Defending My Projection: Clinton Can Win the Popular Vote
My post projecting the possible outcome of the remaining Democratic contests has provoked a lot of commentary, most of it—pro and con—quite thoughtful. As I explained, I was making projections that were optimistic from Hillary Clinton's point of view, and I found, to my surprise, that the results showed Clinton ahead of Obama in popular votes (whether Florida, Michigan, and imputed caucus results for four states were included or not) but Obama still ahead in delegate votes.
Some commenters have argued that I was too optimistic (again, from the Clinton point of view). I'm not convinced. Remember that I was projecting the percentage of the two-candidate vote for each candidate. I projected a 60 percent to 40 percent win for Clinton in Pennsylvania. Current RealClearPolitics.com average poll numbers show her leading the two-candidate vote 57 percent to 43 percent. I projected a 55 percent to 45 percent win for Obama in North Carolina. Current RealClearPolitics.com average poll numbers show him leading the two-candidate vote 57 percent to 43 percent. Current polls may be off, or those currently undecided could swing heavily to one candidate, or turnout may be heavier among Obama than among Clinton voters. But I think my estimates are defensible as outcomes that are possible.
I've also been criticized for projecting that Clinton would carry Indiana and that she would carry Kentucky and West Virginia by wide margins. As I explained, I was influenced in all three cases by the wide margins—75 percent to 80 percent of the two-candidate vote—Clinton won in many southern Ohio counties. These counties, I think, look and feel a lot like southern Indiana and most of Kentucky and West Virginia. My projections that Clinton would get 60 percent in Indiana, 65 percent in Kentucky, and 70 percent in West Virginia may be high. And don't be distracted by talk that most of Indiana gets Chicago media, which has been full of positive news about Obama for nearly four years. Only the northwest corner of the state does—about two congressional districts out of nine. Hoosiers elsewhere in the state don't take their lead from Chicago. And some of the Chicago news about Obama has been negative—the Tribune and Sun-Times have covered Tony Rezko much more than other media.
In Oregon, I gave Obama 60 percent of the two-candidate vote, even though he got only 53 percent of the two-candidate vote in the nonbinding primary in neighboring (and fairly similar) Washington on February 19.
To put my projections in perspective, I went back to RealClearPolitics.com's summary of the popular vote in previous primaries, and calculated Clinton's percentage of the two-candidate Clinton-and-Obama vote. The two-candidate vote is relevant, since no other candidate will get over the 15 percent threshold that Democrats tend to require for a candidate to win delegates. Although Clinton hasn't gotten more than 60 percent of the total vote in any state but Arkansas, where she lived and worked for nearly 20 years, she gets 60 percent or near to it of the two-candidate vote in many. To wit,
Arkansas 73
Oklahoma 64
Florida 60
New York 59
Rhode Island 59
Massachusetts 58
Michigan 58
Tennessee 57
New Jersey 55
Ohio 55
(In Michigan, I have shown the Clinton percentage of the Clinton-Uncommitted vote.) Is it unrealistic to project that Clinton would get about the same percentage of the two-candidate vote in Kentucky as she did in Oklahoma? Or that she would get about the same percentage of the two-candidate vote in Indiana as she did in Tennessee? Or that she would get about the same percentage of the two-candidate vote in Pennsylvania as she did in New York, Rhode Island, or Massachusetts? Or that she would get about the same percentage of the two-candidate vote in West Virginia as she did in Arkansas? I don't think so. Sure, she wasn't the first lady of West Virginia for 12 years. But the Mountain State seems to have an aversion to Obama. SurveyUSA's 50-state polls, released March 6, showed Clinton beating John McCain in West Virginia 47 percent to 42 percent, while Obama loses the state to McCain by 53 percent to 35 percent. Some 57 percent of West Virginia voters are registered Democrats, eligible to vote in the primary, but only 35 percent are prepared to vote for Obama against McCain.
As for North Carolina, consider Clinton's percentage of the two-candidate vote in the states where she was weakest.
Delaware 44
Alabama 43
Utah 41
Wisconsin 41
Vermont 39
Louisiana 38
Maryland 37
Mississippi 37
Virginia 36
Illinois 34
South Carolina 32
Georgia 32
D.C. 23
Why did I not project North Carolina (21 percent black) to vote like Virginia (19 percent black)? Because North Carolina whites are different from Virginia whites. According to the 2007 Census Bureau population estimates, the Northern Virginia counties and independent cities in the Washington metropolitan area have 2,454,486 people, 32 percent of the state's population. The North Carolina counties in the Raleigh and Durham metropolitan area have 1,527,253 people, 17 percent of the state's population. These metro areas are where you find the bulk of the liberal, upscale white voters, and in Virginia they form twice as large a share of the population as in North Carolina. The coastal regions of east Carolina have nothing like the Hampton Roads metro area; Democratic voters here tend to be conservative and tradition-minded, and there are still plenty of registered Democrats in those parts. There's also a hot Democratic primary race for governor that will be drawing them to the polls. The upshot is that I expect North Carolina's results to look more like Alabama's and less like Virginia's.
About Puerto Rico, I confessed I was simply guessing. Commenter Liahona makes some good and some not-so-good points:
To be valid, Hillary would have to win Puerto Rico by a huge margin—almost as much as she wins Pennsylvania by. That won't happen. I think it is probably based on the ffact [sic] that she has done well with Hispanics in Texas and California. Well, your reasoning is flawed. All Hispanics are not alike. I used to live in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans are a Caribbean people (Antillanos). Most Puerto Ricans either look like Barack Obama or have a relative who does. Obama has the support of the governor (who's indicted but still in office). The Obama team is also well-organized. He is likely to do extremely well, if not win. So, since your argument is based on a false assumption, it is wrong.
She (or he) may well be right about Obama being well organized, but remember that this is a primary, not a caucus, and turnout in Puerto Rican elections typically is higher than anywhere on the mainland. So a campaign's ability to get supporters to the polls may turn out to be not very important. I agree heartily that all Hispanics are not alike. But very few look like Obama; few have ancestors from either Kenya or Kansas. And I don't think they're likely to be swayed, as another commenter says, by Bill Richardson, who grew up in Mexico City and now lives in Santa Fe, N.M.—both a long way from the Antilles (and with quite differently accented Spanish). But many Puerto Ricans do have close ties to New York, Clinton's home state now, and some may have close ties to recent migrants from the island to Florida, where Clinton won 60 percent of the two-candidate vote. In Osceola County (Kissimmee, Disney World), which has had a lot of Puerto Rican migrants, she won 72 percent of the two-candidate vote. If Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico vote like Puerto Ricans in New York and (probably) Florida voted, they'll give Clinton a solid majority of the two-candidate vote.
I projected South Dakota and Montana to vote for Clinton. Many commenters noted that neighboring states voted heavily for Obama. Yes, but those were caucuses, not primaries. I think almost everyone expects that the South Dakota and Montana primaries will produce lower Obama percentages than the Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, or Nebraska caucuses, in which Obama got 82 percent, 62 percent, 63 percent and 68 percent of the two-candidate vote, respectively. How much lower no one knows. Anyway, if you give Obama rather than Clinton 60 percent of the two-candidate vote and keep the rest of my projections the same, Clinton still ends up with more popular votes than Obama.
Am I guaranteeing that Clinton will win the popular vote? Certainly not. I maintain that these projections are optimistic from Clinton's point of view but not wildly unrealistic. I agree with almost every analyst that Clinton can't win a plurality of delegates selected in primaries and caucuses. But I do think it's possible that she can win more popular votes than Obama.
Note: I've left Guam, which elects four delegates, out of my calculations. Uh-oh.
Tags: presidential election 2008 | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (103)
Reader Comments
Thank you
Thank you for going against the grain and stating a well researched scenario. I'm sure you have gotten lots of heat from some for your analysis that shows a possible Clinton Popular Vote win.
On the subject of pledged delegates versus superdelegates--this conversation has gotten way out of control- with everyone treating these party primaries as if this is the general election. These are primaries where we the Democratic Party chooses our nominee- no one else's business.
The Party has rules that it can adjust or redo or whatever. The premise that Michican and Florida can't have a re do because "they violated party rules" is so lame because of the situation- no one thought that the nominees would be in a statistical dead heat with neither coming close with pledged delegates to the magic #. We don't have a landslide- we have Obama winning by a squeek. That's the reality that I wish the media would start talking about--it's a dead statistical heat.
The superdelegates have earned the right to vote how they want to.
The Obama campaign has really done a great job of getting the political pundits to parrot their faulty argument as if this is the general election.
Popular Vote
Please keep us informed as we go through these elections on how your projections do.
I support Obama and feel that for the people who are reading the books, hearing the message, getting a sense of his message and the presence of Michelle Obama, it not so much like having a candidate as it is like being in love. With the future and the possibilities.
So, now, my thinking is that IF Sen. Clinton wins the popular vote she gets to be the nominee. Despite her efforts to make an end run around that with the electoral college. HUH?
So if you are right, and she does win the popular vote, she gets to run against John McCain and Obama gets to be the senator from Illinois. That's fine.
But what if your projections are too rational and this is about love?
Popular vote is irrelevant
The reason popular vote doesn't matter and pledged delegates do is all about something called equal representation. Its unfair to all caucus-only states such as my own, Colorado. If we chose a candidate based on popular vote, then Colorado would be even less significant than Rhode Island. Have you honestly not thought about that, or are you just ignoring it hoping that no one will really consider the legitimacy of a popular vote nomination. So if you are just trying to push another weak defense argument for Clinton, then I understand... but you have to at some point acknowledge the depth of its unfairness. If just Colorado was a primary, Obama would be ahead in popular vote by 1,000,000 right now... but its not. That's why we have pledged delegates.
projections popular vote
Dear Mr Barone
I had over the week-end tried my own projections, with a different slant. The text in the form of an oped will probably be published this week.
Having reviewed your computations, it seems to me the wide disparities in the figures i have fwith you over the popular vote come from your putting likely voters at 6 + million, where i have the figure of 4.3 m. 4.3 is my estimated population in the remaining contests, compared with the 26 m votes cast so far, in proportion to the the overall US population.
Chibli Mallat
Prof of law, U. of Utah
THANK YOU
Its funny all of you think she is the savior like you do. I mean hasnt she lied on several different occasion and has been called out on it? Sniper fire? taxes? that she cared for florida and michigan befored they matted? Open your eyes.
Hillary has more support than many think
Hillary Clinton has tremendous support down here in Florida, and it's the kind of muffled support that isn't showing up in polls. Many of the people down here blame Obama for thwarting a revote. And she has endorsements in unlikely areas, such as here, for instance:
http://ladycatherinebedamned.blogspot.com/
SHE LOST ALREADY. GIVE UP THE GHOST!
cindy barba,
So, you think McCain would be better for this country than Obama? WOW, and you call Obama supporters "cult-like". What foolishness. McCain will uphold Bush's policies for another four years, maybe eight. You honestly want four more years of Bush-like policies? You want that blood on your hands? You hillary supporters sound much like petulant children who throw a tantrum when they don't get their own way. Sorry, Hillary lost, dry your tears and get real.
wait.....
is this blog an april fool's joke?
Hillary in 08? probably unlikely
But I wanted to clarify a previous post about Hillary's lies - bosnia, lewinsky (something this is relevant)...has she lied on her taxes? ....(for some reason her taxes need to be revealed, although I personally believe it's a personal matter - I, for one, would not want my coworkers or friends poring over my financial matters)...
Every politician lies...look at Obama...
-who says McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years...that is a misquote....
-who says that he never before heard Wright say anything disparaging about whites....a contradiction to his race speech because he acknowledges his pastor's sermons
-who took in more money from Rezko than what was previously thought.
-his promise of change and nonpartisan politics is one big fat contradiction to a record of voting down democratic lines and limited bi-partisan legislation.
Every politician lies...or misspeaks...I think Obama supporters should recognize that.
Even if she only cared about Michigan and Florida after she "won" the states...doesn't change the fact that she recognizes the need for their votes in the general election. yes...she "broke" the rules by putting her name on the ballot in Michigan (in response, fliers were mailed out to vote uncommitted)...but he's not blameless...he broke the rules in putting up campaign ads in Florida, although a court said that he didn't. go figure!
I think I'll stick with Clinton... I may REALLY dislike her, but I know she's capable of doing her job.
Poll in Penn.
Mr. Barone -- bravo, great analysis. If Clinton wins the pop vote, watch out.
To Kira of NV:
Sorry, you are cherry picking your polls in Penn.
The Survey USA poll just released shows Clinton up by 12 points, 53 to 41, in Pennsylvania.
http://kdka.com/local/KDKA.poll.campaign.2.689536.html?loc=interstitialskip
Besides, Rasmussen's polls tend for some reason to have high "not sure" results, as the one you cite does.
Obama wins Florida!
I have lived in Florida for over 17 years. I was here during the Clinton Presidency and during 2000 with Al Gore. I know the young people here in Florida and I know who is organizing where and who is not.
Hillarys support is coming from three groups. The old Jewish people, Cubans and the rural people.
Obama has the support here of the Europeans, Canadians and the young. He also has a lot of support among Ind people. He has real strong support here and if there was a revote I would not be suprised if Obama won this state. Most of Obama's support comes from the educated professionals, students and most of us did not go out to vote as we understood that it would not count. If you see from the primary results that Florida and Michigan are the only States in this Primary that the Republican turn out out-numbered the Democrat turn out.
I think that Obama would not support a re-vote only because it's wasting time and he has said that the delegates will be seated. He realizes that this thing needs to be wrapped up ASAP and wasting money and time on a revote in order to net 8-10 delegates either way is stupid.
I have never seen a more organized enthusiastic team in Florida.
God help us if she wins
She cares about herself onlyand is a pathalogical liar.
WHERE ARE HER TAX RETURNS? Must be a lot in them for her to REFUSE to release them
Still off as new polls emerge
The problem with basing your projections on polls in some instances and demographics in others, is that you are left with a soup that is neither balanced or seasoned with reason. You pick out only the facts (be they polls in some cases or demographics in others) that support your case while ignoring the facts that don't. Firstly, Rasmussen came out with a poll in PA that has Clinton up only 5, PPP now has Obama up 18 in NC. Secondly, Indiana's only public poll (if polls are your preference) had Obama up 15 points and many of Ohio's counties demographically (if demographics be your preference) are similar to Wisconsin's and yet you base Indiana et al on Ohio and not Wisconsin. Which is the exception and which is the rule? I guess that's the trouble with projections, is that it is hard to "project" past results forward when past results contradict each other. The trouble is that you air on the side of the "Pro-Clinton" contradictions and never balance that with "Pro-Obama" arguments. Here is a "balanced" view from myself and I am willing to bet my projection will be FAR more accurate than yours...and I will even give a "rosey" scenario for Clinton and show how far behind she is...PA: Hillary +220K, NC: Obama +100K, IN: Hillary +32K, WV: Hillary +30K, OR: Obama +55K, KY: Hillary +100K, PR: Hillary +150K, Montana: Obama +10K, SD: Obama +4K. Leaving Obama with a plurality of 360K. Please find me and take my bet.
Still Unacceptable
I'm glad you were put on the defensive by your previous article. It was absurd.
The title of that article: "Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote." This one: "Clinton CAN Win the Popular Vote." The backtracking is startling.
"I think my estimates are defensible as outcomes that are possible." What? Projections suggest likely outcomes, not remotely possible outcomes. Suggestion for a new title: "Clinton Camp's Best Case Scenario: Hillary MIGHT Narrowly Win the Popular Vote."
"About Puerto Rico, I confessed I was simply guessing." Gee, that's reassuring. So you projected Clinton winning by about 100k votes, but you admit you just handed her 300k votes in the projection with no real basis? How is that remotely defensible journalism?
Worst of all: Hillary broke 60% in only two states that voted thus far (Arkansas, Oklahoma). You have her doing so in 7 of the last 9. You defend that indefensible stance by listing her largest wins of the campaign, most of which were in the mid-50s. Um, hello? Wouldn't that disprove your point?
Why in the world is she stronger in Montana, South Dakota and Indiana than she was in Ohio? Why is she stronger in those three states than she was in New York?
It makes no sense!
TL
You left out Charlotte and Asheville in your North Carolina analysis. I would be surprised if Clinton won either place, especially Charlotte where the African American Community is very strong in the Democratic Party.
Missing the data
I think that polls like RealClearPolitics.com do not call college students nor high school seniors. It is obvious that missing data will lead to flawed results. Remember Wisconsin? Add 5 percentage points automatically to Obama and you may be in the ballpark. Still Indiana is up for grabs - there will be a nearly 50/50 split in numbers. In Kentucky, nearly all of the politicans endorsed Hillary, but over 700 people turned out to a office opening hoping to volunteer for the Obama campaign office. The politicans will not be picking the president, the people will. I think you should bear that in mind when making your next prediction. It will be less likely that you will have to eat crow. Oh, and the reason Hillary won the popular in Texas - 100,000 crossover Republicans that wanted to throw the election. Ohio had over 48,000 brought out by Rush L - and the state is investigating it as voter fraud. Do not use Ohio or Texas as anything real for the general.
Think About It
DON'T BE DUPED !!!
Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.
But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. “Carpe diem” (harvest the day).
I think Hillary Clinton see’s a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it’s time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children’s future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.
You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don’t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.
Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!
As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.
Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.
If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.
The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.
I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton’s offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama’s place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.
The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.
Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.
“This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)
Sincerely
jacksmith...
ORegon
Comparing the OR with the WA primary is ... silly. Do you remember that the WA primary did NOT count and therefore no real effort was made to turn out the vote ? That it was an all-mail primary most people figured did not count (because it did not) and therefore did not participate in ?
The fact the participation was higher does not mean it was a good reflection of the electorate.
Obama's margin of victory in WA would have been much much higher with a real primary. As much as with the caucus ? Probably not. But much much higher than 53%.
It is a detail but it is the series of sort of misguided mistakes like that, however small they are individually, make your scenario highly unlikely.
INdiana
Another example. A new poll has Hillary up 9 today in IN.
So yes, it is possible for her to win IN. But 9 points a month before the primary after arguably a rough few weeks for Obama in terms of white electorate in IN and before he even started campaigning in the state (while she and BIll has been there quite a bit) seem to me like a *ceiling* not a baseline. 53% is not a very high ceiling to me in comparison to your numbers.
And while one might argue the undecideds could all swing to her (a scenario that could be possible in PA) it seems unlikely in places like IN where arguably the field is just as equally favorable to Obama as it is to Clinton in terms of fundamentals (the undecideds in Northeast IN would probably fall back to Obama, the candidate they know for instance even if they hesitated because of Wright for example)
Selective data picking
Mr. Barone-
I'm a close follower of politics. I think that your estimates are way off base and don't resemble an outcome that any reasonable observer would consider likely. States are not homogeneous, just because a bordering county has a high break for one candidate does not indicate that the whole state will break that way. Specifically this discounts urban areas that tend to break in Obama's direction.
But if you want to stand by them, that's fine. I just have one request, if (or in my view, when) they are proven incorrect, stand up and eat crow.
Additionally I'd like to take issue with your decision to pick WV out of Survey USA's 50 state poll. It's true that Obama loses this while Hillary wins it. But, by that same poll set, Obama wins the following states that Hillary loses: OR, WA, CO, NV, IA, MI, VA.
Or, for a better idea of things we can look at a link from Justin Ewers USNews article (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/03/31/experts-debunk-clintons-electoral-vote-idea.html).
The link (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-electoral-college-really-argument.html) is to an analysis that takes an average of all state head-to-heads (instead of picking the polls that favor one candidate). The takeaway? Hillary loses to McCain in the electoral college, Obama wins.
Beyond the media markets
The only poll taken in Indiana came in mid-February, and it had Obama up 40-25. Furthermore, two new polls show Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania shrinking. Most politicians and consultants in the state doubt that Clinton will win by 17 or so points.
Clinton wins easily
Assuming voting follows the current polls, Clinton will indeed have more votes. The Obama people have been trying to sell an over-rationalized, skewed and unfair formula whereby their candidate doesn't have to win the majority of delegates to win. The caucuses he won from smaller states are already disproportionate to the total votes. Then you exclude Florida. Then Michigan. Hey, how about only including Obama's household? That's representative, right? The rationalization he is selling for his alleged victory is a joke- but because Dean and Pelosi are uber-liberals who control the party, he may prevail. And then every state will have a chapter of "Democrats for McCain".
Changing the rules
Shrillary wants to revote in FL and MI, obviously at attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game. Constantly pointed out by the LLM.
Obysmal wants superdelegates to be pressured to vote according to primary and caucus results, in spite of the fact that they have existed for 20 years to exercise INDEPENDENT judgment, obviously at attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game. Never pointed out by the LLM.
Isn't the NYT way of always "reporting" the news in such a way as to promote your agenda fascinating? Must be the new integrity in journalism.
I miss Fred
See above; popular vote doesn't give proper weight to caucus states
Barone, see "Blake of CO" above.
Little journalist man, didn't you go to journalism school because math was too hard?
Caucus states like Iowa, Colorado, Washington, and others had nice victory margins for Obama. If these states had held primaries, Obama would have a much higher popular vote (you can't count Washington's closer primaries because voters know they don't affect the delegate count).
In sum, your calculations are meaningless. It's impossible to compare primaries to caucuses. That's why states chose _delegates_ and _delegates_ elect the nominee.
If you're proposing using popular vote as a surrogate for electability, why on earth does Puerto Rico get included?
If every state held popular vote primaries, popular vote would be all that is needed and we could get rid of the whole delegate thing. But they don't. The candidates campaign to the rules, and they win or lose by the rules. If you think that an illusionary popular vote lead for Hillary will overcome a substantial pledged delegate lead for Obama, you're wrong.
Finally, if you think the popular vote should matter, then you'd be a hypocrite if you didn't do away with the superdelegates, who are the polar opposite of the so-called popular vote.
Puerto Rico and the Hispanic vote
Mr. Barone:
You don't think Obama looks like many Hispanics; you are mistaken. He looks like many hispanics whose ancestry is mixed with African blood. Many Puerto Ricans (Spanish, Indian, and African ancestry) look like Obama just like Dominicans, Panamanians, Belizeans, etc. Will this shared African ancestry with Puerto Ricans make a difference for Obama remains to be seen; however, this does distinguish Puerto Rico from some of the southwestern states and their Hispanic communities.
By the time
... it's all over, the Democrats will be done. This slug fest is the best thing that happened to America. Two socialists slugging it out, exposing all the long hidden seams in the Democrat coalition, and giving the public a first hand look at 'free lunches for all' liberalism . Gives new meaning to "it's my turn" as the pieces of the Democrats battle each other to see who can be the biggest socialists and make the most promises they can't keep. In the end, they will both lose.
Good Article
I love the fact that he has the guts to state this possibility. To those of you who want to cry about the popular vote not being fair to your little caucus...stop having them. Get a primary like most of the civilized world. A little group of people getting together in the Obama caucus machine does not impress or sway me in the slightest. However, large states like California, New York, and Ohio, who have primaries, do impress me.
The popular vote
Tallying the so-called popular vote across:
1) Primary states; and
2) Caucus states
clearly cheats residents of the latter states. Why? Because far fewer people come out to caucuses.
I live in Washington State. Obama won our caucus (the vote that counted here in WA) by about 2-to-1. Yet, since fewer people took part in these caucuses, our huge preference for Obama barely makes a blip in the "popular vote" margin.
If we would have had a real primary (ignore the one that was held 1-2 weeks after the caucus, which no one here cared about), and Obama's percentage margin was even HALF of what it was in the caucus, his absolute/popular vote margin would have been much bigger than it was from the caucus.
So - this use of a "popular vote" is bogus. I can barely believe it's being discussed.
Thank You!
I know this takes a lot of work. Thank you for taking the time to share with us. I hope you will continue as we move forward in this race. I don't think at this point Obama can win. The republicans will bring him down with Rev. Wright, Rezko, all his lies etc.... I hope that the Super Delegates are keeping close tabs on how America feels about his anti-american pastor/mentor. Now another one has come into the picture. Why did the Democratic party let him stay in the race. If he would have been a republican candidate they would have taken him out of the race. It is my opinion he is hurting the democratic party awfully bad.
Again thank you and keep up the good work.
Montana for Clinton?!?!?
Clinton doesn't have a chance in hell to win Montana. Or South Dakota, for that matter. Regardless, it's a moot point. This is pointless speculation. This is not a race for the popular vote -- it is a race for delegates. The Clintons can spin this race all they want. But at the end of the day, if Obama finishes ahead by 150 pledged delegates or so, that means Clinton -- just to tie -- has to come up with 150 super delegates who are willing to go against the pledged delegate count to hand her the nomination. Ain't going to happen. If that were a possibility, don't you think she would have received more than a handful of super D endorsements since Super Tuesday?
Obama’s Bible Study Class
James Meeks – an Illinois state senator, pastor of one of the largest churches in the state and a declared Spiritual Adviser for Obama – came under fire for comments rebroadcast last week calling white American mayors "slave masters" and referring to black preachers and politicians who "protect" the "white man" as "house n-ggers."
"We don't have slave masters, we got mayors," Meeks said in an August 2006 sermon broadcast on a Chicago community television channel.
Aside from his senatorial duties, Meeks is an Illinois Superdelegate pledged to Obama and also presides over Salem Baptist Church, described as the largest church in Illinois.
In 2006, Meeks informed his church during a sermon he may run for Illinois governor. He was recorded telling the mostly black congregation any "white Christian" who doesn't vote for him is a "racist." Speaking from his pulpit Meeks said, “if I don't have every white Christian vote in the state of Illinois, I will stand on top of the Sears Tower and call every one of y'all racist."
Meeks is also notorious for his strong anti-homosexual platform, although Obama is campaigning for the "gay" vote. Meeks has routinely voted against pro-homosexual legislation and has been quoted during sermons referring to same-sex attraction "an evil sickness."
Obama told the Sun-Times that he is an attendee of Meeks' Salem Baptist Church for Wednesday night Bible Study.
According to Illinois State Board of Elections records, Rezko's businesses, Rezmar Corp. and Rezko Concession, contributed to Meeks' campaign funds.
A recent Meeks endorsement is touted on Obama’s campaign website. Meeks is listed as an influential black supporter.
James Meeks and his relationship with Obama was described in a 2004 Men's News Daily report during Obama's 2004 US Senate campaign:
Obama’s closest religious advisers -- Fr. (Michael) Pfleger, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, and Illinois State Sen. James Meeks, who moonlights as the pastor of Chicago's Salem Baptist Church – may have quotes from Scripture always handy, but are theologically closer to Karl Marx and black nationalism, than to Christianity.
Hillary is a Fighter
Hillary is a fighter! That Ras poll also had Obama even with Hill for Ohion one day before the primary and she won by 10pts. Survey USA had her up 12pts. Also, both of these polls came around the Bosnia bad press coverage.
Obama is outspending her 4 to 1 in PA now and he is doing his bus tour, as Hillary does her bust tour next week and puts up her ads in the next week, we will see her #s go up.
Trust me, I lived in nearby MD for 12 yrs and visited Lancaster, Philly, Amish Country, Pittsburgh, REading numerous times. These people except for Philly and the urban centers WILL NOT vote for him, trust me. Hillary Clinton will win PA by 10pts or more.
I live in Fl, have visited Puerto Rico, and the part of Central Fl where I live are numerous Puerto Ricans who vote differently from Cubans in MIami(staunchly Republican supporters). Puerto Ricans overwhelmingly will vote for Hill, I have not doubt of that. Also, the PR gov has been indicted, he won't be able to deliver much help.
Richardson has been tarred with the Judas brush, he won't be an asset. He couldn't even get much traction himself.
Hillary will win PA, Indiana will be a bit close, she will crush him in kY, WV, he will win decisively in NC. In regards to MOntana and Oregon, Hillary does much better in primaries than Caucuses and the Big Dawg has been spending much time in Mn and OR. He did 4 events in both of those places in the past 3 days. He is still popular. Obama is the favorite but I think that Hillary will be competitive.
Donate to www.hillaryclinton.com
Popular vote trap
The total Democratic "vote" count so far in the 15 states/territories using caucus-like means of determining delegates (excluding Iowa, which has not reported such numbers) is about 691,000. That is less than the number of votes in the Maryland Democratic primary. Using the popular vote as a metric of who is ahead or who should win amounts to saying that Senator Obama has won only 14 primaries and 1 additional Maryland-sized primary rather than Democratic Party contests in 30 states and territories. What a clever way to write off the legitimate processes of one-third of our states and territories. Saying the popular vote is a legitimate metric is a democratic-sounding charade to get the media and super delegates to count all caucus states as worth no more than one mid-sized (Maryland or Tennessee) primary.
Fantasy of the Clinton Campaign
I've seen many projections with regard to the remaining races in the Democratic contest, but Michael Barone's is by far the most outlandish. There are two fundamental problems with his analysis. First, it relies too heavily on the RealClear Politics aggregate polls. These polls often differ markedly from the final vote tallies. Indeed, with the exception of New Hampshire, the RCP averages have significantly under-estimated Obama's strength. This is because the polls don’t take into account the scores of new voters Obama had brought into the process. Second, Barone relies on statistics from past races in other states in making his future projections. This methodology is flawed on it its face, and is not utilized by professional pollsters. The fact is that Senator Obama is now heavily favored to win the Democratic nomination. All of the Clinton campaign’s spin and smears will not change this. You can defeat a man, but you cannot defeat a movement. This is what Hillary Clinton and many pundits can’t understand.
Once Again You Miss the Point...
Mr. Barone, you are free to do all the "analysis" of the popular vote that you wish. Unfortunately, that is not what counts when electing the nominee of the Democratic Party. We do not use the popular vote as a measure of who won.
We do not use the "potential electoral vote based on who won what primary in whichever state the Clinton campaign determines counts that week." (A study today by Josh Putnam show by that measure Clinton loses to McCain 314-224, while Obama wins 273-265.)
We do not use these artificial made-up markers you employ in your analysis. In the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, every state counts. We do not just measure states with "favorable" white voters. We do not discount states with too many black voters. We don't try to cherry-pick results to build a favorable case for our chosen candidate. We do not try to game the system and play with the rules in order to win.
If the magic number -- no, wait -- the magic number IS 2024. That number does not include Florida and Michigan. This is not about creating some new goal with some new standard.
With sole regard to the Democratic Presidential selection process, this is about acquisition of DELEGATES, nothing more, nothing less. To hold out the false hope that the manufactured metrics of popular vote, electoral votes (of contests yet to happen) or anything else you can concoct will count for something, is not just a flight of fancy, delusional or halluncinatory. It is simply disingenuous. For Sen. Clinton to win the nomination, she needs to run the table of all 10 of the remaining contests by margins as high as 70% - 30%, perhaps even higher. Because only with a lead in the delegate count, does Clinton have a breath of a chance to win.
One more caution, you and your candidate (I call her "yours" because you clearly support her) must remember: if you advocate a set of rules to be applied to your advantage, you had better be prepared for those same rules to be applied against you. Which is to say, if you are advocating super delegates vote their consciences, they may vote against Mrs. Clinton even if the improbable happens and she is ahead, but the super delegates determine that when all is said and done a Barack Obama candidacy is better for the party.
I'll give you a moment to pick yourself up off the floor. Okay. I have said the one thing you all have failed to take into account. What you think works in your favor may just work against you. The super delegates may determine that to unify the party, insure down ballot victories, and have the best shot against McCain in the general election, that the better candidate is Barack Obama. (Okay, stop falling on the floor.) That is highly likely. Probably more likely than you would care to contemplate. Take some time and think about it.
On a slightly different topic, let me tell you one more thing, Mr. Barone. There are a lot more Puerto Ricans who look like Barack Obama and the rest of us black folks -- light to medium to dark skin tone with Afro hair (whether we straighten it or not). There are a lot black Hispanics. Black Puerto Ricans. There are a lot Puerto Ricans whose ancestors came over on slave ships, or were born on Carribbean plantations, who have ancestry that are part Spanish, part Indian, just as much of a mix as Mr. Obama. More than you think have folks back on the motherland, Africa, and more than you may want to imagine are related to folks who settled Kansas. Awfully damn shortsighted of you don't you think? But then whites like you have this monolithic, singular view of who is black and who is black enough, and who ain't black at all. Let me suggest you give Harvard Professor Dr. Henry Louis "Skip" Gates a call and invite him for lunch. Ask him who YOUR people are. You might find you're not as white as you think.
Democratic Nomination
First off I don't think Hilary will win in Montana, Oregon, or South Dakota. Yes These are primaries, but I see Obama winning these states by 10 to 20 percent. First the landscape doesn't favor Clinton, and there aren't many Reagan Democrats in these states that have tended to favor Senator Clinton. Obama has done so well in this region of the country in the primary season which only helps. We also have no idea how Puerto Rico and Guam are going to vote. The demographics in Puerto Rico do favor Clinton, but Obama has done well in contests outside the states, and his family heritage and background seems to be embraced by many voters. What Obama ought to do is continue to campaign like he has been in Pennsylvania. He's got a shot in that state, albeit a small chance, and If I was in his campaign I'd let him know if he won Pennsylvania, Senator Clinton would be done. And if she continued she most likely would be clobbered in North Carolina, and Indiana.
Now If Senator Clinton wins Pennsylvania, which is likely, the wild-card will be Indiana. Now most people have been saying Hilary Clinton has a slight advantage over Barack Obama, and the endorsement of Senator Evan Bayh, and the establishment in Indiana, but Obama has most of his backing from the Local Level, while endorsements don't matter much I tend to think his will matter more. Secondly, 20% of the state his around the Chicago Media Market, meaning they know Barack Obama well enough already, meaning he doesn't have to travel around that part of the state much which is an advantage. So If he wins Indiana then she should drop out.
The last point I want to make is at least be fair and open minded about voting for Obama if your a Clinton supporter. Do you see Obama chastizing Clinton's Bosnia messup? No you don't. People seem to blame Obama for the media more favorable impression of him. As a voter anybody knows he's going to get less scrutiny, and he's been the public spotlight much less than her. Senator Clinton has more of a history. And Everybody knows that compared to the Revered Wright comments, to Mrs. Clinton's false remarks about Bosnia, she's been treated much more fairly.
May I also remind Clinton supporters, who are planning to vote for McCain if Hilary isn't the nominee, that some of the pastors that are supporting John McCain have said hateful things as bad as Reverend Wright, then will you hold Mr. McCain to the same standard as Barack Obama in rejecting these criticisms. I'm not excusing Obama's Pastor, he should be held accountable, as should Obama in that he did go to that church for twenty years, and he was married there, and his children were baptized there. In fact I believe Obama needs to address America again just about his relationship with Wright, and why he stayed at this church instead of trying to avoid the subject and going off topic like he did in his race speech. And if you do end up voting for McCain over Obama you'll be the reason the first African American isn't president. I know Obama voters will come out for Hilary if she works hard, and merits the nomination in the final contests, but the least you could do is be as fair those Obama voters who aren't going to be bitter or sore losers, and give Obama a chance or second look. I know both campaigns have run some negative campaigns, but you can't hold surrogates to what they say or people around them, and connect them in saying Barack Obama believes what they said. Obama didn't throw his pastor under the bus. I don't know about you, but I'm happy Obama stood by his convictions, just as Senator Clinton has.
Will you give him a second look knowing Senator Clinton instead of outright rejecting that he's a Muslim on 60 minutes instead said there's no reason to assume that. Come on did you think that was fair? I'm just being honest.
And one last thing with regard to the Puerto Ricans
Mr. Barone, if you saw two black men standing on street corner (aside from considering it a "riot in progress" as I suspect you are wont to do), if neither said a word, you wouldn't know if they were African, African-American, a black Puerto Rican, or of any other Carribbean extraction. I am appalled at your statement here:
"I agree heartily that all Hispanics are not alike. But very few look like Obama; few have ancestors from either Kenya or Kansas.... [snip] ...But many Puerto Ricans do have close ties to New York, Clinton's home state now, and some may have close ties to recent migrants from the island to Florida, "
Puerto Ricans may have life experiences that are a lot more like the Haitians and Dominicans, Jamaicans, Bermudans, Barbudans, Bahamaians, in Florida. Spanish Harlem has a lot in common with good ole Harlem. Fuerto Rico ain't Florida and Florida ain't New York. I notice that you didn't link to the NY results, to support your NY hypothesis. And finally, Sen. Clinton is not the senator from Puerto Rico.
Anyway, I found the tone and intent of some your comments -- well -- prejudiced. I guess that is to be expected.
Bob -- You have offered the best articulation of the problem with the 'popular vote' measure that I've ever seen. I doubt it will make a dent in the seemingly universal belief that there exists something object called 'popular vote' and that it is a democratic measure. But it's still nice to see the point made so well.
As for these projections, they still seem more fanciful than optimistic. Ohio is an enormously favorable state for Clinton and the election occured when the Nafta-flap and the 3:00 a.m. ad were at the peak of their effects. Yet Clinton still managed but a 10-point win (not quite that if I recall correctly). I can see bumping up slightly to 15 for KY and WV and (since we are being optimistic) PA. But the rest is just malarkey. The bulk of Indiana's population is NOT on the southern OH border. The west just doesn't like Clinton. (Look at the GE match-ups that show her losing those states to McCain, while Obama wins them or at least puts them into contention), etc. etc. But your defense of your projections persuades me that you are in good faith. If Wright has a more lingering impact than is being measured by any available polling you might have something. And I can see why it might seem to you that it'll matter.
But I'd say it's at least as likely that trends run the other way in the wake of the stark reminder the Bosnia tapes gave us of Clinton's ambiguous relationship with the truth and the potential for her to come to be perceived as more a spoiler than a genuine candidate as things continue to unfold.
Questions beyond Numbers
No wonder Senator Clinton stays in the race: it is Obama's nomination to lose.
------------------------------------------------------
Questions Surround Obama's Campaign:
http://questionbarackobama.blogspot.com
Nope, your numbers still suck
Nice try, but the numbers still are terrible. You say the polls still have Clinton up by 16% in PA, except that average is based on polls now 3 weeks old. The ones from the day you wrote the column have her only up by 5% and 12%, respectively. And it still doesn't change the fact that you have her +16% being a 20% victory and his +16% being a 10% victory.
You barely tried to defend your Indiana margin. Yeah, Clinton may win, but not by 20%. Same with SD and Montana, except Obama is likely to win there. And, perhaps you've never been to West Virginia, but are you aware that the eastern part of the state has basically become a suburb of Washington DC? True, it is a suburb for lower income people who have been priced out of the market, but it isn't a Appalacian Ohio state alone.
You wrote a column about NUMBERS - and your numbers were terrible. Now you try and defend it based on trends (Clinton could win Montana). That's comparing apples to oranges. Commenters did not criticize whether Clinton could win Montana or Indiana as much as the margin by which you had her winning. Your original column was junk and this one is also
Clinton/Obama
Your profections may be a little optomistoc, but Obama's camp always do the same thing. It is about time Hilary got equal treatment. No matter how the numbers play out exactly, I feel Hillary is the most electable Democrat. Obama will never be considered the legitimate winner if Michigan and Florida are disfranchised. And she offers a populist, pro-jobs with healthcare platform that can win independants in November. Obama's response to the Rev. Wright flap, the NAFTA fllip-flop, and his opposition to revotes in Florida and Michigan make him look cowardly, unpatritotic, and anti-working class middle America. I will vote for McCain if the weak Obama is pushed through via a corrupt bargain with Howad Dean in a stolen electon.
Popular vote
To all those people who claim, the popular vote is flawed, think again. For e.g one of the comments mentioned if Colorado would have been a primary Obama would have carried a net margin of 1,000, 000 votes. There is no way to support these kind of arguments. On the other hand Obama might have lost Colorado, if it had been a primary.
And I don't understand the hatred in the Democratic party. For some one in the middle, I get the feeling democrats are not all that different from republicans
Still holding out hope
I'm a pretty pessimistic guy and I never would be that optimistic of Hillary's chances of popular vote. I'm still praying for Fl and Mi to be somehow counted. For her to win those optimistic ratios puts a lot of pressure on her and I think it is still highly improbably because Obama continues to pump 5 to 1 ads into PA and has ads in IN and NC where Hillary hasn't even gotten on the air. I hope she somehow gets a huge support from the two remaining unions or some independent group starts to play ads for her on TV. I'm sick up seeing Obama's ads every 15 minutes.
Having to defend a previous op ed is proof it was weak
The original should have been enough. Having to defend it shows the weakness of the original. Pretty cut and dry.
And to those of you saying you'll vote McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. I can only think of one REAL reason you would do such a thing considering the two parties are so far apart on beliefs. You would vote for WAR before voting for a black man. And to think it's 2008 :(
Good for Indiana
Hillary already lost the election, much in part to her inability to manage a campaign. However, I'm glad she is still contesting states because it means states like Indiana, my home state, are getting really fired up about the election. People are excited and want to get involved. This never happens since the nominee is usually chosen by now.
I congratulate Hillary because she has the guts to go millions in debt for a 1% chance to become the nominee. She really is a fighter. Props.
Fundamental error
Mr Barone, can you explain why you have based your figures on one degree of accuracy (multiples of ten), yet you report your conclusions to three to six degrees of accuracy? You cannot report conclusions with greater certainty than the initial assumptions. Your conclusions are invalid.
Thank you
I am a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, and I find that I might not be able to support Obama in the General Election. Even though I am very liberal, I cannot support a candidate who mudslings and then denies it. But I feel Hillary can still win, and this article and writer gives me more hope. Thank you, and Go Hillary
No way she wins Montana
I lived in Montana during the Clinton years. The '96 election destroyed the Democratic party at all levels in MT. It didn't recover until 2006. Many (rightly) blamed the Clintons ham-handed health care fiasco and pushing worthless gun control legislation for the collapse. The same thing happened all over the Mountain West that year. That's why Obama kicked her a$$ in Idaho, Utah,etc....
She will lose big in Montana..... 80-20.
Presidential Election
Barack Obama is the most electable candidate against John McCain. Maybe that's being too optimistic Or I'm swept up by the magic of Obama's candidacy. Now you have a point Obama is very much unknown, as there may be other things that come out if he's the nominee like the Jeremiah Wright stuff, but their is also the potential for him to build more voters, who will support his candidacy come November than Clinton's. The main reason why Hilary Clinton is a weak candidate in my judgment is that she'll try to win the election like Gore or Kerry, did, which failed and win either Ohio or Florida and yes campaign in the swing states, but do you really think she can win a state like Virginia? Do you think she'll campaign in all fifty states, and campaign hard enough? It's just my impression that Obama and his presence feels like he'll campaign in all fifty states.
Second, what if your scenario is followed out through this whole process and Obama still leads in popular vote, If all the votes are counted including the one's from Michigan and Florida? I believe this scenario is plausible, and he'll be considered the legitimate candidate. Both of them also have populist messages, Obama just has some differences in accomplishing success. I also find no evidence Clinton can or will get the support among independents as Obama will in the election. Yes they'll be fodder thrown at either Obama or Clinton, but a large portion of the electorate have a unfavorable impression of Senator Clinton, and won't vote for her. And on NAFTA he didn''t flip flop, one of his campaign advisor's misspoke.
Mr. Obama isn't opposed to re-votes in Michigan or Florida. The Obama campaign has objected to the plans so far because the Clinton campaign re-vote plan wouldn't allow voters who voted in the republican primary, but would have voted in the democratic primary, were it important at the time to vote again. You would be disfranchising Obama if you counted Michigan. His name wasn't even on the ballot. Not to mention the Governor, and more members in the Michigan delegation support her and moved the primary against the rules. Clinton should of taken her name off the Michigan ballot. No excuses. Now both Governor's are complaining, unbelievable since it's there fault. They couldn't just wait a little longer.
Another Hillary Supporter
I'm another Hillary supporter who will be voting for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. I don't even get the man's appeal. He has no experience and a hate mongering minister who performed his wedding ceremony and baptised his children.Then he threw grandma under the bus to try and make a point.
Apparently he doesn't understand the point. While grandma may have had some fears about black people, she didn't preach racial hatred in private or in public. Reverand Wright DID. Standing by a man who preaches hate, and staying in a church that preaches hate is totally unacceptable for anyone, much less the president of our country.
If Obama IS the candidate, it will be no contest. I can just see the political ads with Reverand Wright's face on the screen. Obama drown in the aftermath. It will make the Swiftboating of John Kerry seem like a tea party.
Hillary or McCain in '08 for me!
There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY I would EVER.... let me repeat that EVER vote for Mr. Obama in the General Election. I'd rather have John McCain any day over him.
I know I am not alone in this as I've been networking across the Country among friends and colleagues who've been doing the same with their friends and colleagues. I know it's hard to believe but not everyone shares the lefts view of the potential nominee... there are a lot of coservative and moderates in the Party that are sick to death with having a candidate forced down our throats and then being asked to coalesce around them during the General Election. I think a lot us draw the line in this election!
The concensus seems to be that if the left wing liberal Democrats are hell bent on not counting Florida and Michigan that may don't see it as a legitmate win for him... and in thinking that most have a lot of doubts about his Wright ties and his ties to Mr. Rezko (the trial is still going on so we'll wait to see how Mr. Obama ties into him via his house / land purchase and potential favors he did in lieu of campaign money and favors back from Mr. Rezko).... a lot of mainstream voters in the Party don't trust and / or know enough about him. This is not a fabrication to write a comment, it's a fact! I would say that he would lose 20% of the votes in his own party to John McCain or by voters who don't vote at all in the Party.. Independents polling are already favoring Mr. McCain over Obama.... so if he loses any support at all in both of these categories, he's going to have a tough time outside of the generally blue States in November. While Hillary might have optimistic hopes at the nomination... Mr. Obama should be having them about the General Election!
Thank You!
You will never know fully how much us Clinton supporters appreciate this article and your estimate. Finally! Finally! Someone in the mainstream media gives Hillary a break, and actually provides another side of the analysis. MSNBC and CNN have been hyptnotized by Obama . . . it's become almost sickening to watch them fawn over his every move. The cherry-pick polls (report prominently the ones that show Obama up and ignore the ones that show Clinton up -- Chris Mathews is the worst at this). This analysis is such a breath of fresh air. Thanks!
Bizzare Formula
One thing lost in this discussion is the fact that this pollster is a hardcore republican known for his election night polling on Fox News. His intent is clear. He is doing his best to throw the democratic nomination into disaster based on his false assumptions and bizzare formulas. Imagine, he had to correct himself on Indiana and Puerto Rico because I and others pointed out to him how illogical his reasoning was on the two places. I don't claim to know much about politics. Imagine what a neutral analysit, like Chuck Todd, can do this fuzzy maths. This is just pure garbage.
Hillary Clinton
I believe that Hillary Clinton will be our next president and I plan on voting for her. If Obama is the nominee I will vote for McCain even though I am a Democrat. Our country is filled with enough hate as Rev. Wright is preaching and I am sure Obama follows his teachings. Obama acts like a sleazy politician. He said that he was from Chicago and knows how the machine works. He looks clueless. I wish the media would stop treating him with kid gloves. They are always attacking Hillary Clinton.
Apr 01, 2008 14:47:33 PM [permalink] [report comment]