Clinton 52, Obama 37
This is big, but, as it is RIGHT after a big Hillary win (which will be lessened by the Texas caucus, Wyoming, and Mississippi wins by Obama) and is a full month-and-a-half away, I wouldn't count on it too much.
Also, I'd keep in mind that Obama had 20-point deficits in Ohio and Texas just a few weeks before the final vote. He may have still lost.. but he really gave Hillary a run for her money in the "firewall" of Texas.
Posted on March 6, 2008 3:15 PM
"Also, I'd keep in mind that Obama had 20-point deficits in Ohio and Texas just a few weeks before the final vote"
I like to point out that you're full of Sh*t
They were spot on for Texas and very close for Ohio.
Look at what the polls said "a few weeks before the final vote."
Obama BLEW an 8 point lead in Texas. He also finished as bad as he was polling on Feb 13-14 in Ohio.
Obama cannot win in a closed primary in a state that is more like Ohio than even Ohio is! PA is older than dirt, full of Catholics, and many African-Americans in Philly live across the river in Jersey or Wilmington.
Obama will lose big in PA. It's just a matter of how much. Also, he was down just 4 in PA according to Rasmussen a few weeks ago. He's sinking like a stone.
Posted on March 6, 2008 3:53 PM
Posted on March 6, 2008 3:54 PM
A new Rasmussen Reports survey in Pennsylvania finds Sen. Hillary Clinton has opened a 15 point lead over Sen. Barack Obama, 52% to 37%. Less than two weeks ago, Clinton's lead was just 4 points.
Obama CANNOT win in an OPEN primary in Ohio. Not even finding proof of Vince Foster being off'ed by Hillary herself will change his chances in PA. A moral victory for Obama will be to keep in under 10.
Key finding: "The big difference between that poll and the current result is found among men. Clinton now leads by seventeen percentage points among women and eleven among men. In the previous survey, she was ahead by fifteen points among women but trails by fourteen among men."
Posted on March 6, 2008 3:56 PM
Wait til Obama actually campaigns there, dummy.
Also, I hear some negative ads will be coming out about Clinton too. Hmm, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.......
Let's see Billary keep a lead after that happens...
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:02 PM
Ooops, bad news for Clinton. A redo in Michigan!!! YESSSS!! Obama will clean up there!
The only reason Clinton won Ohio was due to all the troglodytes there. Sorry, Michigan has more class than that.
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:06 PM
Senator Clinton is a CLASS ACT!! Obama seems to win in small states and in Caucuses but in a closed primary, where mainly only Democrats can vote, he does not do so well.
I have a theory. I think Repukelicans are voting for him in open primaries so as to try and keep Senator Clinton from winning the nomination. They know she can beat McBush and they are scared of her! I also think they are funneling money to his campaign. Watch his funds dry up if he gets nominated. Of course, they will blame it on Clinton. "If she would have only dropped out sooner, he would not have had to spend so much...and now his followers are tapped out." I can hear it now. LOL
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:09 PM
DHinMI's argument is weak. First of all there is the empirically false contention that the week and a half window of ARG's polling is comparable to a week window between now and PA. Secondly, ARG's polling was an outlier of the majority of polls showing Obama down in Texas and even further below in Ohio. These same supporters of HRC would laugh at ARG's numbers while and cite other polls to point to it as an anomaly. So it is particularly self-serving to cite that poll now. But if DH would like to learn "real math" then they could just as easily give HRC a 15 point lead in PA and not come close to offsetting her delegate debt or her debt in the popular vote. And without a lead in delegates or popular vote...HRC has NO chance of winning the nomination. Period.
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:10 PM
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:11 PM
Yeah Obama cant win a big state.
Missouri, Wisconsin and Illinois dont count
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:13 PM
Obama cant win big states
I would have put Washington but that would not have counted either
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:16 PM
Typo: meant to say the week and a half window as compared to the "6" week window between now and PA
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:17 PM
Georgia, Virginia and Maryland are all small states too. HRC never gives concession speeches and yet when she wins its a BIG deal. I love how she says now we should hear from rest of states...too bad she skipped over half of them already because she knew she wouldn't win. I guess she only wants to hear from states that she thinks she can win...pretty self serving calculus.
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:19 PM
Go bet that Obambi wins PA if you are so sure.
Closed Democratic Primary.
Intrade would love your money.
For every point he loses PA, will you clowns each donate $100 to Hillary Clinton?
I'd get ready to be writting a nice donation if I were you.
He campaigned ALL OVER OHIO. And still lost by double digits, WITH independents and republicans voting for him. Imagine PA without Independents, and you have a train wreck for Obambi.
Again, $100 for every point he loses by. Put your money where your stupid f**king rhetoric is.
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:23 PM
How about you bet on who will win the nomination??? PA is not determinative at this point. Get out your calculator to do the math and then to figure how much you can afford to lose on your bet.
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:30 PM
Wow loser, why don't you bet that Billary GETS the nomination?!!?
Yeah, that's what I thought. Why don't YOU put your money where your LOSING BS rhetoric, DUMBF*CK??
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:32 PM
Billary is LOSER & a hypocrite!!
Check out the latest BOMBSHELL ON CNN!!!!
LIARS!! Hmmm, Clintons lying? Why am I not surprised?!?!!?!?
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:35 PM
I'm sensing panic among Obama supporters: they know full well that the nomination is slipping out of BO's hands. Go Hillary!
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:40 PM
Can you add?
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:42 PM
For Bet on it. The bet to win pennsylvania I will not take but a bet for the nomination I will. To prove how good his ground game is... In january his campaign provided their plan of Attack which included which states they would win lose or draw and by how much.This is not coming from me if you watched MSNBC on tuesday night, Tim Russert was going over the specifics and this is on paper provided to MSNBC in January 2008. Bottom line is if you do an A.V.E. analysis (actual versus expected) they have accurately predicted each state (except for Maine which he won, he thought he would lose)and their Margins are within 3pts. Whether I think he hates the war she's more experienced BLAH BLAH BLAH and all of the spin that goes with the campaigns.If I measure the race against the goals he set for his campaign he is outperforming. If I evaluate his 50 state strategy to get him the popular vote and most "pledged delegates" he will win. Her big state only strategy will not get her to 2025. Looking at the math... unless she wins every contest here on out by 60-40 it is impossible to catch him in delegates and the popular vote. Also with a do-over in Michigan (he may win or lose by
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:47 PM
All these Obamabots were prediciting a blowout victory in Texas and Ohio, which did not happen. He has lost all big states apart from Illinois. If it wasn't for proportional allocation of delegates, he would be toast by now.
Posted on March 6, 2008 4:53 PM
Clinton will win Penn.
But it won't matter.
Posted on March 6, 2008 5:01 PM
Can you count?
Contests to date -
Obama - 27
Clinton - 14
Posted on March 6, 2008 5:04 PM
So what if he lost California and NY - they aren't going red in November. But Missouri, Virginia, Iowa, North Carolina and South Carolina might.
Face it, Clinton has NO CHANCE to win the presidency. Conservatives will come out of the woodwork to beat her down. You know it. I know it. And she knows it.
Posted on March 6, 2008 5:05 PM
Posted on March 6, 2008 5:09 PM
So, who is taking my bet on PA?
I'll repeat it daily.
$100 for every point he loses (wins) by.
Donated to the Hillary (or Obama's) campaign.
Who is a not a pussycat here?
PUT UP OR STFU.
Posted on March 6, 2008 5:29 PM
The Obamatology cult followers are very hysterical and with a acute symptom of malignant annihilation anxiety !! Come on fayries calm down and save money to visit BaRezko in jail!!!
So big rise so greater and faster fall!!
This candidate BaRezko is a typical egodystonic cryptomnesic specimen!
Posted on March 6, 2008 5:35 PM
Thanks for the comments. By the way, just as a little reminder to everyone on this post, I think we're all in this together as Democrats and our hope is to beat the a formidable opponent--that is John McCain and the Republicans--this Fall. I think the reason that Obama and Clinton are doing well in different states is because we have two strong candidates that we should be proud of as Democrats. I understand that we feel attachments for our candidates, but it would be a greater misfortune if this means we don't do well against the more important goal of winning this year. We are in the SAME team, not separate. I support Barack, but if Hillary is the nominee, I will work my heart out for her. I know the media is feeding this horserace and the stakes seem so high, but with two candidates with virtually the same policies, and their electoral strengths in attracting voters, we should all be proud.
good luck to Hillary and Barack supporters. I wish you all well.
Posted on March 6, 2008 5:43 PM
Would people please cut out the partisan BS, and stick to sober analysis based on facts and arguments.
"Obama won more states, proportion that"
Well the thing is that the DNC does proportion how much each state is worth. So you know, winning Alaska is proportionate to 1/25th of California.
The 2008 election will also proportion states, granting electoral college values to each. If you look at who would be winning if Clinton and Obama were in a national election it would be (I am using 2004 electoral college vote numbers)...
Clinton: 219 + (44 if you count Michigan and Florida)
Posted on March 6, 2008 5:44 PM
Posted on March 6, 2008 5:46 PM
Unfortunatley Michael, you make one ludicrous assumption - that California and New york WOULDN'T go to ANY Dem nominee. Look how many states are in play if Obama becomes the nominee. Now compare that to Clinton.
Hmm, different story.
Posted on March 6, 2008 5:48 PM
Obama can lose PA with those numbers and still clinch the nomination. Who cares if he supposedly "wins or loses" by the popular vote or not. Start paying attention to the real race at hand here. This is more of a concern of how Hillary can pull off 70% of the PA popular vote or not.
Posted on March 6, 2008 6:35 PM
Sorry Lucas, BaRezko isn't as original or easy to say (or even relevant for that matter) as Billary. :)
Posted on March 6, 2008 6:41 PM
AS(S) in CA,
How does he clinch? 2025 cannot mathematically be obtained by either candidate. PD lead is MEANINGLESS.
The Democrats are not going to give the nomination to the bozo who lost CA,OH,PA,TX,NY and (FL,MI when they revote). That's 7 of the 8 largest states (those with 10 million or more people) in the union. She will have the popular vote edge after that as well, since she is closing in one that number after gaining 350,000 on Tuesday. With a 10% win in PA, she gains about 300,000 more. FL would go to her by 7-12 points, minimum, and that will net AT LEAST 500,000 votes. NO WAY that the DNC will call the person with the most votes (and a small PD deficit) the loser.
Obambi needs to win PA, or face reality. Hell, he's in danger of losing NC now.
Posted on March 6, 2008 6:45 PM
Hassan is right. We should be happy that we have 2 exciting Democrat candidates and one of them is likely to win the White House, especially if they are on the same ticket. So the question becomes "which one should be at the top of the ticket"?
My sense is that Hillary knows she has to offer the VP slot to Obama. She's as good as said so. And knowing that sitting VPs always have the best chance at the next nomination, he'd definitely take it. But Obama is much less likely to offer it to Clinton (UNLESS the Dem leaders "force" him to) because he hates her and is less versed in the realities of national politics. (His abruptly ending his news conference when he didn't like the questions the other day demonstrated that). But the reality is, she probably wouldn't want the VP slot. She's been at the White House for 8 years and she's a extremely popular senior Senator from the 2nd largest state. Why would she want to be VP at this point in her life?
We all know that the candidates are very likely to split the rest of the contests (including do-overs in FL and MI) and neither candidate will have anywhere near enough pledged delegates, so the nomination is most likely to come down to the superdelegates. They will have a real conundrum on their hands, especially if Obama has more pledged delegates, but Clinton has more important/big state wins. Her best argument to the superdelegates (who have always been completely independent by the rules) will come if she actually has more votes at that point. If she can show that he has received more votes than Obama (which it appears is starting to be the case already), she can demonstrate that the only reason Obama has a delegate lead is because of Republican and Independent voters (and in caucuses vs. primaries), meaning that the Democratic nomination has been "hijacked". In that case, it's much more likely that the superdelegates (at the urging of the party bosses) will give her the nomination and him the VP slot. And they'll be "unified" and all lovey-dovey and we'll all be happy (except Obama who'll just have to wait 4 or 8 years). But he's still young. This is what's going to happen. Just watch.
Posted on March 6, 2008 7:04 PM
I mean I'll go with you to say that yeah he can't get 2025 delegates and cant' win that way. I'm figuring that this will be stopped by the superdelegates to avoid any more drama. But you on the other hand are suggesting that Hillary will win because the DNC scraps the entire delegate system and goes for the popular votes of all the states? Where did this methodology come from? And why is no major newspaper even talking about this as a possibility? Talking about changing the rules mid-game.
I thought Obama was going to win Texas...yes I made a mistake. I am from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and I am still a Obama Supporter. I see the massive organization of Barack Obama, and he is going after a mammoth amount of Delegates. I am a volunteer, and he is going after netting more delegates. The playbook for us is to indiviually pick out districts as a office to make sure we pick up more delegates than Hillary. Bucks County, Montgomery County, Philadelphia, Delaware, Chester, York, and Berks County are being targeted. While I feel as someone who saw 180 people fill a Obama Office on the 1st Volunteer Training Day several weeks ago, I can say that the majority of those who came were Hillary Clinton demographic. Older Women and NO African Americans. The Obama Organization in Pennsylvania should not be overlooked. His support here is MASSIVE. Gov Rendell did not help her w/ his racist comments either. The most delegates lay in Eastern and Western PA, not in the middle. This is where Obama is already positioned to win. However, I think Hillary will win in Kentucky and West Virginia. I see Barack Obama taking Montana, Oregon, South Dakota, Indiana, North Carolina, and Wyoming. Pennsylvania & Puerto Rico are too close to call at this point.
Posted on March 6, 2008 7:23 PM
Cristobal - I'm an african-american for Hillary! Pennsylvania and PR are not too close to call. And Clinton will take Indiana, KY and WV -- these have similary populations.
Posted on March 6, 2008 8:02 PM
Hitlery will win PA, PR, KY, WV, and IN.
OR and NC lean to Bambi. Since they are primaries, not caucuses, Hitlery can be competitive in each.
MS, WY are Bambi strongholds.
SD, MT, Guam who cares?
Posted on March 6, 2008 8:35 PM
The person who has been posting with the handle DHinMi (and frequently entering "dailykos.com" as a URL) is NOT the blogger that posts to the front page of Daily Kos using the handle DHinMI. As such, I have changed the name used above to read "NOT-DHinMI"
To "Not-DH": Any further comments using names that impersonate another person will be deleted.
Posted on March 6, 2008 8:54 PM
Is anyone else as amazed as I am at how often you see the spurious argument that Michael makes above -- namely, that Obama losing states in Democratic primaries implies his losing them in the general election?
Posted on March 6, 2008 10:19 PM
I am a registerred democrat in PA. Man we are going to get so much money in the state for the next 6 weeks...as if we dont already have a state budget surplus of $400mil :-D.
@Bree: 27-14, err a little bit of fuzzy math there sir. Yes if you add up each individual contest you get 27, but you are putting Democrats Abroad and the US Virgin Islands in the same category as a state/commonweath???
Heck, if you are including those, why not include American Samoa that you conveniently forgot and make it 15 for Hillary?
Without these insignificant territories, which have 0 effect on the outcome in November (let alone voting power in the congress), the count is 25-14.
Then what about his count minus caucuses? Everyone knows caucuses are a joke...only a limited window of time to vote, 1 vote doesnt equal 1 vote, etc. Caucuses, while a staple in certain states' primary elections, are a joke to the democratic process, besides the fact that every state in November will be a primary, NOT a caucus. As has been shown time and time again (NY,CA,OH,TX,NJ,MA,FL,AZ), Barack Obama does not perform well in a primary in a big state. Yeah people argue on certain "big" states, but there is always a "but" with these states:
Illinois - BUT it was his homestate
Georgia - BUT there is a heavy african american population not seen in the other big states. (28.7% african american according to Census2000)
Virginia - BUT it was similar to Georgia (19.6%)
Maryland - BUT it was similar to Georgia (27.9%)
So without Caucus states and the territories which have no bearing on the November outcome the score is:
Obama - 14
Clinton - 13
Sure, you cant exactly discount states as they too vote in November, but you have to wonder if the results in these states would be the same if primaries, not caucuses, were held. It might be possible that they wouldn't change, heck Utah was an overwhelming primary victory for Obama. We will never know. All I do know is in big states with a PRIMARY, Hillary performs very well.
Anyway, back on topic with PA. As a registered democrat in PA (in the Philly area), I have to agree with Michael Smirconish from 1210AM (Philly talk radio station): he said that he pretty much knows which color to shade in each county; the battle for PA will be fought in the Philly suburbs.
If you want to see what he is talking about, just look at the 2004 presidential election results at this map here: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2004&fips=42&f=0&off=0&elect=0
This is how PA will be shaded. Blue = hillary, Red = obama. There red is Philly in the southeast, Pittsburgh in the west, Erie in the northwest, and Scranton in the northeast. Everything else is true pennsyltucky, even Harrisburgh in central PA.
As Smirconish said, and as Obama has indicated with his dedication to his PA plan, the race will be decided in the Philly burbs: namely, Bucks (northmost), Montgomery (central) and Delaware (south).
While one is led to believe that they will be favorable for Obama, I for one do not agree. I live 10 minutes from Center City Philadelphia. While the areas immediately adjacent to Philadelphia are probably favorable for Clinton the areas 25 minutes and further (i.e. 15 miles out) start to become central PA all over again. So while Bucks, Montgomery and Delaware are rather expansive, only the the areas 15-20 miles outside of the city are true Obama country. Also take note of the fact that there is a heavy Jewish population (which I am part of) in the immediate suburbs west of Philadelphia, and I think the Jewish community is more favorable for Clinton.
Another thing to note is the 2006 congressional election for my district (district #6). It is so characteristic of how things will go in Montgomery county (where I am).
You had the incumbent Jim Gerlach going for a third term, and the opponent Lois Murphy. Murphy lost to Gerlach in 2004 by 1%. Lois, a true liberal (who I voted for), again lost by 1%. Why? Two reasons: the 6th congressional district not only covers the Obama-friendly, democratic-preferring immediate suburban outskirts of Philadelphia in Montgomery county, but covers areas of Bucks county and the back end of Montgomery county, which is heavily republican and Hillary preferring. Second, the ads on the airwaves in my area were all fear-natured, calling Lois Murphy "Liberal Lois", and I can tell you that these ads worked very well in swaying votes to Gerlach. So if "Liberal Lois" fear ads worked in a congressional election, think of how well the 3AM ads will work...
All in all, I don't see any way in which Obama will win this state. Central PA is so heavily republican, and favorable to Hillary the same way central Ohio and non-urban areas of Texas are, that she will command the same kind of victory as she saw in Ohio.
Also note that while Philadelphia might have a high african american population, it also has a very high Union population.
While percentage-wise PA ranks lower than Ohio (based on 2006 numbers from the Department of Labor) for Union worker population (14.2% to 13.6%), the actual number of union workers in PA is greater by around 11,000 (745,000 to 734,000). Actually, I just checked the 2007 numbers and the difference is actually GREATER; it is now around 113,000 (910,000 to 797,000), so too is the percentile (16.6% to 15.4%).
The numbers are so heavily in Clinton's favor it is not funny. Every poll in PA, even the ones after Obama's 11 state win streak, all show Clinton with a comfortable lead. Couple this with endorsements from the GOVERNOR, the very POPULAR governor, and the popular new MAYOR OF PHILADELPHIA, and it does not make for a favorable outlook for Obama.
Posted on March 6, 2008 10:51 PM
These are my predictions based on several factors (Hispanic pop., african american pop., jewish pop., union pop. and primary type)
MS - strong obama (36.3% african american population)
WY - solid obama (caucus)
PA - strong clinton (16.6% union population, 2.3% jewish, 3.2% hispanic, and northeast PA is full of commuters to NYC. 10% african american.)
Guam - solid obama (caucus)
IN - slight clinton (15.4% union population, 3.2% hispanic, 8.4% african american.)
NC - strong obama (21.6% african american population)
WV - strong clinton (14.7% union population, 3.2% african american population, 0.7% hispanic, 0.1% jewish)
KY - strong clinton (11.1% union population, 7.3% african american population, 1.5% hispanic, 0.3% jewish)
OR - leans clinton (15.4% union population, 8.0% hispanic, 1.6% african american, 0.9% jewish)
Puerto Rico - strong clinton (yes a caucus, but it is 98.8% hispanic, and the african american population is next to nothing in comparison)
Montana - strong Obama (very high Union population and next to 0 african american, jewish and hispanic populations, but MT resides in the part of the US which seems to be Obama-country)
South Dakota - strong Obama (see Montana description).
Posted on March 6, 2008 11:14 PM
I said that the Obama Training Session was packed with 90% being Hillary so-called "demographic". Indiana is in the bag for Obama. A Late Texas Caucus will present an oppertuniy for Obama to get a clearer message out to America.
Posted on March 6, 2008 11:51 PM
Puerto Rico changes to a primary from a caucus and has been moved up to June 1.
The change was made because they wanted to avoid overcrowded EIGHT caucus locations. This way they can handle a million voter as opposed to ten thousand or so in caucusing.
The move to June 1 was to be in accordance with party rules. Rules state that the primary has to be on the first Sunday in June, June 1st.
The move was unanimously approved by the DNC. Looks like this could be moved into the "Solid Clinton" column.
Posted on March 7, 2008 12:29 AM
I didn't have time to read your many lengthy posts, but thank you for pointing out that Obama's victories in states with large African-American populations don't count as much as Hillary's big state wins.
What is the rationale here? That they should be discounted because Obama is favored by black voters? By that token, I guess we should discount EVERY SINGLE STATE Clinton has won because they're predominately "white" states.
Please respond with another long rambling post.
Posted on March 7, 2008 2:21 AM
Oregon is an Obama stronghold not Clinton. Portland, Eugene, and Salem will go to Obama. It follows a very similar political makeup to that of Washington State which includes many independents which swing toward Obama.
Posted on March 7, 2008 2:38 AM
Mathematically, this race is over for Clinton. MO Governor has announced that about 50+ SD will back Obama within the next week or so. If the big states are more important, then DEM shld compete only in those big states.You took part in a decision and then when you're down, you want to change the rules you agreed to. I thought Americans are better than these.
Posted on March 7, 2008 3:22 AM
The point on the delegate match is that Neither candidate is going to reach the magic number. In that context, all Hillary needs to do is catch up with Obama in the overal popular vote. Then she can say to the superdelegates "do you really want to support a candidate who a majority of democrats do NOT support?" My guess is that the answer is no. You are absolutely right on the pledged delegate math. Hillary will not catch him. However, you are ignoring the rule that says a candidate needs to exceed the magic number to win. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Posted on March 7, 2008 10:28 AM
I appreciate you making an attempt to read my post :). I felt the need to clear up some things about PA that people who DON'T live in PA would never know and need to know regarding the upcoming election on Apr22.
That is not what I said.
I did agree with the fact that he has won "big" states, IL, GA, VA, WA, etc., but these states came from the fact that certain demographics favored him.
When you have 30% of voters (in a state) in which you win 90% of those 30%, you are very likely to win. Just look at Florida: the southern part of Florida is full of Northeastern democrats over 60 who all vote for Hillary. You think that bodes well for Obama in a re-do? There is a reason why these areas voted overwhelmingly for Clinton the first time around.
Why do you think Mississippi is so heavily favored for Obama? How about 32% african american population?
The question I am trying to raise is not whether these states should be discounted, but rather, how would the state go if 1) there wasn't a high percentage of african american, 2) it wasn't a caucus state?
The point I am trying to make with #1 is not about relocating african american population or whatever, it is merely asking the question whether Obama's performance in the other demographics are enough to win a state alone.
His performance in the non-african american demographics, namely white female, white male, union-class, etc. were so poor in Ohio it begs the question about how he will do with those groups in a general election.
Similarly, how would Obama have done in states holding caucuses without large african american population?
The thing people fail to realize is that the republican registration in some of these RED states where Obama is winning is GREATER than the democratic registration and the number of people who are voting in democratic primaries. So while it looks all great that he is excelling in these traditionally "red" states, the general election may not prove as friendly.
Lets take for example the "big state of GA where Obama won convincingly in a PRIMARY (not a caucus).
2008 democratic primary results:
Obama - 704,247
Clinton - 330,026
Other - 26,578
That is a total of 1,060,851. A great number of voters.
Now look at the GA 2004 general election results:
Bush - 1,914,254
Kerry - 1,366,149
Other - 21,472
1.9m republican votes, alone!
Sure, you have to figure in the 176% increase that the 2008 democratic primary saw over the 2004 version (putting the Kerry number at 2.4m), but you also have to figure 1)republican turnout has also increased, and 2) that a good majority of the new voters in 2008 are just people who voted in the 2004 national election and not the 2004 primary.
Lets look at South Carolina, another big-ish state where Obama won convincingly:
Obama - 294,898
Clinton - 140,990
Edwards - 93,801
Other - 2,462
A total of 532,151. Another good number.
Now how about South Carolina in the 2004 general election:
Bush - 937,934
Kerry - 661,699
Other - 18,057
937,934 republican votes, alone!
Yes, SC did see a 182% increase in turnout from the 2004 primary to the 2008 version, and figuring in this number puts the Kerry number at 1.2m, but again, what percent of the turnout in 2008 was due just to new voter registration and due to people who just chose not to vote in the 2004 primary? We will never know.
I can do this for every one of the RED states and it will all be the same:
total number of democratic primary voters will be LESS than the number of votes Bush got in the general election in 2004.
This is why people are quick to discount these small, red states; not to mention the fact that the majority of them were won by a caucus system.
Posted on March 7, 2008 11:13 AM
God I hate commenting systems which take forever to post and fail to take your post properly the first time forcing you to try a second time, thus making you double-post.
Posted on March 7, 2008 11:15 AM
Hillary is a Back Stabber!! She praises McCain almost on a daily basis,she helped Bush with his War Plans!!She doesn't care about dividing the party!!She will do anything to win even pull this Florida and Michigan crap to try to put her over the top! After all she did say she would make sure they are seated!!If the tables were turned the press would have a field day with Barack to even suggest a re-do!! This all stinks!!If Hillary gets this nomination she won't win the general election because she sold her soul and cheated her way to the nomination allot of peolple who beleive in playing fair and following the rules such as me will feel cheated and won't vote for her, when you are backed in a corner you start to show your true colors, and I don't want her in the Oval Office with the 5 different faces of Hillary!!She won't get my vote!!
Posted on March 7, 2008 11:57 AM
I do think Obama's supporters have to address his relatively poor performances in the biggest states other than Illinois. Yes, some of them (New York, California) are reasonably sure to go Democratic in Novemeber no matter who is nominated, and Texas is equally likely to go Republican. But Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida are all potentially up for grabs. If the Democrats lose all four--or even three out of the four--even carrying Iowa and Virginia won't be enough to win.
That's why I think a re-vote may not be a bad thing for Obama. He might win Michigan, at least (even "uncommittted" did respectably...) and improve on his first showing in Florida. If he does that, and leads in pledged delegates, the superdelegates will probably break his way. Moreover, the re-vote will lessen resentment of the Democratic Party in those two states and thus make it likely that *whoever* wins the Democratic nomination will carry them (or at least Michigan) in November.
Posted on March 7, 2008 12:52 PM
I was being SARCASTIC when I asked you to respond with a long, rambling post. Seriously, you're clogging up the message board. I've never seen such a long post for such a strained, intellectually-dishonest argument.
"His performance in the non-african american demographics, namely white female, white male, union-class, etc. were so poor in Ohio it begs the question about how he will do with those groups in a general election." Doesn't Hilary's poor performance with African Americans beg the question how she will do with that group in the general election? Or are Dems going to win without a big turnout from blacks in November?
Also, all of Hillary's big state victories have the same BUTS as your examples. Hillary won NY BUT it's her home state. She won TX and CA BUT they have large Hispanic populations, so they can be discounted (for some reason). Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?
And your cherry-picked results comparing primary registration to general election results are irrelevant at best. And how do WA's demographics benefit Obama?
Your mistake is that you're looking at this race through the traditional racial paradigms of past election cycles. I mean, what about nearly all-white states like North Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa where Obama polls ahead of McCain in the GE but Hillary loses big?
Oh man, now you've got me making posts as long as yours.
Posted on March 7, 2008 3:37 PM
As we all know Obama has won most caucuses, this is because it is the younger can stay around longer. The elderly (which mostly support Hillary)do not come out late, and cannot stay longer hours than the young. If those were primary states, I'm absolutely sure she would have won more.
Carolyn in Austin, TX
Posted on March 8, 2008 10:41 AM
Nick, I'm not trying to discount them. I am simply trying to point out that Obama's performance in non-caucus state primaries have been poor outside of those where he got help from his key demographic.
Here are the states with primaries (ordered by ECV, minus home states) and their african american:hispanic populations and ratio:
TX (6.67m,2.40m) - 2.78:1.00
FL (2.68m,2.34m) - 1.16:1.00
OH (0.22m,1.30m) - 1.00:5.91
MI (0.33m,1.41m) - 1.00:4.27
NJ (1.11m,1.14m) - 1.00:1.03
MA (0.43m,0.34m) - 1.26:1.00
MO (0.12m,0.63m) - 1.00:5.25
TN (0.12m,0.93m) - 1.00:7.25
WI (0.19m,0.30m) - 1.00:1.58
CT (0.32m,0.31m) - 1.03:1.00
OK (0.18m,0.26m) - 1.00:1.44
AR (0.09m,0.42m) - 1.00:4.66
UT (0.20m,0.02m) - 10.0:1.00
NH (0.02m,0.01m) - 2.00:1.00
RI (0.09m,0.05m) - 1.80:1.00
Now removing those states which saw the desired effect from the demographic (e.g. Barack won Alabama with an overwhelming african amercian population):
TX 2.78:1.00 - HRC
FL 1.16:1.00 - HRC
OH 1.00:5.91 - HRC
MI 1.00:4.27 - HRC
NJ 1.00:1.03 - HRC
MA 1.26:1.00 - HRC
MO 1.00:5.25 - BO
TN 1.00:7.25 - HRC
WI 1.00:1.58 - BO
CT 1.03:1.00 - BO
OK 1.00:1.44 - HRC
AR 1.00:4.66 - HRC
UT 10.0:1.00 - BO
NH 2.00:1.00 - HRC
RI 1.80:1.00 - HRC
Barack has won 4 of 15 contests listed above. And note the contests in Arkansas, Michigan, Tennessee, Missouri, and Ohio.
Ohio - it was near 6 to 1 in favor african americans and she still won the state handily.
Missouri - the ratio of african american to hispanic was 5.25 to 1, and Barack won by only a point and a half.
Tennessee - Hillary won handily even with the heavy african american ratio
I guess we can eliminate Arkansas because of it being Bill's home state.
And Michigan had a very high ratio of african american to hispanic and Hillary won handily; yes i know Barack wasn't on the ballot, but i would have expected "Uncommited" to win handily then.
The point I am trying to make here is that without his key demographic helping out, Barack does not perform well in primary states. This is important because all states are primaries in November, and the african american demographic is canceled out by the evangelical vote in some of these states (AL,MS,SC,NC,TN,GA,etc.).
This certainly doesn't bode well in the general election in battleground states where the african american vote does not have a big effect (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan).
Again, wins are wins, and a 100 delegate lead cant be discounted, but the question has to be asked: if the caucus states were primaries would the results be the same?
Posted on March 8, 2008 1:51 PM
Sorry, the first list of primaries was missing a few states...
CA (10.97m,2.26m) - 4.85:1.00
TX (6.67m,2.40m) - 2.78:1.00
FL (2.68m,2.34m) - 1.16:1.00
OH (0.22m,1.30m) - 1.00:5.91
MI (0.33m,1.41m) - 1.00:4.27
NJ (1.11m,1.14m) - 1.00:1.03
GA (0.44m,2.35m) - 1.00:5.34
VA (0.33m,1.39m) - 1.00:4.21
MA (0.43m,0.34m) - 1.26:1.00
MO (0.12m,0.63m) - 1.00:5.25
TN (0.12m,0.93m) - 1.00:7.25
AZ (1.30m,0.16m) - 8.13:1.00
MD (0.23m,1.48m) - 1.00:6.43
WI (0.19m,0.30m) - 1.00:1.58
AL (0.08m,1.16m) - 1.00:14.5
CT (0.32m,0.31m) - 1.03:1.00
OK (0.18m,0.26m) - 1.00:1.44
AR (0.09m,0.42m) - 1.00:4.66
NM (0.77m,0.04m) - 19.3:1.00
UT (0.20m,0.02m) - 10.0:1.00
NH (0.02m,0.01m) - 2.00:1.00
RI (0.09m,0.05m) - 1.80:1.00
DE (0.37m,0.15m) - 2.47:1.00
DC (0.05m,0.34m) - 1.00:6.80
VT (0.006m,0.003m) - 2.00:1.00
Posted on March 8, 2008 3:36 PM
You continue to miss the point.
You say "without his key demographic helping out, Barack does not perform well in primary states." Well, without Hillary's "key demographic" of white women over 40 (like herself) she gets creamed by Obama across the board. But why would one arbitrarily extract a candidate's key demographic? It's an arbitrary, irrelevant exercise. You could do it for ANY candidate (i.e. without George Bush's "key demographic" of white evangelicals, he would have lost in '04). But do you see how that's arbitrary?
And you didn't answer my question of why WA's demographics favor Obama. And you still haven't explained why Obama polls so much better than Clinton against McCain in "white" states like Iowa, Nebraska, and North Dakota.
PLEASE don't make another long post with irrelevant data that doesn't address the questions at hand.
Posted on March 8, 2008 6:59 PM
Its not arbitrary. Florida in 2000 was a clear case of what happens when you lose a key demographic because they are blocked from voting. African americans were blocked from voting in several locations and Gore lost Florida (watch Fahrenheit 9/11 from Michael Moore).
It certainly is possible that this could occur again.
I dont exactly remember Hillary's key demographics being blocked from voting - voters over 65+, jewish voters, hispanic voters, union voters, etc.
I missed your questions, sorry.
Washington has the 15th lowest population of households with under $50k income (54.4% according to Census 2000), a demographic which favors clinton. Couple this with Seattle which has a very high median income. Yes, California is even lower population (52.1%), but California also has 24x the hispanic population of WA (10.9m to 0.44m).
It is also has the 8th youngest population (11.2%). Yes TX,CA, and NV have younger populations but they also have huge hispanic populations.
However, Washington has a very high Union population at 20.2%, which is 4th highest in the nation by percent. Notice how the primary in Washington was much closer than was the caucus (51-45 vs 68-31); i think primaries are more favorable to people in unions considering that caucuses are performed during a certain timeframe.
I can't explain those polls simply because I have no clue who they are polling. For all I know, everyone they call in those states are african american. Similarly, they could be polling all hispanics in states where Hillary is voting.
None of these polling locations actually release the names and nationalities of who they call. They just say HRC/JM = +X, and BO/JM = +Y.
All of these places say they are using scientific polling, but who is going to test them on that?
I would be asking the same question regardless of me being a BO supporter or HRC supporter. Polls said BO would handily win CA, yet HRC won by 10 pts. Polls said BO would win TX by 3-5pts, yet HRC wont by 3-4 pts. Polls said BO would win Wisconsin by 10pts, yet he won it by 18pts. Polls said HRC would win delaware by a few pts, yet BO won it by 9pts.
Posted on March 9, 2008 5:08 PM
"I dont exactly remember Hillary's key demographics being blocked from voting - voters over 65+, jewish voters" Um...remember BROWARD and PALM BEACH COUNTIES?? Could you find more 65+ Jewish voters?? Your weak argument isn't even factually accurate.
And then this: "I can't explain those polls simply because I have no clue who they are polling. For all I know, everyone they call in those states are african american." In Iowa, Nebraska, and North Dakota?! Have you ever been to these states?! Or are you suggesting SurveyUSA, one of the most reputable polling firms in the country, found all of the black voters in those states and only polled them?! Well, here's another crazy conspiracy theory -- maybe, just maybe, the white voters in those states actually prefer Barack Obama to Hillary and McCain on substance and not just blind racial allegiances. No, that would be crazy.
Posted on March 9, 2008 6:09 PM
65+ jewish voters were at least allowed to vote...they messed up their vote, but I dont attribute that to the loss. A whole race prevented from voting is a bit more of an effect.
National polls dont poll 90% of their people from single states, namely the ones you mentioned.
If referring to state-only polls, who says they are or arent polling all african americans? It may sound impossible, but it certainly isn't improbable.
You did happen to mention caucus-only states, by the way, and caucuses favor Barack.
Posted on March 9, 2008 11:51 PM
So because SOME black voters in Florida were disenfranchised 8 years ago, we should extract ALL the black voters from the primary voting results in ALL states this year? Hmm...are you by any chance a Clinton supporter?
Posted on March 9, 2008 11:59 PM
I just want to make sure I have your position straight -- no African-Americans cast their votes in the Florida election, yet SurveyUSA went out of its way to poll ONLY African-American voters this year in IA, NE, and ND?
Well, you're definitely wrong on that last point, because SurveyUSA posted its demographic breakdown, which shows less than 3% of voters polled in those three states were African American (they DO release this data, btw, it's on SurveyUSA's website). And these are GENERAL ELECTION polls between McCain and Obama -- has nothing to do with primary vs. caucus.
Posted on March 10, 2008 1:00 AM
We have to face reality hear, On the dem side it comes down to experience. Clinton has, Obama has not. My biggest fear is a novice at the helm. So like many dems I have talked to in PA, if it's not Clinton, I'm voting for McCain.
Posted on March 14, 2008 12:19 AM
Do you mean we have to face reality HERE? And if Clinton is getting out-fundraised and out-organized by so-called novice in the primary, how is she going to beat McCain in the general? Sounds like Clinton supporters are the ones who need to face reality here.
I like McCain and Clinton as far as pro-war candidates go, but so long as there's a candidate who had the good sense to oppose this awful war from the start, he's gonna get my vote. Maybe that's not the prevailing wisdom in PA, though.
Posted on March 17, 2008 4:46 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR