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: 2008-04-21 Version:67

Prediction Map

Confidence Map

Prediction States Won

		26 \|	52 \|
Clinton	18
Edwards	0
Obama	34
Richardson	0
Other	0

Confidence States Won

		26 \|	52 \|
Clinton	7
Edwards	0
Obama	18
Richardson	0
Other	0
Tossup	27

Analysis
No Analysis Entered

Prediction History
Prediction Graph

Comments History - show

Version History

Member Comments

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-04-22 @ 23:59:08
Nice analysis, who. I like this Chuck Todd line tonight that Obama did to Hillary in Pennsylvania what Reagan did to the Soviet Union: caused her to spend so much she has nothing left to continue the fight.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-04-23 @ 00:10:23
More or less. The wheels are coming off the bus at this point. She will probably net a few million from winning PA, but I don't think she will be able to outspend Obama here. This will eventually come down to a point where there are no longer enough pledged delegates left in play for Hillary to catch Obama. To really put Obama in a bad spot, she needs to win Indiana by 10% or more and keep him strictly to single digits in North Carolina (anything higher and her delegate gain from PA will be completely erased). I don't see either as particularly likely at this point. In the end, this comes down to delegates. Super delegates aren't going to buy counting the Michigan popular vote. And not many will buy the popular vote argument at all. After all, delegates decide these matters. Party politics isn't really a popularity contest. Last Edit: 2008-04-23 @ 00:11:48

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-23 @ 03:36:34
Intereting analysis. I guess time will tell. I have a feeling though the small town comments from Obama didn't wash too well, could be wrong.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-04-23 @ 09:12:08
I'm not so sure that is true, because if it were his national numbers would have taken a real dive at that time (they didn't according to Gallup). Although Hillary will get a bounce out of PA and should paint it accordingly :p

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-24 @ 21:38:46
I think the small town comments has opened up Obama to a level of suspicion, on top of the comments made in his name to Canada over NAFTA. People are starting to think he says one thing in public on the stump & another thing to his fund raising supporters.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-04-24 @ 22:26:25
I don't think it's really had much of an effect, especially here. His national numbers have been surprisingly consistent in the wake of PA and the rest of the media invented scandals.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-26 @ 04:47:07
Latest national poll by Gallup Obama 48% Hillary 47% Obama 45% McCain 46% Hillary 47% McCain 45% They have advised Hillary has bounced after her massive PA win! Go Go Hillary!

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-04-26 @ 14:45:20
What's lost in all of this is that Hillary has no chance of getting more delegates than Obama (and therefore no chance of winning). If you run the numbers out, you will see this yourself. The PA win was not "massive" and netted her 10 delegates of the 150 she will need to swing the nomination. May 6th will more than erase this. I'm sorry dude but I have to call bullshit on this. It's over.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-04-27 @ 00:27:30
Well im glad that its not just about pledged delegates because I would have to agree with you there. Superdelegates and those little states of Florida and Michigan have to be decided upon and we will take this all the way to the damn convention. YES SHE WILL. Last Edit: 2008-04-27 @ 00:28:02

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-04-27 @ 01:11:51
Superdelegates will decide it between May 7 and mid-June, likely giving Obama a large enough margin that Michigan & Florida delegates would not make any difference. Should Clinton refuse to concede after supers put Obama over the top, the credentials committee, with 25 members hand picked by Dean, will not allow the rule breaking MI & FL results to stand. Carl Levin threatend to have the MI contest moved up in '04, and McCallife told him he would loose delegates if he did. Levin backed down in '04, only to challange Dean in '08. Dean and his appointees will quite obviously not back down. In such a scenario, it will be clear, probably well before the convention, that Obama will be the Democratic nominee. NO SHE WON'T.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-27 @ 05:40:06
Spit in the face of nearly 2 million voters. Makes alot of sense. You are so damn lucky Forida & Michigan are not being counted at this stage is all I can say. Like Dubya getting help from Daddy's mates on the Supreme court to overule in Florida. The irony is astounding. I guess it just goes to show if the shoe fits wear it!

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-04-27 @ 18:30:55
When your option would spit in the face of 30 million voters in sanctioned contests, it makes perfect sense. Likewise, the proper analogy to Bush v. Gore would be a few superdelegates overturning the expressed will of voters that Barack Obama be the Democratic nominee.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-27 @ 21:40:37
Keep justifying disenfranchisement. The bottom line is you are penalising ordinary voters for a decision that was not theirs to make in the first place. What are you so scared of? Hold a revote & put your money where your mouth is!

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-04-27 @ 22:49:37
? there are so many things wrong with this statement. Clinton entire campaign is staked upon disenfrnchisement. Her only chance at winning is to have the will of the voters overturned by superdelegates. While the voters in MI & FL are not at fault (nor is the Obama campaign), their states failed to hold valid nominating contests under the rules. I suspect the rules committee will seat half of their delegations at 50/50. Are you suggesting the Obama campaign pay for revotes? Its too late to hold them.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-04-27 @ 23:39:45
Florida and Michigan is a tough issue. On one hand, they broke the rules. And they knew it. On the other hand, not seating the delegations simply isn't Democratic. But on the other hand, counting them isn't very democratic either when you consider that it's a last minute rule change that benefits one candidate and that there are some that did NOT vote that day because they did not believe it would count. So how to count them? Who knows. A revote is obviously out. The DNC deciding this thing this late in the game isn't right. Hillary and Obama need to come together and find an obvious and fair compromise. I think that compromise is to say that a reasonable compromise is to seat them at a reduced number: 50% of Florida's reduced number of 53-70 delegates (reduced to 1/3 or 1/4 original as punishment for violating party rules) go Clinton and 33% go Obama and the rest (since Edwards is out now) become uncommitted and can publicly decide before the voting ends on June 3rd who they are for. If they do not decide by that deadline, then their vote is split in half between each candidate. After this they become pledged delegates and cannot change their minds, otherwise they'd be super delegates. Michigan same deal: reduced to 39-52 delegates and Hillary gets 50% of them. Number reduced since she was only candidate on the ballot. Obama gets the 40% that "uncomitted" would have received since his name wasn't on the ballot. The remaining 10% then get to choose as described above by June 3rd and become pledged delegates as well. It's a common sense compromise that respects those that voted in those primaries, punishes Michigan and Florida rather harshly, and denies them a pivotal role in the nomination process that would have been obtained through violating the rules they agreed to. Of course in this atmosphere, neither candidate wants to cede even an inch to the other. If Obama recognizes the results then he has to say Hillary is ahead in popular vote count (of course, this wouldn't count Obama's uncommitted votes in Michigan (which is frankly a bit squirrelly to me since it is quite obvious who those people were actually voting for) Hillary doesn't want a reduced number because that hurts her chances of winning severely. Using the gap in the rules as a political tool is a pretty sad thing for both of the candidates to be engaging in. Last Edit: 2008-04-27 @ 23:47:36

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-04-28 @ 01:01:10
I don't believe Obama's campaign has sought to capitalize on the gap in the rules. He has consistently deferred to the party as the authority on this matter. I like your proposed solution. Hopefully the rules committee implements a similar plan, although I'm not sure how workable the plan for uncommitted delegates is. Where & how do you find uncommitted delegates at this stage?

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-28 @ 03:32:56
Well the Republicans allowed the votes to be counted in Michigan? at a reduced %. & apparently the Democratic handbook says that they should be counted at 50%. So something needs to be done. Your outline above is better than nothing.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-04-28 @ 09:29:09
Republicans all appeared on the ballot in MI, and the MI primary was recognized by the Republican party. Yes, something needs to be done.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-04-28 @ 14:13:18
She wont be going anywhere until Michigan and Florida are resolve period.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-04-28 @ 22:28:15
If the super delegates go overwhelmingly for Obama or if Hillary is unable to cut down his lead, then it is worth considering that Michigan and Florida won't be enough to swing the election her way (and in this case Obama will simply have them seated and he will still win). I guess we'll see in June.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-04-28 @ 23:01:21
In that scenario Will Reverend Wright have a seat at the convention? Next to Al Sharpton perhaps?

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-04-29 @ 03:00:55
I think Al Sharpton will obviously be at the convention regardless of which candidate wins. See you in Denver =P

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-29 @ 07:08:05
Unfortunately Reverand Wright has had too much of Obama's ear already.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-04-29 @ 11:51:09
Well Im sure the republicans will be glad to see Rev. Wright at the convention =P

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-04-30 @ 06:42:41
I like how he's tried to play it that it's now everyone vs the black church. What a moron. There's no pulpit for this kind of talk. They were still digging bodies out of Ground Zero when he made his famous sermon. I'm not so sure this issue will go away, yes it will die down, but the damage has been done, & it certainly will stay in the back of people's minds. Having said that I did not see what Obama said today. Apparently he has now cut himself from the honorable Reverand? 20 years too late.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-04-30 @ 13:57:23
This is true, but the racial divide also means that super delegates cannot and will not pick Hillary. It would be seen by the media that Obama was being denied the nomination because the Democratic party establishment believes a black man cannot be elected President. The popular vote is in all reality a totally meaningless metric if the votes are not all cast under equal terms on the same day. In the past no record of it has ever been kept or needed. Like George W. Bush before her, Hillary defines "win" on her own terms and set of rules. But the reality is that she has absolutely no way of winning the 2008 election. Last Edit: 2008-04-30 @ 13:57:48

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-01 @ 07:51:32
Keep telling yourself that if that's what comforts you. You could be in for a real shocker! I think a Black man can become President, just not this one. He will need to be more conservative than Obama that is for sure. Colin Powell could have done it. Bottom line is it's a hard ask for anyone to become President of America (not France, Britain, or Australia) when they are the most Liberal voting Senator in the Senate. I don't think it's a revelation to anybody to say that your country is still fairly conservative at heart. This week's events have sown the seeds of doubt into an increasingly suspicious electorate. Having said that I thought it was a good response from Obama however I'm not sure if it will save his Presidential aspirations. Last Edit: 2008-05-01 @ 07:59:46

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-05-01 @ 18:01:19
"I don't think it's a revelation to anybody to say that your country is still fairly conservative at heart." This is no longer true. Republican identification is at very low levels. The Republican candidate is at best a moderate Republican. McCain isn't conservative.

By: demboy73 (D-AUS) 2008-05-02 @ 05:59:24
I hope to believe that, I do. Let's hope together. I know what your'e saying though I'm just not sure the proof is there yet re American conservatism. Look if Hillary looses I'm sure as I've said a few times I'll be going for Obama over McCain. I like McCain in a begrudging fashion, he is probably the best that the Republicans can put up but I'm not sure if it would be enough to vote for him. As you say the Republican brand at the moment is very worn out.

User's Predictions

Prediction Score	States	Percent	Total	Accuracy	Ver	#D	Rank		#Pred
2016 President	50/56	28/56	78/112	69.6%	3	0	325	T	678
2012 President	55/56	44/56	99/112	88.4%	6	1	146	T	760
2012 Senate	32/33	20/33	52/66	78.8%	1	1	74	T	343
2012 Rep Primary	8/52	2/52	10/104	9.6%	4	-	211	T	231
2010 Senate	0/37	0/37	0/74	0.0%	9	-1	200		456
2010 Governor	35/37	24/37	59/74	79.7%	3	1	59	T	312
2008 President	55/56	49/56	104/112	92.9%	87	0	1		1,505
2008 Senate	33/33	23/33	56/66	84.8%	11	1	14	T	407
2008 Governor	11/11	8/11	19/22	86.4%	5	1	27	T	264
2008 Dem Primary	47/52	41/52	88/104	84.6%	77	-	1		271
2008 Rep Primary	42/49	31/49	73/98	74.5%	27	-	1		235
2006 U.S. Senate	33/33	21/33	54/66	81.8%	9	1	65	T	465
2004 President	50/56	29/56	79/112	70.5%	33	1	1285	T	1,994
Aggregate Predictions	451/561	320/561	771/1122	68.7%

Links

Back to 2008 Dem Presidential Primary Prediction Home - Predictions Home