Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 21, 2019, 10:04:37 pm
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 19166 times)
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,019
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 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)?
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 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.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,019
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: March 22, 2008, 05:25:42 pm »
« Edited: March 22, 2008, 05:28:00 pm by Now We Rise And Are Everywhere »

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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 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).

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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 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?"

Logged
Iosif is a COTHO
Mango
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 470
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 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.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,019
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 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.
Logged
Saff
MATCHU[D]
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,672
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 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.

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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 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.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,476
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 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.  Wink
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,019
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 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.
Logged
motomonkey
Full Member
***
Posts: 189


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 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.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,019
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #139 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.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 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.
Logged
motomonkey
Full Member
***
Posts: 189


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #141 on: April 23, 2008, 07:37:08 am »

The long ride down continues. 
Logged
Iosif is a COTHO
Mango
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 470
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 on: April 23, 2008, 07:57:44 am »

Really? Where?
Logged
motomonkey
Full Member
***
Posts: 189


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #143 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.
Logged
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,928
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 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?
Logged
Lief 🐋
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,643
Dominica


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #145 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
Logged
motomonkey
Full Member
***
Posts: 189


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 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://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/vote-polls/PA.html

Logged
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,928
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #147 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...
Logged
motomonkey
Full Member
***
Posts: 189


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 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.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,683


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 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.
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