Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 12, 2019, 10:56:26 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers  (Read 19535 times)
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,550


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

« on: March 19, 2008, 03:31:20 pm »

Look at Reuter's latest poll numbers showing Clinton pulling even with Obama nationally. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1824791220080319?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112


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

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

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


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

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

How indeed... Tongue
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,550


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2008, 07:27:04 am »

It's gonna come down to who can make the strongest case to the outstanding super delegates. Obama has the upper hand because he's likely to have a majority of the pledged delegates behind him. Clinton may be able to change this dynamic. That's my opinion, at least.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,550


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2008, 04:21:53 pm »

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

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

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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,550


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2008, 04:31:44 pm »

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

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

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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,550


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

« Reply #4 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:

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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,550


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2008, 07:06:21 pm »


Which voted for the black guy.

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

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

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.

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
Pages: [1] 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