How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday

While the RCP 8-poll average shows the North Carolina primary within single digits, Public Policy Polling blog cautions poll watchers not to forget the lesson we learned from the primary results in NC's surrounding states of South Carolina, Virginia and Georgia.

In all three cases Obama won by double digits more than the average preelection poll suggested, and no one got within seven points of the correct margin in any of the states.

I've recreated PPP's handy chart below:

StateFinal RCP Ave.Actual TallyClosest Poll
South CarolinaObama +12Obama +28Obama +20 (PPP)
VirginiaObama +18Obama +29Obama +22 (SUSA)
GeorgiaObama +18Obama +36Obama +22 (Strategic Vision)

The reason these trends should be instructive in predicting Tuesday's result is that, as PPP (a North Carolina outfit) puts it, NC is "relatively similar demographically to them - a large black population, plenty of college educated liberals, etc." Now certainly the landscape has shifted toward Hillary Clinton in recent weeks and pollsters are now far more likely to be familiar with the turnout tendencies of certain demographics than they were 2 months ago, but personally I'm not so sure we won't see a similar overperformance by Obama on Tuesday. Of course, if we don't and Hillary is able to keep him to single digits as the polls suggest, it should not be forgotten what a remarkable underperformance (of 20+ points) that would represent for Obama compared to how he did among similar electorates just 2 months before.



Display:


Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

Edwards was in the race in SC and that made a difference, no?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:35:51 PM EST

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

SC, GA, & VA were all pre-Wright.

New USA/Gallup: Obama significantly hurt by Wright -

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/5/1 5812/47818


When was the last time the Washington establishment ran a newbie senator for the purpose of "changing" THEM?
by JoseyJ on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:39:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

I'm not a pollster, but I think this PPP commentary misses something big.

Around the time of SC, GA, MS, turnout among black voters and young college students wildly exceeded expectations.  That's the primary reason that Obama outperformed his polling expectations, I would think.

Now I don't have any inside baseball knowledge, but I would have to think that the pollsters would have upwardly adjusted their expectations on turnout among black and young voters, following their big misses (which PPP mentions).  But as enthusiasm for Obama waned a bit, and as college students went into finals (and now summer), that unexpected turnout might be expected to drop.

I think this is what happened in the recent states, particularly in Ohio and PA.  Pollsters adjusted their models to reflect higher turnout among Obama groups, but these groups started seeing more normal levels of turnout, explaining why the pollsters got things so wrong in recent states.

I suspect we'll see the same thing in NC and IN.  I'm fully expecting to see about a 5 point "bump" in each state from most polls in favor of Hillary.  Maybe after Tuesday, pollsters will adjust their models back to reflect the dampened ardor for Obama.  But in the meantime, I think I'd expect to see a sharply lower college turnout, and a slight increase in rural working class voters.


by RedSox04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:23:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

Eh, they'll probably split IN and NC in the single digits.  Obama will net more delegates because NC's a larger state.  The stalemate continues, but Clinton has a yet steeper mountain to climb because there are fewer delegates at play after Tuesday.

"Overperforming" or "underperforming" expectations at this point is fairly meaningless, imo.


by rfahey22 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:39:00 PM EST

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

All true Todd. And I don't think it can be underestimated how big it would be if he does go ahead and outperform polls ala those other states. a 15% win at this juncture would add substantially to the hill she has to climb. I have my fingers and toes crossed that he blows these polls out of the water again.


by wasder on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:41:23 PM EST

I don't expect him to overperform (none / 0)

Clinton has in fact fine tuned her campaign and is doing better in these later states than she was previously (though it is arguably too late to matter much), and more importantly, I think the pollsters are learning how to weight their samples in these contests, so their accuracy is improving.  Nevertheless, I'm not about to go out on a limb and predict anything except... uhm, a Democrat is going to win each contest.  :-/

Hows that for setting expectations?


by protothad on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:26:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Honestly.... (2.00 / 1)

Honestly at this point I really don't care who wins as long as a Democrat wins in Nov.


by werd2406 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:44:32 PM EST

Re: Honestly.... (2.00 / 2)

me neither. that's why i sure hope hillary gets the nomination.


by campskunk on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:58:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (2.00 / 1)

If Hillary is so damned electable why isn't she winning THIS election?


by matchles on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (none / 0)

Because the demographics for a Democratic primary are quite different.  For example, an AA component in the primary of 35% might not equal half that (of a particular state) in the general.  Remember, then we add in Republicans & other Independents.  To say the least, the dynamic is different in theory and in historical practice.  That is why people start analyzing electoral vote possibilities.  We don't want a pyrrhic victory in the primary.


by christinep on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:26:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (2.00 / 4)

If I recall we John Kerry was chosen on the basis of  electability and if I remember correctly that didn't work out so well.

The republicans have elected a lackluster candidate and nothing will turn out the conservative vote more than Hillary as the nominee.  The hate for her on the right is unwarranted and illogical but it is there.  Not to mention if the popular vote is overturned by the SDs you can guarantee that the generation of first time voters who never participated because they thought the system was broken will be lost forever.  

There is a difference between having your candidate lose a campaign and having it stolen from them.  If Hillary becomes the nominee without the lead in pledged delegates or popular vote then it will destroy the party and you can forget about November.  Most people here are just too blinded by their passion for Hillary to realize it.


by matchles on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:42:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (2.00 / 1)

"The republicans have elected a lackluster candidate and nothing will turn out the conservative vote more than Hillary as the nominee.  The hate for her on the right is unwarranted and illogical but it is there."

I don't agree with this today.  A year ago maybe but the dispassion the GOP has for Barack Obama has dwarfed the disdain they once held for HRC.  Her growing centrist appeal and dare I say it "machismo" in this contest has gotten the right to reluctantly concede an admiration for her they once thought never possible.  Numerous conservative commentators have picked up on this, Scarborough, etc.  

Barack Obama is the living stereotype of the far left that the GOP so despises.  He's fashionable, trendy, and style-over-substance in ways that the GOP loathes.  The elitism monicker is going nowhere, except that it will probably morph into something more compact like "snob" by mid-fall.  

Michigan and Florida will decide this election.  When they are counted, Hillary will be well ahead by all metrics.  And the party won't have the shame of having to say "we disenfranchised two states to help Obama win."  


by BPK80 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:21:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (none / 0)

The party didnt disenfranchise Michigan and Florida, those states disenfranchised themselves when, against all warnings, they refused to play by the rules and moved their calendars up.
Secondly, I think its laughable to say that the party knew at the time that booting Michigan and Florida would help Barack Obama.
by AC4508 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:26:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (none / 0)

When push comes to shove, the party isn't going to misdirect their anger at the legislators to the voters.  It would be a national embarrassment for the "Democratic" party.  


by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:35:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That GOP stereotype of Obama (2.00 / 1)

has no play with the Republicans I know.  Most are rather disgusted with their own party and several have claimed willingness to vote for Obama (and even Clinton in one case).  The fact is, both candidates have winning electoral maps, and that only improves after the nomination concludes, regardless of who the nominee is.  Our candidate will only be unelectable if we let our passions run ahead of our common sense and let this primary season split the party.

In regards to MI and FL... I suspect that in the end, the hold-out supers will swing hard enough toward the nominee to provide a margin to allow those states to be seated as is without effecting the outcome.  This will happen even if it takes some closed door negotiating, if only to provide full legitimacy to the nominee.

At that point, we only lose in November if we stay home pouting because our candidate lost the primary or, worse, give in to the urge to cast a 'revenge vote' for McCain.

And I can tell you right now... anyone who thinks voting for McCain is the right response to their candidate losing the nomination is in danger of getting their ass kicked by my friend Dave when he gets back from Iraq (his words, not mine).

Cheers


by protothad on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:56:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That GOP stereotype of Obama (none / 0)

The Republicans I know loathe Obama.  No point contrasting anecdotes though.

I don't see how Barack Obama can win Pennsylvania in a general election.  His unpopularity in Pittsburgh and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton will make it nearly impossible to offset the upstate GOP tilt.  


by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:39:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That GOP stereotype of Obama (2.00 / 1)

Well, I live in a left leaning area, so the Republicans I know tend toward the centrist/moderate end rather than the winger 'hate all libruls' end of the political specrum, so no doubt that explains the difference in our anecdotes.  Of course neither Obama nor Clinton will drag over huge numbers of Republicans, but I think both will get crossovers if only because the Republican brand is so damaged.

As for Pennsylvania, the polls show Obama able to win against McCain there, and that is even before any post nomination bump.  McCain has tied himself rather closely to Bush and his policies.  Once we get past the nomination and really start hammering that home, I think you'll see the poll numbers in almost every state move in our favor.  I also think the polls will fall short of predicting the size of the final win, because polls are notoriously bad at predicting turnout, and there is a big enthusiasm gap this time around.

We just need to stay calm, stay focused, and stay united.  Work your ass off trying to get your candidate nominated, and then work your ass of trying to get the Democrat elected.  The Republicans are hoping for a divided Democratic party to save their collective ass in November.  I don't plan to oblige them.


by protothad on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:36:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That GOP stereotype of Obama (none / 0)

I'd feel a lot safer with Hillary as far as Pennsylvania goes in the GE.  These Hillary supporters who say they will back McCain in the fall...

In the blogosphere, they're but a statistic.  In fact, it's sometimes posited that they don't really exist or that they are bluffing and just  mentioning them is part of a pro-Hillary-conspiracy to scare the party into nominating her.  

But to me, these people are my friends, my coworkers, and my family.  The phenomenon is very real.  

A Dem can't win Pennsylvania without enormous margins in Philadelphia city, a big boost from the suburbs, a boost from Pittsburgh, a boost from Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, and a tiny boost from Lehigh Valley (Allentown/Bethlehem).  

Older voters are very receptive to McCain's appeal.  Even the little "Mc" is a boost in PA because its has so many old-school style ethnicity/identity politics and the state has an overwhelming Irish population.  

The Dem convention bounce will vanish a week after it appears and negative ads (Rampant in PA!) will saturate.  

I always shill for the Dem candidate and have been involved with campaigns but if Obama wins, it's going to be awful with me cause I don't like or trust him in my heart.  If I were doing pro-Obama spins, they would sound half-hearted, because they would be exactly that: half-hearted.  And knowing the culture here in Eastern PA, I don't think they'd be well received except in Philadelphia city.  


by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:55:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That GOP stereotype of Obama (2.00 / 1)

I am sure there would be some disapointed voters on either side who will stay home or even vote McCain in the GE if their candidate loses the primary... but I can't see that as being a huge factor or the numbers would look different in the head-to-head polling match-ups against McCain.  And I agree Clinton would do better in PA, but I don't agree that it is out of reach for Obama.

As for not liking or trusting Obama... I won't try to sway you on that.  Those sorts of subjective judjments come from a lot of complex factors that are usually unique for each person.  Those feelings are often amplified and solidified in the heat of a campaign and are not easily changed even after the fires die down.

Perhaps the best I can hope for is that, should Clinton not be the nominee, you are still willing to step back and take an objective look at Obama vs McCain and see who the better choice is and vote accordingly.  I will certainly do the same in the reverse situation.

As it stands right now, I can't vote for McCain.  I've long been a moderate independent voter and even respected McCain for some of his moderate views and willingness to work with Dems (i.e. his collaboration with my Senator, Russ Feingold), but his embracing of Bush's agenda and surrounding himself with neocons has made him a non-choice for me. I disagree with Clinton on some policy issues and on the DLC rejection of the 50 state strategy,  but I still recognize that she is a waaaaay better choice than McCain.  I think an objective look at Obama reveales that he is also.

Peace


by protothad on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:26:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That GOP stereotype of Obama (2.00 / 1)

Thank you for your input.  

Your calm objectivity is exactly the kind of approach that appeals to the possibility of a changed mind.  


by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks (2.00 / 1)

If only all our candidate discussions could be like this.

Cheers


by protothad on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (2.00 / 2)

You may not agree with this but I believe it to be true.  The reason conservatives are admitting admiration for Hillary is because she is doing their work for them.  She's driving a wedge between the party and is well on her way to fracturing it leading to their guy winning by default. They admire her "tenacity" while secretly rejoicing over the fact no one on her campaign can perform basic arithmetic.  

It's funny that you make the case that Barack Obama is the "elitist" in the election considering Bill and Hillary made five times more money than he did last year.  Besides this elitist argument won't fly anymore, the country has seen what happens when you vote for the person you'd rather have a beer with.  Being intelligent is nothing to be ashamed of.

This disenfranchisement argument that does the rounds here is truly pathetic.  Either you think voting in a primary is a privilege or it is a right.  If you believe it is a right you should not only be upset about Michigan and Florida but also all the independents who are not allowed to vote in closed primaries, why is it only disenfranchisement when you agree to be affiliated with a party? If you think voting in a primary is a privilege then you can't get upset when states who try to break the rules are punished by not being allowed to participate.  I guess you can take the third option and admit to being a hypocrite.  


by matchles on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:02:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (none / 0)

"It's funny that you make the case that Barack Obama is the 'elitist' in the election considering Bill and Hillary made five times more money than he did last year."

Elitism and wealth are two entirely different things.  Since when did intelligent people begin conflating the two so regularly?  

Wealth is an accumulation of pecuniary and material resources.  Elitism is an attitude towards fellow human beings.  A wealthy person or couple may either harbor and exhibit this superiority complex or they may be genuinely goodhearted and egalitarian, both in theory and in practice.  I wouldn't brand every rich person I know as elitist.  Conversely, there are middle-class and working-class folks who are elitist even while not being wealthy.

I haven't charged Obama with being an "elitist" (because frankly I think it's a weak way of phrasing the core argument) but acknowledged that the meme is there.  

"I guess you can take the third option and admit to being a hypocrite."

Taking the gloves off, are we?  I'll refrain.  I should note though that your discursion on rights & priviliges sounds like it would be well placed in a constitutional case against a government body, but it's irrelevant here.  The Democratic Party is not a state actor.  


by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:53:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (none / 0)

Since when did Democrats buy into the "Elitim" argument anyway.

Jon Stewart said it better, but I'll add that this anti-intellectual BS serves no onewell, and may ultimately be looked upon as the nadir of this race and the Clinton machine as a whole.


We have a stake in one another ... what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart.... -- BARACK OBAMA
by Lettuce on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:20:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (none / 0)

"Since when did Democrats buy into the 'Elitim' argument anyway."

We don't because it's used against us, not to advance us.    

"anti-intellectual"?

Either you misread my post or you just didn't read it.  That issue isn't even raised.  


by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:02:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (none / 0)

There is a core anti-intellectualism in the "elitism" argument, although at its root is a total contempt for the working class.

The sad irony is that it has worked in the past.

The silly irony is that Hillary Clinton, of all people, is trying to wield it.

The possibly-futile hope is that maybe the country is ready to rise above it.

But by legitimizing the 'elitist' argument, you allow it to be used against Hillary or Obama in the general, Hillary as a hypocrate and liar if she pretends to be otherwise, and Obama because, well, Hillary said it and she's a democrat.

It's like going on Fox News. Bad mojo all around.


We have a stake in one another ... what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart.... -- BARACK OBAMA
by Lettuce on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:15:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (1.00 / 1)

Elitism is arguing that working class white, Latino, and Asian voters are all voting for Hillary because of racism, and not because of the fact that Hillary's out there pushing specific policy solutions to address their specific needs.  Elitism is arguing that the Clinton economy was the same as the Bush economy, and that both require us to "change" from them.

Elitism is arguing that a temporary gas tax holiday, which is only passed if it comes from the coffers of Big Oil, is somehow not a "progressive" policy.

I think most Obama supporters are elitist, and I say that with full cognizance of the fact that the GOP has used this talking point against us.  But the fact is, it has worked.  You can either claim that it's because the working class has (again and again) been bamboozled, or you can recognize the grain of truth in it.

But I see it when I talk to my friends and colleagues, almost all of whom are Obama supporters, and they talk with contempt of Hillary white trash voters.  And assume that anyone with a college degree must be an Obama supporter.

The vast wealth schism between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters, on average (and excluding African American voters), indicates that the "elitism" divide did not start with any blog postings or candidate comments.  This has been a very real dynamic in this race, and while you can ignore it, that won't make it go away.


by RedSox04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:34:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (none / 0)

The only instance where Hillary voters were charged with racism is when exit polls asked "How important was race in making your decision of who to vote for?" and many of the people who answered "very important" also voted for Hillary.

No one has ever made the claim that much of Hillary's support is gained through racism but to think that it doesn't exist is ignorant.


by matchles on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:09:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (none / 0)

I said the elitism argument was "weak."  That certainly doesn't "legitimize" it.  


by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (none / 0)

"Taking the gloves off, are we?  I'll refrain.  I should note though that your discursion on rights & priviliges sounds like it would be well placed in a constitutional case against a government body, but it's irrelevant here.  The Democratic Party is not a state actor."

My argument of right vs. privilege is at the heart of your claim.  By using the word "disenfranchisement" you have definitionally included rights into the argument.  So assuming you actually believe voting in a primary is a right, you should also be outraged for the millions of independent voters are excluded from the voting process. The charge of hypocrisy doesn't stem solely from this claim but also from how most Hillary supporters were fine with Florida and Michigan losing their delegates until after she had fallen behind and the vote had taken place.

But I understand your dismissal of my argument, I don't know how I would respond either.


by matchles on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:04:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (none / 0)

"You may not agree with this but I believe it to be true.  The reason conservatives are admitting admiration for Hillary is because she is doing their work for them.  She's driving a wedge between the party and is well on her way to fracturing it leading to their guy winning by default. They admire her "tenacity" while secretly rejoicing over the fact no one on her campaign can perform basic arithmetic."

You're right.  Hillary is the only one capable of making arguments that Obama is a bad candidate.  The Republicans could never do that.  And negative media scrutiny would never have hit Obama if Hillary had just dropped out.

For the record, could you please describe how Hillary is "driving a wedge between the party"?  Because I have yet to talk to an Obama supporter who will give me specific examples that haven't already been discredited somewhere.  On the other hand, I know that Obama has fueled the "Hillary is a racist" meme, and I know that he has called Hillary divisive and unelectable, repeatedly.  His campaign has also taken the unprecedented step of calling for her to drop out, despite the fact that she can still win, by any metric (yes, even your best-case Obama scenarios still show that she can win, even if unlikely).

3am ads, which are relatively tame, or ads showing various catastrophes (including the Great Depression, 9/11, and many other examples) do not count as "tearing apart the party" in my book.

The fact that Obama is doing this poorly, without the GOP having really unleashed their meanest attack dogs yet, is a really really really poor sign for his campaign.  


by RedSox04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:47:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (none / 0)

Obama's success in the early states was also predicated on electability.  Obama ran as a "post-partisan" candidate who could unify the country.  He probably mentioned his superior electability and Hillary's "divisiveness" thousands of times.

Obama's a sinking ship.  If he can't handle the soft lobs he's getting now, he's toast come November.  The Republicans don't play nice, or worry about being divisive.  And for all the media hoopla about how Hillary is "doing anything to win" (a meme which is clearly being fueled by the Obama camp), I think she's been surprisingly genteel.  She didn't introduce the Wright story (despite the fact that her campaign had all of this material and could have introduced it when she was running through a string of losses), and she's been running largely on the issues.

Furthermore, for all the talk about how Hillary makes comments denigrating Obama (the examples Obama supporters cite to me most often are the "I don't know if he's Muslim, you'll have to ask him" and the "I wouldn't have stayed in that church" comments), it's surprising to me how few Obama supporters I know actually watched those interviews.  They don't know that Hillary was asked over and over about the "Is he a Muslim" question, until she finally made that soundbite, or that she prefaced the Wright comment by saying it was up to the voters to decide.

The media is out to make Hillary look a calculating b*tch, and they've succeeded in the minds of most Obama supporters.


by RedSox04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:29:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (2.00 / 2)

I love that when black people participate in higher-than-expected rates, it delegitimizes a primary result. FYI, every time anyone says that, it is a statement that black people don't really count.

Of course there are not an equal number of black people that will vote in the general that voted in the primary, but that doesn't make a Democratic victory which was dependent on those black votes pyrrhic.


by Jonmac on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:49:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (none / 0)

by equal i meant proportionate. the candidate selected by the Democratic primary should accurately reflect the membership of the Democratic primary, and that fortunately includes a majority of black people. Also fortunately, the membership of the Democratic primary encompasses a large part of the country's population. Victory 08, Clinton or Obama: It doesn't even matter.


by Jonmac on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:55:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (none / 0)

I think you're misreading his claim.  He's pointing out the obvious fact AA voters make up a much higher percentage of the Dem population than of the general population, particularly in delegate rich states like MS and AL that neither Obama nor Hillary can win.

He was doing this in the context of electability.

But nice of you to bring up the "Hillary supporters must be racist" meme again.  Good to see you're following Saint Obama's lead on that one.


by RedSox04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:40:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honestly.... (2.00 / 1)

You're right, I did misread. Apologies.


by Jonmac on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:12:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

I read earlier today an anecdotal report of a large turnout in early voting of Hillary's demographics.  Also, Bill has been crisscrossing the state nonstop, really nonstop, and being very well received, so it is possible it will be much closer than anticipated.


by mady on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:44:33 PM EST

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

40% black early turnout is not exactly Hillary's demographic. Most polls have blacks at 33% of the electorate.


by elrod on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:57:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

On the strength of the AA vote, remember that leaks showed John Kerry winning North Carolina ahead of the 2004 election.  The early vote in NC is more heavily AA.  


by BPK80 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

the exit polls were wrong in 2004 b/c the exit pollers were improperly trained, and being a bunch of young recruits, were more likely to seek out people who "looked like them" - younger - which naturally skewed in kerry's favor.


by jbill on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:16:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

I'm talking about early voting, not day-of voting that occurs early in the day.  


by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

"large turnout in early voting of Hillary's demographics" and "Bill has been crisscrossing the state nonstop, really nonstop, and being very well received."

If this is the case, Hillary SHOULD WIN North Carolina.  And if she can't win N.C., why couldn't she pull it off when her supporters and her husband  went all out for her?  (just a little taste of your own medicine)


by froggyman on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:11:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

What do you mean my own medicine, if you were referring to me.  I am an Obama supporter and would love a landslide, but I have a feeling things are very close.


by mady on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:00:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Reads like a Clinton meme (2.00 / 1)

Forget about the polls.  For Obama to really "win" he has to score a 20+ margin.

Hillary needs like 70% of the remaining delegates to take a lead in the pledged delegate count.  Anything less than a 70-30 showing in favor of Hillary is just another huge nail in the coffin.


by umcpgreg on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:46:09 PM EST

The clintonistas will stop talking about blacks (2.00 / 1)

... when they finally lose and then maybe we can look at the fact that Obama made solid gains in 80% of all of his demographics in the last election.

I mean, seriously. Its getting dull talking about African americans.

Then again, I'm a colleged educated type. Oh. Here's one stat that he forgot to mention.

OBAMA IS FAR AND AWAY THE NUMBER ONE CHOICE OF IT PROFESSIONALS IN THE US.

(source: network world magazine, +12% more likely to vote for Obama than clinton)


by Trey Rentz on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:47:36 PM EST

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

At this point an Obama victory of any kind in NC is another step toward the endgame.  

And I know that Todd has not posted on this, but there seems to be something illogical about the many demands on mydd that Obama 'edit' his predicted outcome of certain states where he has fallen short (e.g. PA), while ignoring those states where he has vastly outperformed predictions (e.g. Virginia and Maryland), and now saying he needs a blow-out to truly 'win' in NC.  


by Kensingtonbill on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:52:31 PM EST

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (2.00 / 3)

At this point, not losing by anything narrower than 70%-30% to HRC anywhere is another step toward the endgame.


by tysonpublic on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:59:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

It seemed to me that Clinton didn't go all out in some of the neighboring, choosing to instead conserve her resources for other more favorable contests.  In this case, though, it seems that Clinton has gone all out.  Hopefully that will help keep Obama's margin down.


Hillary's Bloggers
by markjay on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:53:18 PM EST

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

Yes, I think Clinton needs to come through Tuesday with at least a gain in Delegates, otherwise she will likely slide even more with the superdelegates.  She has a shot at that if she can win Indiana and keep it close in NC.  Of course a win in NC (by any margin) would be a huge break, but thats a lot to hope for.  It is possible the new voter ID law makes the voter screen data from previous elections completely off the mark and the polls have it wrong... but by how much?  We will know in a few days I guess.


by protothad on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:14:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

wow, I think Todd is trying to inflate expectations for Obama..


by mecarr on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:53:22 PM EST

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (1.00 / 10)

WHY DON'T OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS CARE ABOUT OBAMA'S SLUMS?

Obama talks about being "a community organizer in Chicago"

Here's what happened after he got elected State Senator.

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Channel 5, NBC news, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0la T8&feature=related

How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.


by BerkekeyGuy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:53:45 PM EST

wow, bringing up rezko? really? (none / 0)

its a good thing that hillary is clean and doesn't have any real estate misdeeds in her closet...


by ab03 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:17:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

They were polling in Chicago slums for the NC primary?  Weird.


by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:19:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

Because NC's AA population (22%) is considerably smaller than SC or GA (30%), I think it's reasonable to expect a closer margin than what we saw in those states. Also, Edwards was in the race during SC, so that made a difference. Moreover, NC is essentially appalachia in the western part of the state, which has tended to support Hillary heavily (also having lived in western NC for a few years, I can say that race-relations leave a lot to be desired in many of the areas outside Asheville). Virginia would seem to be more similar demographically, but the DC burbs really distinguish Virginia from other southern states. So, even Virginia would seem to be a flawed model for comparative purposes.

In short, comparing NC to other nearby states has its limitations. I expect Obama to win by about 12% in NC. I think the lower margin is attributable to demographics to some extent, but the series of tough news cycles for Obama hasn't helped either. Moreover, the Clintons have campaigned a lot more in NC than any of the other states being compared. So, some credit should go to Clinton's campaign, but I don't think it was ever reasonable to expect a victory of more than 20 points.


by DPW on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:54:39 PM EST

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

If expectations still matter, than I'd say double-digits (9.2% by Clinton Rules) counts as an Obama win.

But really...  At some point we have to realize that everyone has voted, and stop caring about expectations.


"I'll bite your legs off!" -- HRC 2008!
by username3 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:58:04 PM EST

Great analysis (2.00 / 1)

I agree.  Hillary must keep North Carolina to single digits to maintain the illusion that the momentum has shifted her way.  If Obama wins by double-digits and outperforms the final RCP average, it'll be a clear signal that Hillary has no momentum.  Should that happen, I'm sure more and more SDs will come out for Obama and get this thing wrapped up so that the Democrats can get healed and start concentrating on McCain.  


by froggyman on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:58:10 PM EST

Re: Great analysis (none / 0)

Last month Indiana was "the tiebreaker" (thanks, Obama) and NC as a blowout Obama win was a foregone conclusion.  The fact that single digits is even possible speaks volumes.  


by BPK80 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:26:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great analysis (none / 0)

where have i heard that before...


by ab03 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:40:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

I doubt that Obama wins by 20-25 points. One of the reasons for his blowout in SC was because of all the hoopla and black vote was 55%

in Virginia, it was 30% and he got the white vote, 52-48

Those trends aren't going to stay the same in NC.

The black vote may be around 35%, he will get 87-90%, but he will not get anywhere near 52% of the white vote.


by American1989 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:58:59 PM EST

Re: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - (2.00 / 1)

Should we use region or date as the more important parameter?

Because if you use date, then Obama has done WORSE than the averages in the most recent primaries.  I, for one, am not willing to look to South Carolina - even to Virginia, which in political terms was eons ago.  The most recent Souther states were Texas and Mississippi.  The RCP average underestimated Clinton's win in Texas.  It really underestimated Obama's margin in Mississippi - but there were few polls for MS.

My guess is that the polls are about right in NC.


by johnnygunn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:00:08 PM EST

Re: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - (none / 0)

The enormous latino population in Texas makes it nothing like the other southern states.


by DPW on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:02:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - (none / 0)

The Latino population is growing everywhere.
Esp. in NC - although nowhere as large, of course.
It would be imprudent to ignore that.
by johnnygunn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In Virginia (none / 0)

Obama got the majority of the Hispanic American vote.


The Unity Ticket Will Work: Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama in 08
by Otaku Saru on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:41:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In Virginia (none / 0)

Obama was very popular in February when Virginia voted.  


by BPK80 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:27:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - (none / 0)

the point is that in texas, the latino vote is enormous.


by alex100 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:24:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - (none / 0)

It did not underestimate Obama's win in MS. He won by 61-38. Polls had him up by 14, not 23.


by elrod on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:08:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - (none / 0)

That's called underestimating Obama's win.


by johnnygunn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:26:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - (2.00 / 1)

Whoops. I misread it. Sorry  :)


by elrod on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:42:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

I am predicting a 12-20% margin.  I think anything in between would be normal.  Anything under 10% or over 22% would be considered a surprise.


by Bobby Obama on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:05:41 PM EST

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

I'd say closer to 8%.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:44:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Close to my guess (none / 0)

I'm going with 7%.  I think the new ID law might depress turnout in a few key Obama strongholds.  Also, Clinton really has improved her ground game in these later contests.  My girlfriend says I'm a pessimist, but I would rather be suprised than dissapointed.  ;)


by protothad on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:49:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Close to my guess (none / 0)

Voter ID law does not apply to NC


by parahammer on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:18:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oops (none / 0)

I'm I confusing a story from IN?


by protothad on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:28:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops (none / 0)

Yes.  Supreme Court upheld IN's voter ID law.  It's actually expected to hurt Clinton more than Obama, because her voters tend to be poorer.


by RedSox04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

Actually, look at that spreadsheet linked below. I think it would be awfully hard to come up with realistic numbers where Obama gets anywhere near 20. We really don't need to be creating crazy expectations. Hillary will win at least 60% of the white vote and Obama won't do better than 90% among black voters.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:54:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Some demographic differences (none / 0)

NC has more white working class Democrats than VA or SC. NC still has lots of textile and furniture towns in the Piedmont and Western NC.

But those towns are changing too. I drove through Morganton, Lenoir and Wilkesboro last week and noticed that it is entirely Republican now. But I also noticed that the economy has gotten much more white collar - and this is in the western part of the state almost to Boone.

The world that John Edwards grew up in just doesn't exist anymore in NC. But there are more places like that in NC than in highly white collar VA and more heavily black SC.

So, NC has a little stronger demographic for Hillary than VA or SC. But it's still a strong demographic state for Obama.

NC is a partially open primary, but Republicans cannot vote in it. White Democrats are primarily in the Raliegh-Durham-Greensboro-Winston-Salem corridor and in Charlotte. If 40% of the electorate is black, and Obama gets 40% of the white electorate (and 90% of the black vote). That would give Obama a 20 point win in NC. If Obama only gets 30% of the white vote, Obama wins by 8 with this margin of black voters.


by elrod on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:06:58 PM EST

One major difference (none / 0)

Was that in those polls a substantial portion of the ``AA'' population was undecided. Used to be around 20 %. In the current polls that tends to be around 2-3 %. Actually that was the problem with Insider Advantage Poll that put Clinton ahead a week back.

Now, though Sen Obama could clearly outperform the polls, but my guess is that will be basically because they get the demographics of voters wrong.  


by ann0nymous on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:08:56 PM EST

Re: One major difference (none / 0)

I think the latest NC polls have had high undecided among blacks as well.


by elrod on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

Plug in your assumptions on black/white vote choice and turnout in this spreadsheet and get a prediction for NC: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/m ake-your-own-north-carolina-prediction.h tml


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:18:48 PM EST

real question (none / 0)

I think Obama wins NC by 6-8 and Hillary wins IN by something substantial (like 3-5).  Does that change anything for Obama supporters?  Hillary supporters?

To me, it cuts against Obama but not enough for me to question the legitimacy of Obama's campaign.  I don't care about any metrics, I want the pledged+supers to decide this thing so really I just want them to come out en masse after and I feel like they'll probably just split, which will give Obama the nomination.

If that is the case, will anybody be mad?


by ab03 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:20:53 PM EST

The Southern Democratic Mind Frame (2.00 / 1)

The Democratic Parties of the Southern States are quite a bit different from the Nation Democratic Party, and thus the Southern Democratic voter votes a lot different than how the Democrats vote in other states. In the South the Democratic Party is basically the less-conservative opposition to the Republican Party, but still very conservative, and a lot of Southern Democrats have every intention of voting for McCain in November, no matter which Democrat wins the nomination. In phone call polling a lot of Southern Democrats will say they are voting for Clinton, but on primary day don't show up at the polling stations. Where as Obama's Southern support, coming mostly from affluent liberals, college students, and African Americans, is very strong and is highly inclined to show up at the polling station on primary day.
Factors that may play a role in the upcoming NC primary are; will there be enough conservative Democrats who will vote for Clinton because they feel McCain has a better chance of beating her? I am not an expert, but I think that is doubtful. Will there be a sense from Obama supporters that Obama really needs this one? That seems very likely given the current circumstances. Will there be a sense on the part of all NC Democrats that any level of Obama victory would put an end to Hillary's campaign? Needless to say the name "Clinton" is like a dirty word almost everywhere in the South, so again a huge anti-Clinton vote seems likely.
I won't make a prediction, but I would say any poll that has Obama ahead in a Southern State is probably an understatement of Obama's level of true support.
The Unity Ticket Will Work: Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama in 08
by Otaku Saru on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:22:28 PM EST

Re: The Southern Democratic Mind Frame (2.00 / 1)

Needless to say the name "Clinton" is like a dirty word almost everywhere in the South

Like Arkansas, for instance????

Or Tennessee?
Or two weeks from now in Kentucky,
where Clinton has a bazillion point lead?

What a "powerful" analysis.


by johnnygunn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:29:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Southern Democratic Mind Frame (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, Clinton is a dirty word among SOME in the South. But not among everybody. Bill Clinton won TN, KY, AR, LA, WV and MO twice - and GA and FL once. And he came very close in NC, AL and TX.

Hillary is not Bill, which helps among white women but hurts among white men. And who knows what blacks in the South think of Hillary now.


by elrod on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:45:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

Obama's only 133 delegates away from having a majority of pledged delegates now.  Whatever happens on Tuesday, he'll win a fair amount of delegates and will get closer and closer to that majority.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:24:25 PM EST

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

I'm also wondering if the upcoming end of the college semester in many colleges will have an impact.  College students have gone more for Obama, and with finals and final projects coming due (I'm working on one right now...ugh), it may matter.  I don't expect that any students will not vote because of it, but they may not have as much time for canvassing, GOTV, etc.  I guess we'll find out soon.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:24:59 PM EST

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

The Obama folks have worked college students hard in early voting.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:27:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

this has been analyzed.  one thing that helps is early voting which was set up on lots of campuses.  However, I know there are some places like Duke where early voting wasn't located in easily accessible areas.  I'm pretty sure this will affect Obama's numbers.  

I really don't see a double digit win for Obama.  But I can't see him losing either


by ab03 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:29:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

I'm thinking NC is maybe a cross between SC / Georgia which voted heavily for Obama and Tennessee which also has a large AA population but voted for Clinton thanks to something like a 70-30 white vote in her favor.


by mikes101 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:28:03 PM EST

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

NC is a younger state than Tenn...with a lot of college students and high-tech areas


Donate to Bob Barr for Obama- http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
by cardboard 1 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:32:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

the tech area is the big difference.  the college numbers could get skewed because of the timing


by ab03 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:36:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

Most NC college students are actually in-state... There are extremely strict rules for state University letting in out-of-state students.  It is harder to get in UNC than Harvard if you are from out of state.


Donate to Bob Barr for Obama- http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
by cardboard 1 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:55:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

Obama did not set foot in the great state of Tennessee. He simply did not campaign here. He'd have filled Thompson-Boling Arena in Knoxville with no problem. But he didn't bother showing up. And not in Nashville or heavily-black Memphis either. That's the difference. Lots of rural white people around here didn't know who he was.


by elrod on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:47:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

There was also a terrible storm, which destroyed towns, in heavily AA areas around Memphis which brought down turnout.


Donate to Bob Barr for Obama- http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
by cardboard 1 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

True. They hit Memphis and Jackson, TN. Not sure if turnout numbers dropped because of it though.


by elrod on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:35:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

Actually, roughly 400,000 voted the Dem ballot early.  The 40% number is correct (seen as high as 40.6% reported).


by jimotto on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:35:31 PM EST

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

curious (or maybe lazy), where are these numbers reported?


by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:37:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (none / 0)

NC Board of Elections has the data available for download on their website.

Summarized here...

http://ccpsblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/ana lysis-of-early-voters-in-north.html


by jimotto on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:55:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Obama Should Do In NC On Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

I suppose it would be silly to think maybe the pollsters had adjusted their methods and tabulations in light of being so absurdly incorrect the first go through? Sheesh. This from the same folks who lauded the, "a win is a win," Hillary mantra just two weeks back. Nice try at raising expectations though.


by TheSilverMonkey on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:37:26 PM EST

Towards the End Game (2.00 / 1)

First, those polls were then and the game keeps changing.
So Todd, if he doesn't win by the unexpected by most 20% margin it just shows how much his campaign is collapsing, right?

He will win by about 9%. It will be painted by some, you included, as a victory for her...single digits...BTW, that's what she won by in Pennsylvania :-)

She'll win Indiana by 5-6%. He'll come out of the two contests with 5-6 more delegates than she gets.

It will go on.

And the only way she'll win it all will be by getting the credentials committee to seat Michigan and Florida. They'll do that only if the party really has a kamikaze streak. It would truly split the party for November

So it goes...

Keep spinning.

Mark


by markpsf on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:52:31 PM EST

Re: Former Gov. Hunt Very Surprised (none / 0)

Former Dem Gov. Hunt was on TV tonight. He is neutral in this race.

He said that he was:

" Very surprised to see heavy turnour among Lower Income Whites who normally don't vote. He said Clinton is definitely motivating many lower income whites to come out & vote. Even voters who don't normally vote".

NC will be closer than what most people expect it to be.


by libdemusa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:54:08 PM EST

Re: Former Gov. Hunt Very Surprised (2.00 / 2)

I really hope he didn't capitalize Lower Income Whites in his inflection...


by tomchaps on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Gov. Hunt Very Surprised (none / 0)

Too bad for Hillary the early turnout is also seeing  a much higher African American vote than normal. It's over 40% so far and most polling expected about 30-33%.


by elrod on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama has an excuse because of Wright (2.00 / 1)

Based upon the early voting of 40% African-American, Obama should do just fine in North Carolina.


by puma on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:59:52 PM EST

Re: Obama has an excuse because of Wright (none / 0)

Early voting in NC had a strong AA tilt to it in 2004.  The "day of" voting had a strong GOP tilt to it, much stronger than the pro-Kerry tilt that came before election day.  I see early AA voting as a continuation of this trend.  


by BPK80 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has an excuse because of Wright (2.00 / 1)

So Hillary voters are the GOP supporters in your analogy? I think you shouldn't confuse primaries with general elections.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:02:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has an excuse because of Wright (none / 0)

The problem is that if Hillary supporters don't confuse primaries with general elections, most of their arguments vanish.  (i.e., the "Obama lost to Hillary in [State], therefore he'd also lose to McCain in [State]" argument.)


by Frood on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:19:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has an excuse because of Wright (none / 0)

That's a crude misinterpretation of the prevailing logic among Hillary supporters looking ahead to November.


by BPK80 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:10:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]