home

PA Predictions Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:50:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Ok, what do you folks think? Me, I am a believer in SUSA so, assigning undecideds, I go Clinton 54-46. How about you?

This is an Open thread.

I like Mark Halperin today. This is a fair assessment I think.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed.

< The Obama Expectations Game | Exit Polls: Thread One >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    PA Predictions Open Thread | 219 comments (219 topical)
    as i posted yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:51:51 PM EST
    clinton by 5-8. i still need to buy some d & d dice, though.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by PennProgressive on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:30:21 PM EST
    As I wrote a couple of days back, Clinton should win by 5 to 7. However, today there is a lot of excitement here. I will not be surprised if she wins by double digit. I will be surprised but very happy.
    As for the expectations game, since Obama's leftover breakfast from Scranton is getting great bid on e-bay, how can you underestimate him? Given that he outspent Clinton 3-1, may be more and that he will continue to outspend her in the remaining primaries, I think any win by Obama anywhere in the remaining primaries by a margin less than 20 points should be viewed as a resounding loss.

    Parent
    the bid went back to .99 cents on Ebay (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:33:47 PM EST
    omen?

    Parent
    I'ts gone (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:41:01 PM EST


    Parent
    The bid went back to .99 (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:41:11 PM EST
    as soon as the update was posted where is was clear the Obama fanatics were e-mailing them. the update apologized for using Obama's middle name and went on to say that the proceeds would be split between Hillary and the DNC because of all the attention.

    Parent
    Regardless of HRC's margin of victory (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:53:33 PM EST
    please keep in mind that the Oborg will be very upset.

    So all Hillary supporters should keep that in mind when we rub their faces in it.

    Just a suggestion.

    Parent

    Or we can be better (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:59:12 PM EST
    And NOT rub their faces, teach by example.

    Parent
    I'll resist the tempation to be a concern troll. (none / 0) (#163)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:09:58 PM EST


    Parent
    There's always NC & IN &... n/t (none / 0) (#137)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:55:24 PM EST


    Parent
    dice (none / 0) (#178)
    by Nasarius on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:17:12 PM EST
    My 1d20 roll came up 11, so I'll go with that.

    </nerd>

    Parent

    Ouch Ouch (none / 0) (#182)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:18:33 PM EST
    I fell on my ten sided dice!

    Parent
    I don't see Obama breaking 45 --> Clinton 55-45 (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by barryluda on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:51:54 PM EST


    Predict (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:54:23 PM EST
    I think she'll hit 10.

    I'll see your 10 (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:56:56 PM EST
    And raise you to 13. I don't why I am saying this...

    Parent
    I'll raise you to 16 (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:16:53 PM EST
    and equally, I don't know why. :-)

    Were I to be conservative, I'd go with 12.

    Obama's had a horrible week, and 10 million people saw that debate.

    Nahhhh. Better make it 16.

    Parent

    I felt a shiver... (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:33:40 PM EST
    ...going up my leg... ;)

    Parent
    but, but, but ABC was all WRONG! (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    >>>>Obama's had a horrible week, and 10 million people saw that debate.

    to give Obama an opportunity to explain and resolve any misinformation about his association with anti-America types.
    Only rightwing talk radio has the right to hammer Obama daily over these associates!
    And Dems wonder why they lose.....

    Parent

    and one more (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:16:59 PM EST
    57-43

    Parent
    If you really want to live dangerously (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:46:51 PM EST
    pledge to contribute some multiple of every percentage point in the spread.  That's what some folks on Confluenceare doing.

    My own prediction is 57-43.

    Parent

    I'm close to you (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by jen on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:22:08 PM EST
    My little paper says Hillary 61%/ O!bama 39%. (That would be my little piece of paper I wrote the results on the other day. It is so!)


    Parent
    I'm being conservative ... (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:54:42 PM EST
    56-43.  Think the spread could be larger.

    56-42 (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:55:33 PM EST


    okay, I'll play (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by ccpup on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:55:45 PM EST
    It'll be Clinton 57 to Obama's 44

    But they won't call it until sometime between 11 and 11:30 Eastern even though it's obvious it's a decisive win for Hillary.

    101% (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by hopeyfix on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:00:30 PM EST
    It would be awesome, but even with Obama's twist, I don't see how that would happen ;)

    Parent
    ummm (none / 0) (#66)
    by coolit on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:25:01 PM EST
    I have to admit, I don't know how we could see 57-44.  Are we talking about over than 100% of the population?

    But i like the thought though.  If she won by 14 that would be considered a rout.

    Parent

    The extra 1% is from (5.00 / 9) (#118)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:47:36 PM EST
    the dead people coming over from Chicago to vote.

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:48:48 PM EST
    Almost spit out my cookie! :-)

    Parent
    oops (none / 0) (#76)
    by ccpup on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:30:11 PM EST
    I meant to type 43, but hit 44 instead.

    So, either 56-42 or 57-43

    Parent

    Clinton by 12 (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by magster on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:56:59 PM EST
    I've heard of tapering A-A turnout since this am on MSNBC, and read of high turnout all over the state on the NYT blog.

    Offset by Hispanic issues (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:40:32 PM EST
    there are language barriers so they are having some difficulty.  The situation is being monitored.  So the hispanic depression will offset the AA depression.  :)

    Parent
    Clinton by 12 (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by DaytonDem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:58:50 PM EST
    and btw the cw will be...wait for it...it wasn't enough. They will bleat about the math.

    I'm hoping (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by barba on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:59:20 PM EST
    at least 12, predicting 9.  

    BTD, I know it's slight off topic, but hope you will be posting your thoughts on NC latest polling soon. So enjoy all your poll analysis.  PPP has BO up by 25, polled  something like 36 or 39 AA....thought this was as bizarre as all their other polls.  

    Sure (none / 0) (#18)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:00:55 PM EST
    And Obama is expected to win big in NC, so when he does (even if it doesn't meet expectations), we will  hear more calls of "Hillary Drop Out!"

    Parent
    I will be stunned if he wins (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by barba on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:20:05 PM EST
    big in NC.  Have you noticed how you hear all these surrogates calling for the end of the contest every time you get close to a vote.  It will be interesting to see how vocal they get prior to NC, very telling I think.

    Parent
    I heard a rumor (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:59:47 PM EST
    Well, I read it at No Quarter and HE heard it from someone. But any of our PA voters see this or hear of this?

    "The Obama people are handing out official Democratic party literature with Obama stickers stuck inside telling people that the democratic party has endorsed Obama.

    HERE IS HRC's LEGAL HOTLINE: 877-472-9460"

    ======

    Could it be true?

    If this is true (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    and I don't think it is, Axelrove has hit rock bottom.

    I'd need a lot more than a rumor to believe it, though. ;-)

    Parent

    Me too (none / 0) (#68)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:25:40 PM EST
    Just putting out feelers because at this point, nothing would surprise me!  :)

    Parent
    Well, hopefully (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:50:03 PM EST
    someone is checking it out.

    I wonder why the Democratic primary is continuing if the Democratic Party has already chosen its candidate?

    Parent

    Because the voters (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:53:01 PM EST
    haven't made up their minds yet! :-)

    I think the Party elite have chosen Obama, however, although that doesn't excuse Obama's alleged behavior if true. Allegedly.

    Parent

    and why not (none / 0) (#22)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:02:29 PM EST
    a clever trick.

    Parent
    Keeping the faith on double digits (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:00:48 PM EST
    Clinton 55-45.  But I'd be unsurprised by anything between 6 and 15.  If she blows past 15 then I'm putting her in the driver's seat for the nomination.

    But no matter what, how does PA impact the SDs? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by barryluda on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:00:51 PM EST
    Since getting the most delegates doesn't mean a victory, but rather the one who gets 2,214 wins, PA and the rest of the primary states will matter mostly in terms of how they influence the SDs.  Similarly, whatever either campaign says now is aimed at the SDs so any question as to whether or not the talking point BTD emphasized in his prior post was a mistake needs to be asked in that context.

    The SDs will, I'd think, look at one or some combination of the following questions:

    (1) Who helps them -- politically, personally and locally -- the most?

    (2) Who wins the most delegates?

    (3) Who wins the popular vote (this will take on various shades of grey depending on how you count it)?

    (4) Who stands the best chance of winning vs. McCain (#2 and especially #3 will help inform this)?

    (5)  Which would make the best POTUS?

    It's not surprising to hear Obama's campaign trying to deemphasize one that might end up hurting him.  I'd expect Obama to do everything to emphasize #2 and Clinton to do everything to emphasize #4, which is a bit tricky since she has to both convince the SDs that that's the most important of the five, and also that Clinton has the best chance of beating McCain.  On that point, Jeralyn helped further the debate on electability with her excellent analysis of Why Hillary Is More Likely to Beat McCain.  But I'm still thinking through whether I agree with William Arnone's premise so critical to Jeralyn's analysis:

    The winner of the popular vote in the Democratic primary or caucus in each of these key states will have a higher likelihood of carrying that state in November.
    I agree (none / 0) (#58)
    by phat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:21:07 PM EST
    #1 is most definitely the 1st consideration for the majority of the superdelegates.

    phat

    Parent

    do we know (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    how many sd's are not elected officials?

    (phone banking for our girl went great today!  LOTS of Clinton supporters, lots of folks who said they already voted for her, one really, really nasty Obama supporter who called me a white b*tch and slammed down the phone and one very cranky Clinton supporter who told me to stop f-ing calling, or she was going to go back to the polls and change her vote.)

    Parent

    It's not so much elected officials or not. (none / 0) (#128)
    by phat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:52:58 PM EST
    What it is is anybody who is in a party leadership position is looking to maximize their "value" to the local parties. If the superdelegates eventually give the nomination to Obama and him being on the top of the ticket is believed to help with downticket gains, they look good.

    The conventional wisdom is that Obama helps downticket races more than Clinton.

    Furthermore, with the race so close, any bandwagon is a gamble. If you make the wrong pick you get shut out by the eventual nominee. If you have no influence or insider advantage, well, that sucks.

    Other considerations are, unfortunately, distant seconds or thirds.

    phat

    Parent

    Which is not "factually correct" (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Regency on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:06:38 PM EST
    Polls have shown that consistently more Clinton supporters even bother to vote downticket than Obama supporters. That's just the truth.

    Parent
    Polls have shown that? (none / 0) (#197)
    by andrys on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:25:49 PM EST
      I saw a TV news story that in Texas, it was reported that they found that young voters were more likely to mark only the top, presidential options and ignored the rest of the ballot.

      I don't remember how they knew that.  Maybe in caucuses where the votes are public?   I didn't get the impression it was from exit polling, but it might have been.  

      That would be an important factor because the DNC has felt that new Obama supporters would help the down-ticket.  

    Parent

    Yes, elected officials matter, because (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:12:33 PM EST
    we can get back at them at the ballot box.  I personally plan to do so for their behaviors this primary, acting as if they speak and act for me in the national primary just because I put them in state offices.  I can put 'em out again -- or at least try. :-)

    And I can work darn hard for others who comported themselves appropriately as Dem party leaders.

    Parent

    Unelected SD's (none / 0) (#145)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:59:50 PM EST
    You can check out all the SD's

    HERE

    Parent

    55% to 45% (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:01:11 PM EST
    Now lemme see.

    Open thread and evil thought.  

    $120 per barrel. Was blood for oil a GOOD reason to invade Iraq?  

    War for pillage and plunder certainly sounds more justifiable than war for a nebulous struggle for shiite and Kurdish liberty.  I ask this because Gore vidal suggested that a bit of pillaging was  perfectly acceptable reason to invade some benighted corner of the globe in his Perpetual War book.

    Well, if high oil prices actually had (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:09:40 PM EST
    the proper impact on policy, one might perversely say yes. We need higher oil prices to spur development of alternative resources, in theory.

    Parent
    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:26:00 PM EST
    I would rather have taken the Jimmy Carter option in 1978. Solar panels on the White House, baby, and very little dependence on foreign oil.

    30 years later, and we're stuck with a retarded oil-drinking chimp who is defecating all over the Oval Office.

    Lord, we elect some shortsighted schmucks in this country.**

    **technically, the Deciderer was not elected in 2000 and the election was stolen in 2004 IMHO. but those idiotic Republican congressmen...

    Parent

    ROFL (none / 0) (#126)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:51:16 PM EST
    a retarded oil-drinking chimp who is defecating all over the Oval Office

    You should copyright this immediately.

    Parent

    Feh (none / 0) (#131)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:53:33 PM EST
    and have Cheney come after him?  Not worth it.

    Parent
    woops (none / 0) (#139)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:56:03 PM EST
    her!  I am a total maroon today.

    Parent
    Heh! No worries, O Mistress of Snark. :-) (none / 0) (#143)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:58:56 PM EST
    I've already said something very like it on my blog. If Cheney hasn't come after me after my antics during the Deciderer's administration, he's not gonna now.

    Parent
    Why? Are you afraid (none / 0) (#138)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:55:29 PM EST
    Obama will Xerox it?

    (sorry. Bad madamab! Bad!)

    Parent

    Snark goddesses, both of you (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    C'mon, keep it up -- your fans are watching!

    Parent
    haha (none / 0) (#69)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:25:57 PM EST
    yes it drove up the price a little.  

    Or would it have cost even more with Iraq embargoed?

    Parent

    I guess by 12-14 (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by annabelly on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:01:45 PM EST
    The undecideds are still high, and they tend to break for her, especially in this demographic pool.

    I am still holding out for 60-40..hehehe. (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:02:08 PM EST
    And Obama didn't help matters much by going on to Indiana so fast, on voting day no less. Hillary is still in PA, showing she cares about their votes. It's not going to help Obama get the undecideds when he goes off to the next state and his campaign basically says they don't matter. Oh yeah, way to win their hearts and minds, Obama!!! Now he has to convince the Indiana voters that his campaign said those things and it's not what HE thinks of them. Good luck..LOL

    I assume he's go internals that show (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:04:29 PM EST
    a thumping. No cross over GOP are going to vote for him after Wright and The cling commments.

    he's definitely lost part of his Iowa coalition.

    Parent

    why not? (none / 0) (#38)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:10:56 PM EST
    The really sick GOP crossovers would be crazy enough to vote for him anyway, thinking he'd be easier to beat vs McCain.  But let me re-iterate, they'd have to be among the really crazy ones to risk that much.  Obama stands for almost everything they hate in a Democratic candidate so they'd have to be really crazy.   Did I mention crazy?  Yea because, on a related note... not even Ann Coulter is willing to go that far.  She has endorsed Hillary Clinton. eek.

    Parent
    Michael Moore cancels out Ann Coulter (none / 0) (#176)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:15:57 PM EST
    in the "eek endorsement" category, apparently.  But why Obama is running from Moore, I'm not sure -- must be because he is anathema to Republicans, whose votes Obama has been cultivating?

    Parent
    Ah, but Michael Moore really means it (none / 0) (#193)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:22:53 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm holding out with you! (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by angie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:08:07 PM EST
    I will die happy if this happens. (notice I'm not writing the actual numbers myself -- don't want to jinx it).  

    Parent
    you can never go wrong underestimating (none / 0) (#44)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:13:51 PM EST
    It's a lot less stressful... watch me do it:

    My updated prediction is that Obama wins tonight
    64% to 22% and Gravel surprises with 4%

    Parent

    oops, doesn't add up (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:14:39 PM EST
    Ok the rest of the vote goes to Spongebob Squarepants.

    Parent
    Feel the Gravelmania! :-) (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:33:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Clinton! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by BRockNYLA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:06:27 PM EST
    56/44

    After all the time and money spent by Obama there in PA this result will speak volumes.

    Turnout in my precinct is "high" (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Makarov on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:07:28 PM EST
    and I'm predicting Clinton 56-44.  

    By 1pm today, 270 had voted in my precinct.  Total votes in 2006 November election were 821.  For comparison, my precinct (in Northampton Township - a rather affluent area near Newtown and Richboro) went for Casey over Santorum by 514-297 and Murphy (who won by just 1500 votes overall) over Fitzpatrick (Rep. Freshman Congressman) by 457-364.

    Since the Rep ballot is meaningless (only ballot choice is for President, with Paul and one or two other Reps on it with McCain) as all downticket Republican races are unopposed, the vast majority of those 270 votes are for the Democratic primary.

    The heaviest voting times in my precinct are between 5 and 7pm.

    Clinton by 11.5-13% Points (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:09:53 PM EST
    AA's (16% of votes):  Obama 87 Clinton 13
    Whites's (80% of votes):  Obama 35 Clinton 65

    Splitting the rest and giving me some margin of error, I get 11.5-13% points.

    The way to play this (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:10:08 PM EST
    If you think that Obama will be in better shape after PA, you sell Hillary short now.  If you think she will beat expectations, you buy Hillary now and sell after she rises.

    I'm Clinton SUSA lead plus 5 for the Rendell (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:10:43 PM EST
    machine and the relentless Ads that portray him  as we see him So 10-13 range.

    I am at 12+. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:11:18 PM EST
    Like other posters, I am not sure why. I just feel it's going to be a beat-down. Obama is in Indiana tonight, so I am guessing his internal polling isn't going too well today.

    I predicted a beating in Ohio and Cali, too.

    Just sayin'.

     

    I think she wins with bigger (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:12:35 PM EST
    margins than OH. I think this will be a rout.

    Parent
    I think so too (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:18:30 PM EST
    #1 - Obama couldn't wait to skedaddle out of PA.  

    #2 - that statement by his campaign that BTD posted sounded very much like a concession.

    They must know that he doesn't stand a chance of winning, which to me spells a double-digit victory for Hillary.  If the difference was just 5 or 6 points, I think they'd have an entirely different attitude.

    Parent

    Obama out of PA (none / 0) (#91)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:37:14 PM EST
    I don't think it's because he thinks he'll do poorly, but rather because he's planning on killing her elsewhere with his ever-increasing money advantage.  The one thing I never underestimate Obama for is his ruthlessness and sheer drive.

    The man doesn't "hope" for things to go well; he does whatever he can to make sure they do.

    Parent

    You mean he will do anything to win? (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:43:59 PM EST
    Where have I heard that before.

    Parent
    I think it's precisely because (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:44:53 PM EST
    he knows he's going to lose HUGE.

    Parent
    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:28:18 PM EST
    It's two weeks till the IN and NC primaries.  Since to know Obama is to love him, he's got plenty of time to campaign in those states.  He should be able to spend one more night in PA.  This tells me that his campaign's internal polls must be looking bad.  

    It's not good strategy for the general, either.  His precipitous departure make it seem like he's doing a Wham Bam Thank You Ma'am to a very important swing state.  Reminds me of the video Jeralyn posted last night, "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?"  

    Parent

    11- It is a lucky number (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:18:04 PM EST
    22 would be better. And 8 is for success. So I like 55-44. I am so glad that we are getting to the slow time of the year in my industry. Otherwise, no TL during the day.

    To be honest, I"m waffling on this one. (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:26:28 PM EST
    I hope Obama is squashed like a pancake though.

    If it turns out as we "hope," (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:32:33 PM EST
    Obama will be clinging to his religion as a way to explain his economic frustrations!

    "I spent HOW MUCH in PA??? $&!)(&$^(!!!!"

    Parent

    Clinton by 4-8 (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:30:43 PM EST
    Although, I wish it was by 10-15.  That latest SUSA poll (Clinton by 6) was such a kick to the gut and I think huge AA numbers will be key to holding her to single digits.

    I'm just preparing myself for her exit.  I hate this.  With her goes our chances in November, no question.

    Well from 2006 census numbers (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:46:49 PM EST
    LINK

    AA's only make of 10.7% of the total population of PA. I'm sure they make up a greater percentage of the registered Dems, but my guess is around 18% of registered Dems are AA.

    Don't know if it means anything, but I'm trying to make you feel better! :)

    Parent

    The way to feel better (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:20:40 PM EST
    Take to drink!  I began drinking at lunch here PST in anticipation of bad news (Just for today!  Not since college have I done this).  My friends and I all plan on drinking ourselves stupid today, which shouldn't be too hard considering we're all "low-information" Clinton voters.*

    What did I have for lunch you ask?  Why, waffles of course.  A whole stack of them.

    *Translation: pay no attention to the fact we're all twentysomethings with grad school degrees.  We're dumb as dirt--and racists to boot!

    Parent

    Oh, and thank you for trying (none / 0) (#192)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:22:21 PM EST
    We'll see in a couple hours what awaits us in November: a Clinton contest or an Obama disaster.

    Parent
    Fingers, toes and eyes crossed! (none / 0) (#206)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:30:05 PM EST
    But what do I know - I, too, am one of those low information voters with advanced degrees!  Have a couple of drinks for me!  :)

    Parent
    Polling is so all over the place, and (none / 0) (#220)
    by andrys on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:54:13 PM EST
    ...and one surprise in Texas was that the turnout of the black vote was estimated by pollers to be higher than last election-primary but it was a smaller turnout.  There was more intensity of feeling but a smaller percentage for some reason.

       In the InsiderAdvantage poll report for 4/21, the pdf document of the demographics breakdown showed Clinton getting about 25% of the black vote while Obama was getting 33% of the white vote, with undecideds in both blocs of course.  The male vote, overall, was breaking her way.

       
    Today, that poll narrowed the margin     though from 10 to today's 7.  

       Now it shows Clinton getting only 21% of the black vote while Obama is getting 34% of the white vote.  With the younger vote (18-29), they were only 1% point apart yesterday but today Obama is 6% ahead of Clinton there (with a few less people polled).

     

    Parent

    It's amazing (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by phat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:33:57 PM EST
    A 3:1 spending advantage and 6 weeks of campaigning and if he loses by fewer than 10 points it's not a drubbing?

    Amazing.

    phat

    Now, now (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by cawaltz on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:03:07 PM EST
    Drink your kool aid. In Unityland, where everyone gets a pony, if you lose by margins greater than 5 it is still a WIN. They were actually selling this as well on Air America yesterday (Shaking head at the lack of logic that some display).

    Parent
    CNN just said it has to be 20 pts (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:19:05 PM EST
    in Clinton's favor for her to somehow crawl out of this morass inflicted on us all. . . .

    It wasn't Wolfie, it was Borger, maybe?  Someone on tape doing a stoopid conjecture.  Pffft, the fools.

    Parent

    The ever-moving goal posts. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:22:14 PM EST
    They must see a big HRC win tonight. They are scared that their fave will not be able to go the distance...

    Parent
    Gift time (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by NYMARJ on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:35:06 PM EST
    No projections from me - but today is my birthday and I want a BIG gift - GO HILLARY.

    HBD! Hope your (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by barba on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:42:21 PM EST
    dreams come true for a big BD present.

    Parent
    Cleveland, Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:35:40 PM EST
    Hillary only lost that city's county by about 6% and it had the largest % of African Americans.  That didn't get a lot of attention on the blogs, but it was critical to her victory.

    That's why the Clinton campaign is so thankful to Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

    Ok, here's a more interesting question: (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:40:23 PM EST
    What level of Clinton win will lead to Orangistanians claiming that Hillary cheated?

    Spelling correction (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:42:14 PM EST
    OrangUstan. My spelling more fits the mentality at times.

    Parent
    just cheated? (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:47:39 PM EST
    There are many other reasons for Obama victories/defeats they will trot out.  We've heard of the WORM, but there can be a new term for post-election explanations called the WORL. (why obama really lost)

    Parent
    0.1% win (none / 0) (#104)
    by barba on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:43:00 PM EST


    Parent
    WRONG! It was a trick question: (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:43:55 PM EST
    She will be accused of cheating, win or loss.

    Parent
    In fact, I will bet that by 5 pm EDT (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:44:35 PM EST
    there will be a "wrecked" diary with claims of Clinton cheating.

    Parent
    Hmm.. apparently the "pre-blaming" (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:14:48 PM EST
    started already.
    I KNEW it

    Parent
    Omg, they started whining as soon as polls (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:21:20 PM EST
    opened, a new record.  (Btw, faithful readers and avoiders of orangeness, this link is not to that place, does not give it a hit. . . .)

    Parent
    Yet another prediction! (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:42:24 PM EST
    If Clinton wins in a big blowout, the media narrative will switch to the following:

    "Well, the Democratic Party once again shows it can't make up its mind. Looks like John McCain has a great chance to win in November!"

    You read it here first, people!

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:45:56 PM EST


    Parent
    lol* (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:55:07 PM EST
    Probably you're right about that.

    Parent
    I am thinking... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:26:18 PM EST
    "She was ahead by 26 points just a month ago and only won with with 20. She's toast and needs to drop out for the good of the party, America, Santa Claus..."

    Parent
    And John McCain! (none / 0) (#210)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:30:35 PM EST
    Seriously, if she wins by a blowout tonight, I think the corporate media will see the writing on the wall. They won't prop up Obama any more - they'll turn on him like the rabid wolves they are.

    They will go back to their first love...The Maverick.

    [sighs, flutters eyelashes]

    Parent

    Hoping for 12-15. Closer to 15 (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:45:06 PM EST
    because it hurts the 'we closed the gap' spin and those predictable lines. The farther in to dbl digits, the more it hurts O because of the effort and $$$ he dumped there.  I do NOT want to hear a 'we got close but, yada yada yada'.

    but hey, I'll take a 10 pointer or any win. A win is a win when he's had 6wks and out spent 3-1 in a big swing state.

    I think it will be single digits (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by ajain on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:46:40 PM EST
    I feel like everytime we have these expectations we lose out.

    I am prepared for anything. I want a 65-35 race for Clinton, but I think it will be closer to 6-8 points.

    Pessimist here (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Jim J on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:47:06 PM EST
    HRC by three, as much as I'd hate to see that.

    I hope I'm as wrong as I always am about everything.

    I know what you mean (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:54:15 PM EST
    I am always afraid of jynxing things with these predictions, but then again I have to remember past results and it's been hit/miss for me.  I was correct about  Texas and California, but I underestimated Ohio (for Clinton) and underestimated Wisconsin (for Obama)

    For Pennsylvania, I've slightly lowered my expectations for Clinton, but trying my best to take emotion out of the trend watching.

    Parent

    We should have a thread that bets on the margin (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:50:20 PM EST
    and the loser to give Hillary! 100 bucks.

    55/45, or thereabouts. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:52:38 PM EST


    thereabouts (none / 0) (#147)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:00:39 PM EST
    Zogby's motto.  It's really quite Zen if you think about it.  I'm on this Earth, or thereabouts.  I'm throwing darts at a board, or thereabouts.  I'm shilling for Obama, or thereabouts...

    I love it.

    Parent

    Clinton by 19 points: 59-40 (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:30:12 PM EST


    Writing it again (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by jen on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:52:49 PM EST
    because the written word, spoken out loud is very powerful.

    Clinton 61%
    O!bama 49%

    Oops! (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by jen on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:53:21 PM EST
    Try again:

    Clinton 61%
    O!bama 39%

    Happy days are here again... (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:06:25 PM EST
    tra..la..la...la..la!!!!!!!!!!

    10 point win for Hillary (4.00 / 2) (#9)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 01:58:26 PM EST
    A lot of hullaballoo about the win for a couple of days.  Then the delegate count will come out and it will turn out that Hillary only gained 10 delegates.  

    We will then move on to NC and IN

    Yea, Pennsylvania doesn't matter (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:08:04 PM EST
    we get it already.  Except that if Obama were to win Pennsylvania tonight it ends the primary and he's the nominee.

    But remember everyone, it doesn't matter.
    Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania.  Total non factors for the superdelegates.

    Our system of government will be renamed Mathocracy in honor of Obama supporters.

    Parent

    Meh (none / 0) (#48)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:16:43 PM EST
    I never said it didn't matter.   It matters as much as every other state, proportional to their population.

    All elections are based on math.  Sorry to break the news to you.

    The superdelegates can use whatever reasoning they want.  I don't much care.  

    Parent

    yes, superdeleate votes are part of the math (none / 0) (#64)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:24:29 PM EST
    as painful as that is for some to hear.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#85)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:34:25 PM EST
    And if Hillary does not gain any delegate ground she will need to gain nearly 80% of the remaining superdelegates in order to overtake Obama.  

    Barring a calamitous event, how exactly do you propose that Hillary will achieve that sort of overwhelming support?  

    The only way that will happen is if Pelosi and Reid back her which seems unlikely at this juncture.

    Parent

    Should Obama stop campaigning? (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:41:50 PM EST
    Let's talk a little about logic.

    Once again, I ask the key question:  If Obama is the inevitable, party supported nominee... why doesn't he just go back to Chicago, rest up for his fight against McCain and stop wasting millions of dollars on ads (like he did in Pennsylvania?)

    See, if the math is telling you that Clinton cannot overcome his lead then why spend money on ads at all?  Afraid she would win by 80% from here on out if he just stops playing ads?  Highly unlikely.

    Parent

    You're being obtuse (none / 0) (#112)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:46:35 PM EST
    An insurmountable lead is only insurmountable if the winning team continues to play on.

    Obama will continue to campaign because doing otherwise would be politically stupid and damaging.  

    Of course there is a chance that Hillary could still win the nomination.  But right now I would put that number at about 15-20%.  

    If she can somehow win in NC that could change things.  Obama would still have an advantage but it would be more like 60-40.  However I think it is very unlikely that she could win in NC.

    Parent

    Wow, way off on NC imo (none / 0) (#140)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:57:47 PM EST
    If Hillary Clinton wins tonight and has the privilege of continuing on to Indiana, Kentucky, West Virgina, and North Carolina and then she WINS North Carolina (it's a safe bet to think she would have also then won the other states) and there is no way in the world she would not get the nomination at that point with Puerto Rico still to vote AND Florida and Michigan not resolved.

    But no worries, Obama is very likely to win North Carolina regardless of what happens anywhere else.

    Parent

    If she wins the popular vote (none / 0) (#114)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:46:43 PM EST
    Some of the declared superdelgates will switch to her and she might get the nomination. (So it's not 80% of the "remaining.") If she loses the poular vote, then she won't get the nomination. IMO.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#132)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:54:08 PM EST
    Let's say she manages to get a slim lead in the popular vote count.  How many SDs do you really think will vote based on this?

    How many SDs that have already pledged their support are really going to flip prior to the convention?  I think this will be a very small number.  Flipping your support will make you appear weak and wishy-washy.  Not exactly traits that get you re-elected.

    Parent

    You don't take into account any switching (none / 0) (#196)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:24:31 PM EST
    from one candidate to the other by super-d's.  Shocking but true, it has happened.

    There really are no delegate counts now -- not in pledged delegates so far, with recaucusing still ahead in all caucus states, and not in super-delegates, free to keep switching horses like bandits on the lam.

    Parent

    Baloney, Hillary wins tonight she the Nominee who (none / 0) (#59)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:21:48 PM EST
    can win the big battleground States the White House in Nov for the Party and Obama outspending her 3 or 4 to 1 with a captured friendly audience of Dems can not no matter the spread.

    And if that's not what Dems begin hearing from their leaders and elected officials that continued DNC foot on the scale leads to some a further Party damaging conclusions.


    Parent

    true but short sighted. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:08:49 PM EST
    and suicidal.

    Parent
    8 to 10 Sounds about right (none / 0) (#14)
    by jcsf on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:00:15 PM EST
    Undecideds look to be breaking 60-40 to Clinton - which has been the pattern for a lot of contests with favorable Clinton demographics.

    I just don't have a guess. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:02:57 PM EST
    I'm prepared for anything, frankly.

    Hillary by 18. (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:05:59 PM EST
    That's right. By 18.

    Parent
    just like Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:12:07 PM EST
    oh!

    Parent
    Only half like Hillary... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:14:39 PM EST
    ...I'm prepared for anything, but alas I don't have any solutions.

    Parent
    She IS my solution! (none / 0) (#47)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:16:05 PM EST


    Parent
    C54-O46 and Obamas will not cheer (none / 0) (#32)
    by catfish on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:09:38 PM EST
    A single-digit victory even three points, two points, even one point: how could the Obama camp cheer this? How could this invigorate them?

    Analogy to answer your questions (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by magster on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:24:28 PM EST
    On Sunday, the Nuggets beat the Lakers in the 4th Quarter.

    Parent
    Easy win would invigorate Clinton, yes (none / 0) (#74)
    by catfish on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:28:36 PM EST
    But a tight loss - how could that possibly energize Obama?

    Parent
    Could someone please explain to me (none / 0) (#40)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:12:01 PM EST
    the difference between internal polling and the ones that get released to us...Thank you...

    Frequency and LV Models (none / 0) (#51)
    by thomphool on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:17:38 PM EST
    Are the the major things.  Both campaigns are almost certainly conducting between 600 and 1000 interviews a night for the past week or two.  What this means is the campaigns have a much better feel for the movement that is actually happening on the ground.  The way I tend to think about it is that media polls are like algebra, internals are like calculus.   They'll also put together a lot of different likely voter/ turn out scenarios to see the effect of high and low turnout.    They also tend to be much more careful in demographic matching than a lot of publicly released polls.  

    Parent
    Also: public domain, private domain (none / 0) (#205)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:29:40 PM EST
    and internals are the latter, not to be released, with all sorts of goodies that pollsters turned up to guide targeting of ads and much more.  Usually more costly, becayse often including not just polling but also focus groups, etc.

    In studying advertising history, I've gotten peeks sometimes at past private domain research, and it's amazingly detailed and provided a lot of direction for successful campaigns (political or product . . . although, of course, candidates are "products").

    In politics, sometimes with luck we find out about the internals afterward when insiders do books, the sort that make me smite my forehead and say "so that's what they saw, and why they did that."

    Parent

    SUSA tainted this time... (none / 0) (#43)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:13:03 PM EST
    so as much as I want to stick with them, I can't.

    given the undecideds and the anecdotal stuff I am hearing today, I say Clinton by 13 or more.

    I'm not (none / 0) (#89)
    by barba on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:35:29 PM EST
    trying to be argumentative, but why do you think SUSA is tainted?  Would be delighted in fact that they are!   Too high AA polled?

    Parent
    Re: I'm not (none / 0) (#124)
    by Clintonomics on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:50:11 PM EST
    Would not say they are tainted, but there were some odd numbers in the CrossTabs. The last SUSA poll had Obama ahead 53-38 among male voters.  This is way up from the prior SUSA poll which had him behind 44-48. This is also way different than the Ohio exit poll which had Obama losing the male vote 48-50. So did something happen in the last week to cause Pennsylvania men to vote well differently from Ohio men?  Hope and think that is unlikely.

    Parent
    I was referring to methodology (none / 0) (#165)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:11:39 PM EST
    They stopped calling at 6pm on both weekend days because of passover. They normally would have polled for a couple of more hours.

    Parent
    That's interesting (none / 0) (#204)
    by barba on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:29:35 PM EST
    and something I would not have thought to consider.

    Amazing the demographics of this race, I'm with BTD that this race is so much about demographics.

    Parent

    SUSA differences (none / 0) (#93)
    by Truth Partisan on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:39:53 PM EST
    For this poll, SUSA information said that they stopped calling at 6 pm, unlike the way the rest of the polls were done. SUSA has been my gold but this skews it--lots of people don't even get home from work until around then. Also, someone said 65+ were underrepresented (and/or the youth was overrepresented.) Did anyone else see these? Does the SUSA fine print support these?


    Parent
    5% (none / 0) (#53)
    by deminma on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:18:18 PM EST
    I think Philly comes in big for Obama.   52-47

    Clinton wins by 8 delegates.    The show moves on!

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:20:01 PM EST
    Obama wins the popular vote but loses the delegate count?

    I will go out on a limb and say there is zero chance your prediction comes true.

    Parent

    Looks Like A Brain Fart (none / 0) (#72)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    Loard knows I have my share.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#135)
    by deminma on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:54:58 PM EST
    Poorly worded  but clinton by 5%  and 8 delegates.  

    Parent
    DNC (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimbo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:22:54 PM EST
    OT I just received an email from the DNC asking for money.  The link "Click here to unsubscribe from this mailing list" does not work.  Dean, I will not be involved in your organization unless  Michigan and Florida are reinstated immediately.  Quit wasting our time.

    I get weekly calls as well as emails (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by ccpup on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:42:27 PM EST
    as my partner and I were generous donors early in the Primary and for some time before that and every time I answer the phone and learn it's the DNC asking for money, first question out of my mouth is "Are you seating FL and MI?" followed by "No?" and then Click.

    Our accountant even got a call from them indicating there had been a problem with receiving the monthly amount and could he look into it and he responded, "Yeah, you didn't get it because they cut you off"  Click.

    We won't give to a Party that's cutting off it's intelligent, I-can-win-even-while-being-outspent, talented, accomplished nose to spite it's immature, egotistical, misogynistic Let-me-eat-my-waffle face.

    Parent

    Try the source code in the email (none / 0) (#84)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:34:08 PM EST
    I used to do that with spam. and make this incredibly long heading telling them to unsubscribe me or else  ;)

    Parent
    Clinon in Double-Digits (none / 0) (#65)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:24:37 PM EST
    The polls went haywire in the last few days.  Lots of uncertainty over the real story.  Many new voters signed up, but will they turn out?  I don't buy the narrative that things changed so much in such short time.  Clinton does well with late deciders.  Beside, Obama had a dreadful week last.  I predict Hillary gets what she needs to stay competitive.

    love the arbitrariness based on (none / 0) (#73)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:27:43 PM EST
    how many fingers we happen to have. What silly humans. :-)

    Given the poll numbers we've been seeing, I think 8 is about right from those and given how things break toward the end. I'd say more like 12 except for all the intense advertising by the Obama campaign. I'd say that bought him 4 points. Of course I'm hoping for 12. We'll see very soon.

    I agree the spin after will be quite entertaining.

    I never pick cause I am a jinx (none / 0) (#75)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:29:31 PM EST
    and never win.  

    Stellaaa (none / 0) (#122)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:49:36 PM EST
    if this is true, please say Obama by 40.

    Parent
    you mean something else..? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:00:12 PM EST
    No...never....I am the ultimate jinx in predictions.  

    Parent
    Since What Stellaaa Said Is Also True For Me, (none / 0) (#154)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:03:36 PM EST
    I will follow your suggestion. Here goes Obama 70% Clinton 30%.

    Parent
    Clinton by 9.5% (none / 0) (#87)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:35:17 PM EST
    Single digits, but arguably rounded to double digits.

    I predict this will be like every other race, a completely interpretable outcome.  

    Either side will believe they achieved what was necessary for victory.

    I share your prediction (none / 0) (#88)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:35:25 PM EST
    I believe Clinton will win by high single digits.

    I think Clinton by 10. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:39:10 PM EST
    I would be shocked if he does better than 8 or if she does better than 12.

    Result Matches Ohio Exit Poll For Democrats (none / 0) (#105)
    by Clintonomics on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:43:23 PM EST
    Clinton 56, Obama 42, Other 2.

    Better PA demographics for Clinton balanced out by Obama voter registration drive.

    SUSA age sample (none / 0) (#120)
    by grrchapelhill on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:47:42 PM EST
    I don't know much about polling and come here often for BTD's take.  I noticed on the latest SUSA poll the 18-34 y/o made up 21% of the sample.  On the previous poll it was 19%.  Does this make any difference in outcome, and how does it jibe with historical turnout?  I looked at exit polls from previous states and can't find one that has 17-30 y/o above 16%.  I know the age difference has some effect, but at a first glance it seems they are oversampling the younger voters.  Any thoughts?

    Exit polls available? (none / 0) (#134)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:54:49 PM EST
    BEWARE:Orange link

    The Orange Julius... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:03:25 PM EST
    doesn't have that story on exit polling via that link.

    Maybe it's because I gave Markos the finger while his was verbally barfing on Real Time last Friday.

    He knows I've been bad and I support Hillary the Evil so he's blocking me.

    Parent

    A test page (none / 0) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:57:48 PM EST


    Parent
    my .02 (none / 0) (#142)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 02:57:55 PM EST
    She'll take PA by 12.  And the superd's MUST take notice of her winning yet ANOTHER bellwether state.

    And here's something slightly off topic.  I wish that Clinton would have gone further last night when she said "a win is a win".  So if in the SuperBowl NY had only beat NE by 1 point, does that mean that NY really didn't "win" but it was more of a win for NE because they came so close?

    I am really tired about how Orwellian everyone is getting about how "winning is losing".  Winning is winning.  Period.

    This may have already (none / 0) (#148)
    by mg7505 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    been asked, but the biggest question on my mind is how NBC, Kos et al will react to Clinton's win. Will it be spin? Probably. Anything except holding Obama to frontrunner status the way they continue to hold Clinton (even though BO is the frontrunner now...). Why don't they give some honest answers about why he can't win CA, PA, FL, OH, etc? How long will sticking our heads in the sand work? Only until November, I fear.

    If it's close... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:06:53 PM EST
    they'll return to whining for her to drop out. If it's a severe beating, they'll rush to NC to soothe their wounds and pretend like it never happened.

    I am hoping that John and Liz Edwards have an epiphany if Hillary's win is huge tonight. Their support will shore up NC to a real fight and Obama can kiss Indiana goodbye - his "tie-breaker" state.

    Parent

    Yesterday Kos (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:17:08 PM EST
    referred to her wins in places like CA, NY, OH and FL as "big state nonsense".

    Unbelievable.  I don't remember Idaho, Utah or Wyoming, where Obama scored BIG with the small population of Democrats, being lynchpin states for the party. Man those guys over at that blog need a reality check if they can be so dismissive of places like FL, OH and PA.

    I am starting to think this is the first election they have ever been involved in.  Seriously.  

    Parent

    Well, we do know how they react to Obama wins (none / 0) (#150)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:02:46 PM EST
    Unadulterated gloating.

    Parent
    Honest answers? (none / 0) (#217)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:45:39 PM EST
    Is that where ClingBitter came from? His explanation of not getting the traditional Dem voters . . .

    Parent
    Looks Good for Clinton (none / 0) (#149)
    by Spike on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:02:32 PM EST
    The discussion on yesterday's aborted SUSA thread convinced me that Clinton would win by 12% to 18%, depending on how the undecideds break. She seems to have the late momentum. If she finishes in the single digits it will be near-fatal.

    Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:07:57 PM EST
    Closed well.  Her crowds were enthused.  Her volunteers have been worker bees.  Her money was targeted so that he ads didn't over-saturate but hit the mark.  The quality of the ads was excellent.

    She finished on her "Tough enough for the job" message, which is her best.

    And she even got everyone talking about an issue today.  Great leadership.  :)

                                 

    Parent

    Depends (none / 0) (#153)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:03:34 PM EST
    1-5 I agree, 6-7 borderline, 8-9 not at all.

    Parent
    I wonder about momentum (none / 0) (#155)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:04:09 PM EST
    It's hard to believe that anyone would make up their mind so late in the game after this long campaign.  Maybe it's more about GOTV today.  Sunny, good weather for the most part for what it's worth.

    Parent
    Really, BTD? (none / 0) (#156)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:04:36 PM EST
    Able to work with his staff and elevate his own performance to minimize the damage from errors and past controversies.

    Has Obama elevated his own performance after that disastrous debate?

    I guess if you call refusing to speak to the press and whining about waffles "elevating."

    Have to respectfully disagree with this one. His campaign is spinning like a top, but Obama himself has been terrible.

    Sure (none / 0) (#164)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    Of course being the Media Darling helps a lot of course.

    Parent
    I hope he enjoyed it. (none / 0) (#169)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:12:42 PM EST
    I don't expect it to last much longer. ;-)

    Parent
    Terrible? (none / 0) (#171)
    by Spike on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:13:45 PM EST
    Terrible? I think that overstates it a bit. He responded to the Wright controversy so masterfully that I think it actually enhanced his personal stature. The "bitter" thing wasn't good but those most upset about it weren't going to vote for him anyway. As for the debate, he was clearly off his game but in the end ABC looked a lot worse than he did. All in all, he's demonstrated that he can hit a rough patch and still maintain a 10 point national lead. That's reassuring if he's going to ultimately be the nominee.

    Parent
    Masterfully? (none / 0) (#181)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:18:27 PM EST
    I actually don't agree.  He got kudos for the speech.  That's it.  The question about why he stayed in the church comes up daily.  He did not answer that one.

    I think people don't talk about it because it infringes on religion.  However, that has nothing to do with how they think.

    And they are rethinking Obama.

    Parent

    Ooooooookaaaaay. (none / 0) (#183)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:18:33 PM EST
    We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. :-)

    Parent
    We are racist theory floated again.. (none / 0) (#159)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:07:48 PM EST
    On the NH election day after Senator Obama lost and Senator Clinton Won, one of the prominent nbc host started spreading the message of
    "See New England IS racist, we may not say it, but we know it IS true!!" -- Chris Mathews, host Hardball.

    Taking inspiration from him on the eve of PA elections the same message was being spread again by the media as an excuse of why Senator Obama would/could lose. It makes no sense to say that if a white person votes for Obama he is liberal, but if he doesn't he is racist!! I think all the people spreading this stuff should be ashamed of themselves..

    A measure of racism: 15 percent?
    A take by Politico's Roger Simons

    "Barack Obama's campaign opened a downtown office here on March 15, just in time for the annual St. Patrick's Day parade. It was not a glorious day for Team Obama. Some of the green signs the campaign had trucked in by the thousands were burned during the parade, and campaign volunteers -- white volunteers -- were greeted with racial slurs." Signs burned? Racial slurs shouted out loud? In this day and age? Maybe that 15 percent estimate is low. I am not suggesting for a second that McCain would exploit race in a campaign against Obama. He would not. But the real question is whether the racial issue has to be "exploited" at all. It is pretty powerful just sitting there on its own.

    .. just sitting there on its own? Its there because YOU chose to say so!!

    Don't Think So (none / 0) (#209)
    by Spike on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:30:35 PM EST
    Racism isn't an issue in this contest just because a journalist mentioned it. The same as sexism. This was in Dana Milbank's WaPo column this morning:

    "I think he just wants to be president because he's black," said Tim Hetrick, smoking a cigarette as he waited for a bus among the crumbling structures of downtown McKeesport. A Democrat, he's thinking about voting for McCain in November."

    I don't know how many of them there are, but I suspect that many of the people who think like this would also have trouble voting for a woman.

    Parent

    And we are called 'low-info' and less educated? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:09:13 PM EST
    "You've always got to measure if somebody throws an elbow at you, and after three or four times of gettin' elbows in the ribs, you know, at what point do you sort of say, 'OK, you know, we, we, we've gotta put a stop to that?'" Obama said.

    Harvard Law Review?  Sound more like a senior high jock who is NOT going to be a Merit Scholar.

    The funny thing is that looking at O's body type.. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:12:14 PM EST
    ...i.e., on the bony side, I bet he threw a lot of elbows in his day.

    Parent
    Elbowed 3 or 4 times before he retaliates? (none / 0) (#216)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:45:06 PM EST
    Man, did he ever make into the paint at all?

    Where I learned to play, one elbow got immediate response, first a legal one -- in the non litigious sense -- then ::: cough ::: not so much.

    I know many TL regulars might find this hard to believe, but on my basketball team, I was the undisputed champeen of the kind of (entirely provoked, I swear) whispered smack so explosive, it was guaranteed to get dirty-pool recipients exceeding their foul counts before the half. Some got tossed on T's. Others simply went barking mad and if their sanity returned, they were never quite the same.

    I hear some of the smack is still being shown to worthy neophytes by senior team members using fireproof tongs.

    Yep. I played in the dirtiest, most fiendish, underhanded, hardcore battleground of basketball there is: Catholic Girls School.

    I still sleep with one eye open.

    Parent

    So...BTD (none / 0) (#167)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:12:21 PM EST
    If Hillary takes an early lead...what will it portend if cities come in first?

    pretty obvious what it means (none / 0) (#200)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:26:22 PM EST
    but don't count on that happening.  Honestly, this is going to look bad for Clinton in the early numbers and coverage.

    Parent
    Put me down for 55/45 (none / 0) (#170)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:12:54 PM EST
    Not original I know, but there are only so many  number combinations!

    Nothing would surprise me, so I'm not betting real money. If Clinton wins by 12 or better I'll send her some more $$$ though. That will be too big to be ignored.

    Winner take all - not (none / 0) (#173)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:14:33 PM EST
    txpolitico67
    The win is a win is not actually true. And it's not Orwellian. It's the way the delegate counts are set up. If Hillary wins by a lot then she gets more delegates. If she wins by a little she gets fewer delegates. At this point she needs A LOT of delegates to catch Obama.
    And in fact Obama ended up getting MORE delegates in Texas than Clinton did. And she won the states popular vote!
    If PA [or any of these states] was merely based on a winner-take-all then, yes, a win is a win.
    But it is not winner-take-all. It's a division of the win here and a division of the win there.
    I'm in TX (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:23:46 PM EST
    and the delegate count isn't over until the state convention in Austin later on this year.  And I can tell you from my years of experience being at the state conventions, it will be a bloodbath.  The party faithful from the valley that delivered a victory in the primary to HRC are going to fight tooth and nail all the neophytes looking to move the convention in Obama's favor.

    I have already spoken to party elders here in the state.  They are ready for a major fight.  And they know the rules and how things work in the party here in TX, unlike the Obama supporters who were lost in the caucus process.

    Oh, I completely understand the flawed allocation of delegates after the votes are tallied. So yes it IS Orwellian when a win is a loss if the win isn't in double-digits.  If HRC beats Obama by ONE point, it's a WIN.  May not be some great gains in delegates, but she wins.

    And isn't that the point? To win in November?  Either candidate?

    Parent

    Clinton will win by...... (none / 0) (#175)
    by aequitas on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:15:20 PM EST
    ....much less than she needs to breath life into a candidacy that ended a month ago.

    Ended when she lost Texas (1.00 / 1) (#202)
    by aequitas on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:27:14 PM EST
    eom

    Parent
    Zombie candidate? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:17:16 PM EST
    Cool, maybe a late night double feature? Also when she gets the nomination it means she can't be killed! Anyone tell the Secret Service?

    Parent
    and yet obama (none / 0) (#212)
    by isaac on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:31:06 PM EST
    continues to spend like a drunken sailor against a dead campaign.  no

    Parent
    If Clinton wins by 20 or if Obama (none / 0) (#180)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:17:21 PM EST
    wins by 1 will that be enough to put a nail in the coffin of Zogby?  Wouldn't it be great to never have to suffer another one of his "guesses" again?

    Here! (none / 0) (#186)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:19:40 PM EST
    Here!

    Why does he even get space in the press?

    Parent

    not guesses (none / 0) (#188)
    by miguelito on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:20:40 PM EST
    misinformation

    Parent
    Zogby will come out with a new poll (none / 0) (#207)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:30:11 PM EST
    "Do you believe Zogby is an accurate pollster?"

    88% Say yes
    12% Say No

    And his career will go on.

    Parent

    Whoa Lenny Davis is demanding Dean step down (none / 0) (#185)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:19:22 PM EST
    on Fox now....

    Lanny of course Ok seems that the DNC foot on the (none / 0) (#195)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:24:07 PM EST
    Scale of the race is finally be challenged by the Clinton campaign, about time, Donna too please.

    Parent
    Clinton people either have some new leverage... (none / 0) (#211)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:30:47 PM EST
    or are utterly frustrated with Dean. Or both.

    Parent
    Lanny Davis says Dean should resign if (none / 0) (#201)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:27:11 PM EST
    Dean is the one who nixed the NC debate.  Now I have to go do research and see what info is out there that indicates Dean might have had something to do with refusing the debate.

    Also, Rahm Emanuel says the suburbs will decide the race in November.  Rural voters not relevant?  hmm. I wonder who Emanuel supports?

    Fox talking head Giordano from Penn says that Repubs are voting for Obama as he is weakest candidate (recent statements etc not voting for him as they see the magic that is Obaam).  Giordano thinks it's exciting and wants to see exit polls.

    Prediction.... (none / 0) (#213)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:32:16 PM EST
    Authoritarian tyranny trounces freedom and liberty....100-0.

    Same prediction for November.

    I disagree with Halperin (none / 0) (#214)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:33:45 PM EST
    What a trite analysis that complete fails to confront the realities of this election.
    55.5 to 44.5 (none / 0) (#215)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:42:38 PM EST


    donna was just on (none / 0) (#221)
    by isaac on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:57:07 PM EST
    blitzen.  'they shoudnt have broken the rules, etc' re fl an mi.  said she didnt think they should be seated as is.  didnt disagree with wolf when he introduced her as being involved with the process

    Clinton 56-42 (none / 0) (#222)
    by Raven15 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:14:02 PM EST


    IMO Obama Pro's are media and Axelrod editorial (none / 0) (#223)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:18:11 PM EST
    dependent not Obama powers and they are not enough.  If Obama loses tonight after 6 weeks and outspending 3 or 4 to 1 with Dems its over IMO and I believe a contempt actually grows with the more time they get to know Obama that's why since Ohio I have always believed his advantage in money to be a plus for Clinton.
    Pro:

    Able to work with his staff and elevate his own performance to minimize the damage from errors and past controversies.

    Able to run a campaign every bit as negative as that of his rival -- and still convince voters and the media that he is running the kind of positive, truthful campaign he celebrates.

    (tie)

    Con:

    Unable to maintain a consistent tone and focus on the campaign trail, the debate stage, and interviews.

    65/35 Clinton/Obama (none / 0) (#224)
    by Nadai on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:21:02 PM EST
    A girl's gotta dream...

    Drudge says the exit poll (none / 0) (#225)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:34:14 PM EST
    is 52-48, but then that's Drudge

    PA Predictions Open Thread | 219 comments (219 topical)