The End of the Democrats?

[pBills]

Advisers are doing wonders right now for Bush right?

 

 

 

And your point? Things aren't going well. Not blaming Bush entirely, also blame his staff as well as some dems.

[Chilly]

I've never heard that. Link?

 

Nope, comes from my political parties class. If you look at the past couple presidential elections exit polls, however, they both are around that number.

[finknottle]

I do wonder about Hillary's supporters though. Will they actually vote for McCain over Obama? One poll that I have seen stated something like 52% said that they would not vote for Obama. That is just sad, and compares to the 20% of Obama supporters who would not vote for her.

 

I do think that is very probable. Where the media has it wrong, IMO, is in painting it as a consequence of hardening emotions in the Clinton-Obama fight. It's not pique - many of them genuinly consider McCain closer to their positions than Obama. These are the Reagan Democrats, and it is foolish to assume that they would vote Obama even if he had an uncontentious coronation. From right to left it goes McCain-Clinton-Obama. If there is one thing the Clinton's know, it is where the political center is. That 52% of Clinton's supporters feel closer to McCain than Obama just goes to show their accuracy, lol.

 

IMO the question is not whether they will support Obama in a general election (I'm thinking probably not), but rather would Clinton still hold them in an election against McCain (I thinking she generally would).

[erynthered]

And your point? Things aren't going well. Not blaming Bush entirely, also blame his staff as well as some dems.

 

 

You've made it for me Molson, errrrr....pBills.

[molson_golden2002]

I do think that is very probable. Where the media has it wrong, IMO, is in painting it as a consequence of hardening emotions in the Clinton-Obama fight. It's not pique - many of them genuinly consider McCain closer to their positions than Obama. These are the Reagan Democrats, and it is foolish to assume that they would vote Obama even if he had an uncontentious coronation. From right to left it goes McCain-Clinton-Obama. If there is one thing the Clinton's know, it is where the political center is. That 52% of Clinton's supporters feel closer to McCain than Obama just goes to show their accuracy, lol.

 

IMO the question is not whether they will support Obama in a general election (I'm thinking probably not), but rather would Clinton still hold them in an election against McCain (I thinking she generally would).

 

I think you are on to something there. Obama is much more liberal than Hillary is, at least in his rhetoric

[KD in CA]

I don't believe Obama will blame race if he loses now or in the general. Doesn't seem to be his style. If anything he would blame is inability to connect with some blue collar workers and the elderly who love Hillary.

 

Obama? No. Obama's supporters? Oh, hell yes.

 

If Hillary steals his rightful nomination, she's gonna have a hard time turning out the black and under 25 vote in November.

[jimshiz]

I wonder if those wishing for a 3rd party might get what they wish for this year? But, be careful what you wish for.

 

It seems like Obama has the tide on his side to get the DEM nomination. I don't see Hillary willing to be his VP; even though they'd crush the GOP if she did. Instead, being stubborn and unwilling to quit "for the good of the party", she could run as a 3rd party candidate. Thus, in Perot-style, handing the election gift-wrapped to McCain.

 

btw - I'm voting for Hillary in the IN primary on May 6.

[colin]

i think obama will win the nom.

 

i also think he is virtually unelectable in a national election against mccain. it all comes down to ohio and florida, and obama will get destroyed there.

 

i've got my money on mccain, and i think he'll walk away with it.

[pBills]

I believe Obama will and should get the Democratic nod. He should be able to beat McCain - tough election though. He is already proving that can get the independent vote as well as some of the republican swing voters. I also believe that blue-collar workers will rally behind him as the Democratic choice for President.

[colin]

I believe Obama will and should get the Democratic nod. He should be able to beat McCain - tough election though. He is already proving that can get the independent vote as well as some of the republican swing voters. I also believe that blue-collar workers will rally behind him as the Democratic choice for President.

 

 

he polls horribly in florida and ohio. he is popular with the accdemic big city set, and young people on the coasts and usualy blue states.

 

it all comes down to florida and ohio for the presidency. obama cannot beat mccain there. that's my lock pick!

[finknottle]

Obama? No. Obama's supporters? Oh, hell yes.

 

If Hillary steals his rightful nomination, she's gonna have a hard time turning out the black and under 25 vote in November.

 

Why is it his rightfull nomination again?

 

The nomination doesn't go to the candidate with the most delegates heading into the convention - if they wanted it that way they would have made it that way. Instead, it goes to the first candidate to get 2,024 delegates to vote for them on a ballot (a simple majority). If nobody has majority support going into the convention, you need to pursuade people to change their minds.

 

So by what right is Obama exempted from from having to get half the party behind him?

[PastaJoe]

No time to revote. They missed that opportunity. And with that being said they can't simply give Hillary the delegates - in no way would that be fair to Obama. So one would think to somewhat please the masses that screwed up their own fate - split the delegates.

 

There was time to have a revote in June, but Obama wouldn't agree to it so the proposals couldn't go forward. Include the popular votes in Florida and Michigan, and Hillary is ahead by about 133,000. He didn't want a revote because he figured he would lose by a larger margin than what happened in the first votes.

[Chilly]

There was time to have a revote in June, but Obama wouldn't agree to it so the proposals couldn't go forward. Include the popular votes in Florida and Michigan, and Hillary is ahead by about 133,000. He didn't want a revote because he figured he would lose by a larger margin than what happened in the first votes.

 

lol @ above

[PastaJoe]

lol @ above

 

You have another reason why "Mr Personality" didn't want to have a chance to convince the older and blue collar workers of Michigan and Florida to vote for him? Other than his message doesn't deal with the meat and potato issues they're concerned with?

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

There was time to have a revote in June, but Obama wouldn't agree to it so the proposals couldn't go forward. Include the popular votes in Florida and Michigan, and Hillary is ahead by about 133,000. He didn't want a revote because he figured he would lose by a larger margin than what happened in the first votes.

 

 

Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot. How could he lose by a larger margin? I love this new spin: If you add in the votes in the states where the votes didn't count, then Hillary moves ahead in the popular vote even though Hillary was the ONLY candidate on the Michigan ballot. She is not even ahead of Obama if they include Florida. And she is also very unlikely to end up with the popular vote even if she gets to keep the Florida votes. Her only chance of being able to say that she won the popular vote is by including a state where she was the ONLY candidate on the ballot. Yeah, that sounds fair.

 

In summary,

 

1. She can't possibly win the most delegates.

 

2. Unless Michigan is counted it is very unlikely that she will win the popular vote.

 

So at the end of the day, Clinton's argument to the superdelegates will be: No, I didn't win the most delegates. No, I didn't win the popular vote. But I still should be the nominee because I won certain states.

 

Yeah, that sounds like Democracy in action.

[finknottle]

You have another reason why "Mr Personality" didn't want to have a chance to convince the older and blue collar workers of Michigan and Florida to vote for him? Other than his message doesn't deal with the meat and potato issues they're concerned with?

 

The position of his proxies (in Florida, anyway) was that the number of votes he received should be weighted towards his national percentages - close to splitting the pot, or no deal. They kept this in play by obstructing any plans for a revote.

 

 

Obama should have let them go ahead and vote again. Old people really respond to messages of Change.

[finknottle]

Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot. How could he lose by a larger margin?

 

He can get less than Uncommitted did, which was where he and Edwards instructed their supporters to vote.

 

2. Unless Michigan is counted it is very unlikely that she will win the popular vote.

 

Not true. In fact, I'm becoming confident that while he will have the delegate lead at the nomination, she will have the popular vote by a comfortable margin, *even in the accounting scenario most favorable to Obama.*

 

Here's how it can play out. Obama gets a big win in NC, adding to his total. He has a big win in Montana/SD/whatever, but the number of voters is insignificant. He wins Oregon, but it's only by a few percentage points (mirroring the result in Washington).

 

Indiana is essentially a draw, the winner winning by only a few points.

 

Clinton gets big wins in Kentucky and WV. The totals are now pretty close. That leaves... Puerto Rico. I'm expecting a massive turnout of about 2 million people - how often do they have the opportunity to directly effect the political future of the US? And I think it very possible that Clinton wins by 25% - that nets her about 500,000.

 

You add this stuff up, give Obama votes for the four caucuses who didn't report their totals, leave out MI and FL, and Clinton is still ahead by a few hundred thousand.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

He can get less than Uncommitted did, which was where he and Edwards instructed their supporters to vote.

 

 

 

Not true. In fact, I'm becoming confident that while he will have the delegate lead at the nomination, she will have the popular vote by a comfortable margin, *even in the accounting scenario most favorable to Obama.*

 

Here's how it can play out. Obama gets a big win in NC, adding to his total. He has a big win in Montana/SD/whatever, but the number of voters is insignificant. He wins Oregon, but it's only by a few percentage points (mirroring the result in Washington).

 

Indiana is essentially a draw, the winner winning by only a few points.

 

Clinton gets big wins in Kentucky and WV. The totals are now pretty close. That leaves... Puerto Rico. I'm expecting a massive turnout of about 2 million people - how often do they have the opportunity to directly effect the political future of the US? And I think it very possible that Clinton wins by 25% - that nets her about 500,000.

 

You add this stuff up, give Obama votes for the four caucuses who didn't report their totals, leave out MI and FL, and Clinton is still ahead by a few hundred thousand.

 

According to this chart: Democratic Popular vote counts

 

If you give Obama the votes for the four caucuses and leave out MI and FL , Obama is ahead by 610,832. I don't see how Clinton can end up ahead by a few hundred thousand votes.

 

Some of the things I've seen show PR with a turnout of 900,000 - 1,000,000. Do you think that they will actually get 2 million votes? I read somewhere that there are 2.5 million eligible voters and another article talked about their polling places being able to handle 1,000,000 voters. The only poll I saw was on April 8th and Hillary was favored by 13%. Even if there were 2 million and she won by 25%, I still don't see how she can make up the 610,000.

 

Do you have a link to other info that contradicts the above link?

[finknottle]

According to this chart: Democratic Popular vote counts

 

If you give Obama the votes for the four caucuses and leave out MI and FL , Obama is ahead by 610,832. I don't see how Clinton can end up ahead by a few hundred thousand votes.

 

Some of the things I've seen show PR with a turnout of 900,000 - 1,000,000. Do you think that they will actually get 2 million votes? I read somewhere that there are 2.5 million eligible voters and another article talked about their polling places being able to handle 1,000,000 voters. The only poll I saw was on April 8th and Hillary was favored by 13%. Even if there were 2 million and she won by 25%, I still don't see how she can make up the 610,000.

 

Do you have a link to other info that contradicts the above link?

 

Puerto Rico has 4 million people and is heavily democratic. They had a turnout of 2 million people in 2004 to elect the govener and non-voting member of congress. The primary is open to anybody who did not already vote in the Republican primary held earlier. Given that this is perhaps the only time they have ever voted on anything meaningfull nationally, I can easily see turnout exceeding two million. And I think that a 25% spread is possible if not conservative. So a 500,000 net is reasonable.

 

Lets break the rest of the contests down based on current polling. I had to guess at the turnout and party membership - the info is spotty.

 

- Indiana: Most polls have Obama up 5%, some have Clinton by 10%. I think its in play. Suppose Obama wins by 1%. In 2004 1 million voters participated in the primaries, figure half (?) are democrats, so figure that the democratic turnout will be 750,000 voters, so Obama nets 7,500.

- North Carolina: April poll spreads, all in Obama's favor, are 25, 9, 11, 15, 20, 13, 21, 10, 23. Call it a 15 point win. I'm guessing a turnout of no more than 500,000, based on South Carolina's turnout. That gives Obama 75,000.

- West Virginia: Clinton looks like a 25% winner at this point, and I'm guessing turnout at 180,000, putting about 45,000 Clinton's way.

- Kentucky: Clinton looks like a 32% winner here, and I'm guessing turnout at about 400,000, putting 130,000 Clintons way.

- Oregon: Only one poll, with Obama 10% ahead. I'm guessing turnout at 250,000, netting 25,000 for Obama.

- Nebraska, Montana, South Dakota: who cares, the numbers are too low, and I can't be bothered to look it up. Call it a total swing of 20,000 in Obama's favor.

 

 

Adding these numbers, we see Clinton closing by 50,000 going into Puerto Rico, down by 550,000. But suppose she does a little better than expected and pulls a minor upset or two -

 

Wins Indiana by 8% - 60,000 to Clinton

Loses NC by only 10% - 50,000 to Obama

Wins WV by 25% - 45,000 to Clinton

Wins KY by 32% - 130,000 to Clinton

Loses OR by 10% - 25,000 to Obama

Loses rest: - 20,000 to Obama

Wins PR by 30% - 600,000 to Clinton

 

That comes to about 130,000 in Clintons favor

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Puerto Rico has 4 million people and is heavily democratic. They had a turnout of 2 million people in 2004 to elect the govener and non-voting member of congress. The primary is open to anybody who did not already vote in the Republican primary held earlier. Given that this is perhaps the only time they have ever voted on anything meaningfull nationally, I can easily see turnout exceeding two million. And I think that a 25% spread is possible if not conservative. So a 500,000 net is reasonable.

 

Lets break the rest of the contests down based on current polling. I had to guess at the turnout and party membership - the info is spotty.

 

- Indiana: Most polls have Obama up 5%, some have Clinton by 10%. I think its in play. Suppose Obama wins by 1%. In 2004 1 million voters participated in the primaries, figure half (?) are democrats, so figure that the democratic turnout will be 750,000 voters, so Obama nets 7,500.

- North Carolina: April poll spreads, all in Obama's favor, are 25, 9, 11, 15, 20, 13, 21, 10, 23. Call it a 15 point win. I'm guessing a turnout of no more than 500,000, based on South Carolina's turnout. That gives Obama 75,000.

- West Virginia: Clinton looks like a 25% winner at this point, and I'm guessing turnout at 180,000, putting about 45,000 Clinton's way.

- Kentucky: Clinton looks like a 32% winner here, and I'm guessing turnout at about 400,000, putting 130,000 Clintons way.

- Oregon: Only one poll, with Obama 10% ahead. I'm guessing turnout at 250,000, netting 25,000 for Obama.

- Nebraska, Montana, South Dakota: who cares, the numbers are too low, and I can't be bothered to look it up. Call it a total swing of 20,000 in Obama's favor.

 

 

Adding these numbers, we see Clinton closing by 50,000 going into Puerto Rico, down by 550,000. But suppose she does a little better than expected and pulls a minor upset or two -

 

Wins Indiana by 8% - 60,000 to Clinton

Loses NC by only 10% - 50,000 to Obama

Wins WV by 25% - 45,000 to Clinton

Wins KY by 32% - 130,000 to Clinton

Loses OR by 10% - 25,000 to Obama

Loses rest: - 20,000 to Obama

Wins PR by 30% - 600,000 to Clinton

 

That comes to about 130,000 in Clintons favor

 

In the first paragraph, you say that it is reasonable to guess that she will pick up 500,000 in PR and then in your recap you give her 600,000 and that puts her up by 130,000. So if we use your "reasonable" guess of 500,000, she would only be up by 30,000. Personally, I think that the above are quite optimistic on Hillary's part. Everything besides PR would need to be even and an absolutely huge win in PR would be needed to accomplish it.

 

Even if the above happens, she still wouldn't be able to close much of the gap in delegates.

 

Of course, if she doesn't meet the above, I'm sure that she will come up with some other rationale for her being the nominee.