Election 2008 Dem Presidential Primary Predictions

Note: The Google advertisement links below may advocate political positions that this site does not endorse.

Date of Prediction: 2008-02-10 Version:14

Prediction Map

Confidence Map

Prediction States Won

		26 \|	52 \|
Clinton	15
Edwards	0
Obama	37
Richardson	0
Other	0

Confidence States Won

		26 \|	52 \|
Clinton	0
Edwards	0
Obama	0
Richardson	0
Other	0
Tossup	52

Analysis

Just a few minor adjustments. I think Obama has the full potential to win this whole thing, nomination and White House. He has out raised Clinton in money and new few contests are going to prove to be wins for him if all plays out. I fully expect Obama to win Maine today and then DC, Virginia, and Maryland on Tuesday. After that I think that based on what we have seen in Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois that he'll have the strength to carry Wisconsin and of course his birth state of Hawaii and leftist strong hold.

With such wins under his belt he'll have collected massive amounts of money and greater momentum. He was pronounced dead going into Super Tuesday and survived. He thrived last night. The conest could be decided on March 4. Based on what I've seen out of Florida, Nevada, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, and California he seems to have troubles in largely latino areas. I think Hillary could claim a victory in Texas.

But that is not assured because Texas does have a large black population as well so it may be closed. Obama did come razon close to winning New Mexico, we'll be watching it closely. The key is Ohio. If it falls Hillary has a problem. Coupling his other wins I think he could go on to win Pennslyvania and that would be it.

We'll see how thing progress. Change can be expected in such close contests.

Prediction History
Prediction Graph

Comments History - show

Version History

Member Comments

By: CR (--MO) 2008-02-10 @ 18:39:37
Just some minor changes to reflect the current state of the race in my opinion.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-02-13 @ 18:26:44
I like it, CR. Frankly I think Obama has a better chance in TX than Ohio, but Clinton has to win both (+ PA) by decent to come back in pledged delegates. I don't see her doing it, and don't see the supers jumping into the abyss to save her.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-02-13 @ 22:51:02
Oh I much agree I think that Obama has this thing won. We know that it is highly unlikely he'll lose either Wisconsin or Hawaii which gives him 10 wins in a row. I think that he could win in Texas or Ohio, both are up for grabs and I say he wins at least one. If that happens then Hillary is out. I think most super delegates will go to Obama at that point. We'll know in three weeks.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-02-14 @ 07:52:05
Hillary is out even if she wins them 52-48 or 51-49 or any other close margin. She needs to get rid of Obama's pledged delegate lead. The party establishment isn't going to allow it to drag on until June or for Michigan and Florida to decide the race after violating party rules.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-02-15 @ 01:19:36
I've actually heard that many Republicans are so upset that Democrats crossed over to help McCain win in our primaries along with moderates and independents that Republicans are going to crossover and vote for Obama to finish off Hillary.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-02-15 @ 05:32:51
Well that may be just the stupidest thing they've done as most commentators seem to think you Republicans are going to have a harder time beating Obama than Hillary.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-02-15 @ 09:21:55
I don't know if that is true or not its just the word on the net, a rumor. From what I hear they just want Hillary out of this thing. It may all be completely false.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-02-15 @ 10:58:41
Well if they do that, it will probably in Texas and not Ohio. Texas has open primaries and I think Ohio requires you to change your party affiliation. Last Edit: 2008-02-15 @ 22:54:41

By: CR (--MO) 2008-02-16 @ 22:41:59
Maybe I'll make a quick change on those last few primaries. Check for updates.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-02-17 @ 02:51:36
I read that most Republicans want Hillary to win as she would be a galvinising force for the factions as she seems to be the one thing they hate most. I don't know why! She's not that bad for them, after all Hillary was a Republican to start off with - maybe that's the most galling thing for them! In my opinion the Republicans went too right wing, they've ostracised the moderates & independents on ideology & conservatism. The founding fathers knew what they were doing by seperating church & state! PS I used to support the Republicans up to & including Dole & this is what turned me off. I blame Newt Gingrich. & the hypocrisy from the same people trying to impeach Bill, who were doing the same things. Laughable. No offence.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-02-17 @ 02:53:26
That's why I like McCain the most on the Republican side. He is independent & sometimes forward thinking. & not tied to the self righteous.

By: CR (--MO) 2008-02-17 @ 23:43:37
Well I think its the Democrats that have gone too far left but that's just me, and its not all about religion. And the separation of church and state is not in the constitution only a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. It is simly that the state can't establish a religion which the GOP does not seek to do, only to preserve our Christian heritage. But I agree, the last GOP congress was a disgrace. They spent out of control and were big government conservative, i.e. Rockefellers. Just like McCain. McCain is the biggest big government Republican of all. The fact that so many Democrats like McCain should give the GOP pause, no offense. Its funny because out of the three Hillary and McCain probably tie as the most conservative which is frightening for a true Reagan conservative. But in anycase please check out my new primary map. I think its much better than this as I think that Ohio and Texas should be switched.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-02-18 @ 06:01:07
I think we like the independent determined bi partisan streak in McCain. What a shame he did not beat Bush first time around. Or better yet Al Gore! Things may have been different. Oh well. How do you feel about Romney's endorsement of McCain & asking his delegates to back McCain? Will that switch your vote too? Interesting.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-02-18 @ 06:02:50
Why Ohio to Obama? Hillary is stronger here in the polls than Texas & has the backing & work of the Governor behind here too. Not sure on this prediction.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-08 @ 23:43:43
Hmm rereading the above comment has proven quite presumptious Who. lol

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-09 @ 05:03:47
She is still finished, it's just going to run a little longer. She has no mathematical way of winning the nomination unless superdelegates literally break overwhelmingly for her at the convention. All her 'big wins' in Ohio and Texas really mean is that her candidacy has the credibility to continue forth. In the larger picture she is still over 100 delegates behind Obama, has an unfavorable map to deal with past Pennsylvania, and is currently losing the popular vote tally. Unless she can turn at least 1 of these factors around she is indeed finished.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-09 @ 05:12:47
Here we go again LOL Sounds like pre-March 4 all over again. She will be "over" if she doesnt get the nomination.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-09 @ 05:16:09
What do you see as her path to the nomination?

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-09 @ 05:18:59
I see myself waiting and actually watching the process take its course and if need be to the convention floor. I dont pretend to know the future nor can I alter it. Lets wait and see rather then try to call the race as we did before March 4? Or is that too wild?

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-09 @ 05:21:53
Indeed. As I say in my current map, she has a shot at the nomination. It just isn't a very good one since it relies on events that are totally beyond her ability to control (Michigan-Florida, super delegates breaking for her, Obama messing up big, etc.)

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-09 @ 07:01:42
As far as I see it she is ahead in the Super Delegates. Obama's inexperience is starting to shine, especially now that the media is finally starting to pay attention & act like the impartial commentators they are supposed to be. People really are starting to get sick of the same old stump speeches by Obama. One commentator today on our news here said she had heard the same speech 30 times from him & she was frankly over it.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-09 @ 16:28:19
Two days ago I would have agreed Demboy, but Hillary's national numbers are back down to pre-March 4th. If that persists, she might not have done as much damage as we originally believed. I think right now it's probably 55% Obama likelihood to win and 45% Hillary to win.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-09 @ 17:02:47
I'd rate Obama's chances as greater than that, but your on the right track!

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-09 @ 23:48:15
Burn her at the stake LMAO lol This race is over wait a minute im not watching msnbc am I, no??

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-10 @ 00:17:05
No probably Fox.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-10 @ 01:41:38
The media tied up Hillary and threw her off a cliff, reasoning that if she really was a witch then she would use her mystical powers to save herself. -- and she didn't die. She clawed back up the cliff. What a monster :p Last Edit: 2008-03-10 @ 01:42:10

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-10 @ 08:22:32
I disagree. The media has given Hillary every benefit of the doubt, and helped her qiote a bit in the runnup to 3/4.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-10 @ 14:30:52
I was being sarcastic, but yes nobody gets better media on the Democratic side than the Clintons. If any other candidate had lost 11 in a row, the media would have called for their head on a pike.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-10 @ 14:57:12
echo echo

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-10 @ 20:27:41
lol LIberalrocks you are too funny. Love it.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-11 @ 04:46:13
I'd comment, but I have to get Obama another pillow and a recliner for his victory speech this evening. =P

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-11 @ 09:50:32
EXactly, and in a state that has how many African Americans voting in the democratic primary. Like that could ever be considered competitive, and he has outspent her there and she has virtually done no campaigning there. Last Edit: 2008-03-11 @ 09:51:07

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-11 @ 19:47:05
About as competitive as Michigan or Florida were, I'd say.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-11 @ 23:58:01
Hillary has not been competitive in many states. I hardly think that is to her benefit.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-12 @ 01:56:57
Why compete in a state where the African American vote is greater then 50%?

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-12 @ 03:16:08
Obama has done well in plenty of states with close to no African-American populations.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-12 @ 04:55:11
I have to agree with Geraldine Ferraro - she is only stating the obvious - that without African American support (at 80-90% no less) Obama would be struggling in this race. Yes Obama has done well in many states without this support but they are mostly either small, & used the caucus format, or are strongly Republican. I agree with Win that the Clinton campaign should not have written any states off. Maybe if they had not done this they would not be in the predicament they're now in.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-12 @ 05:01:05
Yes the African American support does grate me as they seem to be voting like sheep. Even Obama scored 33% of the white vote in Mississippi (this being possibly his lowest support of any state), something that's been unheard of so far from African Americans for Hillary. & I'm glad he is getting more even support than her in this regard (it shows open mindedness). I don't believe that Obama would be a better President than Hillary for African Americans. Obviously Bill did some damage here amongst their support, however the Clintons have been life long friends of the African American community & it's sad to see such blind support against them. Last Edit: 2008-03-12 @ 05:06:28

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-12 @ 05:04:20
Further more I would have thought the universal health care that Hillary has been such a strong supporter for would be a huge benefit for the African American community, as for the community as a whole. I understand his attraction, as he is seen as one of them, but people need to look further than just the obvious.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-12 @ 17:23:02
"Yes Obama has done well in many states without this support but they are mostly either small, & used the caucus format, or are strongly Republican." I don't mean to be an ass about this, but so what? Does a state not count if it is red? Or if it isn't over a certain population? That's a pretty bold statement to make. And in the end, it isn't one Hillary can win on. It's equally sad to see old people voting for Hillary Clinton because of some undeliverable promise of universal healthcare (which is neither financially nor politically feasible in this country to be brutally honest) and in some cases flat out racism. Where would Hillary be without the Clinton family name? Where would she be without elderly voters? Without female voters? These questions answer themselves. It's all spin. Spin meant to divide. Spin meant to conquer the party from within, because the Republicans know that the only way they can keep power is to divide and conquer their enemies. Spin by Republicans, the same spin we've always known. Republicans pretending to be Democrats to try and intensify the race. And in the end, this is the politics of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton lately. This is the politics of yesterday. And it's time has come and gone. The time of Clintons and Bush's is at its end.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-13 @ 04:18:53
Aren't you just lucky 90% of whites aren't voting like African Americans! That's all I can say. Otherwise Hillary would be winning. You can call it old politics but I think it's old politics that 90% of them can vote in such a singular block. This doesn't happen normally so to me it says it's race politics. Nobody wants to say it but it is. & I'm glad Geraldine Ferraro has pointed this out. Good on her. & universal health care works in alot of other countries so why not there. If you have a healthy workforce than you have a healthy economy. Anyway I don't hate Obama, & I certainly don't mind that he is black, brown, or whatever. I just don't think it's a valid reason to vote for somebody as I see all people as equal. & 90% is ridiculous. 70% maybe, 90% bizarre.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-13 @ 04:24:57
& yes Hillary is getting the support of Seniors, Latinos, working class, Gays & Lesbians, whites overall - but not 90% It's almost like the vote you see in dictatorships - when there's only 1 person on the ballot but they hold an election anyway. I'm not saying all of them are sheep or that they should not vote for Obama, I just think 90% is over the top!

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-13 @ 16:41:36
90% of Democrats vote Democrat, 90% of liberals vote Democrat Same with conservatives and Republicans voting Republican. Is it really any different? In any case, Clinton is not going to win the nomination. The party elite isn't going to overturn the pledged delegates decision to deny the first African-American candidate for President (the first one to get that far, anyways) a victory. Why? There would be massive reprisal for it and blacks wouldn't come out to vote for Hillary if she 'won' the nomination because of a cynical choice on the part of party insiders. She can't catch Obama even if she wins Indiana, Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, and Pennsylvania. She will win Pennsylvania. She will not win a majority of the other states I just mentioned. Her campaign is over. The 1990s are over. It doesn't matter if a few pissed off uber-feminists stay home. The Democrats have this election in the bag due to Johnny boy's nomination. It's really time you guys started to realize that. She is in the race at this point to make the case for being on the ticket as Obama's VP and out of a sort of blind entitlement to the Presidency that stems from the fact that the Clintons believe they are owed another 8 years in the White House. But it isn't going to happen. The era of Clintons and Bushs has long since past. Last Edit: 2008-03-13 @ 16:43:19

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-13 @ 18:50:15
John Mc Cain is the most moderate republican to run since possibly eisenhower. I would not underestimate him eithier.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-14 @ 01:07:23
Obama was not winning a large percentage of black voters until Bill Clinton's comments in South Carolina, comparing Obama and Jackson. He might as well have said, a black candidate is never going to win more than just black votes. Of course the argument that he is only winning in caucuses or southern or red states is pretty silly, when 2/3rds of the country falls into one of those catagories. Morevover, it isn't even true, as Wisconsin, Maryland, Vermont, Connecticutt, and Missouri don't fit into any of these catagories.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-25 @ 08:06:30
He would not be there without the 90% support of African Americans which if we want to get technical is pretty funny as his mother is white & he's dad is Kenyan. So he's not even traditional African American anyway. It doesn't make him any less viable it's just ironic that's all. There's nothing wrong with being half white half Kenyan or half African American or whatever I'm just saying he is not traditional African American, therefore I'm surprised that he has has such huge 90% support. I think everyone is equal so it doesn't matter what you are. I still think though 90% equals many people voting on the colour of one's skin. But I guess white people have been doing it for years so maybe we should cut them some slack. Still from what I see as an outsider racism in America definitely goes 2 ways these days. Anyway it's obviously good to keep race out of politics as it shouldn't matter it's just hard to get past the blindingly obvious bias of a 90% support base in 1 community only. I'm glad to see Hillary has the support of many African American representatives. Balance is fair.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-25 @ 08:09:13
& I note Obama has won many many white votes around the country trouncing Hillary in almost all white states. It seems the racial bias does come into play more in the South - at least with the white voters anyway.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-03-25 @ 08:09:57
The bias with the African American voters is around the entire country. Anyway ce la vie.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-26 @ 02:20:03
Hillary has gotten utterly ravaged in many of the white Western states. It's pretty foolish to suggest blacks are the only basis of Obama's support :p

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-26 @ 14:11:41
Correct. Whats also correct is that he receives over 80% of the African American vote which is overwhelming why is that one demographic so particularily strong for him?? hmm maybe his "message" seems to resonate with them...? yeah, thats it couldnt possibly be any other reason in this modern society could there... LMAO lol

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-26 @ 23:58:15
It's the same reason 80% of Republicans in Miss. voted Hillary... And the same reason Hispanics overwhelmingly support Hillary. It's racialism, obviously. I think denying that would be foolish.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-05 @ 08:40:05
Also Obama got that support in those white western states primarily in caucuses. I'd like to have seen how he'd gone in primaries there. Wherever there's been primaries she's done a whole lot better. I believe the biggest fault of the Clinton campaign is that they gave up on too many states. With a bit of campaigning they could have held up alot better in many of these states. No one is giving Hillary the kind of support that Obama is getting from African Americans period. She may have strong support amongst many communities but the % is not over 80-90 anywhere that I've read about.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-04-07 @ 00:46:50
Hillary is going to barely win PA, if at all.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-04-07 @ 01:10:50
Lets let the voters make the decisions and lets wow wait and see...what a concept. I agree it looks piss poor for my candidate so I have already begun considering my support going to Senator Mc Cain you dems wont need me anyway. Theres no way I would vote for Barack Hussein Obama barring an explosive Mc Cain developement. I wonder just how many of us there are out there? If he is suppose to be such a uniter then just how will he unite the party? Hillary if she loses will offer a half hearted endorsement at best because she would plan to run again in 2012. Last Edit: 2008-04-07 @ 01:13:47

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-07 @ 07:33:40
Hillary will comfortably win PA in my opinion. So far to date I have not seen, read, or heard anything to say otherwise. What I have seen is her leading in Indiana your home state, who'd have thought that! Giddy up!

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-04-07 @ 15:45:25
Look at the PA polls, her margin has been going down for a little over a week now. If she loses PA, she will be out of the race well before Indiana gets here (and even if she will continue on after losing PA, Obama will run the board)

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-04-07 @ 16:07:30
Wait and see as always. Looks like Mc Cain 2008 though,

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-04-08 @ 14:09:58
7 months.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-04-11 @ 17:03:52
I'm really not sure why people keep saying McCain has the election in the bag. McCain is a few points ahead in the Rasmussen poll, and Obama is actually ahead at Gallup and tied at the AP poll. All this while McCain is fighting a divided opposition and the Democrats tear each other apart in the media. McCain is going to have some media problems in the general election, as well as problems divesting himself from the utterly failed Bush policies that have left 81% of people saying the nation is on the wrong track and the man himself with a 28% approval rating. 7 months indeed, but the Republicans are still at an enormous disadvantage in the general election as things stand right now. The only thing that can really turn that around is if we go to the convention without a winner. In fact, it's pretty retarded to say anyone has the election in the bag with polls this close and the campaign not having even technically started yet. Last Edit: 2008-04-11 @ 17:04:54

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-04-11 @ 22:42:02
Mc Cain is leading obama by 10 points in a new poll woo hoo go big mc!

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-04-12 @ 00:55:02
What poll is that ?

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-04-12 @ 01:43:21
Im not sure but I heard Stephanie Miller and she's an obama supporter I listen to her on my morning commute. She said something about it coming out a few days ago and they were concerned.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-04-12 @ 14:22:07
Kinda "bitter"sweet sometimes

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-13 @ 02:03:00
I don't understand as a gay man how you could support John McCain. Yes it will be totally devestating for Obama to win but I think in time you will come to see the folley in going down that road. It's purely spite, which I think in the excitement of the general campaign you will get over Mr!

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-04-13 @ 16:01:17
I dont think Barack is ready to lead the most powerful nation in the world and while I disagree with Mc Cain on several important issues he is one of the most moderate republicans to run for president in years. I like and respect the man but disagree with him. He has not been entirely anti-gay in his career while his record is ofcourse not as good as a democrat, his is better than most neo-conservative republicans on that issue.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-14 @ 00:38:56
Yes but I think Obama will be better. I guess we'll have to see also who McCain picks as his running mate, as at 71, there's a good chance they may have to take over at some stage.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-04-16 @ 01:04:58
Perhaps not, but he is a thorough (and, IMHO, dangerous) neo-con on foreign policy. Either Democrat would be a more able leader.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-04-16 @ 21:48:46
He still would be a huge improvement over the current occupant in the white house.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-04-16 @ 22:00:33
I personally like McCain better than Bush. A vote for McCain, however, is a vote for a continuation of Bush foreign policy and economic policies.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-04-17 @ 05:19:38
McCain wants to lower the corporate tax, extend W's tax cuts, and continue the war as long as it takes. As far as I'm concerned, he is little more than a third Bush term on the major issues. Last Edit: 2008-04-17 @ 05:20:06

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-19 @ 02:23:59
Yep McCain is old school. Would be an improvement on Bush for sure but Obama & naturally Hillary are an improvement on both of them. I actually don't mind Bush as a person, he is a human being, contrary to popular belief, he has a great sense of humor, & I do feel sorry for him sometimes (only occasionally!). It must be such an isolating position, especially when you're not popular. He has gone from such huge highs after September 11 in popularity to his dismal ratings now. He could have done so much more. I personally think he thinks he's done the right thing. & funnily enough his policy in Iraq is now working but at what cost? Seeing him crying at the heroe's award the other day was sobering. He does have feelings after all. It's sad for him personally that history will judge him fairly badly. Let's hope for his sake they're not too harsh. I guess somwhere in there he has done something right. Anyway I'm not turning Republican, I though I'd just say that. It is a hard job. I still blame the poeple around him as much as him, as I think he is a prime example of a President that has been led badly. Last Edit: 2008-04-19 @ 02:24:28

User's Predictions

Prediction Score	States	Percent	Total	Accuracy	Ver	#D	Rank		#Pred
2016 President	51/56	30/56	81/112	72.3%	10	3	194	T	678
2016 Senate	30/34	16/34	46/68	67.6%	5	3	252	T	362
2016 Governor	9/12	5/12	14/24	58.3%	4	3	67	T	279
2014 Senate	35/36	18/36	53/72	73.6%	10	1	158	T	382
2014 Governor	32/36	20/36	52/72	72.2%	6	1	15	T	300
2013 Governor	2/2	1/2	3/4	75.0%	1	233	17	T	153
2012 President	52/56	38/56	90/112	80.4%	25	2	489	T	760
2012 Senate	29/33	19/33	48/66	72.7%	6	2	144	T	343
2012 Governor	10/11	8/11	18/22	81.8%	5	2	24	T	228
2012 Rep Primary	46/52	17/52	63/104	60.6%	29	-	27	T	231
2011 Governor	4/4	1/4	5/8	62.5%	1	245	37	T	106
2010 Senate	33/37	26/37	59/74	79.7%	19	1	63	T	456
2010 Governor	35/37	21/37	56/74	75.7%	8	1	106	T	312
2009 Governor	2/2	2/2	4/4	100.0%	2	3	1	T	103
2008 President	47/56	28/56	75/112	67.0%	44	1	702	T	1,505
2008 Senate	31/33	14/33	45/66	68.2%	7	1	257	T	407
2008 Governor	9/11	4/11	13/22	59.1%	4	1	232	T	264
2008 Dem Primary	43/52	24/52	67/104	64.4%	22	-	23	T	271
2008 Rep Primary	34/49	15/49	49/98	50.0%	23	-	55	T	235
Aggregate Predictions	534/609	307/609	841/1218	69.0%

Links

Back to 2008 Dem Presidential Primary Prediction Home - Predictions Home