home

The Math

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:35:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

I was never good at math, but I think Andrew Sullivan and Mark Schmitt have a math problem here:

[I]t will take a colossal victory, almost 60%, for Clinton to get a 200,000 vote edge out of Pennsylvania.

Clinton won by 228,000 votes in Ohio with a 10 point margin. I presume that a 20 point win in Pennsylvania will likely produce a 450,000 margin at least for Clinton. Beware of candidate supporters and their math.

< In 2004, DOJ Precleared MI Internet Voting | Decision Monday On Florida Re-Vote: Official Says Doesn't Look Good >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Math | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    If only she would stop winning (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:41:26 PM EST
    then he could easily cinch the nomination.

    Yup... (none / 0) (#51)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:25:37 PM EST
    ... she really just needs to stay on her winning pace since Super Tuesday.

    Winning 1 out of every 5 or 6 states should work out well.

    Parent

    As long as its (none / 0) (#55)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:38:05 PM EST
    You know, states that count, with, you know, more than 10 people in them... :)

    Parent
    of course... (none / 0) (#60)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:48:40 PM EST
    ... Texas also doesn't count, even though Clinton won it, right?

    At least that is what the Clinton camp tried to tell us in the days leading up the vote there.

    Parent

    I was joking (none / 0) (#70)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:18:51 PM EST
    Smiley face was a clue.

    Parent
    Yea... (none / 0) (#75)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:35:43 PM EST
    ... I got that... and was continuing the absurdity.  :)

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#81)
    by DudeE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:05:59 PM EST
    I see the art of paraphrasing has reached new heights...

    Parent
    The best example (none / 0) (#84)
    by sas on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:00:58 PM EST
    of the idiocy of caucuses is Texas. She beats him by 100K in actual primary votes, but then loses the caucus and gets fewer delegates.

    Totally unfair.

    Who made up that kind of crap?

    Democrats - dumber that s**t.

    Parent

    hillary in pa (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by angieinpa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:14:45 PM EST
    I attended a Hillary rally in Harrisburg Pa on Tues.  I arrived at 9:00 a.m. and the line was around the block.  She had an overflow crowd of over 3000.  The mayor and the guv were there along with various party leaders.  The crowd was pumped.  People were chanting and excited and actually quite informed about Hillary's positions.  So when you hear people call the middle of the state Pennsyltucky, don't worry, there are plenty of women, men, and young voters who plan to support Hillary.

    Is it possible? (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Tacitus Voltaire on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:26:52 PM EST
    ...that there is a democratic blog where there is not a incessant drumbeat condemning hillary as the spawn of satan? Thank god!

    I have been posting at eschaton, a wonderful blog, for a year and a half, and although there are many people there who think that the choice between these two wonderful candidates is difficult at best, we are assailled for not going along with the pervasive media and blog condemnation of hillary. Before march 4th I figured that she was surely done for, since all news outlets, both left and right leaning, were reinforcing the message that she should be considered a terrible person and should just get out of the race, but then came rhode island, ohio, and texas.

    wow. the most hated woman in america does have a huge amount of support, after all

    yes, i can say it! i support hillary over obama for the democratic nomination! yes, i can say i support a particular democrat on a democratic blog without getting flamed to death! Thank you, Talk Left!

    welcome tacitus to a fair democratic blog (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:07:51 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm shocked! Shocked! that Andrew (none / 0) (#1)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:41:14 PM EST
    Sullivan doesn't know what he's talking about. The man has been right so many times in the past.

    beware of Andrew Sullivan (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:11:49 PM EST
    in general

    Parent
    I think she will get her 60% (none / 0) (#3)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:45:17 PM EST
    Remember, I am in NE PA and the demographics are different than Philly. Except for Pittsburgh, the demographics over the rest of the state will be similiar as NE PA. So far, I know of no one who is voting Obama in this area. The map will be like Texas where the big cities carried Obama. But, there are only 2 cities that might carry Obama in Penna, and the rest of the state, including Scranton (She is from there) will be Hillary. So that is my predicition as a resident but then I could be a sweet day dreamer.

    BarnBabe (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    Can you give us a report of what the exposure has been like for both candidates on the news and in the papers?  Doesn't Clinton's family go back about 100 years in Scranton? I heard someone on the national news grousing about her claiming PA as "another" home state (forgetting Obama's claims to Hawaii, IL, Kansas and whatever else, I gathered).  Doesn't she have deep ties there?  What about ads?  Do you get a sense of overall strategy?

    Have you heard any feedback on the church stuff that Good Morning America highlighted this morning?  I don't know about PA, but GA basically lit up like Rudolph's nose this morning because of it.  It is all over the local talk shows, the news, etc.

    Parent

    Kathy you forgot (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by bodhcatha on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:37:07 PM EST
    to mention Obama's claim to another birthplace:  a manger in Bethlehem.

    Parent
    Hi, so far, have not seen any ads, but (none / 0) (#43)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:18:25 PM EST
    Hillary's grandparents settled in Scranton when they came over from Europe. Her Grandfather worked in a lace factory for over 50 years. Her parents were from Scranton and her brothers I believe were born there. She was born in Ill, but was Christened in Scranton. They had a home on Lake Winona and use to spend time there. Her Father is buried in Scranton. They showed home movies of her at her Dad's house.
    People were very very excited when she had her rally on Monday. I know a few who actually got in but they had to turn away close to 2k. They are also very excited because she is suppose to be in the St. Pat's parade Saturday and this is a big parade live broadcasts in this area. The rally was covered by 4 local stations and pre-empted Brian Williams, part of Wheel of Fortune, and CBS/ABC news also. Now, that is pretty good coverage. They had her at the pizza parlor in Old Forge. So they had over an hour of the pre-rally and her arrival and her speech and autographing. And let me tell you, everyone was excited and watching her on TV if they were not there. I know a few GOP people (6) who will vote for her in the GE and are excited for her. She was the rock star. BUT again, the people here feel she is one of theirs.As for the church thing in GA, I am at work and do not know anything about that. Hope that helps. Chelsea opened the Hillary store in the downtown area the other day and that was covered also. They even had Hillarys plane landing at Avoca Airport. It was big. And I am ready to put my sign out on the lawn. This weekend. Neighbors too.  

    Parent
    thanks for the report! (none / 0) (#47)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:21:00 PM EST
    warms my heart that she got such a great welcome.  I did not realize her ties to PA ran so deep.  Might be something to consider when we do the math here, because as we have seen in AK and IL, a candidate laying claim to the state has a lot of sway.  Clinton took AK by (I think) over 50% and Obama was about the same in IL.

    Actually, I think it skews all the math here completely now that I look at it.

    Parent

    BarnBabe wasn't (none / 0) (#77)
    by bodhcatha on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:40:23 PM EST
    Hillary's brother a football player in Penn. too?  If so, was he well-known?

    Parent
    I believe (none / 0) (#78)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:35:34 PM EST
    her father played football for Penn State. Not sure, though.

    Parent
    I'm from Pittsburgh (none / 0) (#64)
    by smott on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:06:15 PM EST
    ...and I think she carries this end of the state and the city too. There is an AA population, but not as high as in Philly.
    And there's a huge amount of white, Euro-ethnic working class here.

    I think she carries Western PA too, and Middle PA, and NE PA. BO will carry the Philly area.

    Oh and BTW Chelesea was here yesterday, was all over the local news. Very well spoken young lady.

    Parent

    I lived in Pittsburgh too... (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:09:07 PM EST
    And I think it will be close.  You are right about A-A's and working class whites, but what about the large number of college students/ professors?  I think this will tighten things.  But you are right about everything outside the city itself.  Definitely Clinton territory.

    Parent
    College students... (none / 0) (#69)
    by smott on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:17:06 PM EST
    ....from CMU are largely from out of state. From Pitt I believe it's about 65% PA residents, over a population of 30K....so call it 20K tops....that's not a lot even if they all went for BO, and judging from the college-age crowd watching Chelsea yesterday not all of them will.

    And I don't think that there are enough college professors to put BO over the top in Pgh.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#71)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:22:15 PM EST
    I was one, but I was registered to vote in PA, as were many people I know from out of state.  (I am from Mass and I thought Penn might be a bigger swing state).  From what I recall, it's very easy to register in PA even as a college kid with no real address.

    Parent
    Don't (none / 0) (#85)
    by sas on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:03:44 PM EST
    worry about Pittsburgh if you are a Hillary supporter.

    She'll beat him soundly there.

    Philadelphia and its suburbs are where Obama's votes lie.

    Parent

    Math... (none / 0) (#4)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:45:41 PM EST
    Pennsylvania reported about 800,000 Democrats voting in the 2004 elections. Let's assume that goes up...WAY up...even though PA is a closed primary, and say 1.2 million.

    In order for Clinton to earn a 450,000 margin, she needs to take 825,000 of those voters, or 69% of the vote, which would be a 38 point spread.

    Surely that would qualify as a 'colossal victory?'

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:48:02 PM EST
    That is a specious argument.

    Pennsylvania was a non-competitive primary in 2004.

    Why don't we look at Texas or Ohio as a model instead?

    There are 400,00 more registered Democrats than Republicans in Ohio.

    As I said, beware "the math" from candidate supporters.


    Parent

    In Texas (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:51:58 PM EST
    the vote in this year's Democratic primary exceeded the total vote for Kerry in 2004. In 2004, 2.9 million Pennsylvanians voted for John Kerry.

    If I take Texas as my guide, a 60-40 Clinton win in Pennsylvania could net her a nearly 600,000 vote margin.

    Do I believe that will happen? Of course not. But to believe 1.2 million folks will vote in PA in THIS primary is equally foolish.

    Parent

    I understand, but my math... (none / 0) (#17)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:55:15 PM EST
    Says that in order for a 20 point spread to equal 450,000 voters, we require 2.25 million people to vote in the primary.

    That would require the same kind of jump in turnout that we saw in Texas, but here, Republicans can (and did) jump ship in record numbers. You really think we'll see that kind of explosion in PA?

    It would be great if we did.

    Parent

    Noooo (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:57:16 PM EST
    If there is the same kind of turnout as we saw in Texas, exceeding Kerry 2004 vote total, turnout will be 3 million n PA.

    Parent
    BTD's Math.... (none / 0) (#63)
    by sar75 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:57:51 PM EST
    ...seems perfectly plausible to me - maybe a bit on the far end of the possible, but certainly possible.  I see no reason why 2 million Democrats won't vote in PA, and at 60-40, that would yield Clinton 400,000 votes.

    I expect, though, it will be a bit closer than that, and that the total will be around 1.8-2 million voters (a bit more than double, which seems reasonable for this year).  I expect some tightening in the polls and a likely 12-14 point victory for Clinton.  Let's say 2 million voters and a 14 point victory (57-43) - I think that's reasonable, if somewhat generous to Clinton.  

    That's 280,000 net for Clinton.  I expect Oregon and North Carolina and Indiana will eat away most of this net, but Clinton will gain some ground in  West Virgina and Kentucky.  

    So, it seems that Michigan and Florida hold the key to any popular vote victory for Clinton, which is the only way she can make her argument to the superdelegates (in my opinion).  The delegate math now seems a done deal.

    Parent

    exactly (none / 0) (#8)
    by deminma on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:49:42 PM EST
    60% of 1.2M  is   720k
    40%  of 1.2M  is  480k

    diff  is       240k

    Maybe the turnout is higher but unlikely in a closed primary.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:52:59 PM EST
    Ah the candidate kool aid is in strong force today I see.

    Parent
    kool aid (none / 0) (#25)
    by deminma on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:00:18 PM EST
    and you drank from the jug labeled "clinton".

    NY which also had a closed primary only had 1.9M voters

    Parent

    Only? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:05:38 PM EST
    Well that settles it.

    What do you predict? 1.2 million votes then?

    A 250,000 vote win for Clinton?

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:14:12 PM EST
    Kinda proves your point, actually, considering that NY - a closed primary - had about 650,000 voters in 2004.  What did he say, 1.9M this year?

    Parent
    predict (none / 0) (#38)
    by deminma on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:13:37 PM EST
    I guess I would lean to around 1.2- 1.3m  and a 10-12% win   -   around 150-200k  votes  probably 10 -15 delegates  

    for what its worth --  probably not much more than the andrew sullivan statement  :)

    Parent

    Only? They had 720,000 in 2004. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:09:19 PM EST


    Parent
    For Sully to be right (none / 0) (#14)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    You would need 2,000,000 voter turnout

    60% of 2,000,000 = 1.2 mil
    40% of 2,000,000 = 800,000

    400,000 vote difference

    BIG PICTURE TIME.

    Sully is a conservative who will vote for Obama but not Clinton. There are many more like him out there for the general election.

    So much for redifining the center BTD.

    Parent

    How Sully will be wrong, not right (none / 0) (#16)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:55:04 PM EST


    Parent
    I do not understand what (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:56:28 PM EST
    I have to do with your comment.

    Parent
    If I had a million dollars I'd give you half (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:18:39 PM EST
    There's a word for Repugs who say, at this point, they'll vote with Obama but not HRC.

    I'd say it but BTD has already deleted me more than once for foul language.

    Clue for the playful: It's the kind of iced tea Bill O'Reilly expected to find on the menu at Sylvia's in Harlem.

    Parent

    Gosh (none / 0) (#9)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:51:14 PM EST
    Ohio had 1.1 million primary voters in 2004 and 2.2 million this year.  Obviously Pennsylvania's ceiling is higher than 1.2 million.

    There's no reason to think that Pennsylvania would have a million fewer voters than Ohio, considering it's a bigger state.  In 2004, Ohio voted on Super Tuesday when the nomination hadn't been settled yet, and Pennsylvania voted after Kerry had already clinched.  Small wonder Ohio had a much higher turnout.

    Parent

    Stop making sense (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    This is candidate supporter math we have here.

    What I REALLY love about this argument is that is runs counter to one of the Obama arguments that he brings so many new voters.

    To defend "the math," now we are to believe that this race will do nothing for turnout, indeed it will likely be LOUSY turnout.

    Parent

    I didn't think Ohio's was a closed primary (none / 0) (#13)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:53:33 PM EST
    so they are not directly comparable.

    Parent
    There are more Democrats in PA tha Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:55:52 PM EST
    to the tune of 400,000 more.

    You are right. They are not at all comparable.

    But I find it amusing as all hell that Obama supporters will now argue that there will be LOW turnout in an Obama election.

    Hilarious.

    Parent

    And in fact (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    there is a correlation between whether a state holds closed primaries, and the number of registered party members!  Funny how that works.

    The candidate math game is to proclaim "it's impossible for her to catch up" as though it's obvious, and then to make so many assumptions along the way that one's head starts to spin.  Of course it's possible.  It depends, get this, on how people vote.

    Parent

    I don't think there will be low turnout... (none / 0) (#28)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:01:18 PM EST
    But to see a 200-300% jump in a closed primary would be...well, fantastic. And, frankly, somewhat unexpected. But then very little about this primary has gone according to plan.

    Parent
    The jump you predict is rather absurd (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:04:14 PM EST
    PA did not hold a competitive primary in 2004.

    Why do you pretend it did?


    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:28:38 PM EST
    I remember rubber-stamping Kerry. It was clearly over.

    Parent
    hey, if the jump in turnout happens (none / 0) (#79)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:44:11 PM EST
    and Clinton wins by 20 points, you can bet on cable news, pundits and Obama campaign all breathlessly talking about how many new people he has brought to the process.  

    Want to bet??

    Parent

    New York, up 260%, Delaware up 285% (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:05:13 PM EST
    I think these were closed. I expect a huge number of PA voters making their vote count.

    Parent
    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:12:43 PM EST
    1.2mm x 260% = 3.12mm

    (or, 242,968 in Obamath)

    Parent

    not quite (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:14:52 PM EST
    Funny, right idea, but they didn't get 1.2 M last time, that was someone's projection for this time

    Parent
    That's still 2.1 million. It's not going to be (none / 0) (#45)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:19:55 PM EST
    1,200,000 eiher way.

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:21:21 PM EST
    I wasn't arguing 1.2, I was just pointing out the math cuz I'm a nerd.

    Parent
    ok, lol. I'm not so I have an excel sheet open (none / 0) (#49)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:24:00 PM EST
    to do my math.

    Parent
    Nerdier (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:39:02 PM EST
    I'm nerdier than you. I have a data sheet with the votes and delegates. Then.. I have a blue state only ws, votes per del ws, GE ws, poll ws, exit poll data.  I have built in formulas so I can project the effect of drop off and increased Repub turnout.  If I didn't know better, I would think I was obsessed.  OK, I'll be honest, I don't know better.

    Parent
    wow (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CST on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:45:33 PM EST
    You are nerdier, and I'm an engineer :)

    Parent
    Numbers Baby (none / 0) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:25:43 PM EST
    I'm an anal-yst.

    Parent
    How about some numbers? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:43:04 PM EST
    Dems Surge by 65,000 in Pa.

     Pennsylvania Democrats have added more than 65,000 voters to their rolls since last fall, a reflection of the high level of interest in the contested race for the party's presidential nomination and the state's April 22 primary.

    The number of Democrats increased 1.7 percent -- from 3,883,378 in November to 3,948,775 as of March 4.

    GOP enrollment grew by 0.1 percent, from 3,245,271 to 3,248,583, during the period.

    So say 50% turnout?

    Parent

    People in decadent coastal enclaves (none / 0) (#6)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:48:28 PM EST
    Are often math-impaired.

    As one who is not emotionally invested in (none / 0) (#20)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:57:14 PM EST
    either candidate, as one who will vote for the nominee in the fall,

    I wish partisans on both sides would cut the insulting snide personal remarks.

    You don't do you candidate any good. You don't do yourself any good. You don't do the progressive movement any good.

    Parent

    I am thhinking your comment just landed here (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:58:16 PM EST
    because JJE's comment seemed not a cut at any candidate supporters.

    Parent
    Maybe I am oversensitive (none / 0) (#32)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:07:06 PM EST
    If was intended as mocking partisan invective on both sides, then I withdraw my comment.  

    There really is too much invective of  late, even here- though  I hasten to add I applaud JM's and your attempts to reign it in and you guys do a good job.

    Parent

    For the record (none / 0) (#27)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:01:07 PM EST
    "decadent coastal enclaves" is a shot at Andrew Sullivan.

    Parent
    Thank you for the clarification (none / 0) (#33)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    Andy Sullivan I am game to mock. Carry on then, I'll get some popcorn and watch.

    Parent
    I'm reading (none / 0) (#10)
    by zyx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:51:34 PM EST
    James Wolcott's "Media Poodles" book, and what he has to say about Andy Sullivan is super-especially amusing.

    Attack Poodles (none / 0) (#42)
    by Decal on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:15:58 PM EST
    That book is great.  

    Parent
    It's worthwhile to remember that like (none / 0) (#23)
    by frankly0 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:59:49 PM EST
    arguments apply to potential revotes in FL and MI, where the participation is likely to be much higher if voters know their vote 1) will count (as was not true before) and 2) will in fact likely to be part of a decisive victory. Indeed, if they are mail-in ballots, then the convenience will likely make the participation even higher.

    In other words, any popular vote advantages by Hillary in the original primaries might be greatly multiplied. (A 300,000 vote advantage in FL could become, for all we know, 500,000).

    Of course, the elections have yet to be settled upon, and the campaigns have yet to be waged, but certainly you'd expect that a much larger number of people would participate, creating the potential for much larger margins in absolute numbers.

    They just like to ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    connect the words "highly unlikely" and Clinton.

    Thankfully the vast majority of voters don't read blogs.

    Because ... they are sane.

    ;)

    All of this is (none / 0) (#35)
    by DaytonDem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:10:45 PM EST
    guessing of course but taking Ohio as a guide in the 2004 contested Ohio primary total Dem votes were 1.2 million. In the GE the Kerry vote was 2.6 million. Roughly twice of the entire Dem primary vote. Using that as a guide, with all the caveats one can imagine, given Pa.'s 2004 GE results I think we can expect to be expect 1.5 million given Pa.'s 2.9 million in the GE. Maybe more with all the excitement and all that will be at stake.
    Unless of course that is completely wrong.

    Hillary will loose (none / 0) (#46)
    by kberly7568 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:20:35 PM EST
    I don't think that Hillary has a chance to catch up to Obama. She could narrow the margin by winning Pennsylvania and if the votes from FL and MI count towards her. However, she will not win be a margin large enough to overtake Obama. I think that the democratic party should start to focus on bringing McCain down, otherwise the democratic party is going to self-destruct.

    check out this video regarding McCain's double-talk. these are the issues that need to be brought to the forefront.

    http://campaigncircus.com/video_player.php?v=7536

    lose (none / 0) (#89)
    by dogooder on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:59:01 AM EST


    Parent
    So many of these math arguments (none / 0) (#50)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:25:06 PM EST
    strike me as similar to the mathematical proof that 1 = 2, based on perfectly reasonable sounding fallacy.

    My favorite is always when they do this sort of thing -- assumptions 1, 2, 3 any of which can be very easily argued -- and then end their argument with "QED"... makes me want to send their "proof" back to them coated in red ink.

    There's no way to make these arguments without having any idea what the turnout will be, and nobody knows that -- though I will say I will be very surprised if PA's turnout doesn't absolutelly skyrocket, and using the '04 primary as a guide is just silly.

    And don't forget (none / 0) (#52)
    by DaytonDem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:26:20 PM EST
    there will be a lot of votes to count in Puerto Rico June 1 first. 2 million  total votes in the 2004 Gov race. Lotta dems on the island.

    For what it's worth, (none / 0) (#53)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:26:44 PM EST
    the Obama predictor has Clinton winning PA by 5. It was within a point or two in all the recent races, except where they understated their own victories.

    Regardless of how it breaks down, Sen. Clinton needs a big victory in PA, and she can't afford to lose IN or give up too much in NC.

    As for delegate math, of course you all can be extremely generous and see how it is possible for her to pull this off; but it's easier for the other side to she how she can't.

    We'll know who's right in about 6 weeks.

    Enough with the delegate math (none / 0) (#59)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:46:51 PM EST
    Let's talk about it the minute Sen Obama hits 2025, ok? Otherwise let's put it to rest. That part of the story is over.

    PA is about perception and popular vote.

    Parent

    Hey man, the thread is called The Math. (none / 0) (#62)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:53:46 PM EST
    Tell BTD to stop it.

    I know you hate it, but delegates are still the name of the game. At least that was Clinton's position post-IA. But I didn't even mention delegates.

    I noted that Obama's internals show her winning by 5, not 10, and not 20.

    Marvin, I enjoy debating you. I just wish you were better at addressing the topic at hand. My post was about her not getting a big enough win in PA. I also said she can't afford a big loss in NC and needs to win IN.

    I really said nothing about delegates, actually.
    I'll await your apology. snarky!

    Parent

    Indiana... (none / 0) (#68)
    by sar75 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:12:02 PM EST
    ...last poll (Feb 17) had Clinton down 15 points in Indiana.  I expect it will be closer, but I doubt she's going to win big there.  More likely is that Obama comes out of May 6 having totally erased any gains she made in Pennsylvania.

    Parent
    The (none / 0) (#86)
    by sas on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:11:09 PM EST
    Obama predictor that she will win by 5 is in no way accurate.

    Talking to the people on the ground here in PA is very different.

    I think she'll win by about 14.  

    Parent

    14 + 6 weeks = 5 (none / 0) (#90)
    by dogooder on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:00:20 AM EST


    Parent
    This is not a math problem (none / 0) (#66)
    by chemoelectric on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:08:23 PM EST
    This is an assumption problem. State your expected turnout and there's the issue, and it is an empirical problem.

    There's more discussion (none / 0) (#72)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:25:22 PM EST
    of the Pennsylvania math from Chris Bowers and Al Giordano.

    Long story short...Sen Clinton is going to have a big, big win on structural grounds, no matter what the turnout (Bowers thinks it will be smaller because all those white Republicans Rush got to vote for her in Mississippi won't be able to cross over this time in a closed).

    So, enjoy, Clintonistas. As Giordano says, with help from Rush her Pennsylvania win will be "a kind of Last Hurrah for the politics of the last century"...

    Um, ok (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:28:15 PM EST
    Because Obama is not Bill Clinton 1992? Sheesh.

    What a ridiculous comment from you.

    Parent

    No, because (none / 0) (#83)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:34:30 PM EST
    it's been a heckuva depressing last few days as far as the campaign goes. And yeah, I blame the Clinton side for all of it.

    Parent
    Love it... (none / 0) (#82)
    by DudeE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:12:36 PM EST
    ...according to the Obama camp, Republicans helped Clinton to victory in primaries but will turn out in droves to oppose her in November.  What a marvelously twisted "strategy"...

    Parent
    You don't get it (none / 0) (#88)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:28:44 PM EST
    Read Will Bunch from yesterday. He gets it.

    Parent
    But you forget (none / 0) (#87)
    by sas on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:12:45 PM EST
    the Independents that Barack is supposed to bring won't be here either.

    Parent
    The Math | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment