Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2019, 05:03:41 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 19104 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,338
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: March 21, 2008, 05:04:36 pm »

those hick states

Says the man from North Dakota.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,265


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 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

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.
Logged
Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,242


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,815
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 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.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,772
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: March 21, 2008, 05:13:40 pm »

those hick states

Says the man from North Dakota.

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

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.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,772
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,815
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 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.




Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,772
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: March 21, 2008, 06:12:12 pm »
« Edited: March 21, 2008, 06:15:58 pm by Now We Rise And Are Everywhere »



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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,815
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,265


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: March 21, 2008, 07:06:21 pm »

those hick states

Says the man from North Dakota.

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

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.
Logged
8 out of 11 is not deserved
pollwatch99-b
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 548


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 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. 
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,772
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 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.

those hick states

Says the man from North Dakota.

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.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,338
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 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?
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,772
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,815
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 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?
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,560
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,815
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 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.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,772
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 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.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,408
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,815
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 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."
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,772
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 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?
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,292
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 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.
Logged
Saff
MATCHU[D]
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,673
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 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.

Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,292
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,815
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 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.



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