• comment on a post Tarrance projects a toss-up over 5 years ago

    Based on final margin of 49-44 with 7 undecided, the final projection assumes that undecided break for McCain about 4 or even 5 to 1.  There are a number of reasons to be skeptical of such a disparity, best set out by Mark Blumenthal at pollster .com.  PEW and others have also argued that about half of undecided generally do not vote, further watering down such a swing to McCain.  

    Finally pollsters of all people should recognize the shakiness of a claim that we are the best based on a three out of four n performance.

    We'll soon see.  

  • comment on a post Not PUMA, but undecided over 5 years ago

    I appreciate the genuine emotion of Hillary's supporters.

    However, the 'she is so much better qualified' etc argument begs the question of why she did not defeat Obama in the primaries, which was by far the greatest leadership test either has faced.  

  • Thanks.  However the Senate alone confirms, and without big upsets (e.g. in KY, NC, TX, AK), Dems are unlikely to gain more than a 55-45 or 56-44 advantage. We can hope of course to get closer to 58/59, and to reach 60 in 2010 when Reps will again have more seats to defend.  

    Even with say a 57/43 majority, my guess is that Roberts and mabye Alito would have still been confirmed.  

  • comment on a post 69-59 A Good move by Obama campaign over 6 years ago

    You could also have noted that

    1. This is the plan of the Michigan Democratic Party, based on their own understanding of the vote.

    2.  That understanding included 30,000 write-in votes, the bulk of which would have gone to Obama, which were not included in the 'certified' total.  

    3.  Carl Levin is nobody's fool, as he showed in his exchange with Ickes.  He was speaking common sense.

  • comment on a post Update: Clinton With Commanding Lead in Puerto Rico over 6 years ago

    Not all but unfortunately many HRC supporters follow the 'count every vote' meme when it benefits their candidate; not so much when it does not.   And if popular vote had been established as a criterion for nominee selection, (1) caucus states would have shifted to primaries, and (2) Obama would have devoted more resources e.g. to California where HRC netted more than 400,000 votes, and to WV and Kentucky, trying to reduce her margin, if only slightly, rather than focusing on GE states.  

    Also, this may be beyond scope of the discussion here, but by any metric the Clinton campaign has made major strategic mistakes, most notably having no plan B after 5 February. She had tremendous cash, organizational, and name-recognition advantages entering Fall of 2007.  She is an impressive candidate, with great command of issues, but her campaign has often been poorly run.  At some point the candidate must take responsibility for the work done on her/his behalf.  

  • on a comment on End Game over 6 years ago

    A helpful diary, but the discussion of HRC's popular vote 'victory' is based on partial  reality.  

    Barring a large turnout and/or 20% + margin of victory in PR, Clinton will only be able to claim the popular vote if Obama receives no votes in Michigan.  Particularly if the 4 unreported caucus states are factored in.  

    I realize that HRC will put her best case forward, but let's add a caveat that her popular vote argument will not be very persuasive with many super delegates.  They will be well aware that she is relying on a state in which Obama received no votes, and on a large haul of votes from an electorate that does not participate in the general.  

  • Also add people who blind-cite a column by Lanny Davis, a Clinton adivisor and leading Clintonite talking head, in presenting a 'fair and realistic' solution for FL and MI.

    This diarist and other HRC supporters will be disappointed to find out, after 1 June, that the formula for seating FL and MI doesn't really matter. Obama will maintain an overwhelming delegate advantage and need a small portion of the SDs to get to 2210, if that is what's decided.  For HRC this isn't about voting rights etc., its about maintaining mathematical viability and a few more days or weeks while hoping/praying that somehow Obama disqualifies himself for the nomnination.  

  • I guess caucus votes don't count and we'll just adopt all the 'rules' that favor Senator Clinton.  Nice discussing this with you - we'll see how super delegates feel about that.    

    Exit polls show that 79% of uncommitted voters supported Obama.  Even with that total (about 180,000) he would still be 30,000 or so in front of Clinton.  

  • Not so fast on the popular vote.  

    Realclearpolitics shows Obama up 273,877 including Florida and estimates of caucus states IA, NV, ME, and WA.  Of course you could argue that the estimates of caucus states shouldn't count, but given HRC's recent statement in Florida that seems a difficult position for her supporters to maintain.  

    Recent estimates indicate that PR may not have the massive turnout some had anticipated. Perhaps 30% or 800,000 based on 2.4 mio registered voters.  

    With 800,000 votes, a 12% Clinton victory would net 96,000, reducing Obama's overall lead to about 176,000.  He is likely to pad that a little bit in Montana and South Dakota.  Let's say another 10K to 186,000.  

    If something like this pans out, Clinton could be left to argue her popular vote 'victory' is based on netting 328,309 in Michigan vs. 0 (zero) for Obama.  If you give Obama the uncommitted Michigan vote of 238,136 - and can't we agree that the uncommitteds were largely cast in his favor - he can still claim his own popular vote victory by about 86,000.

  • I agree that HRC did not intend this in the way some have taken it, but it was a boneheaded thing to say.  Particularly in the context of taking pity on yourself.  

  • on a comment on OR & KY Tomorrow over 6 years ago

    Survey USA is out with final poll, Obama 55 Clinton 42.

  • Figure of 70% turnout or higher (total, including those ballots to be dropped off tomorrow, not just already submitted) has been cited in Oregon press.  

  • Assume the potential Oregon and Kentucky electorates are of comparable size, say 2 million.  If BO wins by 8 pts in Oregon, with 75% turnout, and HRC wins Kentucky by 30 pts with 30% turnout, result would be 2 mio x .75 x .08 = 120,000 net gain for Obama in Oregon, vs. 2 mio x .30 x .30 = 180,000 for Clinton in Kentucky.  So 60,000 net gain for HRC.  But if Obama wins by 12 points in Oregon, he would also net 180,000 votes there (2 mio x .75 x .12), thus offsetting her larger % win in Kentucky.  On the other hand, HRC's advantage would be increased if BO's margin declines or if Kentucky turnout is larger, but local press reports indicate an expected turnout around 25%.  Happy to be proven wrong on latter if a link to contrary info can be provided.  

  • comment on a post Tight Race in Oregon: ACTION ALERT [Update] over 6 years ago

    As also pointed out in reply to earlier diary, I've looked at internals of Suffolk Poll, which show only 26% of the sample under the age of 45.  That seems very low and raises question of missing younger voters using cell phones etc. I will not be suprised if BO's lead is cut to high single digits, but if HRC's own polling showed this at 4% you can bet that she would have never left Oregon.  Surely an upset in Oregon would have been worth more than piling on a few more points in Kentucky.

    Also, because Oregon turnout is expected to be very high, 70% or more, with Kentucky much lower, any increase in BO's margin in Oregon will cut into HRC's raw popular vote net gain tomorrow.  She needs to at least double and probably triple his margin in Oregon to yield a popular net gain from her win in Kentucky.  

  • comment on a post Oregon, Upset in the Making? Hillary Get on a Plane! over 6 years ago

    I've looked at internals of Suffolk Poll, which show only 26% of the sample under the age of 45.  That seems very low and raises question of missing younger voters using cell phones etc. I will not be suprised if BO's lead is cut to high single digits, but if HRC's own polling showed this at 4% you can bet that she would have never left Oregon.  

    Also, because Oregon turnout is expected to be very high, 70% or more, with Kentucky much lower, any increase in BO's margin in Oregon will cut into HRC's raw popular vote net gain tomorrow.  She needs to at least double and probably triple his margin in Oregon to yield a popular net gain from her win in Kentucky.  

Diaries

Advertise Blogads