Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylvania

by Jonathan Singer, Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:58:40 PM EST

Here's Time's Michael Duffy:

Backed by more than half of all white female Democrats, Hillary Clinton holds a six point lead over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania, a new statewide poll by TIME reveals.

Clinton leads Obama overall 44% to 38% among all Democrats in the TIME survey, but enjoys a notably broader margin of support among white Democratic women: 56% to Obama's 25%. More evenly split, by contrast, are white male Democrats, who prefer Clinton by a narrower margin of 44% to 36%. The survey, conducted by Abt SRBI from April 2-6 of 676 Democratic primary voters, comes less than two weeks before the crucial April 22 primary.

[...]

Though Obama won majorities of white voters earlier in the primary season, he has struggled more recently to maintain those margins, and that trend appears to be holding in Pennsylvania. Obama is getting the votes of 80% of the state's black Democrats but only 30% of white voters. Clinton is winning only 8% of blacks, but is backed by 51% of the white voters. Some 8% of whites and 12% of blacks are undecided.

A similar pattern can be seen in how Keystone Democrats of differing incomes regard the two candidates. Some 55% of white Democrats who make less than $55,000 back Clinton in Pennsylvania, while only 22% in that financial bracket favor Obama. Above $50,000, the state's white Democrats split almost evenly: 45% support Clinton and 41% are backing Obama.

When SRBI pushed leaners, Hillary Clinton's lead is 8 points, 49 percent to 41 percent. This is not too far off from the consensus of other polls, with the Pollster.com trend estimate placing Clinton's lead over Barack Obama in the state at 49.6 percent to 42.6 percent, and the Real Clear Politics average putting Clinton on top 49.1 percent to 41.3 percent. It's worth noting, also, that this is the sixth poll out of nine in the field this month that puts the race in Pennsylvania within the margin of error. Does this mean that the race is tied? Both Pollster and RCP are in pretty close agreement that Clinton holds a lead in the high single-digits. But more and more, this is not looking like the type of blowout it appeared to be headed towards just a couple of weeks ago.




Tags: Pennsylvania Primary, Pennsylvania, Democratic Primaries (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 134 Comments :: Post a Comment


Obama Stagnant (2.00 / 0)

Obama is stagnant around 40 percent. That's telling more so than the margin of difference between the two candidates.

This dovetails perfectly with my prediction of a final 60-40 split on primary day.


by Zeitgeist9000 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:03:05 PM EST

Re: Obama Stagnant (none / 0)

So you automatically give her all the undecided voters???  That's highly unlikely...  I'll go with a 57-43 split at best for Clinton.  Not 60-40. The primary is still a little under 2 weeks away.  We'll see what happens.


John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."
by jturn17 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:24:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

60%-40%? (2.00 / 1)

I'll take that bet!


by nwgates on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:34:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Stagnant (none / 0)

I'll say Obama fails to get above 44 in the RCP average, he loses by 10 or more.  Ohio he peaked at 43 RCP average and received 44% of the vote.


by reggie44pride on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:40:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Stagnant (none / 0)

I'll take the under.

How much would you like to bed she wins by less than 15%?


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:41:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Stagnant (none / 0)

No bed. I don't know you that well.


by Zeitgeist9000 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:48:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

um.... wow...that is not the sort of typo I (none / 0)

want to make around here...

Anyway.

How much would you like to BET?


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:32:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um.... wow...that is not the sort of typo I (none / 0)

What was the original proposition?


by Zeitgeist9000 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:20:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um.... wow...that is not the sort of typo I (none / 0)

Well you have been saying that Obama will lose by 20% in PA... I think he will finish inside 15%.

So lets put the over/under at 16.5%. I'll accept any reasonable wager and I will take the under.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:38:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um.... wow...that is not the sort of typo I (none / 0)

Okay, deal!

I will donate $20 to the charity of your choice and vice versa....


by Zeitgeist9000 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:45:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Stagnant (none / 0)

I have to agree, started out 21-26 points ahead.  I honestly have not seen anything indicating  that Obama has made a real move.  My prediction, Hillary by 17.


by Hope Monger 2008 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:10:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is there any record of speeches (none / 0)

the candidates are making on the campaign trail. Is anybody compiling them?


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:03:08 PM EST

she'll win by double digits (2.00 / 1)

She is starting her advertising, the polls are trending back her way and Obama can't get above the low 40's in all of these polls.

I think this is a safe 10-15 point win for her.


by njsketch on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:03:50 PM EST

10-15 (none / 0)

won't be enough to help her.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:30:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

True......in a rational world (none / 0)

But we all know the world is not rational.  If Clinton wins PA by +10 to +15, no matter where the polls were two, three, four, 12 weeks ago and how much ground Obama made up, the media will paint this as a huge huge HUGE Clinton win and a massive Obama loss.  Rgeradless of what it does in delegates, it will be seen (and somewhat rightly in my opinion) as a huge setback for Obama and a race evener by Clinton.  The media doesnt care about what happened yesterday, all that matters is today.

The narratives will be set for the run up to NC and Indiana - Obama cant seal the deal, Clinton has the 'mo' and this race is far from over.

We need to face facts, the media does not want this race to be over, and until its techincally over (either through a super delegate burst for Obama or Clinton or Obama winning in a state hes not supposed to) any win by Clinton will be spun as the race is still tied.

We can look at all the math we want, but a win in PA for Clinton (and in my opinion any win - even a +1 win) leaves too many questions out there for Obama than some people like.  And Im one of them.  I want Obama to win and win out strong.  I dont want him to limp into the nomination (or maitain into the nomination instead of limp).  Its concerns me, demographics be damned, that he cant win over Hillary when essentially she is a lost candidate.  A person who has 'won' the primary on math should be able to beat the 'loser' by math.  Traditional politics says so and its disquieting if it doesnt happen.  

So you can count me in a group that fears a Clinton win in PA.  I dont fear in the sense that I think it will affect the outcome of the primary, I think the stage is too far set at this point for Clinton to make up enough ground to get the supers to come to her in enough numbers to get the nomination.

What I fear is an emboldened media and Clinton.  A win and fawning media will embolden those that want this race to keep going in a direction that I do not think is healthy for no other reason than the media likes a fight.

Dont get me wrong, there are some aspects of the ongoing primary that I like, I just have little trust of politicians who have long shot paths to victory from being able to stay away from the temptation to go super negative.  The last week has been mostly good on that front, but an emboldened media and Clinton will demand negativity.

A Clinton win will be great news for her and bad news for Obama, no matter how little impact it has on the final outcome.  It just means we see a needless primary go on all the way out.  An Obama win in PA is the only thing that ends this primary before Denver.  Period.

And I dont think hes going to do it.


by pattonbt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:52:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, I am not that worried (none / 0)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:04:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True......in a rational world (none / 0)

In a primary where neither candidate will get the amount needed for the nomination, how realistic is it to expect Obama is going to knock Hillary out? She is still a viable candiadate that has about 47% of the party's voters behind her. We're not Republicans, we don't fall lock, stock and barrell behind whoever the establishment gives us, to show aq false 'unity'. Obama was an outside candidate and he won the plurality of the vote, in the delegates, in the states and enough people have voted to show that they want him. He ran a better campaign, and personally didn't make any major missteps. Hillary can't say the same, but by the same token the juggernaut that she came into this primary on, turned out to be a ballon.
Before the superdelegates start runnning up the score for Obama, he will lead by about 100-125 pledged delegates. It's a victory. It's not a landslide, (but it never could be against her)but it IS decisive.
We all need to accept this reality and move against the common enemy.
A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:48:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

Whatever. Run the numbers and she still can't get close in pledged delegates:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/04/going-to-be-in.html


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:07:41 PM EST

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

so what? Pledged delegates are only the most important thing if you can win enough to secure the nomination. Since Obama cannot, his slim pledged delegate lead doesn't mean any more than any other metric. A 15 point PA win cuts deep into his popular vote total, which is actually a measure of the "will of the people."


by theshornwonder on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

It's not an accurate measure of the "will of the people" at all.  For one thing every state has different law which allow more or less people to vote.  Same day registration state enable more people to vote than non-same day registration.  Open primaries allow more voters than closed primaries.  If the popular vote winner was supposed to determine the winner of the nomination that would be how the rules were set up, but because of some of the reasons I mentioned and many others popular vote totals do not reflect the "will of the people."  Popular vote totals are the reflection of election laws, imo.

Besides you can't change the way the nominee is selected in the middle of the nomination.  If popular vote totals were the way the nomination was decided Obama would have concentrated more on Urban populations before Feb 5th instead of campaigning in Idaho and Kansas.

The nomination is decided by delegates.  If superdelegates want to use popular vote totals to decide then that's their decision.... But they aren't an accurate measure of the will of the people in my honest opinion.


John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."
by jturn17 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:33:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

"popular vote totals..aren't an accurate measure of the will of the people"

LMFAO.

Cuba sounds like your kind of place!


by reggie44pride on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:41:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

The reason why that statement is true is simple: caucus states.  To get an accurate count of the will of the American people, you need to count every state using the same yardstick, and that is not what the current system does.

Let's say I want to figure out what the most popular flavor of pie is in my neighborhood.  In even-numbered houses, I ask every person living there.  In odd-numbered houses, I ask only the person who answers the door.  Then I add up all the answers, without any sort of weighting or adjustment, to arrive at my answer.  Does that seem like good statistics to you?

(Note that I'm not saying caucuses are a good thing or a bad thing; I'm saying you can't put the vote totals into the same pot as primary totals and expect to get a meaningful number out of them.)


by jere7my on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:15:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Caucuses (none / 0)

I sort of do think caucuses are a bad thing, and I'm an Obama supporter.  They reward the most passionate supporters who can spend hours congregating to argue for their candidate.  I believe voting should be as easy as possible for everyone, and caucuses do not do that.  I can't wait until the day we can all vote online (after having our iris scanned??), though the Republicans definitely don't want that.  That being said, if Obama wins the nomination, it will be in part due to his resounding wins in caucuses.  At the very least, we need to have every state doing things the same way.  All 50 do caucuses, or all 50 do primaries.  I'd prefer the latter and I'd like the delegates to be allocated proportionally by vote percentage, not by congressional district.  While I'm wishing for things, I wish Gore had won in 2000.  Just thinking about 2000 makes my stomach hurt.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:22:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Caucuses (none / 0)

I also have grave concerns about the fairness of caucuses, especially in small communities where one may be caucusing with one's boss, minister, banker or doctor. There is often subtle pressure, and once in a while overt threats, that skew the process. (And I have participated in both caucuses and primaries.)

On the other hand, the selection process is for the nomination of a political party. Why are open primaries allowed? Members of the opposing political party may do mischief in the process, and even independents don't have the commitment to the party of its members and, especially, its activists. (The practical reason is that state parties hope to draw attention and excitement to their primaries.)


by anoregonreader on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:22:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

arguing Obama would've changed his strategy carries no weight. His strategy was based on the hope he'd win enough pledged delegates to win outright, he didn't. Therefore, his strategy failed. Hillary's did as well since no doubt that was her strategy as well. Now that neither can win the nomination the superdelegates will have to decide who wins and the popular vote, like it or not, is the best representation of who the people have chosen. Obama's "strategy" has nothing to do with it.


by theshornwonder on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:10:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

Are you kidding?  Obama's strategy has been brilliant and is working - he is leading in the desired metric against the strongest candidate imaginable, who started with a 20- 30 point lead and a huge institutional advantage.  If the metric had been popular vote, his strategy would have been completely different - he would have parked himself in CA, and he would have won CA.


by interestedbystander on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:52:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

"...popular vote totals ... aren't an accurate measure of the will of the people in my honest opinion."

This is the logic that Obama must rely on to convincingly seal the nomination.  Good luck!  


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:44:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

Have you read the half-dozen explanations for that quote in this thread?  Would you like to address them, or are you more interested in deliberate misinterpretation and snark?


by jere7my on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:34:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

I read your initial post, which is the comment towards which my response was directed.  You'll have to pardon me for not cyber-hunting you throughout every iteration of this thread and hanging onto your every subsequent word.  

How is my direct quote (direct quote referring of course to your OWN language) a "misinterpretation"?  

It must be April Fool's WEEK because I find today that a popular votes tally is not an accurate measure of the people's will (allegedly because it is more controlled by "election laws" rather than popular volition) and that a direct quote is a misinterpretation.


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:45:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

"How is my direct quote (direct quote referring of course to your OWN language) a 'misinterpretation'?"

I'm afraid you are confused. You were quoting jturn17, not me.

Personally, I find I'm better able to conduct meaningful conversations if I take a few minutes before posting to see if my question or concern has been answered elsewhere in the thread, as yours was. But I'll summarize:

The popular vote tally we currently have for this primary is not a meaningful measure of anything, because it's a mix of primary votes and caucus votes. Since fewer people vote in caucuses, it is bad math to add them in with primaries. For that matter, several caucus states have not released vote totals.

Imagine that one state (population one million) chose the nominee using a jury system -- twelve people, picked at random. (This would be a terrible system, since the sample size is so low, but bear with me.) Another million-person state chooses using a popular vote contest. Would it make sense to add those two vote totals?  Several hundred thousand on one hand, and six or eight on the other?  Would that reflect the will of the people? No, obviously -- you'd want to average the percentages, or something.  Straight-up adding the numbers is bad math, and won't give you a good reflection of what the people want.

As I said above, I could respect the argument that the nominee should reflect the will of the people, and if the primary season were set up to obtain the popular vote I'd be all for it.  I can't respect the argument that it should reflect the "popular vote" total we have now, because it's a bogus number that doesn't reflect the will of the people.


by jere7my on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:13:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

I'm always a bit confused by the "He can't get enough either" argument.  Indeed he can't, but he can get a lot closer than she can.  This means he'll need to convince many fewer supers.  It also means she'll have the challenge, with every superdelegate, of convincing him or her to overturn the pledged delegate count.  Surely both of those are very significant?


by jere7my on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:35:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

certainly both are significant. The argument is based on an "if" which is, if Hillary is able to win the popular vote then she will have an equally powerful if not more powerful argument that by voting for her the superdelegates are accepting the will of the people and that voting for Obama would be "a coup by superdelegate" as Obama's most dishonest supporters like to say.


by theshornwonder on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:15:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

Alas, as I explained elsewhere in this thread, there is no "popular vote total" in this election, and there's no clear way to arrive at one.  It is impossible to count the votes cast and arrive at any sort of meaningful number.  It's like adding miles and kilometers without doing any sort of conversion -- statistically, it's bad juju.

(Note that I say this with the full expectation that Obama, at the end of the process, will have the most "popular votes". It's not an argument for or against either candidate, just good math.)


by jere7my on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:20:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

There is a popular vote total. One candidate had more people vote for them. It is neither impossible nore very difficult to figure out which candidate that is. The caucus states are certainly at a disadvantage in a popular vote metric, but then again, Obama bennefited greatly from them in the delegate metric since he could win by a few thousand votes but post a huge percentage win.

His strategy failed to get him enough pledged delegates to win however, so now it is certainly fair to simply see who got more votes.


by theshornwonder on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:28:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

Yes, there is a total (of sorts -- some caucus states have not released their numbers, and don't plan to).  But it doesn't mean anything, because it's not a count of anything meaningful; it's a bad mix of data.  An argument I can respect (if not agree with) is, "The nomination should go to whichever candidate best reflects the will of the people."  I can't say the same for, "There's no good way to measure the will of the people, since we're mixing caucuses and primaries, but this arbitrary vote total we do have should decide the issue."

Disadvantaging the caucus states is no better than counting caucus votes more than primary votes -- and in fact it's worse.  Both caucuses and primaries aim to arrive at percentages of voters, though one uses a larger sample size.  Whether they succeed or not is a matter for debate, but they both have the goal of saying, statistically, "X% of the dems in our great state prefer Y."  Since they're both percentages of the total, adding them is statistically legitimate.

But adding caucus votes and primary votes is bad math. There, you're comparing actual vote totals, and caucus states have real vote deficits compared to primary states.  They aren't on the same playing field.  You can't get good numbers from that system; the "popular vote total" is a total of votes, but that's all it is.  It doesn't reflect any sort of reality.


by jere7my on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:54:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

Obama benefited greatly from them ... you say that as though it was unfair.  He benefited because he won them - Hillary's strategy was at fault because she paid insufficient attention to caucuses.  He read the rules, worked out a strategy, and won by the rules.  Hillary on the other hand, didn't even realise Texas had caucuses, because she had no plan after Feb 5th. If popular vote had been the metric, that is what Obama would have chased, and given his success in closing in those big states, I'd bet he would be ahead in that too.


by interestedbystander on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:59:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

Plus, Obama is also ahead in popular vote total.


by interestedbystander on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:00:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

Washington, Maine, and two other caucus states don't release popular vote totals at all.  Those are pretty significant states.

Puerto Rico, on the other hand... well you get the point I'm sure; elected delegates are a better measure of popular support than popular vote, if for no other reason than nobody knows what the popular vote is.  The oft-cited 700,000 number is an estimate.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:30:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, No (none / 0)

The entire race is designed around delegates.  That's it.  Popular vote, in this case, is certainly no accurate gauge of the "will of the people".  And even so, she's not going to catch him there, either.


by nwgates on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:43:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, No (none / 0)

she may or may not catch him there, but it is the only accurate gauge of the will of the people, ya know, the actual votes of the actual people. And its certainly more accurate than a system that awards more delegates to the person who got fewer votes.

And yes, the system is designed around delegates, however Obama has not won enough of them to win the nomination and must therefore convince superdelegates that he is the choice of the people. Difficult considering the undemocratic nature of plegeded delegates (if he were to lose the popular vote, if he wins that too, well then it is Hillary who would have no argument).


by theshornwonder on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:13:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, No (2.00 / 1)

"she may or may not catch him there, but it is the only accurate gauge of the will of the people, ya know, the actual votes of the actual people."

Okay, let's say I'm going to call your house sometime on Monday, at three in the afternoon.  If somebody answers, I'll ask them who should be the nominee.

nwgates can call me any time on Monday, and let me know how everybody in their house is voting, and I'll mark down all those votes.

I'll then add your single vote (assuming you were home) and all the votes from nwgates's house, and call that the "popular vote total from two representative households".  That's what the supers should use to decide the nominee.

Does that seem like an accurate measure of anything at all to you?


by jere7my on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:15:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, No (none / 0)

It's good to see you admitting that if he wins the pop vote she has no argument.  While I firmly believe that the pop vote, in this case, is an irrelevant measure, maybe it'll convince some people win Obama wins that too.


by nwgates on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:15:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

theshornwonder,

Just because a candidate cannot get enough pledged delegates to obtain the nomination does not negate the importance of said metric. The metric that will be used to determine the nominee is still pledged delegates. If neither candidate has enough by June 3, the super delegates will then pledged their support to decide who the nominee is. And those who already have should be censured. Anyway, the whole concept of super delegates is undemocratic.

Your argument is that the popular vote is one of the factors super delegates should use to  determine the nominee. I don't deny that super delegates have this option. There in lies the problem.  The Democratic Party has designed a system so ambiguous and undemocratic that we find ourselves in this situation. I also have a problem with changing which metric is of greater importance during the process. According to the rules I've seen, it's pledged delegates first followed by the free will of super delegates. Both of which are more undemocratic than the popular vote.

But just because supers are free to decide based on the popular vote doesn't necessarily  make it right. Would I love to see all elections based on the popular vote? ABSOLUTELY. But the rules entering this election cycle were not based on the popular vote, and Clinton knew that. Clinton also knew that the delegates from Florida and Michigan were not going to count. Why didn't Clinton stand up for voters' rights when she agreed not to count them?  

I think changes need to be made to the way we nominate candidates, but the time to make changes is before or after the process, not during. Perhaps we agree on the changes but not when or how changes should be made.

Your argument concerning the popular vote did not change anything in 2000, and it still doesn't. Both Obama and Clinton could win the popular vote while losing the electoral college. You and I may think it's undemocratic, but until the rules change we must obied by them. If we rebel against rules we could have democratically changed, then we become undemocratic and uncivilized.

Our founders created a system they thought was best for their time and place. If you think it needs to be chaged (and many do), work on it.
Here's a good place to start: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

What I find strange is that the Democratic Party decided on proportional distribution of delegates, but would never agree to such terms during the general election because that practice currently favors the Republicans. And of course the Republicans would never agree to a popular vote because they would have a hard time winning.

Anyway, if you and other Democrats want a situation similar to 1980, please continue to manipulate the process like Edward Kennedy did (a hypocrite in my opinion). The results might be the same.

Or you and others could come to realize that Clinton lost the nomination due to bad management and organizational skills. And you still think she will do a better job in the general election? The fact is she can't even win her party's own nomination.


by tomanderson13 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:10:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up in Pennsylvania (none / 0)

I find it interesting that the polls with the most successful polling history in prediction winners or at least coming the closest, are so totally ignored in articles such as this, and in fact in general.  

The most accurate one is SUSA, which several days ago had Clinton with a lead of 18 points in their poll.  The states that SUSA has done the poorest in are the ones with the most African American voters, about whom SUSA underestimated the number who would vote. Pennsylvania I believe, has fewer than the national average of AA voters.

No, I do not have a link available at this time, but just recently when their poll came out, I read several articles listing their results in comparison to the actual vote, and they were amazingly accurate. THere is also a listing of polls and their results prior to the end of Super Tuesday, and SUSA was far more accurate than Rasmussen and Gallup and other polls who poll many times over.


by Scotch on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:10:28 PM EST

Realistic Outcome (2.00 / 3)

I agree that the SUSA polls have been pretty accurate in general.  I think their 18 point lead is a bit generous, but perhaps not too far off.  As an Obama supporter, I'm not expecting him to be much closer than 10 points at best.  Anything closer than 10 and I'll be extremely happy.  Some people have been saying he is going to win, which is just crazy-talk in my opinion.  I guess it's not impossible, but I'd be shocked.  


by ProgressiveDL on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:21:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Realistic Outcome (2.00 / 1)

Indeed. We're getting into 'distinction without a difference" territory here. I don't think many of the Clinton posters think she's actually going to win this thing anymore (and I suspect HRC herself sees this.) It's just a question of how end-game plays out.


by PhilFR on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:25:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Realistic Outcome (none / 0)

For me, the ideal endgame is that HRC stays in thru WV, adopts a conciliatory tone (that is, draws distinctions between her/Obama and McCain instead of attacking Obama), wins a couple of big ones like WV, then drops out with grace.  

That is, stay in and pull Dems together, build up her own political capital and leave on a high note.

Of course, I'm an Obama supporter so, as always, am letting my optimism get the best of me.


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As an HRC supporter (none / 0)

I totally disagree. I still see HRC winning case, or worse case scenario, getting the VP spot. I can't speak for all of the HRC supporters, however.


by bluestatedude on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As an HRC supporter (none / 0)

Why in the WORLD would she take a toothless VP spot when she's in line to become a leading Senator?


by PhilFR on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:28:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i agree (none / 0)

She doesn't want veep.


by nwgates on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:46:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In my opinion (none / 0)

She will take VP over returning to the Senate. Main reason - second in line to Presidency is huge and to be the first woman VP, even huger. If she had four or eight years as VP, she could then run for POTUS.


by bluestatedude on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:55:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As an HRC supporter (2.00 / 1)

I think there are some, admittedly limited, ways that Hillary becomes the nominee.

1) Obama's campaign just absolutely implodes.

2) Michigan and Florida somehow get seated as is and Puerto Rico swings the popular vote all the way into her corner.  She'd be within 100 pledged delegates and winning in popular vote.

3) A ton of superdelegates and some pledged delegates for Obama get spooked by polls and anti-Obama attacks by McCain and 527s and move to Hillary en masse.

4) A massive fight on the floor of the convention ends up in chaos and Hillary takes it on the umpeenth ballot.

I guess #1 could happen, but it seems unlikely at the moment.

#2 is pretty unlikely.  I don't think it's impossible for Florida to get counted as is (unlikely though), but there is no chance Michigan gets seated as is.  And if a revote miraculously happens in Michigan, Hillary may still win, but it will be closer than it was in January, leaving her more than 100 behind in pledged delegates.

#3 could definitely happen on a small scale, but probably not large enough to swing the nomination to her.  

#3 could somehow result in #4 though, and at that point, all bets are off.  I think a #3-#4 combination is the most likely, and probably the one Hillary supporters have to hang their hat on.    

I would still put the odds of #3/#4 at less than 10%, #2 at less than 5%, and #1 is totally unpredictable.

I think this is an important discussion, because I think Hillary and Obama supporters should be thinking about what the realistic options for her are at this point.  If there are any I missed, list em.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:05:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As an HRC supporter (none / 0)

Mojo for you. That was a good analysis.

Man, I am getting tired of this nomination contest. It is just starting to bore the hell out of me, but I liked your take on this.


by DrPolitics on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:05:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As an HRC supporter (none / 0)

Thanks.  I think maybe I will write up a short diary illustrating all the ways that each side can get the nomination.  I think a lot of Obama supporters assume it's just "run out the clock," but that's a bit oversimplified.  He can't get to 2025 without superdelegates, though he can obviously get closer.  But he will still need to convince superdelegates that being closer to 2025 (or being more electable, or being more for change) justifies choosing him over Hillary.  I think that will be a very compelling argument to many of them, but I still acknowledge that he will need to do it.  There are other ways to the nomination for him also, some of them much less neat and tidy.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:37:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As an HRC supporter (2.00 / 1)

I think when Obama gets to 50%+1 of the pledged delegates (early May?), we'll hit a tipping point for superdelegates and he'll get a bunch of them at that point.  Especially if PA ends up close enough that it's clear that Clinton won't be able to challenge his popular vote lead.


by ChrisKaty on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ignored? (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/8/17394 8/8327


New Jersey politics and news
by John DE on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:44:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ignored? (none / 0)

Yes - the SUSA poll was ignored by the cables and lamestream media.


by bluestatedude on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:13:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

SUSA has been wrong before (none / 0)

Most significantly in Missouri, where it was off by double digits, and the two 'bad' pollsters - Zogby and ARG - got it almost exactly.


John McCain
by MILiberal on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:58:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up in Pennsylvania (none / 0)

Three things should be noted about poll accuracy:

1) SUSA's great accuracy numbers are for their final poll. There's not comparable data for intermediate polls (of course)... nor have I seen a breakdown of how accurate their preelection numbers are compared to their final polls.

2) The most recent SUSA poll is primarily a weekend poll. It's hardly arguable at this point that Obama's polling numbers are consistently lower on weekends. This creates some reason to believe that its position relative to the consensus of every other poll may be more related to the weekend effect than anything else.

3) In 23 of 24 states, PPP's final poll has undercounted Obama's margin of victory. For Obama supporters, this may be a more key metric than SUSA's accuracy.

If the two differ significantly on their final polls it'll be interesting to see which is right.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:33:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up in Pennsylvania (none / 0)

PPP has tightened up more recently - I think it got Wisconsin, Ohio, and Texas closer than any other polls.  But Pennsylvania is so obviously a Clinton state that I can't believe that they're right on this one.

Who-got-what-right on Super Tuesday is a bad indicator, just because it was such bedlam, and there were so many shifts in opinion happening.  Also, in California about a million people had already voted early.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:36:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

Hillary may win Pennsylvania but she can't win the nomination:
http://the-independent13.blogspot.com/20 08/03/clinton-vs-obama-stats.html

by tomanderson13 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:20:46 PM EST

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 0)

"can't win the nomination" - those are strong words. Yes she can, it will be difficult and challenging, but this thing is far from over - another two months at least.


by bluestatedude on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:11:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

Obviously "can't" is a relative term. Hillary can't win the nomination (the one she intended to win before or on February 5th) without superseding the pledged delegates with the (conceptually undemocratic) super delegates.

Hillary Can't Win:
http://the-independent13.blogspot.com/20 08/03/clinton-vs-obama-stats.html


by tomanderson13 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:42:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

um, the pledged delegates are undemocratic too. (see e.g., Texas, Nevada)(see also, 2,600 vote Wyoming win netting same number of delegates as 200,000 vote Ohio win) and Obama can't win without the "conceptually undemocratic" superdelegates either).

Your "democratic" argument is a farce.


by theshornwonder on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:53:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

Perhaps we should listen to Clinton and just change the rules as we go along. That sounds even more democratic.Is that your argument?

Anyway, we all know the popular vote is not the way we elect our nominees or presidents. If you want to change the rules, do it before the process begins, not during it.


by tomanderson13 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:14:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

That makes no sense at all. Who said anything about changing the rules? you're being intellectually dishonest. There is nothing in the rules that says a candidate that wins more pledged delegates but not enough to secure the nomination is therefore entitled to the nomination.

Saying Clinton said we should change the rules is something you just made up.

And guess what... we don't elect our nominees or presidents based on proportional allocation of pledged delegates either. We elect our nominees based on an absolute number of delegates and our presidents in a winner take all system.

So stop crying because your guy can't win outright and justify why pledged delegates are the proper metric for superdelegates to use when deciding who to vote for. The fact that they are inherently undemocratic is a strong argument for why they shouldn't necessarily be that metric, but I've yet to see you tell me why they should be.


by theshornwonder on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:18:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

A few reasons to go with PD as the metric:

1) The contest is primarily about PD.  SDs only come into play in very close races, like this one.  PDs demonstrate how well a candidate has run their campaign.

2) PDs are no less "inherently undemocratic" than the current popular vote totals.  Perhaps less so, because everyone knew how to get delegates, and what they were going to be worth going in.  Caucus-vs-Primary issues invalidate the "fairness" of the popular vote every bit as much they do the PDs.

3) Public perception.  It's been said many times in public, by many high-level politicians and SDs that they're wary about handing the election to someone that is trailing in PDs.  Clinton winning the nomination while trailing in PDs -- even with a slim PV lead -- is likely to have major backlash within the party.  It would have a huge legitimacy issue that Obama wouldn't.

Personally, I don't think it will matter because I don't see Clinton winning PA by enough to give her any shot at catching Obama in PV (she'll need to win by 300k+).  At that point this whole PV line will be moot.


by ChrisKaty on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:15:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

I might also point out that your argument is changing the rules during the contest. The rules never said winning a majority of plegded delegates entitles you to a majority of superdelegates. That's a rule change Obama and his people want. Convenient you left that out.


by theshornwonder on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:20:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

theshornwonder,

If you take the time to read the link attached to some of my earlier posts, you will clearly see that I am not the one "crying" or in denial.

If you are suggesting that the winner of the pledged delegates come June 3 is not entitled to earn enough of the (conceptually undemocratic) super delegates to get the nomination, then you sir or madame are the one who does not make sense.

Your argument actually sounds very Republican.

Good day (or night).


by tomanderson13 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:33:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

First, calling me a Republican is very childish and is not going to make you seem smarter.

Second, if you are suggesting that the winner of the popular vote come June 3 is not entitled to earn enough of the (conceptually undemocratic) super delegates to get the nomination, then you sir are the one that does not make sense.

If it is Obama, surely he's entitled then, but if not, his pledged delegate lead is nothing more than one metric, which in the eyes of many is less persuasive than the popular vote.

good day, or night to you as well.

P.S. I'm a "sir"


by theshornwonder on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:22:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

Check out my comment about 15 posts up if you get a chance.  Which of those 4 events (or a different scenario) do you see likely to play out?  If you think it will be something different that gets Hillary to the nomination, what?  

No snark or sarcasm meant here at all, I'm honestly curious which one Hillary supporters expect.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:10:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

I actually think your analysis is probably pretty accurate. But that does't change the nature of the argument, which is that Obama's pledged delegate lead does not entitle him to the nomination over a (admittedly hypothetical) Hillary popular vote win.


by theshornwonder on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:19:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting Argument (none / 0)

I think that your argument is an intriguing one.  I think that when both candidates don't get to 2024 pledged delegates (which they won't), the supers are entitled to make their decision based on whatever metric they want.  If they want to flip a coin, so be it.  In fact, that would presumably produce a 50/50 split and the winning pledged delegate candidate would win the nomination.  

If Obama has a miniscule lead in pledged delegates (say less than 40) and Hillary had a small lead in popular vote (say less than 100,000), this is how the argument could go for Hillary:  "My opponent's small pledged delegate lead is small enough to be essentially meaningless.  It may be partly the result of scheduling quirks and weather conditions and does not reflect a mandate.  My popular vote lead is just as meaningful.  Therefore, I implore the superdelegates to vote for whom they believe would be the best president and/or has the best chance of beating McCain."  

If Obama has a miniscule pledged delegate lead and Hillary is even just very close in popular vote, I would not fault her for this tactic (even though the popular vote is not totally accurate because caucus states don't keep track of total caucus-goers).  However, if Obama still has a substantial lead in pledged delegates (150+), even a popular vote lead would not mean much in terms of the legitimacy of an argument as to why supers should choose Hillary.  That's not to say they can't do it, but I don't think they would in large numbers.  

To be honest, I think Hillary's best chance at this point is to get the delegate count as close as possible (under 100 is almost a necessity), and hope Puerto Ricans come out in huge numbers for her, enough to make the popular vote really really close.  At that point, she at least has an argument to make.  If she's losing by 150 in pledged delegates and 300,000 in popular vote, her argument is likely to be wholly ineffective.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:32:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting Argument (none / 0)

I agree almost 100% with your analysis. See we can agree on stuff.


by theshornwonder on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:37:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting Argument (none / 0)

Ha, I have come a long way from DKos.  Even as an ardent Obama supporter, I don't feel at home there.  Must be the objectivity.  Although I do really like the way their unexpanded comments show which ones are new and old.  Hint Hint site designers.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:45:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Puerto Rico (none / 0)

is for the first time in history actually being paid attention to.  Ironic that they many be able to influence the nomination - but none on the island will be able to vote in the general election.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing racism,sexism,homophobism, ageism and ethnocentrism.
by NeciVelez on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

When has Obama tried to change the rules?  No one's ever suggested that there be an actual rule change -- that would make SDs utterly pointless.  The argument that people are making is that the SD should follow the PD lead.  Not that they must.

If you want to look at an example of changing the rules, check out Clinton and FL/MI.  Those are blatant, intellectually dishonest rules changes mid-race, and the primary reason I stopped supporting Clinton.  I just couldn't stomach it.


by ChrisKaty on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So Obama showers the state with $$$$ (2.00 / 1)

and can't break 45%?

Yes, this really makes me worry about him for November.


by andgarden on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:29:49 PM EST

Re: So Obama showers the state with $$$$ (none / 0)

That worries you? Why? With HRC out of the way, PA will be easy Obama pickings come November.


by PhilFR on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:34:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You believe that? (none / 0)

The polls say otherwise.


by andgarden on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:36:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You believe that? (none / 0)

Rendell disagrees with you. He says that either of them will win in November.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:38:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What he did not say (2.00 / 0)

(because it would be foolish) was

PA will be easy Obama pickings come November

But now I remember why I don't comment here anymore. Goodnight.


by andgarden on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:40:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So maybe you can remind us (1.00 / 0)

why you don't comment here anymore.

Or better yet, don't.


by PhilFR on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:53:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You believe that? (2.00 / 1)

I believe that. In fact, I believe either Dem will trounce McCain in PA, after months of hammering home just how clueless he is on the economy. This guy has an exposed flank like crazy.


by PhilFR on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:39:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You believe that? (2.00 / 1)

I think this could actually be true in Ohio too (although it will be closer than PA.)


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:45:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You believe that? (2.00 / 1)

See those little boxes on each side of the top of this page?  Click PA and you see blue for both candidates. Stop making stuff up.


Stop H8
by mikeinsf on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:46:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You believe that? (none / 0)

Right, because the entrenched supporters of both Clinton and Obama are effectively splitting the Democratic vote.  Once we have one candidate and people cool down with their "I won't vote for the other Democrat" stuff, I expect the resulting candidate to see a 5-10 point bump in support.


by ChrisKaty on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Obama showers the state with $$$$ (2.00 / 1)

Are you at all concerned that HRC can't hold on to big leads?


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:34:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let us see if the destiny of demography (none / 0)

holds. If it does, Obama's mammoth media buy will have been for naught.


by andgarden on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:37:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let us see if the destiny of demography (none / 0)

I tend to agree with you on that but I just don't see a corollary for the general election.


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:58:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Obama showers the state with $$$$ (2.00 / 2)

And Clinton has to donate 5,000,000 $$$$ of her own money to her "well-organized" campaign. Perhaps you should be worried about her in the general election.


by tomanderson13 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:36:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Obama showers the state with $$$$ (none / 0)

all the money in the world ain't gonna change how people in Appalachia perceive a black candidate. Nor will all the money in the world change which candidate blacks prefer.
!
by alex100 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:14:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Obama showers the state with $$$$ (none / 0)

He's having a hard time cracking 42.  LOL

But face it guys, Hill's toast.


by reggie44pride on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:44:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

"Say Clinton wins all the remaining contests by a 10-point margin. (That's impossible, barring revelations that Obama does lines on the campaign bus, but bear with us.) Obama would still be ahead in pledged delegates, 1671 to 1563. Add on their current superdelegate tallies--226 for Obama and 251 for Clinton, according to Politico--and they'd be at 1897 and 1814, respectively. Even then, Clinton would need to win 211 of the still-uncommitted 300 delegates, or about 70 percent."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhe ad/
We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:40:16 PM EST

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

One should also consider Michigan and Florida. I don' t think either of these are dead issues yet.


by bluestatedude on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:09:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

Even if you give Clinton the Florida and Michigan delegates according to her share of the vote in those states, she will still be behind in pledged delegates on June 3 (unless she gets 60%+ of all the remaining contests). If she does, she wins. But if she loses one of the remaining 10 contests, she and her supporters should concede.


by tomanderson13 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:55:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

oy, winning more pledged delegates does not entitle one to the nomination unless they win enough to hit the required number of overall delegates. Obama has not and cannot do that. Therefore each candidate can make their argument for the most appropriate metric superdelegates should consider in making their choices. Obama can argue pledged delegates should be that metric, but it doesn't make it so, and its not the most democratic metric by any means. These are facts, disputing them only shows that its actually Obama that's "willing to do anything to win."


by theshornwonder on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:27:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

Interesting tactic. So Obama is the one that's willing to do anything to win. Last time I checked, Obama was ahead in pledged delegates, popular vote, amount of money raised, number of contests won, etc. Obama is winning fair even if you count Florida and Michigan. Your spin is very Republican.


by tomanderson13 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:37:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, Tom (none / 0)

Don't you see how subjective math can be?


by nwgates on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:02:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, Tom (none / 0)

I challenge you to show anywhere in that post where I used "subjective math." What I wrote is true, each candidate must now argue for a given metric. Pledged delegates are not awarded in a democratic fashion.

I didn't twist any numbers.


by theshornwonder on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:34:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Delegates are the only number (2.00 / 1)

that matters.  Period.  It is the metric that the entire system is calibrated upon.  Is it convoluted and weird?  Yes.  But using another measure would be like, after a football game, deciding that touchdowns, field goals and extra points didn't truly measure the flow of the game, and that hte winner would be determined instead by total yardage gained.  When the game is played for delegates, per the agreed upon rules- delegates are all that matter.  Period.  And when using this measure, yes, the math is pretty damned convincing.


by nwgates on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:12:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

There is no spin, and again, calling me republican is just childish.

If Obama ends the campaign ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote then he's entitled to win.

Money raised is irrelevant, as is contests won.


by theshornwonder on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:32:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

not entitled (2.00 / 1)

he just wins.

Just fyi.

The winner of delegates is considered to be the nominee. There is not way HRC is getting enoug plledged and supers to win that way.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:36:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

theshornwonder,
as for calling your spin Republican, I apologize if that offended you. if you think it's childish then Clinton is also guilty as charged for calling Obama's tactics Rovian. fair enough?
by tomanderson13 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:02:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

Currently... he's ahead but only because he has had the serendipitous fortune of having his most favorable contests under his belt.  Things will look very different in a post-Pennsylvania, post-Indiana, post-Puerto Rico environment...

Truly, what you say would be almost the precise analogue of saying "Wow John Kerry is totally beating George W. Bush!"  (Oh, except for the fact that we have ten states left to report, including Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, etc.)


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:55:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

Obama's February sweep was irreversable.  What was his average margin - I think it was something like 24%?

The states coming up are slightly favorable to Hillary Clinton, but not nearly enough; the damage is done.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:43:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

A shift in the popular vote leader would be a "reverse[]" from what I can tell.

Obama's obscenely skewed % victories in February were mostly the product of caucuses, and everybody knows that.  The fact that the caucus results don't match the will of the voters in a state is clearly evinced by the results in states that have both, for a direct comparison: Texas and Washington State.

To be fair, Obama did have five very large primary victories in his home state, in Georgia, and in the three Potomac states.  That cannot be denied.  


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:50:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

I think it pretty much goes something like this: some of the supers have made up their minds, but aren't yet telling. Others are waiting to see who comes out ahead in the race. What that has always meant in the past has been the delegate count, but we've never had a contest quite like this one (even in '68).

The supers who are on the fence are going to be looking at a lot of things, including who is in better shape to win in the fall. HRC's biggest hurdle, IMHO, is (sadly) herself: her negatives are still high and have actually climbed higher in the past two months (including among Dems). Based on that, alone, I think most of the supers who are on the fence are simply looking for a substantive reason to go with Obama, and being ahead in pledged delegates would do that.

I am someone who really liked HRC (before her vote for the war). I think she has had a lot going for her, but I think she's just stepped in it in this campaign. I've always said that if she had presented herself the way she did in NY in 2K she would be so much better off than the way she presented herself in this race (I swear they are two different people). I know this might get me killed here, but now I see her as a tragic, almost Shakespearean figure ala Nixon.

I think maybe this is one of the reasons why people keep saying this race is over. Not just because of the math (though mainly that), but because Hillary actually imploded a long time ago. But because this implosion was a slow one, not one event, but a series of events (a slow burning implosion) over a period of time, people sensed it, but didn't fully register it.


by DrPolitics on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:25:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points (2.00 / 1)

Florida and Michigan will be seated at the convention, after a nominee is chosen.

It's not a dead issue, but it sure isn't going to be determinative, either.


by DeskHack on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:12:31 PM EST

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points (2.00 / 2)

If Obama wins the nomination with a lead that is small enough for FL/MI to overturn, he will be an illegitimate nominee. Rules or no, excluding parts of the country from voting makes you illegitimate as a representative of the national party.


by theshornwonder on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:56:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know (2.00 / 1)

if rules stand in the way of winning...screw the rules.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:37:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points (2.00 / 1)

But we HAVE excluded FL/MI.  Does that make ANY candidate illegitimate?


by ChrisKaty on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:28:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

"this is not looking like the type of blowout it appeared to be headed towards just a couple of weeks ago."

In other words, it's looking like Hillary will lose for all practical purposes.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:15:10 PM EST

IF (none / 0)

Obama lacks the capacity to get majority of white votes in the upcoming primaries (ie we know he will win NC due to AA voting majorities) - isn't this cause for concern for the SD's to consider?

Seriously  - he will not have won a majority of white voters in a primary since Feb.

If neither candidate has enough pledged delegates to get the nomination and since the SD's will decide it anyway - I would think they have to consider this otherwise they aren't doing THEIR job.


by nikkid on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:16:10 PM EST

Re: IF (2.00 / 1)

Boy, I hear ya.

I mean if it weren't for all the black folks in Wisconsin and Iowa and Wyoming, he'd barely be out of single digits.  


by zadura on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:24:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey, don't forget Colorado! (2.00 / 1)

Obama got like 75% of the vote here, and we've got...

well...

less than 5% black population,

That must mean Hillary's winning, right?

Right?


by PhilFR on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:34:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, don't forget Colorado! (none / 0)

Yes, but that was in Feb. My point is that with 10 primaries coming up Apr-Jun, if he can't garner the majority of white voters in these states - he will not have been able to win white votes since Feb and since the Rev Wright blow up.

THAT is the concern.


by nikkid on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:45:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, don't forget Colorado! (none / 0)

This is what ABC thinks:

Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. And Obama wins Guam, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/04/going-to-be-in.html


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:51:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, don't forget Colorado! (none / 0)

I'm sorry, but that is about the silliest concern I've seen here in days. The vast majority of Dem voters will vote Dem come November. History shows that. Or do you think white Dem's are suddenly becoming turncoats?

sheesh.


by PhilFR on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:53:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, don't forget Colorado! (none / 0)

How he performs with white Democrats against someone as well known and popular as HRC is not a good determinant for how well he will do with those same voters against McNutjob.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:48:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, don't forget Colorado! (2.00 / 2)

I have no doubt that if Colorado had a primary, that Obama would have won 90-10 instead of 66-32 as in the caucus.  After all, it's a given that he's more popular in Colorado than his own home state


by reggie44pride on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:45:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IF (none / 0)

Shouldn't it also be a concern that Clinton is not getting the African-American vote? At least Obama is getting a higher percentage of the white vote.


by tomanderson13 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:35:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IF (2.00 / 1)

I don't think this is as big of a concern because McCain will not, most likely, get AA's to vote for him either.  


by nikkid on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IF (2.00 / 1)

So who cares who African-Americans vote for. Just another constituency that doesn't factor into a Clinton victory. First it was the small states, then it was caucuses, now it's the African-American vote. Interesting.


by tomanderson13 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:00:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IF (2.00 / 1)

Interesting indeed.  But hey, if it gets them thru the night...

<snark>
Must be driving the Clintonites nuts that Wright just isn't getting much traction.  How disappointing that America isn't as racist as we assumed.
</snark>


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:29:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IF (2.00 / 1)

"Shouldn't it also be a concern that Clinton is not getting the African-American vote?"

Obama's 90%+ take of the black vote is disconcerting, yes.


by reggie44pride on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:46:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IF (none / 0)

yes, it is disconcerting but not Obama's fault.


by tomanderson13 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:05:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IF (none / 0)

There's a lot of confusion on the AFrican American community in PA:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08102/872 385-457.stm

It strengths my feeling that even though African Americans are voting for Obama, if Hillary is the nominee, they will vote for her.  If AA stay home, it would be a shame.  Hispanics and Asians will come out in large numbers (as they have) to vote.  Those who vote get their issues handled.


by stefystef on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:33:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But ignore that Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Will get only about 15% of the AA vote.  I despise the "slice and dice" logic, but I suppose if you are choosing to use it, I should point out a very large voting block that is pretty important to the democratic party.  


by nwgates on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:06:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Two weeks back PPP had Obama ahead by 2 (none / 0)

In fact if anything in last two weeks, Clinton has gained
(PPP, SUSA, InsiderAdvantage). What you meant there was a month ago perhaps.
by ann0nymous on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:55:22 PM EST

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

HRC by ten in PA, same as or better than Ohio.  Both  states are Joe Six Pack states anymore -- the true Democratic voters!

Hill by 10! Betcha beer!


by krj47 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:47:34 AM EST

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (2.00 / 1)

Appalachia hasn't been the land of "true democrats" since the days of the dixiecrat party.


by Mostly on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:46:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time Poll Puts Clinton Up 6 Points in Pennsylv (none / 0)

Philly and Pittsburgh newspapers are favorable to Hillary:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/2 0080410_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_Smartt ough_and_committed.html

Hillary will do better than 10 points.


by stefystef on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:31:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Unforced error or a well-laid trap? (none / 0)

Obama's response to the McClintock attacks was pretty devastating, but even before that, a CNN panel unanimously and unequivocally lambasted the attacks:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/tal k/2008/04/cnn-panel-comes-out-hard-in-de .php

Well - one good thing - this argument will be conclusively settled in 11 days!


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:30:36 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: