Super Tuesday Super Predictions
Just like blogger predictions were far more accurate than anything you saw in the mainstream media during the Liberal leadership race, this analysis of Super Tuesday states is ten times more in depth than anything you'll find in any newspaper or on CNN.
If you have some time to kill, it's worth a read. If you just want the bottom line, Hillary is projected to win the Super Tuesday delegate count by the slimmest of margins - 845 to 833.
If you have some time to kill, it's worth a read. If you just want the bottom line, Hillary is projected to win the Super Tuesday delegate count by the slimmest of margins - 845 to 833.
Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Super Tuesday
posted by calgarygrit at
5:36 p.m.
21 Comments:
That's impressive stuff.
By
Steve V, at 7:33 p.m.
2025 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination. Going to be a long campaign.
By
JimTan, at 11:17 p.m.
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Anthony, at 4:35 a.m.
this guy is leaning obama
giving many intangible benefits to him for no good reason at all.
Arizona, a state rich in Latinos (2/3 Hillary before Edwards dropped) and seniors (3/4 Hillary before Edwards dropped) with two polls giving Clinton a 21 point lead and an 8 point lead.
this guy puts it at a 7% difference.
does he give a good reason? just national momentum, which hasnt really been there, erasing a 21 point lead and bringing it to 8. He is assuming Edwards voters are going Obama, which is a fallacy.
Missouri is even worse. Hillary led in polls by as much as 20 points as recently as a week and a half ago. with only 12% african american population, less than the senior vote (13%), how can the daily kos justify only a 5 point win for hillary.
"Still, this is the one state where the distribution of Edwards’ support could have the most effect on the outcome, and an actual endorsement by Edwards might be enough to swing the momentum to Obama"
that is wishful thinking...not political analysis.
By
Anthony, at 4:47 a.m.
Well, the national polls are closing. I do think he is being a bit bullish on Obama, especially in places with limited polling being done, but I don't think Hillary will get more than 55% of the delegates on Tuesday.
Either way, this one could go on for a while and the super delegates could come into play.
By
calgarygrit, at 9:19 a.m.
I found it interesting and appreciate the time he took to put it together. But I have to agree there was a not-so-subtle leaning towards Obama in each facet of his analysis. No need for more examples than already given though I noticed other examples as well.
If Florida proved nothing else, it was that Obamania is not flowing everywhere. And I don't buy the "it was because they didn't campaign there" explanation. Obama was the ONLY Democratic candidate with ads showing in Florida in the final week - I saw them due to a vacation with family there in the closing days. His campaign said it was because they were all part of a national ad purchase but somehow Clinton and Edwards managed to not have ads running there.
I think it is a mistake to extrapolate national polls to every single specific state as this analysis does.
I also think the widely perceived draw in the debate benefits Hillary more than it benefits Obama. He didn't need a knock-out, but he did need to be seen as the winner of that debate.
Hillary's weakness is her Iraq vote - which everyone has known for some time - but she impressed and dominated on many of the other issues raised in the debate and many everyday and still undecided voters are going to study those issues as much as anything. Also, at the end of the day, many will consider who will get the US out of Iraq in a better fashion. There, I'm not sure Obama wins. His argument about initial judgment is a good one, but I don't see that it translates to a trump on everything else - not in how it might have been early on.
I think Obama picked up a lot of the easy fruit early on - reflected in polls immediately after Iowa - but gaining that additional 10% he really needs to win the nomination won't come so easily.
I think the split will be more like 60% Clinton / 40% Obama in vote and delegates on Super Tuesday. While that is pretty close, it would still leave Hillary with a sizable lead in delegates coming out of Super Tuesday. And I think it would get harder for Obama from there on out.
And I don't think given a lead, that the super-delegates would swing so far to give the election to the contender with less electoral votes. Public relations disaster for the democrats in the fall, especially since they have already eliminated two states Hillary won.
Just my opinion from my own observations - which is why I won't be posting a definitive analysis anywhere ; ). Not a slight to him, I'm just not that trusting of my observations to publish them like that ; ).
Cheers!
By
Anonymous, at 11:38 a.m.
This guys predictions are ridiculously optimistic for Obama, ridiculous!
A favourable outcome for Obama would be around 700-1000 for Clinton. Anything else is just plain fantasy land.
Go to pollster.com and checkout their charts. They tell the story.
Also Clinton had a bad day Jan 29th polling wise where they polled even after SC and the Kennedy endorsement, you have to do the math on the rolling polls to figure this out.
Then she jumped 9% after Florida and Edwards dropped out. She is now polling 10% ahead of Obama again nationally. And the rolling polls will go up again tomorrow.
He has done very well and has gone up since just before the end of the year, but she had a 25% lead on the guy. The numbers have gone up and down, but its still a 10% lead, and more in the Feb 5th states.
She will probably take at least 16 of them but as many as 18 or 19. The caucus states are a real toss up no one knows.
So it will be about 20 states for Clinton to 8 for Obama and that's optimistic for him, again it could be 5 states for Obama to 22 for Clinton.
She will be 300 to 500 delegates ahead ofhim after Turesday and really that's too big a gap to make up, when you look at the other states. Texas and Pensylvania are hers and they are big ones. They will split Ohio, but that doesn't help him gain on her.
Really go to pollster.com, not Real Clear politics and check out the chart for Feb 5th. Its clear.
By
Anonymous, at 2:31 p.m.
This guy also makes the assumption that obama is under polled, by I believe 10%, which is a huge and false assumption based on SC.
obama underpolled in Sc because the black establishment was organizing for Clinton, so to vote Obama black people were going against their leadership. If you look at automatic versus real person polling you can see the difference in that people didn't want to tell a person they were voting Obama.
Some polling companies poll high for Clinton some poll low. Rasmussen polls her about 5% below averages. American research group polls her high by about 5%. Zogby polls Obama high by at least 5%.
Rasmussen is an automatic polling company that doesn't do call backs, probably missing working women, shift workers and women with children they chaufeur around hence lowering her numbers. Zoby's phone numbers are randomly selected from the phone bood skewing towards Obama, ie people who wont really vote.
Gallup is a person calling and calls back 3 times, however somewhere like SC this would have underpolled Obama given the local pressure to support Clinton, but in Illinois, automatic polling companies are showing much higher numbers for Clinton than person dialed.
Why? Because all the democratic establishment backs Obama in Illinois, but Clinton was born and raised in Chicago. I think she is underpolling there.
So you have to look at each polling company and method to determine if someone is underpolled or overpolled.
Seemingly, automatic polls from voters lists with call backs are the most accurate, Survey USA and I believe Research 2000.
You also have to look at who the compaies eliminate and where they get their lists, Zogby and Rasmussen use randomly selected numbers from the phone book, which may be good for open states, but not for closed, where a sampling from Democratic members only would be more accurate.
Sampling from a person, with call backs from voter registration lists, ie Gallup, should be more accurate in closed states where there is no pressure to support one candidate or the other at the community level.
So this guy's assumption to just give Obama 10% over the polls is absurd, some polls in some places maybe, but certainly not most.
Its all explained better than I can on Pollster.com
By
Anonymous, at 3:01 p.m.
An impressive amount of work; he's pro-'bama, and maybe a bit optimistic, but the broad strokes are quite strong.
As to the people saying that things get tougher after Super-Tuesday, no, they get easier; as long as he can run things reasonably close on Tuesday itself, it benefits more and more the longer the contest continues.
By
IslandLiberal, at 4:41 p.m.
I like the Alberta Liberal platform. I'm impressed that they aren't running on an NDP-lite platform. It looks really liberal; really good!
By
John Murney , at 7:50 p.m.
Pollster's charts tend to be outdated, the way they factor older polling. I prefer RealClear because the charts are more responsive. In a fluid race, weighting two week old polling tends to skew the results. There have already been several times this season where the pollster gaps are out of line with what happens, the realclear ones more accurate.
Just a quick point on Zogby and closed primaries. He was the only pollster to completely nail Florida for the Republicans, in a closed primary.
By
Steve V, at 8:52 a.m.
The Iowa electronic markets (a political futures market - where people invest real money) is running at about 60-40 for Clinton and Obama beats Clinton on no national polls. I think Obama will have a respectable showing, but not as big as this guy predicts.
Anonymous 3:01, good points. I find it odd that this Kos guy has decided the polls are anti-Obama, considering that there was a 12-point jump in support for Clinton from polls taken the day before to the New Hampshire Primary.
Historically there has been an effect in play called the "Bradley effect", wherein whites are more likely to say they would vote for an African American candidate in polls than they actually are.
It has been pointed out that this tendency didn't show up in Iowa or South Carolina. Iowa and Nevada, however, were caucuses, where people vote publicly. South Carolina has a large black population, so I wouldn't expect the effect to take place (perhaps the reverse would, or arguably, African Americans are under-represented in most polls).
By
french wedding cat, at 6:29 p.m.
Clinton has to win completely On Tuesday. Or…
“(CBS) With only one full day remaining before voters in more than 20 states head to the polls on Super Tuesday, the races for the Democratic and Republican nominations could not be more different, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. “
“The poll found that Clinton and Obama both have the support of 41 percent of Democratic primary voters - a drastic change from early January, when Clinton led Obama by 15 percentage points. While Clinton's overall support has remained steady, Obama has made significant gains among men, particularly white men, and African Americans. White male voters are split nearly evenly between the two Democrats, and Obama holds an 12 percentage point advantage among men overall.”
“The poll found that Clinton and Obama both have the support of 41 percent of Democratic primary voters - a drastic change from early January, when Clinton led Obama by 15 percentage points. While Clinton's overall support has remained steady, Obama has made significant gains among men, particularly white men, and African Americans. White male voters are split nearly evenly between the two Democrats, and Obama holds an 12 percentage point advantage among men overall.
Obama has also seen his support among women rise by 11 percentage points, and he now trails Clinton by only 7 percentage points among that group. He trails Clinton narrowly among Democrats but leads her among independent voters by 13 percentage points.
Clinton's edge on the question of electability has also evaporated as voters have seen Obama win by comfortable margins in Iowa and South Carolina while placing a close second to Clinton in New Hampshire and Nevada. The survey found that 46 percent of Democratic primary voters think Clinton would make the best general election candidate, while 41 percent said that of Obama - as recently as December, only 14 percent believed the Illinois senator made a better general election candidate.”
“The picture in the states voting on Super Tuesday is not nearly as close as the overall picture and offers some good news for Clinton. Among voters in those states, she leads Obama, 49 percent to 31 percent, with 16 percent still undecided.”
By
JimTan, at 11:42 p.m.
Nice fallacy jimtan (you are good at those).
Clinton has dropped in the polls, therefore, Clinton will continue to drop in the polls.
Why is this logic flawed?
1. After Super Tuesday, it becomes a delegate race, not a momentum race. Even if Obama does better than expected, the next primary is not for a while.
2. Screwing up is somewhat beneficial for re-tooling one's message. Clinton's results (which will clearly be worse than one might have predicted a month ago) will highlight for her camp what hasn't worked.
3. All of these articles and predictions are presenting a neck-in-neck reality. If that fails to coalesce, Clinton will be able to declare a victory over expectations. Given that Obama's support is almost certainly softer than Clinton's, and Clinton's edge in closed contests, Hillary will probably end up looking pretty good on Tuesday.
By
french wedding cat, at 12:01 a.m.
"After Super Tuesday, it becomes a delegate race, not a momentum race."
Why? Explain your logic.
By
JimTan, at 2:24 a.m.
Primaries at first are about expectations - after Iowa and New Hampshire, only a few delegates have been won, but people draw expectations from that. If you lose in the early states, people assume your campaign will no longer be viable.
After Super Tuesday, on the other hand, the effect of winning one state on our expectations of the future victor are comparatively smaller (it can still matter, for instance, if Brown had won New York in 1992 he would have had an outside shot at winning the nomination).
This is amplified by the rules of the democratic primary, which leans towards proportional allocation of delegates. If you lose Ohio 51-49, the delegate race doesn't change a great deal.
By
french wedding cat, at 11:22 a.m.
You said
“After Super Tuesday, on the other hand, the effect of winning one state on our expectations of the future victor are comparatively smaller”
This is what I had quoted.
“The picture in the states voting on Super Tuesday is not nearly as close as the overall picture and offers some good news for Clinton. Among voters in those states, she leads Obama, 49 percent to 31 percent, with 16 percent still undecided.”
The point I was making was that Obama is very competitive nation-wide. Clinton should have a good run on Tuesday because these states favour her. However, a tight finish on Tuesday would be terminal for Clinton because the states favouring Obama are next.
Do you get it?
By
JimTan, at 2:38 p.m.
Momentum is still a pretty good guide; while there's no guarantee that the trends will continue, there's no guarantee that things will level off, either. Assuming a move towards stasis in a dynamic system requires a bit of a leap of logic in-and-of itself.
Besides, as we've seen for the last while, Clinton's strength was her inevitability. Dems wanted to jump on her train because it was going to happen anyway, so they wanted the primaries out of the way ASAP to prepare for the general. Now things are different. It's a real race, and likelier to determine the president than the general in many respects.
(I certainly don't think "Clinton's support isn't as soft". Far from it. Clinton's being propelled by inevitability; many of Obama's supporters are almost as cultlike as the RonPaulogists.)
By the by, I'm terribly amused by the driveby Clinton defense. And Joseph's "Hillary wasn't campaigning in Florida" line. Of COURSE she was. Hard.
By
Demosthenes, at 6:51 p.m.
Yikes!
CNN says that Clinton and Obama are even in California.
We'll find out tomorrow.
By
JimTan, at 2:49 a.m.
demosthenes, Obama ran ads in Florida (and was the only person to do so - it was as part of a national ad campaign, that just happened to coincide with the Florida primary).
I would suspect that any lead Clinton had due to inevitability has vanished by now. Obama, on the other hand, has an unsustainable coalition behind him, united mostly by Clinton-hating syndrome. He is an empty vessel into which Americans have projected what they want - an American Paul Martin.
Well that and, living down here, nobody says it, but I get the sense that white upper middle class Americans think that if Obama becomes president they are off the hook on racial issues.
By
french wedding cat, at 12:39 p.m.
Tough fight on Super Tuesday.
CBS gives Clinton 840 delegates and Obama 738. This includes committed super delegates. Tough fight all the way to the May convention. Clinton’s problem is that she is short of money. Obama still looks cool.
By
JimTan, at 3:01 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home