Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 22, 2019, 01:50:23 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Print
Author Topic: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers  (Read 19170 times)
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 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.

Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,019
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 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.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,019
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: March 20, 2008, 01:35:03 am »
« Edited: March 20, 2008, 01:38:38 am by Now We Rise And Are Everywhere »

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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 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.
Logged
bullmoose88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,516


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: March 20, 2008, 02:19:21 am »

NC's a net of -105?

typo somewhere or what did I miss?
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 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
Logged
bullmoose88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,516


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 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?
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 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.
Logged
bullmoose88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,516


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 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.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,649
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,313


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 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.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,175


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 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.
Logged
motomonkey
Full Member
***
Posts: 189


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 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.




Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,019
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 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.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,019
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 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
Logged
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,928
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: March 20, 2008, 12:11:16 pm »

J. J., with all respect, it's virtually impossible 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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: March 20, 2008, 12:19:01 pm »

J. J., with all respect, it's virtually impossible 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.
Logged
Joe Republic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34,513
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: March 20, 2008, 12:24:43 pm »

J. J., with all respect, it's virtually impossible 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
Logged
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,928
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: March 20, 2008, 01:22:39 pm »

J. J., with all respect, it's virtually impossible 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.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 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. 
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: March 20, 2008, 01:52:48 pm »

J. J., with all respect, it's virtually impossible 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC