It's not Hillary's to lose...

Tommy T

According to the Rasmussen polls she has a lead over Obama in all the large delegate numbered States. It's a done deal. Unless edwards throws a spanner in the works and endorses Obama that is...

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

whatawaster

Tommy T wrote: »

According to the Rasmussen polls she has a lead over Obama in all the large delegate numbered States. It's a done deal. Unless edwards throws a spanner in the works and endorses Obama that is...

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

your overconfidence is laughable. Look at California. A 3% lead. with a margin of error of how much? And Oprah coming out to campaign for him there tomorrow. In the largest state - delelgate wise - in the country. It's far from a done deal.
Hillary is favourite - no doubt - but I expect it to be close.

Clinton had almost 50% in california in all previous polls. Now down to 43.

Manic Moran

The only big states she has sewn up seem to be NY and NJ. And I wouldn't consider states like IL, OH or WA, who are apparently leaning Obama's way to be particularly small. I don't think it's over next week.

NTM

Tommy T

Mathmatically it may stll be a contest but Hillary will have a commanding lead and only a matter of time...

whatawaster

Tommy T wrote: »

Mathmatically it may stll be a contest but Hillary will have a commanding lead and only a matter of time...

are you brainwashed?
Either that or you're a puppet controlled by Mrs Clinton herself.
That is a statement above with no basis. You can't tell the future.

whatawaster

Manic Moran wrote: »

The only big states she has sewn up seem to be NY and NJ. And I wouldn't consider states like IL, OH or WA, who are apparently leaning Obama's way to be particularly small. I don't think it's over next week.

NTM

Another point to consider is the breakdown of districts within states. In New York for instance Hillary will win comfortably probably. But Obama should take a lot of the districts with large african american groups. Therefore the actual delegate breakdown will be rather closer than results or polls might suggest.
California will be huge. The gap has closed in the last week.

oscarBravo

whatawaster wrote: »

are you brainwashed?
Either that or you're a puppet controlled by Mrs Clinton herself.

Careful now.

ghostdancer

California: Clinton has blown a huge lead, and now with the LA Times and La Opinion (largest Spanish language paper in the country and 2nd most read in LA after the times) endorsements, that's sure to put Obama up very close to her. I'm sceptical to the power of Oprah and Ted Kennedy out there at the moment. I'd imagine that Clinton will win the popular vote, but the fact that she was so far ahead, and that now seems to have dwindled dramatically, is pretty embarassing for her campaign. It's worth noting that she was spending almost the whole weekend in CA, while Obama was all over the country, indicating to me, that the Clinton campaign isn't too sure of themselves here.

NJ: there's no doubt that Obama is trending upwards over the last 2 weeks. Clinton has blown a 30 point lead over Obama from 2/3 weeks ago, down to on average, a 6/7 point lead, with yesterday's Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll putting her at 1 point lead over Obama w/ 14 undecided. again, she should take the state's popular vote, but such a big collapse over the last few weeks is a major slip up.

NY: Clinton should take this by 15% of the popular vote, anything less will be a disaster. Obama will be looking to be to take good chunks of delegates in NYC and the metro area. Clinton should easily carry upstate NY, but it's hardly delegate rich. she should take a bigger chunk of delegates, but I think anything less than 3:2 in delegate numbers here is a big problem for Clinton.


so those are the three you've dealt with in your OP. no surprise that you've declined to discuss states like Illinois, Georgia, which are pretty big, where Obama is expected to comfortably lead, but i wouldn't expect anything less.


Clinton should take more delegates than him on Tuesday, she needs a lead of 200 to have it sewn up IMO. less than 100 will be a big problem for her.

Tommy T

Why are some of you in so much denial here..?

A look at the voter bases of both candidates tells you all you need to know. Hiollary's bases of women, over 40's and white working classes trumps Obama's young, male and black voters everytime when it comes to those who actually take the trouble to turn out and vote.

Given this in the big delegate States with the young, male and black support factored into the polls supporting Obama and Hillary still has a lead. The only result in Hillary coming out on top with a comfortable delegate lead on Wednesday...

ghostdancer

how did the overwhelmingly (91%) white state of Iowa vote again Tommy? I'll give you a clue, the winner's name began with "B" and ended with "arack".

South Carolina - 68% white, 30% black. By your logic (which let's face it, is laughably incorrect), not only should Clinton have comfortably won this, but black voters would have stayed at home. oh, except that didn't happen. how did that turn out again? 55% Obama, 27% Clinton.

let's not forget that she hasn't actually won any statesin terms of delegates yet. Obama has won 3, and drawn 1. and as the Clinton camp has said, "it's all about delegates".

so basically your little theory there is wrong.

now, what exactly are the big delegate states? California is the largest, where Clinton has spectacularly lost a huge lead, and Obama is now basically level. i know you're trying to convince yourself that she has a large lead here, but all the evidence says otherwise, right down to her spending the whole weekend there.
next largest is New York, where she's a senator, and is up about 15/20 according to polls.
next is Illinois, where obama's a senator. where he's up a good 20/25.
so the 3 biggest are pretty evenly split between the 2.
after that NJ seems to be giving Clinton a slight lead, although that is quickly dwindling, Mass. goes comfortably to Clinton, Georgia comfortably to Obama.
so the top 6 states are pretty much even.

you say that the only result is Clinton coming out with a comfortable delegate lead, but you've absolutely no idea.
few would doubt that she'll take more delegates on Tuesday, but most would question your frankly ludicrous claims that she's going to walk it. even the Clinton campaign themselves have said that they see it going on past Tuesday.
but hey, don't let facts and figures get in the way of your fairytale. just keep on throwing out your ideas, no need to bother responding to any of the points raised by anyone throughout the thread, right?

so much denial? it's called realism and reason. you've heard of it, right?

Tommy T

Its quite simple mate. Given the polls we have to hand with the young, male and Black voters factored in Hillary has a lead in NY, CA, NJ and Mass. Given that these voters mentioned do not vote in the same numbers as women, over 40's and white blue collars its therefore obvious that Hillary will have a comfortable lead on wednesday.

If I'm wrong I'll be the first to hold my hand up but I believe the figures rather than a media talking about a neck and neck battle that's based in their wishes rather than reality...

ghostdancer

your simplistic view of the methodology of polls, and your complete lack of account for demographic and cultural make-up of states, and your (wrong) assumption that Obama's only base is young,male AND black, whereas Clinton's is any of the 3 mentioned, makes this not even worth my while, especially since you haven't even bothered trying to respond to the points put forward not only by me, but others.

no-one seems to be saying that's it's neck and neck, or that Obama will win. we're just amused that you actually believe that Clinton will easily walk away with enough delegates to have the whole thing completely sewn up, come Wednesday.
if you're right, then well done, but it flies in the face of what pretty much every informed commentator is saying, as well as both the Obama and Clinton camps themselves.

ghostdancer

while i'm here, Clinton took in 10million in January, Obama took in 32million.
more info on the overall state of campaign finances:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=423

Tommy T

If its not worth your while to respond then don't bother.. I'll lose no sleep either way.

Fact is Black, young and male voters don't vote in the same numbers as women, over 40's and white blue collars. Past elections have shown this time and time again. If you want to bury your head in the sand and wish it to be different then fine.

Hillary will come out with a comfortable delegate lead 200+ come wednesday...

whatawaster

Tommy T wrote: »

If its not worth your while to respond then don't bother.. I'll lose no sleep either way.

Fact is Black, young and male voters don't vote in the same numbers as women, over 40's and white blue collars. Past elections have shown this time and time again. If you want to bury your head in the sand and wish it to be different then fine.

Hillary will come out with a comfortable delegate lead 200+ come wednesday...

Perhaps young black voters have never been inspired to come out and vote like they will this time around. As has been said already, you're views here are blinkered beyond belief (this is not an insult, merely an observation). It's like being on the Religion board.

And I deeply resent the warning i got for the above post. I was merely asking a question and was genuinely curious.

Manic Moran

Another point to consider is the breakdown of districts within states.

That's an excellent point. California's delegates are awarded by Congressional District, not by simple proportion. It is quite possible to win the popular vote, but lose in terms of delegates, much like in Nevada. For example, let's say you have a very good lead in San Francisco. As a high-density area, a 1% lead is a sizeable number of voters, and skews the polls in favour of you. But it's still only one delegate. On the other hand, the other candidate might have a 1% lead in Nevada County, with a population of 300 persons, seventy dogs, and 48 beavers. (Or something like that). It's still one delegate, even though the 'lead' is negligible in terms of state-wide poll numbers. I have no idea which candidate is leading in the high-density areas.

NTM

Jack Sheehan

According to the polls quoted in the OP Obama now has a tiny LEAD over Clinton.

Tommy T

whatawaster wrote: »

Perhaps young black voters have never been inspired to come out and vote like they will this time around. As has been said already, you're views here are blinkered beyond belief (this is not an insult, merely an observation). It's like being on the Religion board.

And I deeply resent the warning i got for the above post. I was merely asking a question and was genuinely curious.

I know nothing of your warning however i am neither brainwashed nor a puppet.

I am a Hillary fan and am confidtent in her ability to come out of tsunami tueaday with a healthy delegate lead given the make up of both candidates support bases...

whatawaster

Looks like the Rasmussan report that you cited above now show Obama leading in California. Odd. I thought it was all over.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/california/election_2008_california_democratic_presidential_primary

Tommy T

whatawaster wrote: »

Looks like the Rasmussan report that you cited above now show Obama leading in California. Odd. I thought it was all over.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/california/election_2008_california_democratic_presidential_primary

Meet the Press this morning quoted a poll giving Hillary a 9 point lead in CA... But even taking the latest rasmussen figures that would give Hillary a 5 point win in my view given the solidity of her voting machine compared to Obama's base... A Hillary win in CA is still well on the cards...

ghostdancer

a Hilary win by less than 5 points is a massive slip up.

i think she'll win CA by a few percent, but if i was her, i'd be pretty pissed off with that, considering the massive lead she had.

Tommy T

ghostdancer wrote: »

a Hilary win by less than 5 points is a massive slip up.

i think she'll win CA by a few percent, but if i was her, i'd be pretty pissed off with that, considering the massive lead she had.

But it will be a huge psychological fill-up for her to the win. Perception is often as important than reality. With the Obama surge in the last 10 days with the media playing it up for all their worth a Clinton victory will take alot of the air out of him...

banquo

There's no way it's over this tuesday night. Although I can't wait; popcorn, cushions etc already set up.

Tommy T

banquo wrote: »

There's no way it's over this tuesday night. Although I can't wait; popcorn, cushions etc already set up.

It's going to be fun alright... I should have taken wednesday morning off work...!

whatawaster

Tommy T wrote: »

It's going to be fun alright... I should have taken wednesday morning off work...!

perhaps we should all book dentist appointments for wednesday morning!

Tommy T

whatawaster wrote: »

perhaps we should all book dentist appointments for wednesday morning!

Ah yes. The old canals need rooting...;)

is_that_so

This piece goes into the PR system they use to work out delegates and I thought ours was complicated. It may also favour Clinton as she seems better able to get her vote out. The fact that it appear to go down to almost district level suggests that any polls are to be taken with a huge pinch of salt.
Even so it won't be over for a while yet. That could backfire on the Dems especially if McCain becomes the GOP nominee after tomorrow. From the bloodletting that was the GOP race, all of a sudden they would have a candidate who could start campaigning for President now.

A complicated read for a Monday morning. Enjoy!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/02/03/MNE1UOVB1.DTL

ghostdancer

desperate times call for desperate measures....again. :rolleyes:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/clinton_crys_in_connecticut.html

snow scorpion

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

According to the polls quoted in the OP Obama now has a tiny LEAD over Clinton.

And those polls were taken before Hillary went on national television Sunday and promised that, if elected, she will garnish the wages of anyone who doesn't buy into government run health care.

/you know ... she's not really as smart as the press says she is.

FatherTed

The polls are trending more toward to O'Bama and Clinton is slipping badly. Of course they're only polls. Anything could happen today.

In any case, I voted early this morning in Connecticut. Interesting to note that there was a line of about 20 people waiting to vote Dem while nobody in the Repub line. Also in CT, O'Bama was at top of the form while Hillary near the bottom after Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich etc. I think they draw the order out of a hat.

Manic Moran

FatherTed wrote: »

I think they draw the order out of a hat.

I believe that's how they do it here in CA as well.

NTM