|
|
Tuesday, May 13th, 2008
| |
10:11 pm - Ah, the Obama fan boys try and spin
|
This was the start of a posting over at Daily Kos today about Hillary's landslide win...
No 60% Point Win Tonight...
by LtdEdishn
Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:24:05 PM PDT
Yes, Hillary will win West Virginia big tonight, and kudos to her campaign for doing so; but there was no 60 point win blowout. There will be a 40 point blowout win for Clinton tonight, with 92% of the vote in, but what this means is that Obama did 20 points better than expected by all of the pre-election polls that the Clinton Campaign was claiming early on.
lol, who the hell expected Hillary to blow Obama out of the water by 60 points? Anyone want to chime in as the culpable party?
|
|
(12 comments | comment on this)
|
| |
4:20 pm - West Virginia Thread
|
Update: CNN already calling it for Clinton 'by a wide margin'.
Repeat after me: Just because the media says Obama is the nominee, does not mean the voters agree.
Polls are closing soon, so why not pull some numbers straight outta you know where.
Predicition:
Clinton: 75%
Obama: 23%
Edwards: 2%
Why not.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| |
7:52 am - Birthday Wish
|
For my birthday today, I'm hoping that by the time I head to bed tonight, I see the following headline on CNN, MSNBC, or ABCNews:
"HUGE BLOWOUT: Clinton picks up West Virginia by over 80%"
Someone give me a candle to blow out so I can make it come true.
|
|
(6 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, May 11th, 2008
| |
9:00 pm - Listen up folks
|
You're going to hear a lot in the coming days about Clinton's arguments to the Super Delegates that she is the most electable candidate, and the only candidate who will be able to beat John McCain. It takes 270 electoral votes, state by state, to win the general election.
Below is evidence that proves Clinton IS the candidate who can beat John McCain. These are state by state polls from national polling firms that basically poll the respondants and say "In a Presidential General Election between McCain and Obama, who would you vote for?" and "In a Presidential General Election between McCain and Clinton, who would you vote for?"
I give you Exhibit A, the May 11th Pollwatcher from My Direct Democracy ( www.MyDD.com ):
and Exhibit B, the May 11th Electoral Map from Electoral Vote ( www.Electoral-Vote.com ):
 Total: Clinton: 280 McCain: 258
Total: Obama: 254 McCain: 273 Ties: 11
The Key to Exhibit B
So are you interested in electing a Democrat with Hillary Clinton, or handing the election to John McCain by giving the nomination to Barack Obama? While posted for everyone, I really hope my Oregon friends are reading this.
|
|
(8 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, May 7th, 2008
| |
8:50 pm - 50% is the new threshold
|
A full 50% in North Carolina of people that voted for Hillary Clinton and another 50% in Indiana that voted for Hillary Clinton say they will not back Barack Obama in the General Election.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/06/primaries.change/index.html
Yes, you can call it a consequence of the heated primary battle and some will settle down and cross over. However, there's a lot of people out there like me who will not cross over.
More damning, 33% said they would vote for McCain over Obama in Indiana, and 38% in North Carolina.
Obama voters appear to be more willing to support Clinton in November. In Indiana, 59 percent of Obama backers said they'd vote for Clinton, and 70 percent of Obama backers in North Carolina said vote for her against McCain.
If he does become the Democratic nominee... why do the words "Republican Circle Jerk" keep coming to my lips?
|
|
(8 comments | comment on this)
|
| |
9:50 am - The Plan Continues
|
A few weeks back, I had posted about how I thought the game was going to run for the remaining races. Pennsylvania for Hillary, North Carolina for Obama, and Indiana would be tight, but if Hillary won, she's going to pick up a good chunk of pledged delegates in the remaining races through June 3rd.
I know many Obama supporters are celebrating the win in North Carolina and keeping it close in Indiana and declaring it over. I wouldn't count my chickens before they hatch.
Kentucky and West Virginia are shaping up to be HUGE wins for Clinton - we will possibly see 70% in either or both of these two states. The size of her wins in the appalachia portion of North Carolina and Virginia are making me more and more happy as I look at the breakdowns. Clinton is *still* on track to pick up 30-50 delegates in these last contests through June 3rd.
And then, there is Michigan and Florida. Call it "Moving the Goal Posts" all you want, I call it "Throwing the Challenge Flag" onto the field and having the referee review. May 31st is the first test of whether we will see Florida and Michigan seated and how they will allocate. The latest indications from everyone, including Dean, is that they WILL be seated. And any allocation for either state that isn't 50/50 is a big win for Clinton, especially because she has the backing of the Super's in both states. Don't use the Kos countdown clock, since the referees will be adding time to the official game clock on May 31st.
Lastly, the item that I've been hammering on for eons is all about electability.
Uncommitted Democratic superdelegates in Congress overwhelmingly say they won’t necessarily back the presidential candidate who wins the most primary delegates. Instead, electability will be very important in their decision.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/superdelegates-say-we-will-decide-2008-05-06.html
Apparently the undecided Super Delegates agree. And look, Clinton still wins over McCain, and earns more electoral votes than Obama. I just gave Clinton money to congratulate her on her Indiana win, because she's moving on, not just in this primary, but in the General Election.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, May 6th, 2008
| |
4:47 pm - Go Hillary Go
|
First, let me tell you a bit about me. I like to think I'm in the center of a lot of issues. I identify as a democrat, and a fiscally responsible one at that. I don't like programs on any level (city, state, federal) that don't have a means to pay for it; I certainly am not the 'never met a tax increase that he didn't like' democrat; yet I certainly believe that many things society should chip in and pay for - to help common good. I have issues where I find myself in lock-step with many in the Democratic party: I support single-payer health care, a high minimum wage, strong environmental protections, and full civil rights for everyone. I stand on the outside of where some of my other self-identified Democrats are at: I think the death penalty is just fine. I think government assistance should have a cap. I think taxes are too high for many small businesses. I identify as a DLC Democrat more than I do a Progressive Democrat; what I like to call a Centrist Democrat. The economy is my number 1 issue in this election, and in every election.
I grew up and came of voting age in 1995 - so my first vote was for Bill Clinton (an easy call vs Perot and Dole). But still, I didn't vote for Bill Clinton just because he was the Democrat on the ticket, I voted for Bill Clinton because he made a difference in my life. I grew up in an area of Seattle called White Center, a place where low income housing projects dominated the region and depressed the housing values. The longer people sat in these projects, the longer they grew accustomed to the government doing for them what many of them should be doing for themselves. Many took no pride in themselves or their efforts to improve their conditions - as long as the government kept paying, they kept on with their own personal status quo. Bill Clinton helped our area with the 1996 Welfare Reform Act that motivated our neighbors to do what they needed to do when they could: Go to work. The first President Clinton's committment to the American working family made me have so much pride in . My dad was a welder, and my mom was a secretary. Without things like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Family and Medical Leave Act, my growing up would have been quite a bit different. I won't go into why, since this isn't about Bill Clinton, but I wanted some back story there to show that I trust Hillary Clinton when she says she's out there looking out for American families. While it was Bill in the Whitehouse with the executive pen, their last name has earned my respect and trust to accomplish goals of the middle and working class families, much to the same degree 'Kennedy' has it's reputation in Democratic circles and elicits respect.
When I found out that Hillary Clinton had jumped in the race for 2008, I immediately went to do research to look at her stance on issues.
I already knew Clinton had the tenacity in a candidate that I wanted. I can't imagine getting up day in and day out to be attacked on a personal level. To be called a bitch. To be told to drop out of the race and iron my shirt. To be called a monster. To be told that you're unlikable. The determination of any person under that sort of bombardment, both from the Republicans on the other side, but also from people that bring the phrase to mind: "With friends like these, who need enemies?" makes me particularly enthusiastic in supporting her. I can see that sort of grit as being an asset when negotiating with foreign leaders. Yet I can also see the side of Senator Clinton that a lot of people say she lacks - her April Fools day speech made me laugh, her New Hampshire tears were genuine and showed me that she's just like you and me and I could empathize when in a similar situation. If you really want to look at something that gets lost on a lot of people in this age of quickie divorce and las vegas weddings, she had all the reason to leave, and yet she chose to honor her vows: "For better or for worse, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish 'till death do us part." She's someone who will do what they say and demonstrates it in how she lives her life.
I love that she's a policy wonk. I want a President who is very knowledgeable on a wide array of issues. I think that's a strong asset. I particularly liked her ideas and policy in four key areas. So much so that I gave money to a political candidate for the first time in my life.
Middle Class Economics
Senator Clinton has called for extending the middle class tax cuts including the EITC child tax credit. I love that she recognizes the inequity that someone making $50,000 a year pays a 25% tax bracket, yet a Wall Street investment managers making $50 million a year could pay just 15%. She supports a 90 day moratorium on Housing Foreclosures to keep Americans in their home. Ben Bernanke just yesterday said that unless we take immediate steps to do exactly this - keep Americans in their homes now, we are going to face a financial crisis. Further, she supports a 5 year freeze on Adjustable Rate Mortgages from adjusting higher to keep Americans in their homes. She voted to cap credit card interest rates. I have one credit card where my payment arrived 3 days late and they adjusted it to the default 37.99% APR from my 12% I had. They said I had to keep it for 6 months with on-time payments before it would be reduced. Her plan to fix Social Security involves rolling back the tax cuts (both income and capital gains) for the rich, and to use that money to keep Social Security solvent. There are all things I rabidly support.
Health Care
I love Hillary's Health Care plan because it's the plan that would cover me and everyone else. A 30 year old white guy who is working but doesn't get health insurance through his employer, I've been without health care for about 7 months now. Getting coverage for everyone saves everyone in the long haul against paying for the massive amounts of uninsured and underinsured people who can't pay at the hospital. It's a progressive plan, and is estimated (by a range of people who have analyzed her plan) to save Americans $662.5 billion dollars per year, the most of any plan put forward. I look at companies like the one I have now, and by lowering costs to all, I could possibly afford the health care plan here, or opt-in to a public plan option. I love that her plan guarantees that I will remain covered even if I lose my job.
Energy
Hillary took a courageous stand by voting against the Cheney Energy Bill that provided billions of tax breaks to oil companies. I think her plan to create an Energy Strategic Fund is a great idea. In it, she details that Big Oil would have the choice of either investing in alternative energy or contributing a portion of their earnings into the fund. Coupled with an immediate break on the federal gas tax this summer to people ($30 is something I'd rather have in my pocket) by putting the responsibility on the backs of the oil company's largess windfall profits, she shows both a committment now to do what she can to help lower prices, and also invest so that we'll be easing off middle east reliance and the OPEC cartel in the near future. Analysts expect oil to get to $200 per barrel this summer. She was right to oppose the tax breaks to Ethanol companies when the largest - Archer Daniels Midland, just reported a $517 million dollar profit. They are on target to earn $2 billion dollars this year. Hillary says no to tax breaks to big oil, and no to tax breaks to big ethanol. She does say yes to tax credits to those who least can afford it - the American consumer and the average gas station, by providing gas station owner a tax credit for installing E85 (ethanol) pumps. She does say yes to tax credits for promising alternate renewable sources that aren't raking in the dough, like tax credits for wind power and solar power. A Home Run for Hillary in my scorecard.
Iraq War
I was one of the 80% of Americans who though the Iraq War was a good idea back in 2003. I have no regrets about my initial support. However, I agreed with the action that Hillary Clinton outlined in her speech on the floor that day.
She outlined in her speech that she absolutely wanted the President to use this resolution as a last resort.
A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
She called on the president to go through the U.N.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
I do not blame Hillary Clinton for voting for her bottom line last-to-use imploring vote, quite the opposite, I think it was the right thing to do. Putting teeth behind your resolution to get action was something that was needed. I blame George Bush for being anxious in wanting to rush to war and his absolute disaster of managing it. I think Hillary can do best in applying her experience in getting us a true plan and action to bring needed stability and getting us out of Iraq in a secure manner.
Saddam Hussein had already proved he was a madman. The U.N. had proved he previously had weapons of mass destruction. The man had murdered upwards of 300,000 of his own people according to Human Rights Watch, and was continuing on a daily basis. I challenge that a vote against clear and convincing action to reign in this dictator this man was a vote to endorse his continued murder of his people.
I could continue on into other areas on why I support Hillary, including her bi-partisan accolades from her work in the Senate and what she's accomplished, National Security, and on and on, but for the sake of expediency and readability, I've chopped it off at the points above.
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, April 29th, 2008
| |
8:09 pm - I love this ad
|
And people are characterizing it as a "negative" ad. Why? When is it negative to compare and contrast positions, especially when they are not taken out of context? Barack Obama does not support a freeze on foreclosures, and he does not support suspending the gas tax (I've had a change of heart, when I first heard about it, I thought it was a dumb idea, but after reading her plan, I'm all for it).
These are the compare and contrast ads I would like to see, because they talk about policy differences.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, April 24th, 2008
| |
1:35 pm - The first test - Extreme
|
As I widely expected, if Obama is the nominee, he's going to face a constant barrage of 527's and local Republican organizations linking him with Wright, who America as a whole has just an 8% favorability rating.
The North Carolina GOP is already airing this ad, titled "Extreme", to parlay favor for their candidates running against Bev Perdue and Richard Moore, who they link to Obama in this ad, and linking Obama to Wright, translates to their view that Moore and Perdue are too extreme for North Carolina, and also taking a jab at Obama as well.
While I think an ad like this can be effective in certain parts of the country (midwest region and rust belt), I question its value in North Carolina, considering the high percentage of the black vote and the identity politics that are in play.
Do you think this ad is going to have any sway?
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008
| |
11:34 am - She Shoots, She Scores!
|
Wow. $10 million dollars in 24 hours, and 80% of it by new donors. By all means, please point out to me if i'm wrong, but I think that beats any candidate's one day fund-raising record this cycle? I think Obama set the bar at $6 Million before didn't he?
This funding means: Voters don't want this to be over.
So, in response to a couple of days ago, does Hillary have the funds to compete? Yes she does, and here comes an advertising onslaught in North Carolina.
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008
| |
11:07 am - Obama's camp claiming vote fraud
|
Watch out, the Obama people are really scared of how big the victory is going to be for Clinton in PA and are claiming vote fraud, saying his name isn't even on the ballot.
Do NOT believe this line of b.s.
The 'ballot' in question is a sample ballot handed out by an advocacy group on how to vote in a particular district, not the official ballot. Of course, facts have never stopped Obama supporters from their delusions, I shouldn't expect them to start now.
Here's the sample ballot.
But if you can't understand the difference between an advocacy paper ballot provided by a group and the official machine you actually have to vote on, you might be an Obama supporter!
|
|
(8 comments | comment on this)
|
| Monday, April 21st, 2008
| |
10:47 pm - My official Pennsylvania Prognostication:
|
I've been halfway decent on calling the races as of late, and the last polls of the cycle for PA have given AWESOME news. She is leading Obama in the polls by 7% to 10%, and there approximately 8%-10% undecideds still in the PA race, and that means: Clinton is going to score HUGE. Why so?
Nearly all the polls I've read the crosstabs on have undercounted the women that will vote in Penn. The mainstream polling stations say it's going to break 55% women to 45% men. They are the experts, but I can't see a single reason why this election will break the 59-41 breakdown that Ohio had. Even if we keep it at 57%-43%, we're still at Clinton by 15%. Eek it out to 60%-40%, and I think Clinton wins by 20%.
But, back to it. The polls are underestimating the woman to man vote. They are weighing Pittsburgh to go more Obama than I think Pittsburgh will. Obama does better in the metros, and many pollsters are now giving Obama Allegheny County (which includes Pittsburgh). Pittsburgh breaks traditional metro molds however, being the rust belt demographic that Clinton does oh so well in. Clinton won't blow Obama out in Allegheny county, but she will beat him here.
The undecideds, as shown in Ohio, will break solidly for Clinton on election day. It's her demographics, as in Ohio, and you'll see 7 out of 10 undecideds at minimum break for Clinton.
She dropped *the* ad in Pennsylvania playing up the security issues (similar to the 3am ad), doing exactly what helped her in Ohio. Very much a COUP that will win her votes here.
And lastly, the demographics. The reason Clinton has never trailed in a poll (outside of PPP - but they are the outlier in this race and will be laughed at soundly afterwards) is because Pennsylvania has one of the oldest demographics in the country, which clearly favors Clinton, and they are traditionally the dyed-in-the-wool blue collar majority democrats that love Clinton.
The registration deadline to sign up as a Democrat in this state was March 24th - meaning Obama couldn't use his ra-ra rallies past that date to mobilize additional voters. That meant he had 19 days past Ohio and Texas to hold as many ra-ra rallies as he can to get people to sign-up, but unlike in many states, a voter had to go in person to the county elections office and register in person. Part of Obama's core base is new voters, and particularly younger voters. Getting this demographic to take that extra step when it's a burden kept the sign-ups even lower, and so you didn't see as many sign-ups as we could have here.
Estimates range between 173,000 new sign-ups or changeovers (independent and republican to democrat) to 216,000. 60% of these are in Philadelphia and the surrounding suburbs. This normally would be bad news for us, but I'm counting this as bonus, since we split that vote in Ohio basically down the line, aka neutering any potential Obama surge on independent and republican votes.
The other 40%? Those are voters in Clinton country (aka the rest of the state), and I'm thinking they're going to vote solid in the Clinton column in 70% and 80% margins like we saw in Ohio.
Now, having said all that:
I am predicting Clinton will carry Pennsylvania by 18% tomorrow. Yes, I said 18%, breakdown as follows:
Clinton: 58%
Obama: 40%
The only caveat is if we see an abnormal surge in Philly numbers rolling in. If so, we're going to see my number lopped by about 5%, but you'll see no less than 13% under any scenario. I still feel good about my 18% number, but I admit I have a tendency to overestimate by an average of 4% of the official vote tally. Nevertheless, I've been on the winning end of the predictions...
Doubt me? Check here:
http://dustinjames.livejournal.com/45123.html
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
| |
10:09 am - Oh those damn polls
|
And no, I'm not posting any in this particular posting. Why? Because I want to post about WHY I post them. The AP did a report that came out yesterday @ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080420/ap_on_el_pr/undecided
It's important because a lot of people clamor that the Super D's are choosing on factors that electability has nothing to do with.
ORLY?
About 250 superdelegates have told the AP they are undecided or uncommitted. About 60 more will be selected at state party conventions and meetings this spring.
AP reporters across the nation contacted the undecideds and asked them how they plan to choose. Of those, 117 agreed to discuss the decision-making process.
- About a third said the most important factor will be the candidate who, they believe, has the best chance of beating Republican John McCain in the general election.
- One in 10 said the biggest factor will be the candidate with the most pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses.
- One in 10 said what matters most is who won their state or congressional district in the primary or caucus.
- The rest cited multiple factors or parochial issues.
So those lovely theoreticals on state by states and their electoral match-ups vs John McCain? A third of the undecided supers are watching, and watching close.
Oh, and btw, state by state electoral college, if it's held today:
Clinton 289
McCain 239
Tied: 10
Obama 269
McCain 254
Tied: 15
Thus continues a pattern of Clinton kicking McCain's ass in these match-ups, and Obama not getting to the magic number of 270 once again. If you want to know why Hillary's still in the race, assuming the remaining contests are played out as expected, it's because many of the supers are going to break for her, and I suspect we will have our first female democratic nominee for president at the Democratic convention.
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Saturday, April 12th, 2008
| |
2:47 pm - BTW, if anyone wants to know why I like the flat tax idea.
|
Here's why:
That's $15,253 ON TOP OF the $7,399.66 I've already paid.
Deductions better save my ass or I'm broke ;)
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Monday, April 7th, 2008
| |
12:53 am - If anyone missed this GREAT piece over at myDD
|
From http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/21/152338/706
Handicapping the upcoming Pennsylvania primary, many pundits are saying in effect that as Ohio went on March 4, so Pennsylvania will go on April 22, citing "similar demographics."
As such, it's useful to compare the demographics of the two states as a kind of bottom-up approach to predicting the PA outcome. I did a statistical cluster analysis on Ohio's 88 counties, classifying them according to five variables: population density, black population, household income, high school graduation and college graduation. The analysis (k-means clustering) was set to report 6 different clusters. Here's a map of the result:
The six clusters are defined roughly as follows:
Hillary-billies
Low income, low education, low population density, 99% white; supports Hillary at 80%.
Ed-necks
Like the Hillary-billies, just a little less so (slightly more income, education, etc), 97% white; supports Hillary at 70%.
Proletariat
Medium income, medium education, exurban, 94% white; supports Hillary at 61%.
Hoosierdom
Medium income, medium education, rural, 98% white; supports Hillary at 61%.
Crunchy-cons
High income, very high education, medium population density, 97% white; supports Hillary at 55%.
Obama-crats
Medium income, high population density, high education, urban, 79% white; supports Obama at 54%.
So while the clustering was done on non-political factors like education, income and race, there are distinct political differences in Hillary support, reaching a remarkable 80% in deep Appalachia, and 70% among Appalachian "Ed-necks"--a pun on PA Gov. Ed Rendell, who famously noted that some whites are not ready to vote for a black candidate:
Rendell pegs the white racist effect at a "tiny percentage" of the electorate, but notes that small percentages can determine elections.
As for how these clusters break down in share of the total Democratic electorate in Ohio that turned out on March 4:
Certainly the Hillary-billies are a tiny slice of the Democratic pie, being thinly-populated counties that have a fair number of Republicans (though generally going for Bill Clinton in 1992). The Ed-necks, supporting Hillary at 70%, are more significant. The two groups together represent 12% of the Democratic turnout in Ohio.
The only group that Obama prevailed with is the Obama-crats, i.e., the populous urban counties with significant minorities of blacks. This is the largest cluster, almost half the Democratic turnout, but even there his margin was not large (54%).
Among the largely white counties, Obama comes closest with the Crunchy-cons, traditionally Republican suburban counties that may have had some progressive encroachment of late. He actually did squeak by in Delaware county, the county just north of Columbus (Franklin). That was the only non-urban county he took in Ohio, and that only barely. In fact, he only came out on top in 5 counties:
The strongest factor was the percent black population in the county. Here's a scatter plot of Hillary% vs. black% in each county:
Overall, Hillary won 55%-45% in Ohio.
So that's the uphill battle Obama faces in Pennsylvania. The question remains how similar exactly are the demographics in the two states. Here's the result of a similar cluster analysis of Pennsylvania's counties:
So the hill is even steeper for Obama in Pennsylvania. Only one county, Philadelphia County (synonymous with the city limits), is "Obama-crat" territory, having a urban population with 45% blacks. Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) has only 13% blacks. In comparison, Cuyahoga County in Ohio (Cleveland) has 29% blacks and Obama was only able to eke out a 53-46 victory there. It would seem that the odds are against him winning Allegheny County. In fact, there's a possibility he will only take Philadelphia County and perhaps Centre County, the latter being the home of Penn State. The suburban "Crunchy-con" counties west of Philadelphia might offer some chance, but they'd be about toss-ups.
Here is a comparison of the six groups in both Ohio and Pennsylvania, in terms of share of the Democratic electorate (projected in the case of PA):
So the Hillary-billy/Ed-neck fraction is much greater (24% combined compared to 12% for Ohio). The Obama-crat fraction is greatly reduced, comprising only Philadelphia, and "Hoosierdom," where Hillary can generally expect in excess of 60% of the vote, is also increased.
It's possible to simply take the Hillary preference in each of the six groups in Ohio and apply it to the same groups in PA to get a projected outcome, but some minor tweaking is in order, primarily for differences in racial composition in the analogous groups, which has been so determinative of the vote. For example, although the "Obama-crat" county group is much reduced in PA, it has 45% blacks compared to 21% in Ohio.
Here's the demographic comparison of the six groups in each state:
For the projected PA primary results, the percent turnout of each group is projected to match that of the analogous group in Ohio. The projected Hillary percent is adjusted from the value in Ohio, modified to account for differences in education, black population, etc.--obviously not an exact science. For example, the Proletariat group in PA has more college degrees than in Ohio (25% vs. 19%). Since college graduates tend to break something like 60/40 for Obama, this difference would give him a percent or two additional.
Given the projected numbers in the table, the projected outcome is a 57%-43% victory for Hillary. If anyone would like to try different projected numbers, here's the spreadsheet:
OH/PA Cluster Analysis (xls)
An additional wrinkle in Pennsylvania is that the primary is closed to all but registered Democrats--no crossover of Republicans and independents allowed, in contrast to Ohio where the Democratic primary was open to all registered voters. In Ohio, there was significant crossover for Obama, as well as for Clinton. By some conventional wisdom, Hillary does better among mainstream Democrats, so this could help her in PA. However, a case could be made that it might help Obama, for instance if there is significant racial prejudice component to the voting, it could be that that effect is stronger in Republican/independent crossovers than in the Democratic Party, so excluding the former might help Obama. It should be very interesting to see how the voting patterns compare to Ohio's open primary.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| |
12:31 am - Clinton Math
|
I think the math is looking better and better each day for Senator Clinton.
She's going to come out anywhere in the +30 to +50 delegate range in the last of the 'contest by contest' elections.
Because Florida and Michigan are going to go to the credentials committee (they have both now officially ruled out any chance of a re-vote) the Credentials committee is going to do everything they can to not only make it look fair to both candidates, but also make sure Michigan and Florida get ackowledged and seated. They know what's best for the democratic party, and if they piss off two big swing states, they know they're going to write-off their chances for victory in 2008.
The best scenario for Clinton here is that the delegates get seated exactly as her margins of victory: 55%-40%, and 50%-33%. If that happened, she would lead him in delegates by far. If what sounds more realistic to me, is that they give her Florida, and do Michigan 50-50, she's still tied or has a slight lead over him.
The only way she doesn't come out ahead of him with FL and MI is if they split both 50-50, but even then, she comes damn close because the Super D's in both states are majority in favor of Clinton over Obama.
If for some reason she gets Oregon and keeps Indiana which are really the last states still in play, the math is even better.
Here's some predictions based off general poll numbers and what I think will happen using some poll numbers for April and May elections:
| State | Pct Clinton | Pct Obama | Del Clinton | Del Obama |
| Pennsylvania | 58% | 42% | 109 | 79 |
| Guam | 40% | 60% | 4 | 5 |
| North Carolina | 42% | 58% | 56 | 78 |
| Indiana | 55% | 45% | 46 | 38 |
| West Virginia | 62% | 38% | 24 | 15 |
| Kentucky | 58% | 42% | 35 | 25 |
| Oregon | 47% | 53% | 31 | 34 |
In June:
| State | Pct Clinton | Pct Obama | Del Clinton | Del Obama |
| Puerto Rico | 65% | 35% | 41 | 22 |
| Montana | 40% | 60% | 8 | 16 |
| South Dakota | 35% | 65% | 8 | 15 |
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, April 6th, 2008
| |
2:26 pm - 9 Hours of Caucus
|
I was at the second round of the caucus (Washington has a dual fucked up primary / caucus system). For the democrats, the caucus meant everything, and the primary meant nothing. For the republicans, the caucus meant 50% and the primary meant 50%.
Thought I would share my experience I had yesterday.
In my LD (34th) caucus yesterday, Clinton increased her perecntage in the preliminary to the final because of 107 no-shows and lack of acceptable alternates, 8 Obama defectors, and Uncommitted coming to Clinton’s camp after Uncommitted became non-viable.
Our candidate’s designated speaker (we had 10 people who had prepped speeches including me) gave a 5 minute speech that was full of positives about Clinton, specific actions, policies; with not a single reference to the other side. She was booed several times by the Obama crowd as she talked positively about Clinton.
Obama’s speaker? Well, no one out of the 600 or so on the Obama side was ready or volunteering. No one wanted to give a speech for Obama. So the vice-chair of the 34th (forgive me, I don’t remember his name) got up and started speaking off the cuff. For 3.5 minutes of his speech, it was about “hope and change” - very general b.s. that got us this country George Bush (”He’s the kind of guy you’d want to have a beer with!”).
And then, for the last minute and a half, the tone changed, and he launched into a scathing attack of Hillary Clinton as “the most polarizing figure in the U.S. today.” And he launched into a massive diatribe against her.
At that point, I lead many other delegates in the Clinton camp to stand and turn our backs for the last 1.5 minutes to show our disgust with a democrat who has voiced no specific reason that he supports his candidate besides generalities (and that his candidate 'gives him warm fuzzies' - that’s a reason to vote for the guy?). And we finished his speech by standing and keeping our backs turned to him for the remainder of the speech.
We got 7 of those 8 defectors in the gymnasium THAT day because of the vitriol that the Obama supporters had spewed. The 7 had said that they realized, being in the stands, that they were on the wrong side. They didn’t want to be associated with a candidate who’s supporters did those sorts of things. They were offended by the 34th district’s vice-chair’s speech and the booing that their previous fellow supporters had done during the Hillary speech.
In addition to many Hillary supporters , I got 2 people from the Obama camp who stayed there, but came up and told me thank you for leading the stand up and turn around and expressing the rejection of the democrat tearing democrat tear-down that has gone on in our party.
9 Hours in total from beginning to end, and I’m going to Congressional Districts and State has a delegate for Clinton.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, April 3rd, 2008
| |
9:40 pm - I remember this interview
|
I came across an article that reminded me of my initial turn-off to Obama right from the beginning.
I remember watching this episode when it aired, and I thought "Wow, that's a courageous stand, he delivered a good speech at the 2004 convention but he's making sure he gets the experience of the federal government. I bet when he gets some federal experience under his belt he'd be a good candidate in 2016."
On "Meet the Press" on Jan. 26, 2006, Tim Russert and Mr. Obama had the following exchange:
Mr. Russert: "When we talked back in November of '04 after your election I said, 'There's been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?' "
Mr. Obama: "Absolutely. I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed."
Mr. Russert: "So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?"
Mr. Obama: "I will not."
When your whole candidacy is already tainted on the first lie that you will finish your first term in the Senate, you may be able to start to understand why Clinton supporters thought from the beginning that Obama is "all talk and no action."
A lot of people gave Clinton shit for not running in 2004 'when we REALLY needed her'. She too had said that she would finish out her first term. And did.
Obama - first flip flop of his presidential campaign (and there have been many) was announcing his candidacy in February 2007, exactly as he said he wouldn't do.
And people wonder why Hillary supporters aren't hot over this guy?
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, April 1st, 2008
| |
8:46 pm
|
You know, I always hear that if Hillary Clinton showed some more of this side, she'd be more electable. Personally, I see it all over when I'm watching her. Yes, she can be tough. I'd like my President to be tough. But she's also warm and funny, and able to laugh.
Make sure you check out this side of Hillary Clinton:
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| |
8:31 am - New Polls Out
|
| State | Survey | Clinton | Obama |
| Indiana | SurveyUSA | 52% | 43% |
| Kentucky | SurveyUSA | 58% | 29% |
| North Carolina | ARG | 38% | 51% |
| North Carolina | Insider Advantage | 34% | 49% |
| Pennsylvania | Rasmussen | 47% | 42% |
| Pennsylvania | Survey USA | 53% | 41% |
Obama is looking very strong in NC, Clinton looking very strong in Kentucky.
If Clinton pulls off PA with the percentages that she's polling, and Obama pulls off NC with the percentages he's pulling, it's going to come off in a wash, or with Clinton eeking out a few delegate advantage because Pennsylvania has more delegates of the two. A strong win in Kentucky will probably neutralize Obama's likely win in Oregon (even though Oregon has 5 more delegates, she's polling stronger in Kentucky than he is in Oregon)
West Virginia is going very strong for Clinton, but the real question is Indiana. And being smack between Ohio (where she won) and Illinois (where he won)... I don't know what to make of it. If he pulls off Indiana by 5% to 10%, May will be a wash between the two. If she pulls off Indiana by anything, it's +15 to +30 Clinton because of the balance of delegates in the states that favor her. Right now, advantage Clinton.
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
dustinjames's journal
