Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 12, 2019, 12:15:45 am
News: 2020 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers  (Read 19523 times)
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« on: March 19, 2008, 11:31:51 pm »

Once the uncommitted in Michigan are seated, Hillary will not have a 110 delegate lead in those states together.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #1 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
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #2 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
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #3 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.


Please show me where.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #4 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:

Image Link
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2008, 02:57:18 pm »

Except PPP even openly admitted in their poll writeups that they were getting radically different numbers than the other pollsters, due to a different model they were using (which was actually far more accurate). So comparing PPP to the other pollsters is pointless. So you have one set of polls all showing Obama with numbers within the MoE, PPP showing another set of numbers all within the MoE and ARG being all around the place and wrong as usual. No trend whatsoever.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2008, 05:01:49 pm »

Except PPP even openly admitted in their poll writeups that they were getting radically different numbers than the other pollsters, due to a different model they were using (which was actually far more accurate). So comparing PPP to the other pollsters is pointless. So you have one set of polls all showing Obama with numbers within the MoE, PPP showing another set of numbers all within the MoE and ARG being all around the place and wrong as usual. No trend whatsoever.

Over those four days, it looked like a trend.

Image Link

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

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

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

Have you noticed by the way that not a single person is defending you on this while some people who normally don't get along with me are taking my side?
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2008, 08:22:07 pm »

Except PPP even openly admitted in their poll writeups that they were getting radically different numbers than the other pollsters, due to a different model they were using (which was actually far more accurate). So comparing PPP to the other pollsters is pointless. So you have one set of polls all showing Obama with numbers within the MoE, PPP showing another set of numbers all within the MoE and ARG being all around the place and wrong as usual. No trend whatsoever.

Over those four days, it looked like a trend.

Image Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And no, PPP was not using bad methodology, and we couldn't have known that at the time. However if you believe they were using bad methodology, then you have to toss both PPP polls, resulting in a couple that showed no trend whatsoever. You can't simply draw a trend from the first PPP poll, then dismiss the last one as a bad poll.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2008, 09:55:52 pm »



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


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

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

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

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

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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

How could you tell if either was an out rider?

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


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

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

And please note this in your post:

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

So you're basically saying ARG is a joke but the other polls are showing that it's tightening. Yet you can't bring up any such evidence of this "tightening" without mentioning ARG.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2008, 11:29:55 am »


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has more holes in it than than the claims about the supposed Duke rape case. And have you stopped to consider why absolutely no one is defending you on this including many people who are also attacking me as a hack?
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2008, 04:11:10 pm »

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

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

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.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2008, 04:26:47 pm »

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

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

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:

Image Link

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.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2008, 04:39:04 pm »

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

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

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:

Image Link

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.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2008, 05:13:40 pm »


Which voted for the black guy.

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

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

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:

Image Link

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: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #14 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
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #15 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
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2008, 07:33:28 pm »


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Which voted for the black guy.

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

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

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

But let's be very kind to Hillary and say these split 50/50. That leaves 271 delegates. She'd need over 60% of those to overtake Obama. Is that going to happen when many of these delegates are from states Obama won or are pledging to support the winner in delegates (like Pelosi and her daughter?). And that's actually a very favorable scenario to Hillary, if it goes with Obama gaining 12 among the add-ons, Hillary needs over 63% of the remaining superdelegates. Hillary also basically has to sway more delegates than Obama swayed in February.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2008, 08:17:37 pm »


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
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #18 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
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #19 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
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #20 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
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #21 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
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #22 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
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #23 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
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,723
Ukraine


« Reply #24 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
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
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