Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[chesapeake]

I think Hillary will win by more than 10, which probably means that this thing goes all the way to the convention. Obama can win IN and NC 100 to nothing and it won't matter; we will still be left with a situation where Obama appears unable to seal the deal in a big state that Democrats really need to win.

I hope that I'm wrong. The party is best served if one candidate or the other delivers a knockout blow. Unfortunately, the guy who is probably going to win isn't much of a puncher.

[Young Drachma]

I think he's going to come closer than they're predicting. The fact that he's going to Indiana shows that his people don't expect him to do particularly well, but..my sense is that he'll either come closer than they predict or she'll blow him out pretty bad.

I think the voter fatigue in this one might induce people to break in a manner opposite to what the pundits think (think New Hampshire), but at the same time...it's no longer a matter of "if" but "when" this deal will be over and I wonder how much that'll factor into the minds of people when they enter the voting booth.

If this year has proven anything, it's that the pollsters and pundits know nothing and that the voters hold all the cards.

Should be interesting...

[path12]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think he's going to come closer than they're predicting. The fact that he's going to Indiana shows that his people don't expect him to do particularly well, but..my sense is that he'll either come closer than they predict or she'll blow him out pretty bad.

I think the voter fatigue in this one might induce people to break in a manner opposite to what the pundits think (think New Hampshire), but at the same time...it's no longer a matter of "if" but "when" this deal will be over and I wonder how much that'll factor into the minds of people when they enter the voting booth.

If this year has proven anything, it's that the pollsters and pundits know nothing and that the voters hold all the cards.

Should be interesting...

That's what I find frustrating. For all intents this primary is over and Obama will, barring something totally out of the blue, be the nominee. I would love nothing more than have the Pennsylvania voters say "OK, let's get this sniping over with" and get him the win. Don't think it's going to happen though.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by path12

I'll agree with JPhillips and guess Hillary by 9.

I had Hillary -10, but I teased the line and took Obama +4, but I lost because I also had the Wizards +29. Oops.

[CamEdwards]

Fairly interesting article from the Guardian about Philly's "pay to play" system that Obama's not taking part in.

Barack Obama has been warned that his refusal to pay the traditional "street money" to local operatives to help get the vote out in Philadelphia today could cost him the crucial percentage points needed to knock Hillary Clinton out of the race for the White House.

In many of the city's poorer wards, the recipients look forward to these bonuses from Democratic officials - a hangover from the days of the party's old-fashioned machine politics - even though the amounts are relatively small, ranging from $50 to $400.

But as in other contests, Obama is relying on his own army of unpaid
volunteers to get the vote out. The Clinton team, meanwhile, is not saying whether it will pay out "street money".

There are 69 wards in Philadelphia and estimates suggest it would cost Obama $400,000-$500,000 to pay the 14,000 people normally required to help get the vote out.

Carol Ann Campbell, an integral part of the city machine, said she expected Obama to win the city, but his failure to pay could cost him the crucial margin needed to force Clinton out of the race for the presidential nomination.

In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer last week, Campbell defended the practice of "street money", saying: "We are a machine town." She added that there was nothing dirty about it. "The committee people and the ward leaders have to buy lunch for hundreds of people, otherwise they won't have good workers. They have to buy coffee, orange juice and doughnuts. That's just the way it is."

I'm actually hoping Obama does well in Philadelphia, but Hillary wins the state by 10+ points. I'd like to see a candidate prove that you don't need the "machine" to win in Philly. The practice just seems so freaking dirty.

[path12]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm actually hoping Obama does well in Philadelphia, but Hillary wins the state by 10+ points. I'd like to see a candidate prove that you don't need the "machine" to win in Philly. The practice just seems so freaking dirty.

That is interesting. I wonder how many cities have similar machines. I'd imagine Chicago might.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

we will still be left with a situation where Obama appears unable to seal the deal in a big state that Democrats really need to win.

It's interesting to note that in a "winner take all" situation (like the Republican primaries and the Electoral College), Clinton would already have this thing locked up. The only large state that Obama has won is Illinois.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

It's interesting to note that in a "winner take all" situation (like the Republican primaries and the Electoral College), Clinton would already have this thing locked up. The only large state that Obama has won is Illinois.

Agreed. The democratic part of the Democratic Party is causing a lot of trouble. Talk about irony.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by path12

That is interesting. I wonder how many cities have similar machines. I'd imagine Chicago might.

Might? Do you have any idea how entrenched the machinery has been and continue to be in the Northeastern and Midwestern cities?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Might? Do you have any idea how entrenched the machinery has been and continue to be in the Northeastern and Midwestern cities?

+1

[Young Drachma]

Too close to call in Pennsylvania.

[bhlloy]

OK, so reading the exit polls (and I am well aware how much of an inexact science that can be) it looks like a 5-7 point win for Hilary in PA.

Is that enough? Some people were throwing out 10 as the threshold to see if she was really back in the race or not. Doesn't look like that is going to happen.

[Vegas Vic]

The exit polls have her winning by 4, which means she'll probably actually win by about 10 points.

[CamEdwards]

Yeah, Obama has tended to underperform the exit polls by 7-8 points, though he underperformed in Ohio by 12. If that were to happen tonight... 16 point win for Hillary? That would be a pretty staggering hit to Obama.

I think 10's closer to the actual result though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, since numbers are bouncing around, I'll go with Hillary by 8.

[Young Drachma]

MSNBC (oops) has projected the win for Hillary. Question is, by how much.

[Swaggs]

The folks on MSNBC are indicating that Hillary's campaign is nearly broke.

[Vegas Vic]

Obama needed to rack up huge surpluses in the Philadelphia region to have any shot, and surprisingly Clinton is running almost even there in the early returns.

[Buccaneer]

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[Young Drachma]

She should've trounced him here. The fact that he made her spend almost all of her cash here and came within 10 is nothing short of a miracle. He was never supposed to win here.

[Buccaneer]

make a small dent in Obama's lead.

I think this is the operative word.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

She should've trounced him here. The fact that he made her spend almost all of her cash here and came within 10 is nothing short of a miracle. He was never supposed to win here.

Didn't Obama outspend Clinton 3-1 in Pennsylvania?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Didn't Obama outspend Clinton 3-1 in Pennsylvania?

Solutions not hope!

[Vegas Vic]

It looks like Obama only carried Philadelphia 60-40, and as the rural votes start coming in, Clinton is now already up by 10 points.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Might? Do you have any idea how entrenched the machinery has been and continue to be in the Northeastern and Midwestern cities?

Not really. Haven't researched it before, and it doesn't seem to be the case here in Seattle.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Didn't Obama outspend Clinton 3-1 in Pennsylvania?

From 20 points down a few weeks ago it seems to have had some effect.

[King of New York]

8- or 9-point win by Hillary is about the worst thing that could happen to the Dems. It's too big a win for her to stop running now, but not enough for her to shift the momentum her way--she failed to beat expectations.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by path12

Not really. Haven't researched it before, and it doesn't seem to be the case here in Seattle.

Don't know much about history or geography?

I think it is one of those things that is so entrenched that is becomes a given but you either had to have experienced it or know the political and social histories of such cities. I will say that it has significantly lost much of its power, compared to 30-50-100-125 yrs ago, esp. as population fled the traditional wards.

[Shkspr]

Another 15 or 20 wins like this and she's right back in this thing.

[ISiddiqui]

She already IS in it... she just won't likely win. Regardless, Obama is going to need the superdelegates to win anyway (and they likely will go for him).

[rowech]

I guess my question is -- why should she quit? It's my understanding that many times before things would go to conventions and crazy crap would happen. That's really the only way Lincoln ever got elected.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by rowech

I guess my question is -- why should she quit? It's my understanding that many times before things would go to conventions and crazy crap would happen. That's really the only way Lincoln ever got elected.

Yeah and that was just last year.

Oh wait.

[Greyroofoo]

lol @ democrats

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

She already IS in it... she just won't likely win. Regardless, Obama is going to need the superdelegates to win anyway (and they likely will go for him).

He'll most definitely need the super delegates. I think this is going to be a first in political history -- a party nominee who didn't win a single one of the major primary states other than his own.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Yeah and that was just last year.

Oh wait.

It's happened more recently as well. As late as '72 if I remember correctly.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Yeah and that was just last year.

Oh wait.

It's happened more recently as well. As late as '72 if I remember correctly.

[Young Drachma]

Visible Man

[chesapeake]

Don't panic. A hotly contested primary is not the end of the world. Never forget that pundits and columnists make their money by spinning you up. Plenty of positives are coming out of this.

1. Obama is getting some seasoning as a candidate that he clearly needed. Better now than in October.
2. Democrats across the board are raising money at astounding rates, far outpacing McCain and the GOP. This race is a big reason for that.
3. Democratic voters in every state in the country have turned out in or near record numbers to vote. Primary election voters almost always turn out in the general election.
4. Obama's message is getting out to every key battleground state and people have been paying attention because the primary election has mattered. That is ground that he doesn't have to make up later, which allows you to go straight to your strategic message in the fall. McCain is going to have to devote a lot of his more limited resources to doing this.

I am not convinced that in November, we won't be looking back at this primary mess and saying that it played a big role in the Democratic victory -- sort of the "all press is good press" viewpoint.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Don't panic. A hotly contested primary is not the end of the world. Never forget that pundits and columnists make their money by spinning you up. Plenty of positives are coming out of this.

1. Obama is getting some seasoning as a candidate that he clearly needed. Better now than in October.
2. Democrats across the board are raising money at astounding rates, far outpacing McCain and the GOP. This race is a big reason for that.
3. Democratic voters in every state in the country have turned out in or near record numbers to vote. Primary election voters almost always turn out in the general election.
4. Obama's message is getting out to every key battleground state and people have been paying attention because the primary election has mattered. That is ground that he doesn't have to make up later, which allows you to go straight to your strategic message in the fall. McCain is going to have to devote a lot of his more limited resources to doing this.

I am not convinced that in November, we won't be looking back at this primary mess and saying that it played a big role in the Democratic victory -- sort of the "all press is good press" viewpoint.

That's a pretty good point. I'm sure Obama's people would rather all the fuss over Rev. Wright and other non-policy issues come out now when he can deal with them in the context of the primary. If Clinton doesn't hit him with anything, then it is left out there on a tee for McCain to blast away in the general election.

So along the same lines, by not bringing up all kinds of Clinton's dirty laundry, Obama is making it difficult for Clinton to win a general election, since I'm sure the McCain camp has a wealth of stuff on Clinton they just can't wait to unload.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

So along the same lines, by not bringing up all kinds of Clinton's dirty laundry, Obama is making it difficult for Clinton to win a general election, since I'm sure the McCain camp has a wealth of stuff on Clinton they just can't wait to unload.

The conventional wisdom is that Hillary's dirty laundry has already been aired, having been blasted regularly during her husband's administration. If the GOP had something else on her, it would have been used already.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

The conventional wisdom is that Hillary's dirty laundry has already been aired, having been blasted regularly during her husband's administration. If the GOP had something else on her, it would have been used already.

Why???? They want Hillary to win.

[ISiddiqui]

They wanted her to win back in the 90s? Well that's interesting news.

[ISiddiqui]

And looking at the polls in Ohio, PA, and FL (the states that will likely decide the thing), I don't think the Reps are rooting for Hillary (Hillary is doing better than Obama against McCain in those states).

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And looking at the polls in Ohio, PA, and FL (the states that will likely decide the thing), I don't think the Reps are rooting for Hillary (Hillary is doing better than Obama against McCain in those states).

I think most Republicans are rooting for a long, drawn out, bitter primary in which Obama wins the nomination. You're right in terms of the polling, and more Clinton supporters say they won't support Obama than the other way around, so it's in the GOP's best interest to have Obama as the candidate.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I think most Republicans are rooting for a long, drawn out, bitter primary in which Obama wins the nomination. You're right in terms of the polling, and more Clinton supporters say they won't support Obama than the other way around, so it's in the GOP's best interest to have Obama as the candidate.

Yep, exactly and I think that most Republicans realize that. For all the "Hillary will unite the Republican base" stuff, having Obama be the nominee may even work better for the Republicans (yeah, like the base will really stay home when the opposing candidate is proposing all those social programs?)

[-apoc-]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And looking at the polls in Ohio, PA, and FL (the states that will likely decide the thing), I don't think the Reps are rooting for Hillary (Hillary is doing better than Obama against McCain in those states).

I am going to have to disagree there. Assuming they had to pick one or the other they would want to face Clinton at this point. Not even counting how ugly things would get in the D side if she were to win it now.

2 Electorial maps

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/Apr23.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/Apr23.html

Obama has 211 EVs locked up vs Mcains 178, Clinton only has 172 vs McCains 226. So the battle would be fought over the middle ground in Obamas case that would be 58 votes that are currently his that he has to defend and 76 that McCain has to defend plus 15 NC that is a toss up. Hillary has to defend 117 and only has 13 to attack that are McCains plus 10 that are a toss up.

So while at first glance the extra 20 EVs Clinton has over Obama 289 vs 269 at this point looks strong it is very typical of Hillarys numbers overall. She starts out very strong but she doesnt have any room to improve and she will be facing a defensive campaign in FL, OH, MN, MO, NV, OR, WA, HI, NJ, and CT she can only pick up ground in NM, KY and WI is the tossup.

Obama on the other hand is also in a winning position to start and has to play defense in NV, CO, MI, MA, NJ but gets to attack McCain in NM, TX, SC, OH, NH NE and the tossup there is NC.

Given the fincial advantage that the Dems will likely have this fall if you were the RNC where would you rather this fight rage in traditional swing states like FL, OH, MO, WI or being forced to defend traditional red states like TX, SC, NC, and NE. The last thing you want with limited funds is to be forced to defend your strongholds and thats what Obama forces you to do. Case in point he almost bankrupted Clintons campaign in PA by forcing her to defend it with all the money she had. Granted she would have spent most of it there anyway but he was on the air weeks ago in NC, and IN something she couldnt afford to do because she was so invested in PA.

Of course all of this assumes the Dems can actually finish this thing off nicely which at this point who knows.

[ISiddiqui]

Unfortunately on that site, some of the polls are really old. For Texas, for example, the poll is from February 28th. And they seem to only use one poll per state... and a site like realclearpolitics.com shows that they can vary greatly.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Unfortunately on that site, some of the polls are really old. For Texas, for example, the poll is from February 28th. And they seem to only use one poll per state... and a site like realclearpolitics.com shows that they can vary greatly.

In defense of the guy at electoral-vote.com, he's very clear that he doesn't start compiling and tracking the polls until both nominee are established. I think he said a few weeks back that since there are still two Democrats in it, he doesn't put a lot of faith in the current cross-party polls.

Once the Dem nomination is sorted out, it'll go back to being a very good predictor site (it has been a blast, and pretty accurate, the past two cycles).

[Vegas Vic]

Those electoral college maps are a joke. I quit looking at them after I saw Nebraska and Texas listed as "Barely GOP", and Massachusetts listed as "Barely Dem". Most of their polling data is stale, and quite a few states only have one or two polls from February.

At this point, these states are locks for McCain and Obama. Feel free to disagree with me if you want to, but I've been seriously following this stuff for over 20 years. So I'll go on record right now and say that these states are certain for both candidates:

McCain (189):

Alabama (9)
Alaska (3)
Arizona (10)
Arkansas (6)
Georgia (15)
Idaho (4)
Indiana (11)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Louisiana (9)
Mississippi (6)
Montana (3)
Nebraska (5)
North Carolina (15)
North Dakota (3)
Oklahoma (7)
South Carolina (8)
South Dakota (3)
Tennessee (11)
Texas (34)
Utah (5)
West Virginia (5)
Wyoming (3)

Obama (175):

California (55)
Connecticut (7)
D.C. (3)
Delaware (3)
Hawaii (4)
Illinois (21)
Maine (4)
Maryland (10)
Massachusetts (12)
New York (31)
Oregon (7)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
Washington (11)

[QuikSand]

I think VV's list is pretty sound overall. The only material uncertainty I could see would be that if events (like a bad perceived turn in the Iraq "surge" perhaps) make the whole tide sway against the GOP, then it's conceivable that some of the former swing states could swing blue. In that sort of electoral landslide scenario, I could envision WV and TN (maybe LA?) potentially going Dem. But if we're sizing up to a pretty standard battle for the middle in an overall pretty close race (the likeliest scenario in my view) then I'd agree that those are pretty much the starting point lists for the two parties.