Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

QuikSand · 02-02-2008, 09:39 PM

Okay, with all the necessary caveats about polling, here's what electoral-vote.com posts in its summary for the Feb 5 states in the D primaries:

I will sort the two groups to make it easier to read:

Clinton states:

Code:

Democrats
State 	Clinton 	Obama 	Date 	Pollster
Alabama 	43 	42 	Jan 31 	Insid+Surve+Capit
Arizona 	41 	26 	Jan 24 	Rocky+Arizo
California 	47 	36 	Jan 29 	Four polls
Connecticut 	44 	41 	Jan 31 	ARG-1+Surve+Rasmu
Massachusetts 	50 	35 	Jan 30 	Surve+Rasmu
Minnesota 	40 	33 	Jan 27 	U. of Minnesota
Missouri 	48 	44 	Jan 31 	SurveyUSA
New Jersey 	50 	38 	Jan 31 	Surve+Rasmu
New York 	55 	33 	Jan 31 	Surve+Gallu
Oklahoma 	44 	19 	Jan 27 	SurveyUSA
Tennessee 	59 	26 	Jan 30 	Insider Advantage

Obama States:

Code:

Democrats
State 	Clinton 	Obama 	Date 	Pollster
Colorado 	32 	34 	Jan 23 	Mason-Dixon
Georgia 	36 	52 	Jan 30 	Insider Advantage
Illinois 	32 	56 	Jan 31 	ARG-1+Rasmu

...plus several other states without recent statewide polling -- DE, ND, KS, AR, NM -- but I am not aware of Obama holding much organization or maintaining much particular presence in any of them. I don't have any particular reason to guess that Obama has a particular edge in any of them.

So, if the list of states holds according to that polling summary, I think the extended headline is basically:

CLINTON ROLLS TO MAJOR WINS ACROSS COUNTRY
OBAMA WINS SELECT STATES, BUT TRAILS IN DELEGATE COUNT BY 250

It seems to me that for Obama to come away looking still viable, he basically as to have a hidden tide at work -- one that isn't showing up in the polling, even that done since the win in South Carolina - and he needs to close the gap and win all the states that are even fairly close. Using the same polling data ass above, I think he probably needs to win a list that looks like this:

Code:

Democrats
State 	Clinton 	Obama 	Date 	Pollster
Alabama 	43 	42 	Jan 31 	Insid+Surve+Capit
Colorado 	32 	34 	Jan 23 	Mason-Dixon
Connecticut 	44 	41 	Jan 31 	ARG-1+Surve+Rasmu
Georgia 	36 	52 	Jan 30 	Insider Advantage
Illinois 	32 	56 	Jan 31 	ARG-1+Rasmu
Missouri 	48 	44 	Jan 31 	SurveyUSA
...and then perhaps also New Mexico and a couple of the other oddballs...

...and honestly, even then she wins the day, but he can claim that he remains competitive (I guess). I guess I still look at this thing as basically over with -- Obama has shown thus far that if the electorate gets an extended view of both candidates and hear form them in depth, he can compete with her head-to-head, but in a nationwide primary, it's much more about the organization, early supporters, and the machine -- and she has him by leaps and bounds there. All these states like Oklahoma and Minnesota are just flyover country for him (by necessity, I'm not trying to criticize), but she started out with huge name recognition and support from the word go, and they are *all* hers to lose.

02-02-2008, 09:39 PM	#474
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Okay, with all the necessary caveats about polling, here's what electoral-vote.com posts in its summary for the Feb 5 states in the D primaries: I will sort the two groups to make it easier to read: Clinton states: Code: Democrats State Clinton Obama Date Pollster Alabama 43 42 Jan 31 Insid+Surve+Capit Arizona 41 26 Jan 24 Rocky+Arizo California 47 36 Jan 29 Four polls Connecticut 44 41 Jan 31 ARG-1+Surve+Rasmu Massachusetts 50 35 Jan 30 Surve+Rasmu Minnesota 40 33 Jan 27 U. of Minnesota Missouri 48 44 Jan 31 SurveyUSA New Jersey 50 38 Jan 31 Surve+Rasmu New York 55 33 Jan 31 Surve+Gallu Oklahoma 44 19 Jan 27 SurveyUSA Tennessee 59 26 Jan 30 Insider Advantage Obama States: Code: Democrats State Clinton Obama Date Pollster Colorado 32 34 Jan 23 Mason-Dixon Georgia 36 52 Jan 30 Insider Advantage Illinois 32 56 Jan 31 ARG-1+Rasmu ...plus several other states without recent statewide polling -- DE, ND, KS, AR, NM -- but I am not aware of Obama holding much organization or maintaining much particular presence in any of them. I don't have any particular reason to guess that Obama has a particular edge in any of them. So, if the list of states holds according to that polling summary, I think the extended headline is basically: CLINTON ROLLS TO MAJOR WINS ACROSS COUNTRY OBAMA WINS SELECT STATES, BUT TRAILS IN DELEGATE COUNT BY 250 It seems to me that for Obama to come away looking still viable, he basically as to have a hidden tide at work -- one that isn't showing up in the polling, even that done since the win in South Carolina - and he needs to close the gap and win all the states that are even fairly close. Using the same polling data ass above, I think he probably needs to win a list that looks like this: Code: Democrats State Clinton Obama Date Pollster Alabama 43 42 Jan 31 Insid+Surve+Capit Colorado 32 34 Jan 23 Mason-Dixon Connecticut 44 41 Jan 31 ARG-1+Surve+Rasmu Georgia 36 52 Jan 30 Insider Advantage Illinois 32 56 Jan 31 ARG-1+Rasmu Missouri 48 44 Jan 31 SurveyUSA ...and then perhaps also New Mexico and a couple of the other oddballs... ...and honestly, even then she wins the day, but he can claim that he remains competitive (I guess). I guess I still look at this thing as basically over with -- Obama has shown thus far that if the electorate gets an extended view of both candidates and hear form them in depth, he can compete with her head-to-head, but in a nationwide primary, it's much more about the organization, early supporters, and the machine -- and she has him by leaps and bounds there. All these states like Oklahoma and Minnesota are just flyover country for him (by necessity, I'm not trying to criticize), but she started out with huge name recognition and support from the word go, and they are all hers to lose. Last edited by QuikSand : 02-02-2008 at 09:48 PM.