PA PrimD: Mason-Dixon: Clinton leads Obama by 5

[Sam Spade]

Instead of being coy, I would posit once again that there are two key factors at work in PA we've got to always keep in mind in making a prediction:
1) What will be Clinton's white % of the vote (and margin, naturally)?
2) What will be the % of the vote that will be black?

[sarcasm]Wow, good thing we have you here Sam to explain these things to us.  What's next?  The key factor in the election is how many voters vote for Clinton vs. how many voters vote for Obama?[/sarcasm]

Sorry, sorry.  Couldn't resist. 

But seriously, aren't those the "two key factors" in *every* state that doesn't have a significant minority population that is not black?

Yes, but in nearly every one of those other states, the numbers were hard to figure, and you had the GOP/Indy interloper factor at play (the third factor in the analysis). Theoretically, it should be easier in PA.

[J. J.]

I should have some idea by 2:00 PM on primary day.  Best I can do.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't think it matters whether Clinton wins by 3% or 9% (at least not that much). As long as Obama doesn't win she'll stay in, and as long as she doesn't get above 10% it probably won't be enough.

Make that 20. 10 for staying in with a straight face and not losing her remaining credibility.

This whole playing with numbers is a bit arbitrary of course. I agree a 10% win is probably not enough. I don't think it has to be 20% though. I make the cut at 10% because 10 is a nice round number.

You should understand that Clinton's task is not to retain a reasonable shot at the nomination, but to regain one. And it's her last chance to do so, really. If she'd won Texas (as opposed to effectively tied) and blown Obama out of the water in Ohio (as opposed to merely won there), she would still have a reasonable shot now. That's not the case, however.

I agree. Hillary basically became a second-tier candidate after Wisconsin. She had a chance to get out of that on March 4, but she didn't. Her victories then were much like Huckabee's Super Tuesday victories, didn't hurt, but they were far from enough.

If Hillary is still a second-tier candidate after Pennsylvania, she's not ever getting back up again.

[Gustaf]

I don't think it matters whether Clinton wins by 3% or 9% (at least not that much). As long as Obama doesn't win she'll stay in, and as long as she doesn't get above 10% it probably won't be enough.

Make that 20. 10 for staying in with a straight face and not losing her remaining credibility.

This whole playing with numbers is a bit arbitrary of course. I agree a 10% win is probably not enough. I don't think it has to be 20% though. I make the cut at 10% because 10 is a nice round number.

You should understand that Clinton's task is not to retain a reasonable shot at the nomination, but to regain one. And it's her last chance to do so, really. If she'd won Texas (as opposed to effectively tied) and blown Obama out of the water in Ohio (as opposed to merely won there), she would still have a reasonable shot now. That's not the case, however.

I agree. Hillary basically became a second-tier candidate after Wisconsin. She had a chance to get out of that on March 4, but she didn't. Her victories then were much like Huckabee's Super Tuesday victories, didn't hurt, but they were far from enough.

If Hillary is still a second-tier candidate after Pennsylvania, she's not ever getting back up again.

While I'm well aware of all that, I think the margin she needs is hard to predict simply because it's not a question of raw delegates (where she's not gonna catch Obama anyway) but of media perception. What kind of win does she need to get people talking about how Obama can't win big states, working class whites, is losing ground, she having the momentum, etc? And to do this to an extent that puts her back in the race in the following contests? Below 10% is certainly too small, but how much beyond that she has to go is not clear-cut to me. But I should clarify that it's a long-shot for her to get the nomination, sure.

[Eraserhead]

Will this change Spade's 12%-15% prediction?

I don't know.  What do you think, bucko?

I don't know, thats' why I asked.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't think it matters whether Clinton wins by 3% or 9% (at least not that much). As long as Obama doesn't win she'll stay in, and as long as she doesn't get above 10% it probably won't be enough.

Make that 20. 10 for staying in with a straight face and not losing her remaining credibility.

This whole playing with numbers is a bit arbitrary of course. I agree a 10% win is probably not enough. I don't think it has to be 20% though. I make the cut at 10% because 10 is a nice round number.

You should understand that Clinton's task is not to retain a reasonable shot at the nomination, but to regain one. And it's her last chance to do so, really. If she'd won Texas (as opposed to effectively tied) and blown Obama out of the water in Ohio (as opposed to merely won there), she would still have a reasonable shot now. That's not the case, however.

I agree. Hillary basically became a second-tier candidate after Wisconsin. She had a chance to get out of that on March 4, but she didn't. Her victories then were much like Huckabee's Super Tuesday victories, didn't hurt, but they were far from enough.

If Hillary is still a second-tier candidate after Pennsylvania, she's not ever getting back up again.

While I'm well aware of all that, I think the margin she needs is hard to predict simply because it's not a question of raw delegates (where she's not gonna catch Obama anyway) but of media perception. What kind of win does she need to get people talking about how Obama can't win big states, working class whites, is losing ground, she having the momentum, etc? And to do this to an extent that puts her back in the race in the following contests? Below 10% is certainly too small, but how much beyond that she has to go is not clear-cut to me. But I should clarify that it's a long-shot for her to get the nomination, sure.

It has to be big enough to make North Carolina closer than Pennsylvania, which is looking VERY unlikely. There is no way Hillary can take over 2/3 of the remaining superdelegates (which she needs) if she gets blown out of the water in NC. What's she going to say then, ignore NC, it's really WV and KY that are the important states?

[Erc]

Oh, doesn't Clinton wish now that Pennsylvania had pushed their primary back a week instead of forward one?

They'd have 25% more delegates if they'd done so.


North Carolina did so, so they got a nice 30% bonus, making NC one of the most overrepresented states this cycle.