NC reasonably safely for Obama; now I don't.

I'd frankly expect Hillary to net 25-40 from MI, if there was a revote.

LOL! Hillary got 25 more projected delegates than Uncomitted. She's going to do better against Obama than she did against Uncomitted as the only serious candidate on the ballot (with about 30% of people who said they would've voted for Obama had he been on the ballot voting for her according to the CNN exit poll)? Oh and with the race basically starting out tied according to Rasmussen.
[/quote]

She probably will do better.  A lot of those uncommitted were supporting the candidates still in including Edwards.  Some of those uncommitted have gravitated to Clinton.  Why else do you think Obama hasn't been supportive of a re-vote.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on March 21, 2008, 07:06:21 pm

Which voted for the black guy.

The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA)

I repeat, why will the superdelegates care about this?  They ought to be wondering about which of Obama and Clinton will do best against McCain, and there the trend has been that McCain has been gaining on both of them, and possibly gaining more on Clinton than on Obama (tho that subtrend is within the MoE).

Exactly. People often fail to realize that the superdelegates are not your typical politically uninformed voter. They don't care about momentum or anything, they look at the big picture.

Honestly, I suspect that's giving them way too much credit. They may be realistic at reading their own races, possibly, but not in other terms. Just ask Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. By all accounts, competent, experienced politicians, yet they all thought they had a chance in the primaries. And were wrong.

If Clinton can get the media picture against Obama by big wins it will have an effect on super delegates. She's gonna throw other numbers at them too, as long as she has them. Losing Pennsylvania will certainly not kill Obama's candidacy, but it'll be another blow.

Richardson was always running for VP or a cabinet position. Dodd was most likely trying to build up name recognition to help him take Senate Majority Leader (he wasn't too successful, but it wasn't a bad idea in itself.) For Biden, well yeah he was quixotic, but he's had some success in the past. And he's still mentioned for VP or Sec of State.

At the very least, superdelegates are aware of the total delegate count. You aren't going to see hordes of superdelegates say "OMG, HILLARY WON PENNSYLVANIA, NOW WE MUST ANOINT HER AS THE NOMINEE!"

Here's a useful graph:

(
Img
)

Hillary's victories on 3/4 didn't result in hordes running toward her. Sure she slowed the trend toward Obama, but Hillary needs to do more than simply slow it now, hell she can't even halt it.

No, they're not going to anoint her. But if they sit down at the end of day and her wins in places like Pennsylvania has blurred the media picture so that people do not percieve Obama as the clear front-runner and choice of the people, then they will have to take in lots of factors, including electability, possible scandals, national polling, etc. And at that point she will be able to make her case to them.

As for supers flowing towards Obama, he had a bandwagon rolling during February. That doesn't get halted over-night. He was always going to catch-up with Clinton in supers given her headstart. The remaining ones are still waiting in the wings and I can't see the following primaries making them more likely to swing to Obama.

Lots of the remaining ones WANT to remain neutral for fairly obvious reasons. If forced to choose most would probably just go how their state voted or follow Nancy Pelosi and vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, which is going to be Obama (Sorry J. J., you aren't a superdelegate so your opinion here doesn't mean sh!t.) And that's not even counting the 70+ add-ons who are actually somewhat elected and Obama holds the edge in.

The following primaries after Pennsylvania are pretty split too. Hillary has Indiana, those hick states and Puerto Rico, Obama has North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana.

I don't think he has North Carolina. And in delegate terms South Dakota and Montana are neglible. So I expect to CLinton to get a net gain out of those. Your other response doesn't really seem to answer my post to a great extent so I don't really have much to say to it. If Obama holds up, then yes, he'll likely get all those super delegates. But it's not a done deal yet.

A net gain? Maybe. A net gain of over 120? No. And what I meant in my first part was that currently undecided superdelegates probably want to stay out of the mess but if forced to choose then they'd either go for the delegate winner or winner of their state, both of which should benefit Obama (since Hillary has already pretty much got all the superdelegates from New York and most from California.) And that's not even taking into account the 70+ add-ons, many of them elected at state conventions which are elected by pro-Obama conventions.

Oh, I'm certainly not arguing that she will pass Obama in pledged delegates. I haven't crunched the numbers in detail yet. However. If Clinton were to close substantially have at the very least FLorida seated in some way, etc she could get close in delegates, have the momentum and be percieved as the "winner" at the end of the primary season. If Florida and Michigan do get counted she's gonna count them toward her popular vote and may be able to call victory there. Etc. Overall, these kind of factors may be enough to tilt the race to a point where Obama is not considered the clear front-runner. In that case the remaining super delegates cannot coronate Obama. They will have to choose and there will be a battle for delegates. People are constantingly forgetting that the antithesis to "pledged" delegates are UNPLEDGED delegates. It's definitely not out of the question that some will change their mind (some have already) which also means a battle for those formally committed. In the end I do still expect Obama to emerge as the winner but I don't think it is necessarily an easy ride. One more WRight-like foul-up at the wrong time and Clinton could sneak by.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: 8 out of 11 is not deserved on March 21, 2008, 07:20:16 pm
I only read the 1st post.  You've got to be kidding me.

Queen Clinton and her puppets threwthe kitchen sink at him in addition to the hard right wing.  Just a few points difference and he still leads Queen Clinton in the Rasmussen poll. 

Obama handled it well. 


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 21, 2008, 07:33:28 pm

Please give delegate figures that make that possible. Also note Hillary hasn't led in a NC poll since January (with Edwards still in.)

A bare victory in both could give her the net 25 from both states.  You are talking about more than 220 delegates.  Like I said, a fortnight ago, I had NC reasonably safely for Obama; now I don't.

Please outline the CD math then, because it certainly isn't favorable to her. Hell Hillary could easily win 8/9 districts in Indiana and still come out with only a +2 delegate lead from the congressional districts.

I'd frankly expect Hillary to net 25-40 from MI, if there was a revote.

LOL! Hillary got 25 more projected delegates than Uncomitted. She's going to do better against Obama than she did against Uncomitted as the only serious candidate on the ballot (with about 30% of people who said they would've voted for Obama had he been on the ballot voting for her according to the CNN exit poll)? Oh and with the race basically starting out tied according to Rasmussen.

She probably will do better.  A lot of those uncommitted were supporting the candidates still in including Edwards.  Some of those uncommitted have gravitated to Clinton.  Why else do you think Obama hasn't been supportive of a re-vote.
[/quote]

So yeah it's possible if every single Edwards supporter goes to Hillary. Not going to happen. Even a majority is very unlikely, have we forgotten Iowa? Or the cited poll? Giving Hillary the 55% she got as her floor (which is basically what you're doing) is hackery at its worst. I did the delegate projection in Michigan by the way and I got a Hillary +2 in the end. Obama benefited greatly from districts with an even number of districts and Detroit landslides, but in order to get the numbers you're projecting Hillary would have to do better than she did in New York. I doubt a single person here agrees with your extreme hackery.

That's not the point though. The question is if you can say Hillary has a fair lead in elected delegates if you include Florida and Michigan and her lead is below her 80 delegate lead in Michigan. The answer is obviously no.


Which voted for the black guy.

Oh, I'm certainly not arguing that she will pass Obama in pledged delegates. I haven't crunched the numbers in detail yet. However. If Clinton were to close substantially have at the very least FLorida seated in some way, etc she could get close in delegates, have the momentum and be percieved as the "winner" at the end of the primary season. If Florida and Michigan do get counted she's gonna count them toward her popular vote and may be able to call victory there. Etc. Overall, these kind of factors may be enough to tilt the race to a point where Obama is not considered the clear front-runner. In that case the remaining super delegates cannot coronate Obama. They will have to choose and there will be a battle for delegates. People are constantingly forgetting that the antithesis to "pledged" delegates are UNPLEDGED delegates. It's definitely not out of the question that some will change their mind (some have already) which also means a battle for those formally committed. In the end I do still expect Obama to emerge as the winner but I don't think it is necessarily an easy ride. One more WRight-like foul-up at the wrong time and Clinton could sneak by.

First, Michigan is not going to get seated in its current form. The end. Second any seating of Florida would be only half of it.

Now let's assume Hillary got Obama's lead down to only 60 delegates. There's 343 superdelegates remaining. Of those, 71 are the "add-ons" I mentioned. Assuming every delegate votes the way their state did or is expected to , Obama would pick up a 12 delegate lead among these. Yet that isn't happening...and in Obama's favor. Oklahoma, Alabama, Tennessee and DC have all appointed some delegates, Obama got one from DC (DC has two, the other will almost certainly go to Obama) and the one from Alabama. The one from Oklahoma is a former Edwards supporter now undecided and the two from Tennessee are an undecided "leaning" Hillary and a complete undecided. On the other hand, the ones from states where they're elected at the state convention will almost certainly go Obama since they're elected by the state convention elected by the caucuses which Obama won overwhelmingly (and this includes Texas and its 3.) So any deviations should further benefit Obama.

But let's be very kind to Hillary and say these split 50/50. That leaves 271 delegates. She'd need over 60% of those to overtake Obama. Is that going to happen when many of these delegates are from states Obama won or are pledging to support the winner in delegates (like Pelosi and her daughter?). And that's actually a very favorable scenario to Hillary, if it goes with Obama gaining 12 among the add-ons, Hillary needs over 63% of the remaining superdelegates. Hillary also basically has to sway more delegates than Obama swayed in February.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 21, 2008, 08:04:25 pm
Says the man from North Dakota.

Which voted for the black guy.
[/quote]

What has that got to do with me finding someone from North Dakota calling people in WV and Kentucky "hicks" amusing?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 21, 2008, 08:17:37 pm
Says the man from North Dakota.

Which voted for the black guy.

What has that got to do with me finding someone from North Dakota calling people in WV and Kentucky "hicks" amusing?
[/quote]

Why is Obama going to lose WV and Kentucky by a lot?

Also North Dakota is miles ahead of those states in terms of things like economic growth and educational systems. And along the area where North Dakota and Minnesota border, Minnesota is actually the hick state.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 21, 2008, 08:49:33 pm
If Obama is doing so well in MI, why isn't he supportive of a revote?  This revote is fresh with  both candidates on the ballot.  Or are you just being a hack?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: True Federalist on March 21, 2008, 09:01:08 pm
If Obama is doing so well in MI, why isn't he supportive of a revote?  This revote is fresh with  both candidates on the ballot.  Or are you just being a hack?

The plans that were put forth were not 100% fresh.  Independents who voted in the GOP Primary would not have been allowed in the Democratic revote.  Had the Democratic vote in January mattered, some of those independents would have chosen to vote in the Democratic Primary instead.  Given the edge Obama has had over Hillary with independents, the net result is to skew the Michigan result towards Hillary.

On the other hand, if one were to allow all voters to participate in the revote, it would also skew things badly.

Any Michigan revote is not going to give a result the same as what would have been had there been a normal primary election.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 21, 2008, 09:47:42 pm
If Obama is doing so well in MI, why isn't he supportive of a revote?  This revote is fresh with  both candidates on the ballot.  Or are you just being a hack?

The plans that were put forth were not 100% fresh.  Independents who voted in the GOP Primary would not have been allowed in the Democratic revote.  Had the Democratic vote in January mattered, some of those independents would have chosen to vote in the Democratic Primary instead.  Given the edge Obama has had over Hillary with independents, the net result is to skew the Michigan result towards Hillary.

On the other hand, if one were to allow all voters to participate in the revote, it would also skew things badly.

Any Michigan revote is not going to give a result the same as what would have been had there been a normal primary election.

First, let me be clear, I'd rather see a revote than seating the current delegates.

Obviously it won't be exactly the same, but it still represent a potential problem for Obama.  He's the one that has raised the will of the elected delegates, but he doesn't want some of them to vote at the convention.  Now, if he end up with a 150 net elected delegate lead, it isn't an issue; he may very well end up with an elected delegate lead of less than 100 or even less than 60.  That is the problem.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 21, 2008, 11:16:30 pm
If Obama is doing so well in MI, why isn't he supportive of a revote?  This revote is fresh with  both candidates on the ballot.  Or are you just being a hack?

He may not win but he sure as hell wouldn't lose by as much as you're saying. Like I said, Rasmussen had the race tied. Hillary would have to do better in Michigan than Pennsylvania and even New York to get those type of numbers.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Flying Dog on March 21, 2008, 11:23:47 pm
Hillary would not net more than 5 delegates out of MI if there was a revote. Wayne, Oakland, Kent, Ann Arbor, Lansing, Flint and Saginaw would prevent her from winning by anymore than 2-3%. Heck, I'd say Obama would even have a better chance at it.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 21, 2008, 11:28:32 pm
If Obama is doing so well in MI, why isn't he supportive of a revote?  This revote is fresh with  both candidates on the ballot.  Or are you just being a hack?

He may not win but he sure as hell wouldn't lose by as much as you're saying. Like I said, Rasmussen had the race tied. Hillary would have to do better in Michigan than Pennsylvania and even New York to get those type of numbers.

BTRD, why do you think I'm suggesting a re-vote?  It's cleaner.  If Obama will only net -5, great, but, if true, he should be willing to do it:

Gore said:  "Count every vote."

Obama is saying:  "Count every vote, except in Michigan and Florida."


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 21, 2008, 11:32:45 pm
If Obama is doing so well in MI, why isn't he supportive of a revote?  This revote is fresh with  both candidates on the ballot.  Or are you just being a hack?

He may not win but he sure as hell wouldn't lose by as much as you're saying. Like I said, Rasmussen had the race tied. Hillary would have to do better in Michigan than Pennsylvania and even New York to get those type of numbers.

BTRD, why do you think I'm suggesting a re-vote?  It's cleaner.  If Obama will only net -5, great, but, if true, he should be willing to do it:

Gore said:  "Count every vote."

ObamaThe DNC is saying:  "Count every vote, except in Michigan and Florida."

Fixed it.

As I said, Obama has nothing to gain from a Michigan revote. He doesn't have much to lose either, but that's not enough reason for him to jump in joy at the opportunity.

It's not like it's even Obama's decision.

And of course, you keep ignoring my original point which is that even if you want to argue it's not fair for Obama to argue he has more pledged delegates only excluding Michigan and Florida, it's also not fair to argue Hillary has more if her margin is less than 80 delegate lead in Michigan.

And frankly, YOU'RE A F**KING REPUBLICAN THEREFORE YOUR OPINION AS TO HOW WE CONDUCT OUR CONVENTION AND OUR DELEGATES IS WORTH JACKSH!T. Do you see me whining constantly about the Montana's ultra-undemocratic GOP primary?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Michael Z on March 22, 2008, 08:13:29 am
I must admit, the polls aren't looking good for Obama. PPP puts Clinton at 56% and Obama at 30% in PA.

This could be a big problem if senior Democrats and superdelegates decide that Obama won't be able to attract the white vote sufficiently to beat McCain in November and so rally behind Clinton at the convention instead.

To quote the angry videogame nerd, What a s***load of f***!

On the plus side, Obama has $30m left to spare in campaign funds whereas Clinton has "only" $3m.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Saff on March 22, 2008, 08:18:51 am
I must admit, the polls aren't looking good for Obama. PPP puts Clinton at 56% and Obama at 30% in PA.

This could be a big problem if senior Democrats and superdelegates decide that Obama won't be able to attract the white vote sufficiently to beat McCain in November and so rally behind Clinton at the convention instead.

To quote the angry videogame nerd, What a s***load of f***!

On the plus side, Obama has $30m left to spare in campaign funds whereas Clinton has "only" $3m.

Gallup has him rebounding by 5pts after a drop earlier putting Clinton ahead. Rasmussen still shows him ahead, even tho its by one point...then theres this:

Quote
By a 57%-24% margin, registered votes do not believe that Obama shares Wright's controversial views. The internals show only 17% of Democrats saying Obama shares Wright's ideas, along with 20% of independents and 36% of Republicans.

Fox also asked respondents whether they had doubts about Obama because of his association with Wright. The results: 35% Yes, 54% No, with the numbers standing at 26%-66% for Democrats, 27%-61% among independents, and 56%-33% with Republicans.



Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Michael Z on March 22, 2008, 08:47:17 am
I must admit, the polls aren't looking good for Obama. PPP puts Clinton at 56% and Obama at 30% in PA.

This could be a big problem if senior Democrats and superdelegates decide that Obama won't be able to attract the white vote sufficiently to beat McCain in November and so rally behind Clinton at the convention instead.

To quote the angry videogame nerd, What a s***load of f***!

On the plus side, Obama has $30m left to spare in campaign funds whereas Clinton has "only" $3m.

Gallup has him rebounding by 5pts after a drop earlier putting Clinton ahead. Rasmussen still shows him ahead, even tho its by one point...then theres this:

Quote
By a 57%-24% margin, registered votes do not believe that Obama shares Wright's controversial views. The internals show only 17% of Democrats saying Obama shares Wright's ideas, along with 20% of independents and 36% of Republicans.

Fox also asked respondents whether they had doubts about Obama because of his association with Wright. The results: 35% Yes, 54% No, with the numbers standing at 26%-66% for Democrats, 27%-61% among independents, and 56%-33% with Republicans.

Well, that's slightly more reassuring, thanks.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 22, 2008, 10:21:33 am


Fixed it.

As I said, Obama has nothing to gain from a Michigan revote. He doesn't have much to lose either, but that's not enough reason for him to jump in joy at the opportunity.

It's not like it's even Obama's decision.  It's looks like Obama supporting the disinfrashisement of the voters in FL and MI.

And of course, you keep ignoring my original point which is that even if you want to argue it's not fair for Obama to argue he has more pledged delegates only excluding Michigan and Florida, it's also not fair to argue Hillary has more if her margin is less than 80 delegate lead in Michigan.

Fixed it.

Quote
And frankly, YOU'RE A F**KING REPUBLICAN THEREFORE YOUR OPINION AS TO HOW WE CONDUCT OUR CONVENTION AND OUR DELEGATES IS WORTH JACKSH!T. THIS IS THE ARGUMENT THAT CAN SWING THE SUPER DELEGATES. Do you see me whining constantly about the Montana's ultra-undemocratic GOP primary?

Fixed that too.

BRTD, I have numerous problems with how some GOP primaries are conducted.  The thing is, they won't make a difference in terms of who is nominated.  MI/FL may.  Like I've said, if Obama is ahead by 150 delegates on May 15, I don't think it makes a difference.  I question if Obama will be ahead by that much at that time.





Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 22, 2008, 11:55:55 am
So you seriously believe every single superdelegate is going to rally around Hillary if she leads in elected delegates counting Michigan and Florida (and if her margin is made up by her lead in Michigan which she holds for obvious non-democratic reasons)?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 22, 2008, 05:22:11 pm
So you seriously believe every single superdelegate is going to rally around Hillary if she leads in elected delegates counting Michigan and Florida (and if her margin is made up by her lead in Michigan which she holds for obvious non-democratic reasons)?

I seriously believe that the argument Obama would make is would be seen as being seriously flawed and would not convince the super delegates.  It won't be "every single" super delegate, but it will be enough.

The best argument in favor of it is that Obama is more electable, but I doubt that the poll numbers will be convincing.  The second one is the will of a plurality of the elected delegates argument that we're discussing.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 22, 2008, 05:25:42 pm
So you don't think Hillary's argument wouldn't be seriously flawed if the only reason for her lead was her 80+ lead in Michigan? As for "enough", Obama only needs around 40% of superdelegates. He could get that with no "argument", it's not as if all superdelegates vote for Hillary by default. Your train of thought seems to operate like this:

Obama: The superdelegates must elect me as I won more pledged delegates.
Hillary: But that's only if you exclude Florida and Michigan. That's not fair.
Superdelegates: Yeah, Hillary's right. *Hordes of superdelegates flock to Hillary in droves*

It's not going to be like that. Especially with the Michigan reason I posted above which you keep ignoring. Do you honestly believe Hillary can legitimately claim to have fairly won more delegates if her lead is less than her lead in Michigan?

And people keep ignoring the "add-on" superdelegates element, of which Obama should win at least a majority.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 22, 2008, 07:27:37 pm
So you don't think Hillary's argument wouldn't be seriously flawed if the only reason for her lead was her 80+ lead in Michigan? As for "enough", Obama only needs around 40% of superdelegates. He could get that with no "argument", it's not as if all superdelegates vote for Hillary by default. Your train of thought seems to operate like this:

Obama: The superdelegates must elect me as I won more pledged delegates.
Hillary: But that's only if you exclude Florida and Michigan. That's not fair.
Superdelegates: Yeah, Hillary's right. *Hordes of superdelegates flock to Hillary in droves*

That is the argument, in regard to the super delegates Obama has made.

In terms of MI, the score is 80 Clinton, 55 uncommitted.  Clinton has a net +25 delegates, even if all the uncommitted vote for Obama.  With FL, that gives her +67.  Now, I seriously doubt that all of those 55 will vote for Obama.

Ok, let's assume that Obama gets 50 of these 55, and 5 go to Clinton; Obama gets greater than 90%.  Clinton gets 85, Obama gets 50.  Clinton's net is now +35 from MI and, +77 combined.

Now, we're in a situation where Obama is basically not supporting efforts to get the delegates seated.  What effect will that have on the rest of the undecided?  Probably not favorable.

In answer two the question, "Do you honestly believe Hillary can legitimately claim to have fairly won more delegates if her lead is less than her lead in Michigan," yes, if the delegates are seated.  We don't know how many of those 55 will go to Obama, but even if the bulk do, let's say 70% plus (39 delegates), Clinton wins MI 96 to 39.  She could get +57 from MI and +42 from FL.  Obama at about 110-120 would easily be above that, but I have know idea if Obama will be above that.

Now, a revote would be a good way to settle it (and probably produce a closer result), but Obama is not even calling for one.  Obama is basically saying, **It's fine with me if FL and MI a disenfranchised,** while he's  making the argument that the super delegates should listen to the elected delegates and vote accordingly.

Now, it becomes a moot point if Obama can walk into the convention with a net of 110-165 elected delegates, so that this doesn't matter, but no one can guarantee that.  Last time I checked, it was 156, but I expect that to be reduced by PA.  What will happen in NC and IN?  I don't know.  KY and OR?  I don't know that either.  What happens if Obama loses some or all of these, even closely?  By May 31, he could be below that 110 margin and might even be below the 67 delegate margin.

Could FL/MI as currently selected delegates be seated?  Hell yes.

I see this as a problem for the Obama campaign, unless he can win some of those primaries (or at least limit his losses in some others).



Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 22, 2008, 08:07:21 pm
In answer two the question, "Do you honestly believe Hillary can legitimately claim to have fairly won more delegates if her lead is less than her lead in Michigan," yes, if the delegates are seated.  We don't know how many of those 55 will go to Obama, but even if the bulk do, let's say 70% plus (39 delegates), Clinton wins MI 96 to 39.  She could get +57 from MI and +42 from FL.

This is EXACTLY my point.

Would Hillary win a net 57 delegates in Michigan in an actual election with both her and Obama on the ballot? Of course not. You are basically the only person in the world besides Hillary who thinks the election in Michigan was completely fair and valid. Luckily the super delegates aren't stupid enough to honestly believe the will of Michigan voters is a 57 delegate victory for Hillary.

So even if you want to argue Obama has no legitimate claim to having won more delegates, you can't say Hillary does either unless one is a Hillary hack on the level that you are.

As for Obama saying it's OK to him if FL and MI are disenfranchised, ever consider that most superdelegates agree with him? The only people whining to get them seated after all are the FL and MI Democratic parties and Hillary herself. It's safe to say that the superdelegates are mostly in Obama's camp on this issue.

Oh and by the way, which of these options sums up your opinion?

1-ARG polls have some value.
2-ARG polls are 100% worthless garbage.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 22, 2008, 08:42:05 pm
In answer two the question, "Do you honestly believe Hillary can legitimately claim to have fairly won more delegates if her lead is less than her lead in Michigan," yes, if the delegates are seated.  We don't know how many of those 55 will go to Obama, but even if the bulk do, let's say 70% plus (39 delegates), Clinton wins MI 96 to 39.  She could get +57 from MI and +42 from FL.

This is EXACTLY my point.

Would Hillary win a net 57 delegates in Michigan in an actual election with both her and Obama on the ballot? Of course not. You are basically the only person in the world besides Hillary who thinks the election in Michigan was completely fair and valid. Luckily the super delegates aren't stupid enough to honestly believe the will of Michigan voters is a 57 delegate victory for Hillary.



Oh, maybe, Iowa would vote differently if Pastor Wrights comments were up now, so let's not take away half his delegates.  Maybe SC would be different, or any other state that Obama won.  Maybe TX would be stronger for Clinton, in today's situation.  Let's go back and redo those because the result might be different.

I really have no problem with a revote in MI; I've actually been critical of Howard Dean for not working out a solution.  Why doesn't Obama stand up say, "I support a revote in MI?"



Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Iosif is a COTHO on March 22, 2008, 08:53:34 pm
(
Img
)

Yep, Obama's toast. Doomed. Done for. On 'the long ride down.' All those Republicans were right.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 22, 2008, 08:56:50 pm
In answer two the question, "Do you honestly believe Hillary can legitimately claim to have fairly won more delegates if her lead is less than her lead in Michigan," yes, if the delegates are seated.  We don't know how many of those 55 will go to Obama, but even if the bulk do, let's say 70% plus (39 delegates), Clinton wins MI 96 to 39.  She could get +57 from MI and +42 from FL.

This is EXACTLY my point.

Would Hillary win a net 57 delegates in Michigan in an actual election with both her and Obama on the ballot? Of course not. You are basically the only person in the world besides Hillary who thinks the election in Michigan was completely fair and valid. Luckily the super delegates aren't stupid enough to honestly believe the will of Michigan voters is a 57 delegate victory for Hillary.



Oh, maybe, Iowa would vote differently if Pastor Wrights comments were up now, so let's not take away half his delegates.  Maybe SC would be different, or any other state that Obama won.  Maybe TX would be stronger for Clinton, in today's situation.  Let's go back and redo those because the result might be different.

I really have no problem with a revote in MI; I've actually been critical of Howard Dean for not working out a solution.  Why doesn't Obama stand up say, "I support a revote in MI?"

What a dumb comparison. Obama and Hillary were on the ballot in all said states. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan, so it's obviously not a fair representation of Michigan at any point in time, including when the election was held.

The bottom line is, you can only include the Michigan delegates if elected through a fair election. The "election" in Michigan was comparable to one in a third world dictatorship.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Saff on March 22, 2008, 08:57:32 pm
(
Img
)

Yep, Obama's toast. Doomed. Done for. On 'the long ride down.' All those Republicans were right.

:)


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 22, 2008, 09:07:28 pm

What a dumb comparison. Obama and Hillary were on the ballot in all said states. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan, so it's obviously not a fair representation of Michigan at any point in time, including when the election was held.

The bottom line is, you can only include the Michigan delegates if elected through a fair election. The "election" in Michigan was comparable to one in a third world dictatorship.

The conparision is quite apt.  If you do not support a revote, you are stuck with those delegates.  Obama doesn't support a revote.  I actually support a revote.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on March 23, 2008, 12:06:15 am
(
Img
)

Yep, Obama's toast. Doomed. Done for. On 'the long ride down.' All those Republicans were right.

Just because Obama is all but guaranteed to win the Democratic nomination doesn't necessarily mean he isn't doomed.  ;)


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 23, 2008, 12:26:47 am

What a dumb comparison. Obama and Hillary were on the ballot in all said states. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan, so it's obviously not a fair representation of Michigan at any point in time, including when the election was held.

The bottom line is, you can only include the Michigan delegates if elected through a fair election. The "election" in Michigan was comparable to one in a third world dictatorship.

The conparision is quite apt.  If you do not support a revote, you are stuck with those delegates.  Obama doesn't support a revote.  I actually support a revote.

Unless those delegates aren't seated, in which case you aren't "stuck" with them. Obama can't force a revote even if he wanted one.

And for the record:

1-I support a revote. (Since by my projection the worst case scenario is only something like Hillary +5 anyway, so just do it to quit their whining.)
2-You're a Republican. It's none of your f**king business if there's a revote. So why can you say you support a revote? It doesn't mean jacksh!t to you if you really are just a Republican and not a Hillary hack as you claim.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: motomonkey on March 26, 2008, 09:44:42 pm
I authored "the long ride down" and am surprised to see Obama's numbers rise in the past week.  Certainly Clinton's "sniper fire" story helped but Obama gets some real credit for weathering what I still suspect is a tough sled ahead.

I live in Dallas and the Rev. Wright has been scheduled and cancelled three times. 

To be critical of my self, I read a WSJ article, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657171729866843.html?mod=djemalertNEWS

that described me more accurately than I appreciated.  It said,

"As reassuring as the poll is for Sen. Obama, Mr. Hart and Mr. McInturff agreed that it did indicate that a substantial number of voters question whether the first-term senator would be a safe choice, or whether more needs to be known about him. Mr. McInturff said some voters are wondering, "Do we know enough about this guy?"

"While the senator's support among Democrats is little changed, he did slip among conservatives and Republican voters, groups that had shown some attraction to Sen. Obama's message of changing partisan politics in Washington."

I guess I am part of this "slipping" group.  I truly hope the contest can be elevated beyond poalarizing race debate.   

J.J.  I appreciate your post, and if Obama can continue to break to the strong side, I will own up to my error....But not yet.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 27, 2008, 12:38:52 am

What a dumb comparison. Obama and Hillary were on the ballot in all said states. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan, so it's obviously not a fair representation of Michigan at any point in time, including when the election was held.

The bottom line is, you can only include the Michigan delegates if elected through a fair election. The "election" in Michigan was comparable to one in a third world dictatorship.

The conparision is quite apt.  If you do not support a revote, you are stuck with those delegates.  Obama doesn't support a revote.  I actually support a revote.

Unless those delegates aren't seated, in which case you aren't "stuck" with them. Obama can't force a revote even if he wanted one.


Obama can support a revote, which he has declined to do.  He can support seating those delegates, if it doesn't make a difference.


Quote
2-You're a Republican. It's none of your f**king business if there's a revote. So why can you say you support a revote? It doesn't mean jacksh!t to you if you really are just a Republican and not a Hillary hack as you claim.

Poor deluded Zach the Barak Hack.  He forgets here that it's his business, since he doesn't have a vote on the Democratic National Committee.

The reason I frankly am concerned is because of the effect it could have on the election.  Assume that Obama has a majority, but would not have it with the MI/FL delegates.  Does he, and you, really want him, or his supporters, to have to stand up, in full view of the television cameras and attempt to prevent elected delegates from being seated?  Even if he doesn't have an alternate delegation?

I am stating that, Obama has a poor strategy because:

1.  The could provoke a publicized rules fight.

2.  It effectively raises the net elected delegate total he needs to avoid this by the total net delegates Hillary could get, if the majority (or the Credentials Committee) seats them.

On this point, look at the totals again:

Delegates from FL:  +42 Clinton

Delegates from MI:

Clinton:  +80

Undecided:  55

Assume that when the "Undecided" are assigned, Clinton gets a mere 20%, 11.  Obama gets a whopping 80%, 44.  The vote total is:

Clinton:  +91 (80+11)

Obama:  +44 (0+44)

Net delegates for Clinton:  47

Net gain for Clinton from MI/FL:  +89

Just to overcome this potential, with the Undecided in MI strongly in favor of Obama, he would a 90 delegate lead, and we really don't know if Obama will get to the 80% level.  Calling for a revote would probably help Obama in the long run, but he's chosen to to support it.  Bad move on his part.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on March 27, 2008, 01:54:06 am
Obama won't call for a revote because he's absolutely certain the DNC won't seat the delegates. And yes I know the convention can, but as I've explained it's a Catch-22 so don't copy and paste that crap again. Obama has decided he's got nothing to gain from a revote and doesn't care about what happens at the convention because no one watches them in this day anyway so being in view of the TV cameras is hardly an issue.

And I love how J. J. is completely incapable of debating without 2nd grade insults.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on March 27, 2008, 11:09:18 am
Obama won't call for a revote because he's absolutely certain the DNC won't seat the delegates. And yes I know the convention can, but as I've explained it's a Catch-22 so don't copy and paste that crap again. Obama has decided he's got nothing to gain from a revote and doesn't care about what happens at the convention because no one watches them in this day anyway so being in view of the TV cameras is hardly an issue.

Obama shouldn't be certain; they can be seated.  So long as that potential is there, he needs more delegates.  That is why it is a bad strategy.  It gives the super delegates a way to remove an advantage, his claim that he had a plurality of the elected delegates.

And to stop it, even if he wins, he has to stand up and say, "Gee, I don't want the elected delegates of the people of MI/FL seated."

If you do think that a rules fight will be carried on television and the lead news story (barring a catastrophic event the same day), you are drinking something a lot stronger that the "Obama Kool aid."

Quote
And I love how J. J. is completely incapable of debating without 2nd grade insults.

This from the guy who stated the "Is J. J. a Hillary Hack" thread.  Perhaps the name should be Zach the Barrak Hack and a Hypocrat.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: motomonkey on April 23, 2008, 07:37:08 am
The long ride down continues. 


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Iosif is a COTHO on April 23, 2008, 07:57:44 am
Really? Where?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: motomonkey on April 23, 2008, 07:30:17 pm
In the heart of Pennsylvania.  Obama is no longer able to carry white, middle class and white blue collar voters.  He won 90%+ of the black vote in Philly but lost big in the demographics he was winning before Rev. Jerimiah. 

He has three big problems:

1.  Guilt by association (Wright, Ayers, etc.)
2.  Tactics are politics of old making his message of hope and change sound hollow
3. Race.  The contest is becoming increasingly racially polarized. 

While the math for the nomination is still clearly in favor of Obama, the candidate has been damaged  and I suspect these wounds will prevent him from becoming President in 2008.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Alcon on April 23, 2008, 07:31:51 pm
In the heart of Pennsylvania.  Obama is no longer able to carry white, middle class and white blue collar voters.  He won 90%+ of the black vote in Philly but lost big in the demographics he was winning before Rev. Jerimiah. 

Obama was always losing working-class whites badly, outside of Wisconsin, which has very different working-class whites.  With which demographics is he doing so badly?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Lief 🐋 on April 23, 2008, 07:34:59 pm
God... do I have to get out the chart again? Obama improved among Hillary's demographics last night.

Quote
                   OH   PA

60 and older      28   38
White             34   38
White men         39   44
White women       31   34
Less than $50K    42   46
No college        40   38
College           51   49
Catholic          36   31
Protestant        36   53


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: motomonkey on April 23, 2008, 07:50:18 pm
Wisconsin vs. Pennsylvania. 

In WI, Obama won the white vote:
Wisconsin:
Whites earning less than $50,000 (Obama 51%-Clinton49%)
Among those who believed the economy is most important issue (Obama 57%-Clinton 43%)
Catholic Voters (Obama 49% - Clinton 51%)
Weekly Church Goers (Obama 53% - Clinton 47%)

Pennsylvania:
Whites earning less than $50,000 (Obama 45%-Clinton 55%)
Among those who believed the economy is most important issue (Obama 44%-Clinton 56%)
Catholic Voters (Obama 30% - Clinton 70%)
Weekly Church Goers (Obama 42% - Clinton 58%)

Look at the numbers!!!!! 

Sources:
http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2008/02/20/wisconsin-clinton-coalition-crumbles/ (http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2008/02/20/wisconsin-clinton-coalition-crumbles/)
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/vote-polls/PA.html (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/vote-polls/PA.html)



Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Alcon on April 23, 2008, 07:55:29 pm
You're arbitrarily choosing Obama's best showing among the working-class and then comparing his current standing against it...and in a state with a remarkably different working-class culture than Pennsylvania.

Demographic groups don't exist in a vacuum.  Obama hasn't fallen nationally since then, which negates your argument too...


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: motomonkey on April 23, 2008, 08:01:44 pm
Ohio vs. PA...the other numbers:

Ohio:
Whites earning less than $50,000 (Obama 46%-Clinton 53%)
Among those who believed the economy is most important issue (Obama 47%-Clinton 52%)
Catholic Voters (Obama 40% - Clinton 59%)
Weekly Church Goers (Obama 51% - Clinton 48%)

Pennsylvania:
Whites earning less than $50,000 (Obama 45%-Clinton 55%)
Among those who believed the economy is most important issue (Obama 44%-Clinton 56%)
Catholic Voters (Obama 30% - Clinton 70%)
Weekly Church Goers (Obama 42% - Clinton 58%)

The point is that Obama has lost strength where he needs it most, white, church going, lower income, economy focused whites.

He never had the seniors, but kept this race from being racially polarized by having strength in these groups.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Sam Spade on April 23, 2008, 08:02:11 pm
God... do I have to get out the chart again? Obama improved among Hillary's demographics last night.

Quote
                   OH   PA

60 and older      28   38
White             34   38
White men         39   44
White women       31   34
Less than $50K    42   46
No college        40   38
College           51   49
Catholic          36   31
Protestant        36   53

That chart is deceptive, as is motomonkey's stats.  Obama may have gained 1% over his Ohio demographics, but I can't see any more.  There was more sizable movement out of the new voters/re-registereds.  Otherwise, it would have been the 12% that I called.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: motomonkey on April 24, 2008, 05:29:48 am
I agree that WI was among Obama's best showing in the working class white demographics.  My point is that something has changed in Obama's draw. It is probably most pronounced among the church going.  Because the Catholic vote is significant in WI and PA, it seems a fair slice to examine.

It does not seem intellectually honest to continue believing Obamaa is as strong of a candidate as he was 60 days ago.  His negative numbers are way up.  He is not as attractive to working class whites, and white males, and church attenders as before. 


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: JSojourner on April 24, 2008, 06:49:15 pm
I agree that WI was among Obama's best showing in the working class white demographics.  My point is that something has changed in Obama's draw. It is probably most pronounced among the church going.  Because the Catholic vote is significant in WI and PA, it seems a fair slice to examine.

It does not seem intellectually honest to continue believing Obamaa is as strong of a candidate as he was 60 days ago.  His negative numbers are way up.  He is not as attractive to working class whites, and white males, and church attenders as before. 

I couldn't agree more and it deeply concerns me.

This is why I wish more candidates lasted longer into the primary season.  Right out of the gate (Iowa), we lost the two best -- Dodd and Biden. 


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Lief 🐋 on April 24, 2008, 08:40:34 pm
I agree that WI was among Obama's best showing in the working class white demographics.  My point is that something has changed in Obama's draw. It is probably most pronounced among the church going.  Because the Catholic vote is significant in WI and PA, it seems a fair slice to examine.

It does not seem intellectually honest to continue believing Obamaa is as strong of a candidate as he was 60 days ago.  His negative numbers are way up.  He is not as attractive to working class whites, and white males, and church attenders as before. 

I couldn't agree more and it deeply concerns me.

This is why I wish more candidates lasted longer into the primary season.  Right out of the gate (Iowa), we lost the two best -- Dodd and Biden. 
Not really. They weren't much than John Kerry and arguably worse.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: J. J. on April 24, 2008, 09:48:57 pm
Three months ago, I said that Obama had the best chance of winning as the nominee; now I say Clinton does.  He's no McGovern, but he can't win this time.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: JSojourner on April 25, 2008, 12:42:29 am
I agree that WI was among Obama's best showing in the working class white demographics.  My point is that something has changed in Obama's draw. It is probably most pronounced among the church going.  Because the Catholic vote is significant in WI and PA, it seems a fair slice to examine.

It does not seem intellectually honest to continue believing Obamaa is as strong of a candidate as he was 60 days ago.  His negative numbers are way up.  He is not as attractive to working class whites, and white males, and church attenders as before. 

I couldn't agree more and it deeply concerns me.

This is why I wish more candidates lasted longer into the primary season.  Right out of the gate (Iowa), we lost the two best -- Dodd and Biden. 
Not really. They weren't much than John Kerry and arguably worse.

I can agree that Kerry was a poor candidate.  And likely, Dodd would have been too. 

But I think Kerry would have made a sensational President.  I am really surprised more Democrats don't think so.  There was certainly no one else in the 2004 Primary field with better credentials or sounder policy (from a D perspective, of course!).  Gephardt probably came close.  But again, I am talking about them as President.  Not as candidate.  Aside from Bill Clinton, I can't remember the last time Democrats fielded a decent Presidential candidate.  1968?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Julian Assange is a Snowflake on April 05, 2009, 01:26:51 am
hahahahahhahahaha


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 05, 2009, 07:01:17 am
What a joke thread!

These clowns, J.J. and motonmonkey, had absolutely no idea what they were talking about.
Concern troll doesn't even begin to describe them. 


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on April 05, 2009, 11:13:57 am
Bye bye Florida.  If Obama even had a chance there anyway which I doubt.

;D


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Meeker on April 06, 2009, 01:12:32 am
I had forgotten how stupid people were during the primaries.


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: ○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└ on April 06, 2009, 01:46:20 am
I had forgotten how stupid people were during the primaries.

Did you really need those last 3 words?


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Eraserhead on April 06, 2009, 12:54:15 pm
Bye bye Florida.  If Obama even had a chance there anyway which I doubt.

lolz


Title: Re: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 06, 2009, 01:45:20 pm
Bye bye Florida.  If Obama even had a chance there anyway which I doubt.

lolz
Those guys from Texas were a real hoot.
Not big fans of reality.