Clinton leads PA 49-41, Obama getting only 30% white support, may bleed away 1/4 of Hill voters

[jackson_dem]

30%. Sound familiar? That is Jesse Jackson territory. You know why Jesse Jackson, despite amassing over 1,200 delegates and trouncing the likes of Gore, Simon, and Gephardt, was never seriously considered for the VP slot by Dukakis even though Jackson tried to get it and on the merits deserved it?

Obama is getting spanked among working folks, once again. People who need help can't gamble on mere words like "hope and change."

Time, a pro-Obama rag, contains a lie. It implies Obama won the white vote earlier in the year. He did so in a handful of states. Nationally he has always lost that vote, along with Latinos, Asians, and Native American. Do the math. His popular vote lead is 2.6% minus FL and MI. He gets a net gain of 14% from African Americans. That means he loses everyone else by 11%...This is something that will not be lost on superdelegates. Why this even matters is the simple fact general election demographics are not the same as primary demographics. The reason it never came up before is every past Democratic nominee in the current multiracial era built a broad based coalition and didn't have such a glaring iceberg sitting in the path of general election victory. The other reason it is popping up is Obama has been struggling with this group ever since he became the front runner (the same thing happened to Jackson when he took the lead in 1988). He got 34% in Ohio, even after getting boosted by rethugs and indies (he got only 27% of white Democrats), 44% in Texas (again inflated by rethugs and indies voting for him. He got 37% among white Democrats), and just 21% in Mississippi.


The hard mathematical reality

To put it simply, in order for a Democratic nominee be elected president h/she will need at least 43% of the white vote (the reason this bloc gets so much ink is because it is a massive group that comprised 77% of the electorate in 2004), at least 70% of the black vote, and at least 60% of the Latino/Asian/Native American vote. These are bare minimums. Kerry lost the popular vote by 3% despite winning 41%, 89%, and 53% respectively from whites, blacks, and Latinos respectively.

Let's do an exercise. Let's estimate 74% of the electorate will be white, 13% black (generous to Obama. This assumes he will increase black turnout from 11% to 13%.), 9% Latino, 2% Asian, and 2% "other". Again, being generous to Obama, assume he can get an extra 6% of the black vote. Give him 95%. Gore won Latinos 62-35 but Kerry won them only 53-44. Obama is up against a rethug who is probably more popular with Latinos than Bush was in 2004. Let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt again, though, and say he will win Latinos 59-41. Kerry won Asians 56-44. I see no reason why Obama can't improve on that. Let's give him 60%. Kerry won "other" 54-40. Since a large portion of that includes Americans of Middle Eastern descent, the only other ethnic group Obama wins besides his own (unfortunately this group is only 0.3-0.4% of the population), let's give Obama 60% of the "other" category. All of this brings him to 20.06%. Even under this very pro-Obama scenario he needs to carry 40.5% of the white vote. Essentially, he needs to keep all of the whites who voted for Kerry. Realistically he will probably need about 43%. Sounds easy, Wright? No. Gore won 44% of the major party vote in 2000 among this group. Even Clinton, who won comfortably nationally, won only 48% of the two party vote among this group in 1996. (I use two party vote to factor out Perot and Nader) Obama isn't going to get 48%, nor would Clinton for that matter since this election will be a lot closer than 1996 was.

-snip-

Backed by more than half of all white female Democrats, Hillary Clinton holds a six point lead over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania, a new statewide poll by TIME reveals. When leaners — voters who have not firmly decided whom to vote for but are leaning one way or the other — are added in, Clinton's six point lead grows to eight points, 49% to 41%.

-snip-

There also appears to be a measure of deep anti-Obama sentiment in Clinton's Keystone State coalition. Roughly a quarter of Clinton voters — 26%, the poll found — say they "would be more likely" to vote for John McCain in the general election if Obama is eventually the Democratic nominee. By contrast, only 16% of Obama's backers report they would be likely to vote for McCain if Clinton emerged as the party's nominee.

Though Obama won majorities of white voters earlier in the primary season, he has struggled more recently to maintain those margins, and that trend appears to be holding in Pennsylvania. Obama is getting the votes of 80% of the state's black Democrats but only 30% of white voters. Clinton is winning only 8% of blacks, but is backed by 51% of the white voters. Some 8% of whites and 12% of blacks are undecided.

-snip-

A similar pattern can be seen in how Keystone Democrats of differing incomes regard the two candidates. Some 55% of white Democrats who make less than $55,000 back Clinton in Pennsylvania, while only 22% in that financial bracket favor Obama. Above $50,000, the state's white Democrats split almost evenly: 45% support Clinton and 41% are backing Obama.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1729500,00.html

[GarbagemanLB]

1. and yet Hillary needs to win PA by 20+ to have a shot...only 8?

[bowens43]

2. She can win PA and it will have no effect on the nomination.

She's through.

[jackson_dem]

8. If Obama can't prove to the supers that he can get enough white support it will have an effect

He needs to at least get into the 40's in PA and the upcoming states. Right now he is in the 20's or 30's in each upcoming state where there is polling, with the exception of Oregon.

[thevoiceofreason]

57. And your authority is?

[rodeodance]

The primary job of SD is to choose a cand. with BEST chance in GE-

[barb162]

171. Now if only they'll see that as their job HRC will clinch the nomination

[DemVet]

116. Common Sense.

[Hawkeye-X]

125. Common sense tells me one thing.

Obama has won 30 states at Hillary's 14. Obama has 1,419 delegates to Hillary's 1,250. The numbers gets bigger and bigger for Hillary to overcome - as a matter of fact, Obama is now just under 210 more SD endorsements before Hillary has zero chance AT ALL of winning anything.

Common sense tells me that she's already heavily in the red, and has not paid her vendors since Iowa, and UC-Davis is already waiting for their monies or they'll sic the creditors to Hillary's campaign by May 10th, which also brings more bad news for Clinton - and shows clearly that she is not capable of being under finanacial control - Obama has very, very little debt to carry as of today - just under 700,000 and over 40 million dollars on hand, and already spending 2.2M a day advertising in PA - which he can very easily afford since he raises about 1.1M a day.

How much is Hillary raising a day? How much did she raise for that Elton John concert? 2M? 3M? Still in the hole.

Hawkeye-X

[BzaDem]

139. It tells me one thing as well.

You don't care if Obama loses the GE, as long as Clinton doesn't get the nomination.

[Hawkeye-X]

143. Actually I do care, and Obama will win the nomination

I've already posted several scenarios which Obama will win, and he'll win about 290+ EV's.

And of course, you being the ignorant person, you don't give a shit. I'll just wait and see you either 1) declare your support for Obama once he's the nominee or 2) become a granite pizza by default.

Hawkeye-X

[PseudoIntellect]

145. zlt is the person who said Obama had a 5% chance of winning the GE, right?

Rofl at that.

[DemVet]

212. Common Sense also tells me...

...Obama can't win the Nomination before the convention...he won't have the required 2025 delegates. Then the nomination is up for grabs, particulary if Hillary is leading in the popular vote(which is VERY possible) and Obama doesn't start doing better with white, working class voters.

[PoliticalAmazon]

121. SDs may vote against HRC based on her actions during her campaign...

That alone may be enough to make them decide that she is incompetent to be a Democratic president.

[rockymountaindem]

137. Then how did he win in Iowa, Colorado, Wyoming, etc?

[Hippo_Tron]

140. Rockymountaindem, where have you been? Those states don't count

[rockymountaindem]

142. How foolish of me to forget n/t

[jackson_dem]

164. Jesse Jackson won Alaska and Vermont. Why didn't he get the VP position which he deserved on merit?

It is because he did poorly among whites nationally.

[Hippo_Tron]

210. Jesse Jackson didn't win Missouri, Wisconsin, Maryland, and Connecticut

We get it... you think Obama can only appeal to college students and African Americans and therefore he's not a viable national candidate.

[jackson_dem]

163. You cherrypick three states out of 42. Is that what O will do in the GE? "Win" with 3 states?

His tanking began in March anyway--although he was losing the white, Latino, Asian, and Native American vote even prior to March. He got 34% in Ohio, 21% in Idaho. Wyoming was a caucus with almost no turnout. There are no caucuses in the general election and superdelegates recognize this.

Do the simple math yourself. He wins blacks 85-15 on average. That gives him a 14% cushion in Dem primaries (17-3). His popular vote lead, minus FL and MI, is 2.6%. Do the math--and it has been a lot worse for him since Wisconsin, as noted up thread (he lost Latinos in Texas 66-32).

[Arkana]

138. WHITE PEOPLE

[barb162]

167. It sure looks like he's not getting very great white support.

He can't win the GE. He should just drop out already.

[PoliticalAmazon]

112. If she wins PA she'll declare she won the primary and start pushing the DNC...

...to annoint her the Democratic Party slot on the November ballot.

[barb162]

162. She'll win PA big and it will have a huge effect at the convention

Sh'll have momentum too. If Obama has a hard time getting certain large voting blocs and large states, he won' win the GE.

[Ilithiad]

196. I agree....

The DNC's decision will be about demographics not popular vote or who lied or whatever...Hillary has proven she can win big states the states that really matter. They will take the into consideration...I would not pay too much attention to media polls about anything especially ones from cnn who is biased against hillary and biased for obama.

[SoCalDem]

207. Yep.. it was OVER after Wisconsin.. Most people who can do math knew it

but as long as people send her money, she's going to keep on flogging that dead horse :)

Pathetic, but hey.. it's a free country.. I just hope that the suppliers from here on in, demand cash from her rich husband :)

[book_worm]

3. Alright! Hillary's lead is under double-digits!! GOBAMA!!!!!

[barb162]

170. I'd say Nobama with these numbers in the OP

[leftofcool]

4. But...but, he is supposed to sweep the states in the GE

his supporters say so

[TheWraith]

76. And so he shall.

If you really think that we're going to lose New York or Pennsylvania because the person who won them in the primary isn't on the ticket, then there's nothing I can do to help you.

[DemVet]

117. Let's all cheer now...."Yes he can."

:eyes:

[jenmito]

That includes "those leaning towards Hillary." Without leaners, it's a 6 point lead. n/t

[chill factor]

79. There is more....

CNN just anounced that Clinton's lead is down to 4%. Another blogger has more poll stats posted in the dicussion board that shows Senator Obama tied or within 4%-6% points of Hillary. She needs to take 65% of the vote in PA and at least 64% in the remainder primary states. That is not going to happen.

[jenmito]

119. Thanks for that info.! Let the people keep thinking Hillary will win in a landslide...

then, when it doesn't happen, Obama will look even stronger!

[kmsarvis]

155. THIS POST IS MISLEADING.....

HE ROUNDS OBAMAS WHITE SUPPORT TOTAL DOWN 3%, FROM 33% TO 30%,AND DOESN'T MENTION THAT CLINTON ONLY HAS A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF OF THE WHITE SUPPORT,56%.

[goldcanyonaz]

5. Very troubling. We don't need PA this November. We're gonna win North Dakota and Utah instead.

[PBS Poll-435]

10. And the Obama Supporters

Are excited about getting the EVs from the U.S. Virgin Islands! They are just gonna crush McCain!

Plus...you forgot about Wyoming.

[goldcanyonaz]

15. Montana too!

[PBS Poll-435]

17. But they can forget about

Guam...


:rofl::rofl

[Changenow]

70. How does McCain poll against Hillary

in Pennsylvania, and nationally, as compared to Obama.

If you are right that she is can beat McCain, produce something other than your hope. It doesnt necessarily follow that she will win the states whose primary she won, where did that faith originate?

[PoliticalAmazon]

124. HRC's focus on trying to find scenarios where she can win and ...

...gaming the system, according to Howard Fineman on MSNBC last night, is making her look desperate and is not going to reassure voters that she can lead the country.

My opinion: She acts destabilized and unable to focus on the issues at hand. She jumps from scenario to scenario, from policy to policy, and from idea to stealing others' ideas. She demonizes Obama and his supporters for having hopes and dreams, then turns around and steals the phrasing for her own use.

At this point she looks worse than Bush Jr did on his worst day as president. Bush Jr was more focused in his primary, BY FAR, than Hillary Clinton has been.

I predict that if Hillary was to win the White House, we would soon yearn for the good old days of presidential competency under Bush Jr, because if she is degenerating under the pressure of campaigning alone, we can just imagine what the pressure of being president would do to her.

[chill factor]

81. Utah governor endorsed Senator Obama today.......

[ElsewheresDaughter]

216. Obama math

[Nedsdag]

6. Let me guess:

You're sitting on your ass come Election Day, right?

Do me a big favor. Stop bringing up Jesse Jackson in comparison to Obama. It's not working. Just because your candidate is trailing doesn't mean you have to shit all over her opponent.

[goldcanyonaz]

9. Next time a woman runs, Hillary will be used as a comparision.

We've never been in this territory before.

[jackson_dem]

12. Exactly and JJ is a great man. Too bad the nation was too racist to elect JJ in 88'

Just like Al Smith was used as a comparison for JFK and Romney will be the comparison for the next Mormon who runs.

[Nedsdag]

32. Next time a woman runs, she'll win.

Unlike Hillary.

[goldcanyonaz]

59. Don't bet on it, and don't bet the farm on November either.

[PoliticalAmazon]

115. It will be more difficult for a woman to run, thanks to HRC's behavior. n/t

[DerekJ]

7. Awesome news... Thanks for letting us know,

[galaxy21]

14. Even if Obama does show a decrease in white support, he won't lose the nomination

I know it will be a concern for super delegates, but there is no way they are going to take the nomination from Obama and give it to Clinton when he has more delegates and popular votes.

Firstly, it would alienate the black votes. Many would leave the party and never come back for a generation. Young people would feel angry as well,


Put it this way, even if the dems do think Obama will lose, they won't deny him the nomination. Losing one election is nothing compared to the damage it would do to deny the first black candidate the nomination.

[jackson_dem]

19. Those are Obama's aces in the holes. It may come down to what the supers prefer

Winning in 2012 or not gambling (it is unclear whether the scenario above would actually happen if the supers give it to Clinton) on doing some long-term damage to the party? It is a shame. Maybe Obama should spare the party such a difficult, no win situation...

[galaxy21]

29. No he shouldn't

He's ahead in the popular vote for a reason.

He may have a decrease in the white vote, but he can get that back. However, he'll need a few months to do this.Which is why arguably Hillary shouldrealise its inevitable and give him the time he needs to rehabilite his image.

But, yeah, asking Obama to quit when he has the lead in delegates and popular vote makes no sense whatsoever.

[MattBaggins]

51. And so it finally rears its ugly head

Get back to the back of the bus eh? Don't fight for him or even consider how the problem could be tackled; just give up and go with the status quo. Even though Obama has the majority all his supporters should shut up and sit down because you choose to race bait as a method to instill FUD. You have crossed over the line into pathetic.

[Ilithiad]

198. very possible

however you are forgetting florida....If obama is nominee and not hillary as running mate florida will decide the GE. Obama's statements about concerns over a revote has I am sure insulted many floridians and they will not hesitate to vote for masame since florida is traditionally a red state.

[Citizen Kang]

11. Back to your favorite pasttime?

You loves you some race-baiting, dontcha?

The basic premise behind every one of your posts is "Obama can't win because he is black" "He only gets 30% of the white vote in this particular poll, therefore he will only get 30% of the white vote nationally". You cherrypick polls that support this premise while ignoring polls that don't. Its been your MO for quite some time.

Its sickening. I hope other people start calling you out on your racist bullshit.

[jackson_dem]

16. It isn't because he is black. He loses Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans too

It is because he is a flawed candidate, chiefly because he has no experience.

You, like a typical _____, yap your gums without reading the OP. He will get more than 30% if he is the nominee. Can he get to 43%, though? That is the magic number and if he keeps getting 23-36% of the white vote everywhere the rest of the way the supers will use some common sense. He needs to get into the 40's to at least in the primaries.

[Citizen Kang]

27. Really?

Proof. I just went over to RealClearPolitics.com. There poll of polls has Obama leading McCain by .6% and McCain beating Clinton by 1.6%.

There must be a lot more black people in America than I thought if no whites, latinos, asians, native americans are voting for Obama.

I'll say it again, your race-baiting bullshit that only blacks will vote for Obama has no basis in reality.

[jackson_dem]

You must be illiterate or something

He doesn't need to win the white vote. No Dem does. He needs 43%.

What is happening is Obama loses everyone else by 11% but he wins blacks 85-15 nationally. That gives him 14%. Hence his 2.6% popular vote lead minus FL and MI.

[dchill]

38. No, it ISN'T because he's black.

But you really think it is, don't you? You'll still be riding this horse into Puerto Rico. If it doesn't throw you (and Hillary) before then.

[PetraPooh]

132. He may be flawed, as in no one is perfect. But you? Well, you're

just a disgraceful supporter of a disgraceful candidate.

[leftofcool]

22. You can scream racism all you want

but polls are polls. You don't have to believe them. If your Lord and savior wins the nomination and loses the GE because of the white vote, then you will know the poll was right. If he wins, then it was wrong. Find a poll that says Obama is getting 60% of the white vote and post it and stop whining

[jackson_dem]

24. Obamites are more interested in the messiah than keeping McSame out the White House

Notice how none of them can explain how Obama can get the necessary 43-45% of the white vote any Democrat would need to win in 2008.

[leftofcool]

61. I know and I wish they would find me a poll that says

he will get that much support. I hate to burst their hopeful bubble but the reality is, racism is alive and well in America. You can't stop it, or go around it. We have to deal with it. Obama has to deal with it.

[jackson_dem]

74. It isn't just racism. He loses Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans too

He is just a very flawed candidate.

[chill factor]

91. okay here are some stats - every scenario covered - both weighed and unweighed stats.

Math done by DU mathematician. I expect the next numbers will be out after PA.


Advertisements
THE MATH – Monday, March 31 – After Texas Counties

6:00 p.m. Eastern Time (US)

Delegates needed to win nomination – 2,023.5 (considering status quo)
Pledged Delegates in – 2,669.0 of 3,235.0 – 82.5%

********************************************

THE MAGIC NUMBER

Here’s what we have after considering the information in the Polls section below:

Senator Obama’s Magic Number – 88 of 310 remaining superdelegates needed, or 28.4%
Senator Clinton’s Magic Number – 241 of 310 remaining superdelegates needed, or 77.7%

The Huckabee Index – 69 or 22.3% of remaining superdelegates needed

The “Huckabee Index” is the number of any combination of superdelegates and convention/caucus delegates that the Obama campaign needs (or the Clinton campaign loses) to make it mathematically impossible for the Clinton campaign to win the nomination, based on current delegate count and polls for upcoming contests. (Disclaimer: This is meant to poke fun at Mike Huckabee, not Hillary Clinton)

Details in spreadsheet: http://www.box.net/shared/gr4wooy040

********************************************

TOTAL DELEGATES

Estimated Total Delegates as of March 31:
Hillary Clinton – 1,505.5 (518.0 short)
Barack Obama – 1,646.5 (377.0 short)
Remaining Delegates – 877.0
(Sources: NBC, Wikipedia 3/31/08)
Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democr...

SUPERDELEGATES

Superdelegates (highest reported for each candidate):
Hillary Clinton – 255 (Source: NBC 3/31/08)
Barack Obama – 228 (Source: NBC 3/31/08 plus NC-6)
Remaining Superdelegates – 311

PLEDGED DELEGATES

Estimated Pledged Delegates as of March 31:
Hillary Clinton – 1,250.5
Barack Obama – 1,418.5
Remaining Pledged Delegates – 566.0
(Source: Wikipedia 3/31/08)

OVERALL CONTESTS WON

Hillary Clinton – 15
Barack Obama – 30

PRIMARIES WON

Hillary Clinton – 12
Barack Obama – 16

CAUCUSES WON

Hillary Clinton – 3
Barack Obama – 14

BLUE AND RED STATES WON

Hillary Clinton – 6 Blue, 8 Red
Barack Obama – 11 Blue, 16 Red

POPULAR VOTE (for informational purposes only)

Total weighted* popular vote as of March 31:
Barack Obama – 15,802,692 (+1,755,095)
Hilary Clinton – 14,047,597
*Weighted popular vote adds primary votes and 5.5:1 skew of caucus votes

Status Quo unweighted as of March 31:
Barack Obama – 13,679,402 (+821,164)
Hillary Clinton – 12,858,238
(Source: Wikipedia 3/31/08)

Primaries only (Status Quo) as of March 31:
Barack Obama – 13,208,232 (+614,296)
Hillary Clinton – 12,593,936

Caucuses only weighted* popular vote as of March 31:
Barack Obama – 2,594,460 (+1,140,799)
Hilary Clinton – 1,453,661
*Weighted popular vote adds primary votes and 5.5:1 skew of caucus votes

Caucuses only (Status Quo) unweighted total caucus votes as of March 31:
Barack Obama – 471,170 (+206,868 caucus votes)
Hillary Clinton – 264,302
(IA,NV,AK,AS,CO,ID,KS,MN,NM,ND,NE,VI,WA*,ME,HI,TX*,WY,Guam)

With Florida only added, weighted as of March 31:
Barack Obama – 16,378,906 (+1,460,323)
Hillary Clinton – 14,918,583

With Florida only added, unweighted as of March 31:
Barack Obama – 14,255,616 (+526,392)
Hillary Clinton – 13,729,224

With Michigan only added, weighted as of March 31*:
Barack Obama – 15,802,692 (+1,426,786)
Hillary Clinton – 14,375,906
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn’t on the ballot)

With Michigan only added, unweighted as of March 31*:
Barack Obama – 13,679,402 (+492,855)
Hillary Clinton – 13,186,547
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn’t on the ballot)

With Florida AND Michigan added, weighted as of March 31*:
Barack Obama – 16,378,906 (+1,132,014)
Hillary Clinton – 15,246,892
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn’t on the ballot)

With Florida AND Michigan added, unweighted as of March 31*:
Barack Obama – 14,255,616 (+198,083)
Hillary Clinton – 14,057,533
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn’t on the ballot)

********************************************

SUPERDELEGATES NEEDED IF REMAINING PLEDGED DELEGATES ARE 50/50 SPLIT

All scenarios (2 through 9) showing Florida or Michigan being seated as is or holding new elections have been removed.

Hillary Clinton needs #/% of remaining superdelegates if remaining pledged is 50/50:
1. Status Quo – Clinton needs 236 of 311, or 75.7% of remaining SDs
10. FL Half-count, MI not seated – Clinton needs 232 of 312, or 74.2% of remaining SDs
11. FL not seated, MI Compromise – Clinton needs 224 of 323, or 69.2% of remaining SDs
12. FL Half-count, MI Compromise – Clinton needs 220 of 324, or 67.7% of remaining SDs

Barack Obama needs #/% of remaining superdelegates if remaining pledged is 50/50:
1. Status Quo – Obama needs 95 of 311, or 30.4% of remaining SDs
10. FL Half-count, MI not seated – Obama needs 112 of 312, or 35.7% of remaining SDs
11. FL not seated, MI Compromise – Obama needs 99 of 323, or 30.5% of remaining SDs
12. FL Half-count, MI Compromise – Obama needs 116 of 324, or 35.6% of remaining SDs

The “Florida Half-count” would net 52.5 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 33.5 pledged delegates for Senator Obama. The “Michigan Compromise” would net 83.0 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 73.0 pledged delegates for Senator Obama.

********************************************

SUPERDELEGATES NEEDED IF REMAINING PLEDGED DELEGATES ARE 55/45 CLINTON

All scenarios (2 through 9) showing Florida or Michigan being seated as is or holding new elections have been removed.

Hillary Clinton needs #/% of remaining superdelegates if remaining pledged is 55/45:
1. Status Quo – Clinton needs 207 of 311, or 66.4% of remaining SDs
10. FL Half-count, MI not seated – Clinton needs 203 of 312, or 64.9% of remaining SDs
11. FL not seated, MI Compromise – Clinton needs 195 of 323, or 60.2% of remaining SDs
12. FL Half-count, MI Compromise – Clinton needs 191 of 324, or 58.8% of remaining SDs

Barack Obama needs #/% of remaining superdelegates if remaining pledged is 55/45:
1. Status Quo – Obama needs 124 of 311, or 39.7% of remaining SDs
10. FL Half-count, MI not seated – Obama needs 141 of 312, or 45.0% of remaining SDs
11. FL not seated, MI Compromise – Obama needs 128 of 323, or 39.5% of remaining SDs
12. FL Half-count, MI Compromise – Obama needs 145 of 324, or 44.6% of remaining SDs

The “Florida Half-count” would net 52.5 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 33.5 pledged delegates for Senator Obama. The “Michigan Compromise” would net 83.0 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 73.0 pledged delegates for Senator Obama.

*********************************************

FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN SCENARIOS REGARDING PLEDGED DELEGATES

These are the possible scenarios concerning Florida and Michigan, and what it would require for Senator Clinton to catch up to Senator Obama in pledged delegates. These scenarios are for pledged delegates only. Superdelegate counts are not included. The presumption here is that most remaining superdelegates will support the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates from the state and territory contests. (Note: All scenarios (2 through 9) showing Florida or Michigan being seated as is or holding new elections have been removed.)

The “Florida Half-count” would net 52.5 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 33.5 pledged delegates for Senator Obama. The “Michigan Compromise” would net 83.0 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 73.0 pledged delegates for Senator Obama.

The current status quo is: Neither Florida nor Michigan’s slate of delegates are seated. (See more below this section for information about what the “status quo” is)

Scenario 1 – Status Quo (without Florida and Michigan)
CLINTON NEEDS 64.8%, OBAMA NEEDS 35.2%, in all remaining contests

Scenario 10 – Florida Half-count, Michigan not seated
CLINTON NEEDS 63.2%, OBAMA NEEDS 36.8%, in all remaining contests

Scenario 11 – Florida not seated, Michigan Compromise
CLINTON NEEDS 64.0%, OBAMA NEEDS 36.0%, in all remaining contests

Scenario 12 – Florida Half-count, Michigan Compromise
CLINTON NEEDS 62.3%, OBAMA NEEDS 37.7%, in all remaining contests

********************************************

POLLS FOR UPCOMING CONTESTS, USED TO DERIVE THE “MAGIC NUMBER”

Polls have been released for some of the upcoming contests. Where no polls are available, I have marked it as “No Poll” and used a 50/50 calculation for that contest’s pledged delegates. Obviously this information will change, and I plan on updating these calculations whenever we have new or updated polls.

Pennsylvania (April 22)
American Research Group (3/27) has Senator Clinton at +12.0%
http://americanresearchgroup.com /

Guam (May 3)
No Poll

Indiana (May 6)
USA Election Polls (2/18) has Senator Obama at +15.0% (This was after Super Tuesday)
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/indiana.html

North Carolina (May 6)
Public Policy Polling (3/31) has Senator Obama at +18.0%
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_0331...

West Virginia (May 13)
Rasmussen Reports (3/20) has Senator Clinton at +28.0%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics...

Kentucky (May 20)
No Poll

Oregon (May 20)
Outdated Poll (before Super Tuesday)

Puerto Rico (June 1)
No Poll

Montana (June 3)
Outdated Poll (before Super Tuesday)

South Dakota (June 3)
No Poll

If anyone has links to new or more recent polls, please share. Thanks!

********************************************

MEMO FROM DNC DATED MARCH 5 REGARDING FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN

This is quoted here to show the current “Status Quo” used in the figures above.

Democratic National Committee’s official stance on Florida and Michigan as of March 5, in a press release from Howard Dean:

"We're glad to hear that the Governors of Michigan and Florida are willing to lend their weight to help resolve this issue. As we've said all along, we strongly encourage the Michigan and Florida state parties to follow the rules, so today's public overtures are good news. The rules, which were agreed to by the full DNC including representatives from Florida and Michigan over 18 months ago, allow for two options. First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which determines and resolves any outstanding questions about the seating of delegates. We look forward to receiving their proposals should they decide to submit new delegate selection plans and will review those plans at that time. The Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules, and out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game.”

Source: http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/03/dean_statement_45.ph...

(emphasis mine)

********************************************

BROKERED CONVENTION

Feel free to share your thoughts and concerns about a possible brokered convention this year. I’d love to hear thoughtful conversation from all sides.

Link here from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention

********************************************

OFFICIAL DELEGATE SELECTION RULES FOR THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION

The link below takes you to the pdf file from the Democratic Party with the official rules for this year’s primary season.

Link here from democrats.org:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743...

.

********************************************

Links to the spreadsheets (feel free to download and create your own scenarios):
1 – Current Figures: http://www.box.net/shared/bmi4rvqscs
2 – Magic Numbers: http://www.box.net/shared/gr4wooy040

********************************************

[PoliticalAmazon]

122. Give it up. Hillary has more people hating her now than ever. She cannot win. n/t

[PetraPooh]

133. All polls show Obama doing BETTER against McSame than Clinton;

so what difference does your 43-45% make?

[PseudoIntellect]

147. Shhhhhh...you're using facts!

[Citizen Kang]

40. OK

since we are cherry picking states here, lets look at Wisconsin. Lots of white folks there.

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=8146704

Obama wins by 4%, Clinton loses by 4%

Hillary can't win without Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Colorado. All states where Obama beats McCain and Hillary loses. All states with lots of white folks.

Yet you want to make claims to Obama's appeal to whites based on one poll in one state that says white folks there won't vote for Obama.

Nationally, Obama is polling better than Clinton against McCain. Obviously, Obama is getting more than 30% of the white vote nationally.

To use this poll as proof is race-baiting in its highest form.

[leftofcool]

52. Find me a poll that says Obama is getting more than 30%

of the white vote he will need for the GE. Not a state, a national poll. You do realize that there are 50 states of people who will be voting?

[jackson_dem]

56. How much electoral votes does WI have? Pennsylvania has 21, Ohio 20, Florida 27, MI 17, NJ 15, MA 13

Obamites think the electoral college is like the Senate.

[Citizen Kang]

106. You must be illiterate

Because I also stated that Hillary loses the following states to McCain while Obama wins these states:

Wisconsin (glad you can read that)
Iowa
Oregon
Washington
Colorado
Nevada
New Mexico
Minnesota


Those are mostly white states. These are also states that the Democratic nominee must win to be president. I am challenging your incredibly flawed, illogical, race-baiting assumption that Obama can't win enough white voters to win the nomination. I am also pointing out that Hillary is MUCH LESS ELECTABLE THAN OBAMA, based on the polls in these states.

You have nothing that disputes my points, so you continue to dodge them.

[Hawkeye-X]

127. I can guarantee that Obama will carry Colorado. He carried Colorado in the primaries

very easily, true, we had the caucus, but it was a huge one, 64% to 36%.

We also have downticket Democrat races going on here in the state, and we all think Obama will do very well in helping Colorado turn blue. Hillary will not.

Hawkeye-X

[Alcibiades]

169. That's raising the bar awfully high

Can your candidate get 60% of the white vote in the GE?

[XemaSab]

211. I don't have a POLL but if you look at the states he's won

He's won some LILY white states by HUGH margins.

80% of democrats in Idaho can't be wrong. :P

[WinkyDink]

214. Did he win them against McCain?

[BeyondGeography]

13. Jesse Jackson territory...Does that make Hillary Gloria Steinem

whenever we show a cherry-picked poll with her losing the male vote to McCain by over 20 points.?

[jackson_dem]

21. When did Steinem run for president? What percentage of the vote did she get?

Her weakness among men is as factor--and has been used by hypocritical Obamites. Fortunately, she offsets it with strength among women. Where is Obama going to offset getting only 40% of the white vote? By getting 90% of the black vote and winning Latinos? Been there, done that. Walter Mondale anyone?

[wileedog]

26. Useless numbers

60% of white Democrats are not going to vote for McCain in the GE over Obama.

Stop already.

[jackson_dem]

33. Of course not but 20-25% might. Those are Mondale numbers...

[kmsarvis]

161. 20-25% OF WHITE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN!!

NOT THIS TIME!!!

[jackson_dem]

181. That is what Mondale thought too...

[BeyondGeography]

28. RCP has Obama slightly up and Hillary slightly down in the GE

so thanks again for wasting our time with your prejudices.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[jackson_dem]

36. BeyondReality

That extra vote comes from Obama losing by less in red states. YES WE CAN (lose Wyoming by only 14 instead of 23!)!!! In the states that will be decisive he struggles.

[BeyondGeography]

42. I remember that argument from last night's debunked thread on the same topic

:boring:

[bhikkhu]

183. And expect it tomorrow, and the next day, and the next...

as a rule, check the facts and they don't support the OP.

[wileedog]

18. And once again you make the false assumption

that primaries have anything to do with the GE.

Or do you really think these people who need economic respite so desperately are going to turn to "economically illiterate" McCain in the GE over Obama?

[leftofcool]

23. Yep

[MidwestTransplant]

30. Exactly. Just like Hillary is getting so little of the black vote. If she won, she would be up to

near Obama numbers among black voters. This is about preference between 2 candidates, not WHO you will vote for in the GE.

[jackson_dem]

37. Wrong. GE polling shows Clinton may lose some black votes if nominated

Just like Obama would lose some whites. So let's do the math. What is 20% of 73%? What is 20% of 10%?

If the supers give it to Clinton I can see McSame winning up to 30% of the black vote. If Obama wins I can see Obama losing 20-25% of white Democrats. These are factors the supers will be looking at.

[MattBaggins]

67. If the SDs give it to Clinton

because of this so called white vote problem, McCain will get more than 30% of the black vote. Many of us will work our butts off to see that he does.

[jackson_dem]

75. supers will crunch the numbers

Right now Obama loses far more whites than Clinton loses among blacks. Still they might conclude it is better long-term to have Obama lose in 2012 and keep the traditional level of black support than to nominate Clinton, win, but lose a significant slice of the black vote for a generation.

[onenote]

84. and the polls show HRC losing many independent voters that Obama gets

Black, white, yellow, whatever hue shade color pigment you want -- independent voters are important and HRC tanks with them, big time.

[woolldog]

134. And how is Clinton going to win PA without significant numbers of AA

in Philly?

How is Clinton going to win the GE without Wisconisn, Oregon+Washington, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Ohio?

How will Clinton win MI and OH without significant support from AAs? OH and MI are states with AA populations that vote heavily democratic (75+%), in good numbers, states where Democratic candidates have in the past barely won or lost by thin margins. In 2004 we won Michigan by a mere 160K votes. Same with Ohio in 2000.

How will Clinton win without being at least competitive in states like MO, VA, CO, NV, IA???

[kmsarvis]

165. IF THE SUPERS GIVE IT TO CLINTON I CAN SEE........

ABOUT 50% OF THE NEW REGISTERED DEMOCRATS NOT SHOWING UP.

[jackson_dem]

31. You did not read the OP

You are saying Obama will get more of the white vote than Kerry did?

It isn't just primaries. GE polling shows 20-23% of white Democrats will not vote for Obama. To assuage fears of this Obama needs to show he can crack the 40's against Clinton or else the supers may flee him.

Many folks think Obama is not experienced enough to be president. Some of them will vote for McSame over Obama and this is a reality.

What was Bush's economic record? He still beat Kerry by 3 million. Voters are not that economically rational. Have you read "What's the Matter With Kansas"?

[wileedog]

41. And just as many people

who think Obama may not have experience can't stand Hillary or the Clintons.

And certainly nothing will energize a completely demoralized Republican base like putting up a Clinton who has already pissed off half the Democratic party to boot. Just look at the current fundraising totals for Mcain, they are awful. But put up Hillary and it will triple overnight.

Her nomination would be a complete disaster, and may be the only way McCain could win.

All of which has nothing to do with you trying to spin primary numbers as somehow meaningful in the GE, when you are obviously smart enough to know they are not.

If you want to talk about GE polling numbers, fine do so. They are completely irrelevant in April, but by all means knock yourself out.

[jackson_dem]

46. They are both flawed but we kicked Edwards out and are stuck with them

Which one is more likely to win? Clinton.

[wileedog]

60. Nope

Because a Clinton nomination by Superdelegates causes more damage than Obama who will win the vote. A Hillary nomination probably disenfranchises huge chunks of young and African American voters to boot.

[jackson_dem]

69. That doesn't mean he is better for 2012. That means him losing the GE is better long-term

[jackson_dem]

71. That doesn't mean he is better for 2012. That means him losing the GE is better long-term

[MattBaggins]

93. Oh god

We kicked Edwards? He lost because people did not like him. He had huge name recognition and still fell flat. People accuse Obama supporters of a messiah complex?

Edwards was on the bottom of my list of all the candidates. You know why? I can sum it up in one character trait he had. Every time he told a sad sappy story he closed his eyes. As a New Yorker; when someone closes their eyes when telling a story alarm bells go off and my hand goes to protect my wallet and my wife starts hiding the silverware. Joel Osteen does that shit and it smacks of give me your money traveling preacher. I am sorry but Edwards oozed "used car salesmen / ambulance chaser" and turned people off.

[jackson_dem]

97. Maybe he can run on unity and then run on dividing generations, sexual orientations, and races in 12

Obama=used car salesman in my book.

[PoliticalAmazon]

118. Or anyone with family at risk for being drafted for Iraq would vote for JM? n/t

[cali]

20. Disgusting

No one posts more contemptible shit in the guise of being substantive
than you.

Each and every one of your posts is a stinking pile of hateful shit.

[MattBaggins]

25. Your preoccupation with the magic

white voter is starting to make you look like a one trick pony. You are starting to wear an ugly mask and you might want to consider taking a look at it.

[jackson_dem]

39. How does Obama win the GE with 42-44% of the vote?

[MattBaggins]

72. I am not stupid enough

to believe that his primary numbers represent what he will get in the GE. I think you are making up numbers to suggest through race baiting that he can't win the GE. You are both wrong and disgusting.

[jackson_dem]

77. Oh it's you, who just said you would work for McSame if Clinton win

Which numbers did I make up? I can explain it slowly for you. The turnout numbers are from the 2000-2004 exit polls, factoring in the increase among Latinos and decrease among whites.

How does Obama win with 40% of the white vote? He doesn't. Even under a very favorable scenario for him.

[PoliticalAmazon]

120. Hillary would not win against McCain under any scenario....

...She is banking on the fact that, if she wins the primary, that she and the DNC would be able to frighten Obama supporters to vote for HRC, despite the fact that HRC has openly insulted Obama supporters, and has run a very Bush-Rove campaign.

I believe she is wrong. I know as many Republicans who would never vote for HRC, no matter who the alternative is, as I do Democrats who would never vote for HRC.

For a more detailed discussion as to why Hillary can't win a GE:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5280301&mesg_id=5281280

[DerekJ]

34. jackson_dem , Over here.

Explain this to me then:


And this:

McCain with a statistically insignificant one-point advantage over Barack Obama, 46% to 45%. Yesterday, it was Obama leading McCain by that same statistically insignificant margin (see recent daily results). In a match-up with Hillary Clinton, McCain attracts 48% of the vote while Clinton earns 42%. Daily tracking results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

-------

Edited to add:

And this:

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Obama now attracts 48% of the vote while Hillary Clinton earns 41%.

Ibid.

-----------------------------



How is he losing support across the board, but still managing to outperform Hillary nationally, and within the democratic block.

[Citizen Kang]

43. he can't explain

that's why he is only using one poll in one state that fits his race-baiting strategy.

[jackson_dem]

48. It is exlpained in the OP. Herman also tried to explain this to Obamites

Primary demographics are much different than GE demographics.

[DerekJ]

54. I don't get it sorry.

The poll goes against your suggestion that he is losing white voters. Explain to me, how my argument is not true.

Thanks.

[jackson_dem]

95. What are the demographics for Dem primary voters?

You realize a candidate could lose whites, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans by double digits and still be ahead in the Dem primaries?

[kmsarvis]

166. NO,EXPLAIN WHY MCCAIN AND OBAMA ARE STATISTICALY TIED. N/T

[Hawkeye-X]

128. The very same Herman Munster that was banned last week

for an extremely racist OP? You're getting close, jackson_dem.

Hawkeye-X

[ShortnFiery]

35. "30%. Sound familiar? That is Jesse Jackson territory." Yeah, simplistically put - we get the SMEAR.

Yes, it's been rumored <come closer and whispering> Obama's (according to you) is SUPPOSED to be branded "The Black Candidate."

Hillary Clinton: This all would be unnessary if those dumb-asses in South Carolina would have listened to my husband "BUBBA" Bill Clinton. :crazy: :thumbsdown: BTW Barack can't bowl! :P

[jackson_dem]

62. Being compared to JJ is an honor. JJ is 10 times what Obama will ever be

[goldcanyonaz]

78. Obama being compared to JJ is BAD but Randi Rhodes calling Clinton a whore is GOOD!

[ShortnFiery]

131. Oh come one?!? It's The Southern Strategy & The Clintons will Not Ever regain their good status

within the African American Community. Using the "Jesse Jackson" comparison is a big tell, whether it be from Bubba or any other HRC surrogate.

My mother didn't raise me stupid. :eyes:

[jackson_dem]

159. Ok. Name one other Dem front-runner who got 20-30% of the white vote

JJ is the only one. No one else has been able to take the lead in the Dem primaries despite getting such a low level of white support. Who are we to compare him to? Dick Gephardt? There are others who have gotten that level of white support. None of them ever became the front runner despite it except Jackson.

[zabet]

154. Do not question the O-messiah!!

Nor his followers!!! :sarcasm:

[jackson_dem]

158. !

:rofl:

[rodeodance]

65. don't include me in your "we" of your smear! and Hillary did NOT call NC "dumb-asses"

......."30%. Sound familiar? That is Jesse Jackson territory." Yeah, simplistically put - we get the SMEAR.
Posted by ShortnFiery


Yes, it's been rumored <come closer and whispering> Obama's (according to you) is SUPPOSED to be branded "The Black Candidate."

Hillary Clinton: This all would be unnessary if those dumb-asses in South Carolina would have listened to my husband "BUBBA" Bill Clinton. :crazy: :thumbsdown: BTW Barack can't bowl! :P

[rodeodance]

44. Present

[JVS]

45. If I wanted to vote for someone because white people vote for them, I'd be best suited in the GOP

They always win among white voters.

[jackson_dem]

50. Since when is 43% winning? Is that another part of the new Obamite math?

[rodeodance]

47. REC

[phrigndumass]

49. An 8-point difference in PA would be roughly Clinton-85, Obama-73

Senator Obama would still be 160 pledged delegates ahead, with only 408 pledged delegates left. Senator Clinton would then need 284 of those remaining 408 to catch up in pledged delegates, or 69.6%. That would necessitate Arkansas-like wins in every remaining state. An 8-point spread would only net about 130,000 votes for Senator Clinton if turnout in Pennsylvania is 1.6 million.

Them's good odds.

[jackson_dem]

64. Superdelegates are watching PA, just as they will watch the remaining states

If Obama keeps remaining in the 20's and 30's with whites the only way supers will nominate him is if they fear alienating blacks and young voters long-term and decide it is better to lose in 2012 than to risk that.

[phrigndumass]

96. Ah, yes. Superdelegates. How's that been working out for her lately?

If this trend you mention were important to some of those superdelegates, don't you think Senator Clinton would have gained in superdelegates during the last two months, as this trend has come to light?

Or are you saying that this trend has already been seen by the superdelegates, but Senator Clinton hasn't had gains in superdelegates lately because they are afraid to endorse her for fear of black folks and young people?

[jackson_dem]

111. No. Ohio and MS do not make a trend

Ohio, MS, and, PA, NC, IN, WV, and KY do...If Obama gets into the 40's with whites (he does not have to win them) on a consistent basis in the remaining states all of this will become moot and all Clinton has left is her big state argument. Well, if he cracks the 40's in PA with whites he will win PA and the big state argument will be greatly weakened.

[phrigndumass]

152. So what you're saying is this ... Whites for Clinton!

There's the name of your new PAC.

:sarcasm:

If the trick is to convince the superdelegates that Senator Obama doesn't attract enough "white" votes, especially in the last handful of state contests, get that PAC started and raise some money for Senator Clinton immediately! It should be a rather simple fund raising idea. Just call David Duke and have him endorse your PAC, and the money will flow in. Then those superdelegates will understand that Senator Obama couldn't possibly win enough white votes and endorse Senator Clinton. Or else they'll reluctantly endorse Senator Obama out of fear of black folks and young people, to paraphrase your own words.

Good luck with that! I think Senator Clinton would be ashamed of you, but the schmucks in charge of her campaign would love you.

[jackson_dem]

53. No Obamite can explain a path for victory for Obama. The math is daunting

Can he exceed what Kerry did and reach 43%?

[Milo_Bloom]

68. Which path to victory?

The dem nomination is easy... he needs just 35% of the remaining SD's. Since he has currently been attracting about 46%, that is easy.


Victory in november is also easy. Even in this poll, only 12% of the population is strong support for Clinton. Just like in every other election year when there is a winner/loser, that small % of people come around to the candidate.

There is no evidence to suggest that this year is any different than the Dean voters who when polled said they would vote for bush over Kerry or the Bradley voters who said they would vote for bush over Gore.

[TTUBatfan2008]

88. Kinda like...

there is no path to victory for Hillary if she steals the nomination at the convention. Face it, she's not going to be in any better position than him unless of course she takes him as her VP and sucks up BIG TIME to him and finally treats him with some respect instead of throwing him and his supporters under the bus. I won't vote for her as it stands now.

[jackson_dem]

92. Sure there is

45% of the white vote, 65% of the Latino vote, 70% of the black vote, 65% of the Asian/other/Native American vote. If she wins under that scenario she would have no choice but to select Obama as veep, which could render the hysteria that she will lose some blacks votes to be moot.

You won't and neither will many in the blogosphere. However in the real world the level of hostility to Obama among Democrats is substantially higher than that towards Clinton.

[TTUBatfan2008]

101. I gotta call bullshit on your hostility claim...

Hillary's approval rating among Dems is not very good. In fact, I know plenty of people who refused to vote for her regardless. I was willing to give her a chance until she decided to treat a fellow Democrat like scum. That's when I said "enough" and I refuse to vote for her at the moment based on her campaign.

[jackson_dem]

103. It is very good among Democrats. Poll after poll shows this

The blogosphere is an alternative universe where Rev. Wright, who has an 8% favorable rating in the real world, is more popular than Sen. Clinton.

[zulchzulu]

55. The General Election is NOT the Primary Season

This "argument" that the White Vote won't vote for Obama in the GE is preposterous. I could list the states (like Iowa) where Obama kicked ass and the white vote came out in droves...but why waste time.

If you think for one minute that the Hillary camp can say that whites are afraid of Obama, that's racist horseshit.

The game is over for Team Hillary. I fully expect them to go as low as they can.

[jackson_dem]

66. Yeah, he won the white vote in a handful of states out of 42

So did Dukakis...

[Milo_Bloom]

58. I got a bridge for sale, you may want to buy.

I gotta love the BS lines in these polls...

"There also appears to be a measure of deep anti-Obama sentiment in Clinton's Keystone State coalition. Roughly a quarter of Clinton voters — 26%, the poll found — say they "would be more likely" to vote for John McCain in the general election if Obama is eventually the Democratic nominee. By contrast, only 16% of Obama's backers report they would be likely to vote for McCain if Clinton emerged as the party's nominee."

Please do some historical research... you may learn that the losing candidate ALWAYS shows trend. In 2003, similar polls showed surprising numbers of Dean supporters would vote for bush over kerry. The same thing in 2000 with Bradley.

The people supporting the loser always become more rabid about their support, b/c they are desperate so they SAY they won't vote for candidate X to make candidate X appear weaker. The fact that it is ONLY 26% speaks to how weak a candidate Clinton really is...

Only 26% of her 46% or roughly 12% of the overall electorate actually support her strongly enough to make this claim.

[goldcanyonaz]

63. Funny how these threads don't go over as well as the 'Obama is winning with 90% of black vote.' ones

Posts stating that Hillary can't win in November w/o the black vote are highly recommended threads around here, but this type is frowned upon.

What's the difference?

[cali]

73. because there's nothing remotely

honest or factual about the OP. The author pulled it out of his ass.

[TTUBatfan2008]

82. Surely you know the answer to this...and don't try to call it reverse racism.

[jackson_dem]

89. The answer is Obamites can't handle the hearing inconvenient truths about their messiah

[PoliticalAmazon]

123. The answer is, Obama supporters are tired of the asinine scenarios Hillary dreams up...

...when she's not avoiding sniper fire, of course.

[Milo_Bloom]

83. Reality v Fantasy

These threads take a common theme of every primary season and try to make something out of it. The "I support and will vote for the GOP before ". It is a common knee jerk reaction you can observe from 2003, 1999 and probably 1992 as well.

So suggesting that Obama is "bleeding support" b/c the very small % of the population who are strong Clinton supporters say they won't vote for him is pure fantasy.


Now the reality... Obama has energized the electorate and increased turnout among people who often don't turn out in large enough numbers. We KNOW these people will turn out for Obama; however, these people, who often don't go to the polls, will not likely do the same for the status quo candidate they are working so hard to defeat.

[jackson_dem]

85. Exactly. This is why they are called a _____. I acknowledge Hill's problem with blacks if she wins

But I also understand math. Obama loses far more among whites than Clinton does among blacks. 20% of 73% is far more than 20% of 10%.

No Obamite has explained how he can win with less than 43% of the white vote. The idea that Obama, who is getting 23-36% of the white vote in polling for the upcoming states, with the exception of Oregon, is going to do better than Kerry did and as well as Gore did with whites is a fantasy. The logical question is then what about the black vote? Clinton gets 10-15% in the primaries. That is a unique situation we have only seen once before (1988). Dukakis won nine out of ten black voters in the general even though almost all the black vote in the primaries went to Jackson. Still the data suggests Clinton may lose as much as 30% of the black vote (20% more than normal since the rethugs usually get 10%). We have to factor that in and the supers definitely will.

What is terrifying the Obamites is this could be Obama's kryptonite. This is the most likely thing to cause the supers to go to Clinton. If he gets roughly 33% of the white vote in PA, 37% in IN, , 35% in NC 27% in WV, 25% in KY, and let's say 46% in OR the supers will be very nervous about nominating him.

[TTUBatfan2008]

94. You'd gain some credibility if you stopped calling everyone Obamites...

I don't call you a Hillbot so I'd appreciate it if you stop generalizing. You look like a royal asshole by continuing that.

[jackson_dem]

98. I call myself an Edwardian. What is the big deal?

Am I slurring myself?

[Hawkeye-X]

129. I call you a racist.

You've been like that for 2 months, and getting away with it.

[totodeinhere]

80. Your whole analysis should be thrown out the window.

"It's the economy stupid." By November we will be mired in a steep recession which will probably be the worst we have seen since the great depression. Under these conditions, either Obama or Clinton will win by a landslide. End of story.

[jackson_dem]

87. Yeah, just like Kerry won big even though Bush didn't create a single net job in 4 years....

Clinton trounces McSame on the economy. Obama barely beats him...The difference? Clinton is perceived as having an economic record. Obama has none.

You raise a good point, though. The only shot Obama has of winning the general is the economy tanking bigtime. I am talking about a 1982 type recession, not even the Bush 91-92' or Bush 02'-03' doldrums. He needs a very big recession.

[totodeinhere]

100. The economy in the fall of 2004 was relatively good compared to where we...

will probably be in November of 2008. If it had been that bad in 2004 then I suspect that Kerry would have won in spite of the shenanigans that they pulled in Ohio.

[jackson_dem]

104. Perhaps but the only "hope" Obama has of winning is the economy tanking badly

[totodeinhere]

126. No, there are other considerations to take into account.

If we go into the convention with Obama leading in pledged delegates, which at this point is virtually certain, and leading in the popular vote, which is not certain but probable, and then the supers take it away from Obama and give it to Clinton anyway, there will probably be massive outrage among Obama's fervent supporters, especially among African Americans. Many of them might well either vote for McCain or sit out the election altogether. Of course, this would leave us stuck with McCain for at least four years.

If the Dems are going to prevail in November they have got to keep strong support from what has been their most loyal constituency, African Americans, as well as help from the bad economic situation. In fact, I can see a scenario where AA's are so outraged over Obama's getting "robbed" at the convention that they might also take it out on down ticket Dems too and we could lose congress as well. That's a very scary prospect.

[jackson_dem]

151. All of that is possible and the supers will take that into account

It is ironic how every Obama supporter brings this up but whenever Obama losing extra white votes is brought up they scream "RACIST!". These are realities we must deal with.

You lay out a very real scenario and that is why I think it is unlikely Clinton will be the nominee. The only way she can win is if they calculate Obama is surely a loser and that Clinton can hold onto at least 70% of the black vote. Of course, if Obama is on the ticket as VP with an understanding that he would be the heir apparent in 2016 your scenario is unlikely to occur, although it is still possible. Keep in mind, though, that 20% of 10% is not the same as even 10% of 73%.

[totodeinhere]

213. There is no such thing as an "heir apparent."

DNC rules don't allow for an heir apparent or an "anointed successor" which is another term that others have used making your same point. It just doesn't work that way. The time is now for Obama because he can't be sure if he will ever get another chance.

Eight years is a very long time in politics and there is no way of knowing what the political situation might be by 2016. Perhaps by then another Democrat might come along, perhaps someone that very few of us have even heard about yet, who might run a better campaign than Obama. Or perhaps Obama might have some political problems or scandals in the meantime. And I know that we Democrats wouldn't like to think that this might happen, but perhaps the political pendulum might have swung back the other way by then and even if Obama could get the nomination in 2016 he might lose in the general election. Or perhaps if Clinton won in 2008 she might lose her reelection bid in 2012 which would mean that in 2016 if he ran again Obama would have to face an incumbent president.

But you might say that surely if Obama joined the ticket and became vice president then surely the path would be open to him in 2016. But think again. As we know, in the past 100 years only one or two sitting vice presidents (depending on if you count Al Gore) have become president through the electoral process. So even if he were VP that wouldn't be a sure thing.

And then we have the possibility that if he doesn't make it this time Obama might lose the fire in his belly and never run again. Michelle Obama has already said as much.

So if Obama wants to be president this might very well be the best chance he ever has. He has run a brilliant campaign and he is ahead in both popular votes and pledged delegates at this point, and the best thing for him to do is to go for it now. The time for Obama is now, especially since he will probably be facing a very weak opponent in John McCain, whereas future GOP candidates might not be so weak and beatable. There is no such thing as "turns" in politics, and if he were to step aside for Clinton now and wait for his turn, which he won't BTW, it might well be the end of his presidential aspirations.

BTW, I like debating with you because unlike some rabid partisans on either side you seem to be a person who can be reasoned with. And we need more of that at DU IMO.

[grantcart]

86. any poll showing Hillary under 50% is just great great news thanks

[loveangelc]

90. here we go again with state by state GE matchups in APRIL.

do people really expect polls to stay the same until november? these polls do not matter until at least september or october. Oh, I guess the Hillary psychics will say he'll be doing worse then...:crazy:

[jackson_dem]

99. Good point. How bad will Obama be doing when the rethugs finally attack him?

Look at what they did to the big leads "new" Carter 76'*, Dukakis, and Kerry all had. :scared:

*He still won but only after hemorrhaging 33%. Yes. He once lead by 35.

[loveangelc]

105. The 'rethugs' HAVE been attacking him..if you watch republican radio/fox news

all they talk about is Obama. All John McCain talks about is Obama. They know he's going to be the candidate...the only one's who don't seem to know that is Hillary and a segment of her supporters. Tell me what has McCain had to fight hard against lately? He hasn't. Puleeeeeeze. You cannot live by poll numbers, especially 7 months before a GE campaign.

[jackson_dem]

109. Where, besides Hannity? Has the rethug msm went after Obama?

[loveangelc]

113. I thought you thought the msm were all in the tank for Obama?

and again, Obama has had to answer to things; McCain hasn't had to answer for ANYTHING. When someone gets a complete free ride on virtually everything, people are going to have a better view of him, until it stops. Of course thats going to change when the GE starts.

[jackson_dem]

149. That works both ways. Obama is the Dem version of McSame as far as the msm goes

The difference is McSame has been around for a while and folks have some idea who he is. They have no idea what the blank canvass Obama is. The rethugs will "teach" them who Obama is. In other words both will go down but Obama more than McSame, which would be a net gain for McSame.

[BzaDem]

141. Oh my.

If you think that the attacking of Obama being done now is even CLOSE to how it will be in November, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Polls are not accurate now. They ALWAYS overestimate the support of unknown candidates. Obama has nowhere to go but down.

[jackson_dem]

148. You took the words right out of my mouth

:thumbsup:

[zulchzulu]

102. Your theory (Penn's actually) doesn't wash

Much was made this week of Obama's performance among white men in Virginia. Indeed, his support with white men was seen as both the key to Obama's Potomac Primary victories, as well as a sign of broadening support to include those formerly in Clinton's base. Others are skeptical, even worrying that while male superdelegates might tip the scale toward Clinton.



In fact, Virginia was neither the first state (nor even first Southern state) where Obama bested Clinton among white men. Nor was it the state where he won this group by the largest margin. Obama has been doing well with this group since the beginning of primary season.

(snip)

Compared to Virginia, Obama did even better with white men in Utah, New Mexico, and California (setting his home state of Illinois aside). This pattern is also not a function of election type or overall outcome. Obama led with white men in states with primaries and states with caucuses, and in states that he won and states that Clinton won.

(snip)

Finally, it's also worth reminding ourselves about the contest that started it all - the Iowa caucuses. Among white men in Iowa, Obama garnered a 10-point lead over Clinton, and an 8-point lead over Edwards.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/white_men_with_obama_since_the.php

[jackson_dem]

108. Oh. There are caucuses in the general election with 1.,9% turnout?

Even your table, based heavily on sham caucuses, shows a 12-12 tie. Your table conveniently omits Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Mississippi. It also assumes that nothing changed after pastorgate and Obama became the front runner. Jesse Jackson won Michigan and became the front runner. Do you know what happened to his white support after that?

No one mentioned white men in the OP. Obama does much better with white men than white women. The latter are a far more important voting bloc than white men. We can actually carry white women; the best we can realistically do with white men is get into the high 30's. Kerry got only 37%, Gore got 36% (with Nader taking 3%). In contrast Gore basically tied Bush 48-49 among white women. Hillary Clinton can go better. Bill Clinton lost white men by 11 (very good for a Democrat, see the Gore/Kerry numbers) but carried white women by 5.

[vincenzoesq]

107. The biggest difference between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters

is level of education. Not that Obama folks are naturally smarter, or anything, but still......:think:

[jackson_dem]

110. Education correlates with income. People who are struggling to make ends meet can't gamble on words

But thanks for showing the "unity" candidate is the candidate of choice for classists again. ;) YES WE CAN (win without working people, the heart of our party since 1796)!!!

[vincenzoesq]

114. classists?

Lighten up. I am "working people." Also, white, female, over 60, and Obama is the most reasonable candidate I've seen in my lifetime.

[Shakespeare]

130. "Time, a pro-Obama rag..."

You have got to be fucking kidding me. You do realize, I hope, that any credibility you hope to have just evaporates when you say that?

I think it's sad that anybody on either side (I was an Edwards supporter and will vote for the nominee in November) begins dismissing solid media outlets and/or reporters whenever they say something that's not flattering to their candidate of choice. It's the most intellectually corrupt thing I've ever seen on this site.

[rocktivity]

135. People who need help need more than words like "corporate donors first," too.

:eyes:
rocknation

[jackson_dem]

175. Check out the front page of the Washington Post today about Obama's corporate donors

He has raised as much as Clinton from those giving $2,300.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/10/AR2008041004045.html?hpid=topnews

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hawkeye-X]

144. Oh good. You wasted your 3 post limit for tonight trying to convince

us to vote for Hillary? Good. :rofl: - See you tomorrow.

[RBInMaine]

146. GREAT NEWS ! HE HAS ERASED HILLARY'S 20+ Point lead !!

Get real. As in OH, the Clintons have been courting the demographics and machine for 15 years. Not long ago she was up 20+. Same as in OH. The OH "comeback> was a bunch of CRAP, plain and simple. She was SUPPOSED to win. That he cut her lead in half was the real news. Same with PA. Enough of this NONSENSE !

[jackson_dem]

150. How often does someone outspent 3:1 win?

[RBInMaine]

176. Sure it's 3:1? Anyhow, BY HAVING THE MACHINE AND DEMOGRAPHHICS LONG ON HER SIDE.

Do you need poli-sci 101?? She has lllllllllllllllong-established party machine support in PA.
MUCH of the spending is on advertising. Obama has had to become known. Clinton is a known quantity there, she has long established family ties, she has long established labor machine ties, she has the gov. , etc. etc. Obama's spending is to get him as CLOSE as possible and to make her spread her resources thin so he can concentrate in other areas. Once again, the REAL news is that he has made up 10+ points compared to where Hillary was several weeks ago. Also, wasn't Hillary supposed to be inevitable?? Why is the race still on?? Thought is was supposed to be over as of Feb. 5th??? What happened??

[jackson_dem]

192. Obama had 97% name ID three months ago.

Speaking of poly sci 101...

Obamites can't have it both ways: blame demographics when he loses, say they don't matter when he wins. This whole thread is full of Obamites trying to claim demographics are irrelevant, as they do on cue whenever it is not favorable to Obama.

[Danger Mouse]

153. you miss Herman Munster so much that you're bravely taking up his torch?

good luck with that.

[jackson_dem]

157. Is that a threat?

Both Herman and I look at polls and we can recognize what jumps off the pages of data. So can superdelegates...

[Danger Mouse]

172. A threat?

What, like I'm going to assemble the Alert Squad to come after you?

No...just observing that it seems you've adopted the 'three anti-obama threads a day' approach.

[jackson_dem]

174. Obama supporters have been known to do that...

And they have taken down 1/5 of the "top 10" hit list within the past 2-3 weeks. I am on that list as well...

[Danger Mouse]

179. If there are Obama supporters who do that..

I am not privy to it, and I would not engage in such immature and stupid behavior.

[jackson_dem]

206. But do you reject AND denounce them?

:evilgrin:

:thumbsup: to you.

[Danger Mouse]

215. haha, yes, i do reject and denounce them.

:hi: :P

[juajen]

156. :kick:

[barb162]

160. k&r

[cooolandrew]

168. Ooo he's black that won't be lost on anyone except the blind. Undecded SDs like Obama. =)

[jackson_dem]

173. Maybe Obama is a weak candidate? It is lame to blame it on his color

Why does he also lose Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans?

[JeffR]

178. Hmm. Yes, you're right. He does seem weak.

With all his winning and going from strength to strength and all.

Yes, the more I think about it, you're right, all evidence to the contrary.

Thanks!

[jackson_dem]

180. He can't win outside his ethnic group

Why?

[bhikkhu]

184. Been to Wyoming?

[jackson_dem]

185. Been to all 42 states that have voted?

There will be 0 caucuses with 1.9-5% turnout in the general election anyway. The fact you had to cherry pick a caucus out of 42 states is revealing.

[bhikkhu]

208. I expected "it will go repug anyway" as an answer.

But the meme is "Hillary doesn't win caucuses". So she loses a state without a significant African American vote means nothing to your argument...

In any case, look again at polling. Both Hillary and Obama can win the GE:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

There is plenty to talk about, and no reason to ditch or sink the Democratic candidate who is ahead.

[JeffR]

187. His ethnic group? Hello?

He's half white and half African (really African). He has relatives of every major "race". In 200 years, if we survive that long, everybody will look like this guy. I hope.

Don't try to turn this guy into some novelty candidate. Any more than Clinton is a novelty candidate. They're both real people. Take them both seriously and climb our of your cartoon version of reality.

[jackson_dem]

189. As far as popular perception goes

Have you seen a single article starting with "Barack Obama, who would be the first biracial president..."? I recall a South Carolina debate where Obama made a racist joke about Edwards. He didn't say "You have a woman, a biracial candidate...........and John....".

[JeffR]

197. That's a racist joke?

In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking
Now heaven knows
Anything goes...

Maybe articles aren't being written that describe Senator Obama as the possible "first biracial president" because to a lot of people, that's immaterial. America may not have quite joined the 21st century, but we sure as hell are done with the 20th. Plenty of ugly racism still exists. But your cite above, as we used to say down South, don't show me nuthin'.

[jackson_dem]

202. Him being biracial is immaterial but him being (perceived as) black is

"Obama black president" returns over 4.1 million Google hits. "Obama biracial president" returns only 87,000.

It is a shame this even has to be discussed. He should be seen as vying to become the 43rd American to hold the presidency (Cleveland had two non-consecutive terms. Obama would be the 44th president but the 43rd to hold the office).

[JeffR]

209. Neither hit count matters

Of course he's obviously perceived as "black" despite his heritage. His lack of a pasty Nordic complexion is in complete contrast to me. White people of Mediterranean heritage are in complete contrast to me, also.

As our beloved Vice President put it:

"So?"

[Yes We Did]

177. Then they don't' care about the war she authorized. I guess it's easy to vote...

against your own self interest even if that interest includes life and death. This war, when it was authorized was the single biggest issue on the plate and Clinton supporters act as though it doesn't matter now. She enabled Bush and it doesn't matter now.

If PA votes for Clinton understanding that she voted for this war then they are enablers as well. They are allowing the same mindset to take hold of the white house that exists there right now.

If she were to be the nominee, I hope people understand that she will not change how government works. She is the status quo. Look at how she's run her campaign. Look at the people she has working for her. They're full of old ideas. It would be nice if she hired older people with new ideas but she hasn't. They are all machine politicians.

[wisteria]

182. Obama will get he votes he needs when he needs them.

Pa Dem's will come around to realize that our party needs to move forward- not backward with the Clinton's. Any Democrats who think we will have the "good times" again with the Clinton's are in for a sad surprise. They represent the old ways and another time. You can not go back. Our "good times" will be found in change and a renewed hope for our country.
Besides, Obama is still only starting to make inroads. And, he still wins if he loses to Clinton. She has to win big and I don't see that happening.

[jackson_dem]

186. What change does Obama uniquely offer than Clinton does not?

Having Donnie and co. in the White House for a "dialogue" about whether gays can be "cured"?

[NanceGreggs]

188. Well, if I HAD to pick just ONE thing ...

... I'd say President Obama won't be regaling the masses with stories about being pinned-down by sniper-fire, while running out on unpaid campaign bills and allowing his employees' health insurance lapse due to non-payment as he preached the importance of health coverage for every American.

THAT would be a change from Hillary, wouldn't it?

[jackson_dem]

190. So you can't find a substantive difference between them (besides Obama being RW on education)

Typical. Most Obamites can't yet they go on and on about how Obama has a monopoly on change and how Hillary is a DINO.

[GarbagemanLB]

191. One of them put her 'years of experience' to use when voting for the IWR. I'll take the other

guy, thanks.




Oh shit, I said 'guy'.

[jackson_dem]

193. So no substantive difference in your view either

[GarbagemanLB]

194. In policy? Of course not. Character and judgement? There is a gulf of a difference.

[jackson_dem]

201. Your honesty

:thumbsup:

[NanceGreggs]

195. I thought I just gave you the substantive difference ...

And I really didn't want to engage you in conversation - which, from reading your many posts, I know is impossible.

Wasn't it Elaine Boozler who used to do that stand-up bit about never playing peek-a-boo with the kid in front of you on a long plane trip - because they keep wanting to play, while you're bored out of your mind?

[jackson_dem]

199. I can see why you support Obama

I wasn't interested into dissecting your "reasoning" either. Voting based on a white lie. Yeah, we know Obama has never done that. :rofl: You are a great example of why Obama supporters are tagged as a cult.

[catcher]

200. newbie here, just wanted to ask

Are you enjoying your delusion?

[jackson_dem]

203. Did you know having two names is against DU rules?

[catcher]

204. huh

come again?

[NanceGreggs]

205. Glad you appreciate the irony ...

Obama supporters are a "cult", while Hill supporters look at the numbers that render her winning a complete impossibility and continue to chant their "she can still win this thing" mantra.

Nightie-night, jackson_dem - and don't let the Bosnian snipers bite!