D.C., Maryland and Virginia Polling

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 18:12


On the eve of "Potomac Tuesday," here is the polling situation in D.C., Maryland and Virginia:

  • Democrats Abroad (7 pledged delegates): No polls on this campaign, and voting has been underway since February 5th. Early voting from some areas, such as Spain and Indonesia, has been favorable to Obama.

  • D.C. (15 pledged delegates): Obama 63%--27% Clinton, according to the only poll. On January 19th, Obama won the D.C. caucuses by a margin of 519 to 271.

  • Maryland (70 pledged delegates): Obama 54.2%--34.0% Clinton, across six polls.

  • Virginia (83 pledged delegates): Obama 54.5%--36.8% Clinton, across six polls.

The current pledged delegate count stands at Obama 1,019, Clinton 937. A good number to watch for tomorrow night will be if Obama can move his pledged delegate advantage to 106 or higher, which would give him the lead even if the best case Michigan and Florida scenarios for Clinton are included in the totals.

Update: I just received an email from Constituent Dynamics. According to their polling, Obama will receive 100 pledged delegates in DC, MD and VA tomorrow, while Clinton will receive 68. Cross tabs of their polls for tomorrow can be viewed here (28 page PDF).

Chris Bowers :: D.C., Maryland and Virginia Polling

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
D.C., Maryland and Virginia Polling | 45 comments
Why is the number (0.00 / 0)
of delegates different depending on who you ask? Is there no unbiased authority on this? And why are they still counting votes from Super Tuesday all these days later?
My numbers (0.00 / 0)
Are more recently updated than those of any single news outlet.  
[ Parent ]
Wow... (0.00 / 0)
Yeah CNN is WAY behind you.  

I thought that Clinton's lead was bigger in a best case scenario from Florida and Michigan.  What numbers are you using out of curiosity?  I'm sure you are right; I'm more curious than anything.

I think if Obama gets that 106 number, he needs to go to Clinton and cut the FL and MI deal.  Get it out of the way now when your momentum is highest.... Florida stands as is and Obama gets all the uncommitted in MI.  I wonder if she would cut that deal?

[ Parent ]
Florida & Michigan (0.00 / 0)
At best, If I were Obama, I would offer to seat half the delegations and assume the uncommitted in Michigan are Obama's.  Seating all of the delegates as they are, leaving uncommitted as uncommitted, is a huge disadvantage.  Assuming the uncommitted as Obama's is better, but would bring the race back to tied.
[ Parent ]
Badly phrased (0.00 / 0)
In the last sentence, I meant "Assuming the uncommitted as Obama's is better, but if you seat the entire delegations it would bring the race back to tied."

He is in a favorable position right now, if they don't seat the delegations.  Actually, he is favored, if they do anything other than:
1. Seat the delegations as is.
2. Seat them assuming uncommitted as Obama.

The DNC has put forward suggestions to:
1. Redo the contests.
2. Seat as proportion of national popular vote.
3. Don't seat them.

Seating half of them would be a compromise.  It still leaves the problem with Michigan, which you can fix by assuming they are Obama delegates.  That pretty much takes the Michigan and Florida delegations out of play, and leaves the race as it is right now.  It means Clinton could catch up easier, than if they weren't, but that is kind of true based on older posts on this site that assume once Clinton controls the rules committee they will be seated.

[ Parent ]
Why do anything now? (0.00 / 0)
What incentive does Obama have to agree to anything like this now?  He should wait and see how things play out.
[ Parent ]
Maybe... (0.00 / 0)
But I say you take out the potential showdown and work to take her out now... maybe you wait until the lead is bigger... I don't know.  My hope is that making this deal would lead to some SDs going Obama's way.
[ Parent ]
Given the spread (0.00 / 0)
Unless Obama outperforms the polls (which I hope he does), you are probably looking, at best, at a 55% to 45% delegate split (and if it is anything like Missippi, less than that.)

At most, that's 17 delegates- getting you to 99 (oh, but it would be good to get over 100!!)

This doesn't include America Abroad, which does push you over 100.

I've asked this before, but there are still 20 outstanding Wash. delegates - does that 20 outstanding look to go 10-10, 12-8, 14-6?

Thanks for all you do!

Here's hoping for no New Hampshire shocker!

My understanding (0.00 / 0)
is the in VA the delegate breakdown helps Obama because of heavily AA districts, and only two southern districts.
[ Parent ]
Two southern districts? (0.00 / 0)
I understand there's a couple of mountain districts with very few black people or educated white people, where Obama is expected to do bad.  There are, however many southern districts, it's just that black voters form a major part of the Democratic electorate in most of them, even the very Republican ones.
[ Parent ]
Any educated black folks in your version of Virginia? (4.00 / 1)
...or educated white people?  Are white Viginians any more or less educated than in Nebraska? Idaho? North Dakota?

Simple generalizations just don't add a lot to the discussion.

[ Parent ]
What in the world are you talking about? (0.00 / 0)
Demographics are the best way to understand elections.  Obviously, they aren't destiny, but understand political geography and you understand a lot better what's going on.

I don't understand this denigration of actual knowledge of the way politics work in this country as "generalizations."

Obama will win Virginia big because it's a state that has a large number of his two key constituencies - well-educated white people and black people (who tend to vote for him whether well-educated or not).  He will not do as well in the mountainous areas of western Virginia, where both African Americans and highly educated people are much less common.

[ Parent ]
Washington delegates (0.00 / 0)
I think the WA Dem party chair had an early estimate (posted on Daily Kos on Sat night) of a 52-26 split for Obama. That would mean the outstanding delegates would split 9-11 Obama/Clinton. But that early report could be wrong.
[ Parent ]
Democrats Abroad (0.00 / 0)
Predicting Obama +1 or +3 net from that contest, probably +3, based on early tallies. Like a few other delegate pools, half votes are possible. (It's actually 14 pledged delegates, but each one gets half a vote at the convention.)
A Question (0.00 / 0)
I've done some google searching, but I'm still a little bit unclear about the purpose of Democrats Abroad. Why don't people living abroad just vote absentee in their respective states?  
Could be problematic (0.00 / 0)
if they no longer have a residence in the state. I usually vote absentee, and I have to fill out my permanent residence several times on the different forms. If I didn't have one, they wouldn't know in which precinct to include my vote. Those living abroad that do not have residences probably don't have a specific state/area to vote in, so they are given a generalized one based on their status. At least, that is my best guess.
[ Parent ]
i think (0.00 / 0)
if you leave the states, and move to say Europe, you can still be considered a us citizen, but would not belong to a specific state.  I think you don't lose US citizenship if you move to a different country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

[ Parent ]
But you'd still have to vote in a state... (0.00 / 0)
for every other election besides the Democratic presidential primaries.
[ Parent ]
About Democrats Abroad (4.00 / 1)
Some overseas Democrats do vote absentee in their most recent home state. That's not permitted in every primary or caucus, though. It's also extremely difficult. You have to get the timing exactly right, and this cycle especially it was practically impossible with all the dates moving around.

The core reason is to build the party. There are something like 6 million Democratic voters living abroad, and giving them 7 elected delegates to the national convention is not much -- it's probably the most diluted convention representation per Democrat. But it does get a lot of them energized and excited. Many of them donate a significant amount of money to the Party and to its candidates. In fact, I believe Bill Clinton held a fundraiser in London this cycle. (Only American citizens are allowed to contribute of course.)

It also helps the Party back in the U.S., because the Democrats Abroad contests encourage families that are split between the U.S. and other countries get out the vote through word of mouth. An American student studying in Poland who just voted (or plans to vote) in Warsaw is going to encourage her parents to vote for the Democrat, for example.

And Democrats Abroad helps the nominee in two other ways: one is to help promote the nominee as more savvy in international affairs. ("Obama Won Jakarta" and "Democrats Start Voting in Japan" are great headlines and provide at least some mild boost to the Party's foreign policy credentials.) The other is to expand the network of influential Americans in various countries abroad to help the future Democratic president establish good relations with world leaders as quickly as possible. If Germany's prime minister sees a bunch of Democrats voting in Berlin, including prominent business leaders, she'll be that much more receptive to working with a President Obama or President Clinton. The contests basically turn a bunch of Democrats into mini-ambassadors.

This cycle the Democrats Abroad seem to be the only ones allowing voting via Internet, mail, fax, and in-person, for a full week. So it's a laboratory experiment for the rest of the Party, and it worked brilliantly. I hope next cycle many of the state parties adopt the same voting system.

The Republicans, in contrast, have almost nothing going on abroad, so they'll get none of the aforementioned advantages.

[ Parent ]
Long-term (0.00 / 0)
It's important for expatriots that have been abroad for a very long time (even the majority of their lives) but are still US citizens and eligible to vote in the Presidential elections. It's not meant for students doing a semester abroad or people on vacation or whatever.
[ Parent ]
I have a hard time envisioning a scenario (4.00 / 2)
where Clinton gets a path to the nomination which isn't through some sort backroom deal making.  Considering the way the february contests are shaking out, Obama seems likely to pad his PD's pretty well.  He should, then, barring some strange collapse, be able to at least keep it pretty close on March 4 and then in Penn, plus being in favored position in other contests.  Thus, among uncontested pledged delegates, I can't see how he doesn't come out with a decent lead.

So the question is, is there any way for Clinton to get a legitimate lead in pledged delegates at this point?  And if not, should we accept the her if she is still chosen by the machinations of the party est., ie the credentials commitee and the superdelegates?

The Politics of Bruno S.

I would say no, BUT (0.00 / 0)
You've got to remember than, according to polling AND demographics, New Hampshire was a lock for Obama as well.

So no, unless you get a New Hampshire type surge somewhere, that changes the game.  So keep pushing.

[ Parent ]
According to demographics? (0.00 / 0)
What are you talking about?  The demographics were virtually untested when New Hampshire voted.

We know a lot more about voting preferences now than we did about them going into New Hampshire.  And the fact that the voting preferences weren't widely understood going into New Hampshire made the polling very inaccurate.

I think we have a lot better idea now what to expect than we did then.

[ Parent ]
Two demographic points (0.00 / 0)
1.  Very white, not mixed.  Nearly 97% white.  This has meant that people are more inclined to vote for Obama, not less, as has happened in more mixed race locations.
2.  6th in nation in per capita income.  As a comparison, Iowa is 31st.

Higher education rates, higher income, in a demographic sense, has tended to skew more favorably towards Obama.

Bottom linke New Hampshire, which Obama lost, is more favorably skewed to him than Iowa, which Obama won.

So that's what I'm talking about.

The X factor, which brought out the vote, is the HUGE turnout of women, and I think, independents, voting in the other primary, perhaps?

In any case, points 1 & 2 above are accurate.

[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
Barring some freak Hillary surge or Obama misstep, if the race continues on as it is now, I can't see how Hillary beats Obama in delegates.  Even if she wins Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, he will have more delegates.  In that scenario, the backroom deals become a real possibility.
[ Parent ]
I think (0.00 / 0)
that at this point, this is basically her whole strategy.  Win the big states, beat the drum about how she's won all the big states (being sure to mention Michigan and Florida at every opportunity), and try to persuade superdelegates to back her as the more "electable" candidate in the general, and as the candidate who won the states which supposedly "matter."

I think she's essentially given up hope of winning the pledged delegates.  Once she gets the superdelegates behind her, she'll have them add on the Michigan and Florida delegations to give some padding to her lead.

She's just not playing to win the pledged delegates anymore, which is why she doesn't seem to care about the increasingly embarrassing defeats over the weekend (19 points in Maine!?  Come on!), or the imminent defeats in MD and VA.  It's all about making the argument to the superdelegates that she should be the nominee even if she loses the pledged delegates.

I hope it doesn't work.

[ Parent ]
That Won't Work (0.00 / 0)
I don't buy it, and I don't really think that's her strategy anyway. I think it's to come close enough in elected delegates to make Michigan and Florida relevant. The noise about caucuses and primaries, big states and small states, blue states and red states, is just background noise to try to make seating Michigan and Florida based on their straw polls seem like a compromise. She's also hoping for Obama to make a mistake.

By the way, red states don't get as many delegates as blue states: the blue states get more delegates per electoral vote than the red states. The nomination process is already skewed toward the blue states; the thumb is on the scale. I guess Clinton is asking for an even bigger, heavier thumb.

[ Parent ]
It's both (4.00 / 1)
They're smart enough to know that they can't turn this thing around without hitting on the combo. They've got to do well in TX and OH to keep their pledged # high enough; they've got between now and then pretend they're going to win in order to get and keep Super Ds on board; they've got to make the extremely dubious case to the media, public, voters, et al, that caucus voters, blacks, and most states don't really count; they've got to use Bill, Schumer, et al, to play hardball. If most of those tactics work out then they'll have a good shot at the nomination.

The problem is most of those tactics aren't going to work. And I expect they know it. But Hillary no doubt is going to rage against the dieing of the light like nobody's bidness.

[ Parent ]
But Florida and Michigan simply won't be relevant (0.00 / 0)
unless she gets superdelegate support.

I don't know that we disagree, precisely, about her strategy.  Obama has no motivation to "compromise" with her by seating the Michigan and Florida guys unless he doesn't have it locked up.  Assuming he's ahead in pledged delegates at the end of this, the only way he won't have it locked up is if the superdelegates go to her.  So, basically, she has to get the superdelegates to back her.  At that point, she'll already have the nomination, whether or not Florida and Michigan are seated.  They're just a pretext to get the superdelegates behind her.

I'm not sure it's so clearly thought out yet, on the part of the Clinton camp - all indications suggest they're mostly just flailing.

But such a strategy seems to fit with what they've been saying since Super Tuesday.

[ Parent ]
Chris, Howard Fineman on MSNBC (0.00 / 0)
just said on Hardball that people inside the Clinton camp are fearing this whole race is slipping away based on all these blowout losses, and that a major newspaper will report this in the paper tomorrow. Have you heard anything on this? First I've heard of it online or on TV.
Re: Chris, Howard Fineman on MSNBC (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, I read the same thing at Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

[ Parent ]
Yep (0.00 / 0)
NYT supposedly
[ Parent ]
It is NTY (4.00 / 1)
The article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02...
[ Parent ]
From the article (0.00 / 0)
Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, also said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama's momentum after victories in Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend. Some of them said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, may ultimately "go with the flow," in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come.

The article describes a conference call with Clinton super delegates, campaign workers, press, etc. Someone was quoted as saying roughly that everyone pretty much understands she has to do very well in TX and OH.

Not flattering to the state of the campaign.

[ Parent ]
Obama's projections (0.00 / 0)
The Obama camp's projections (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html) have him netting 10 delegates out of the Potomac.  I'd say that 43 would be a nice over-performance.  He's already beaten his estimates in earlier states.
Here's what I don't get (4.00 / 2)
Clinton's running around today, talking down caucuses as undemocratic, that only primaries really count or some such - a day before she's about to get whomped in three... primaries.

Their brand of Pennian small-bore thinking always seems to miss the forest for the trees. Even on small tactical matters like this. (Sure, argue that caucuses aren't democratic, if it'll score a point now! Even if you look like a double doofus in 24 hours.) It'll go down as the number one cause for her campaign's collapse.

Too many Black people (0.00 / 0)
in Maryland, Virginia and DC, obviously.  Only primaries without too many black people count.  Except Utah, Missouri, and Connecticut, which also don't count.

I suspect, though, that Obama will actually win the white vote in either or both of Maryland and Virginia.  That's going to hurt.

[ Parent ]
You're Perfectly Logical... (4.00 / 1)
...But I think Clinton is running down the list of arguments to promote her candidacy, and eventually one has to try some of the dubious arguments to see if they work. (We're way beyond the "#1: say she's more experienced" part of the list.) She's trying to do something, anything to steer the contest in her direction, so it's perfectly understandable, and it's what you have to do in politics.
[ Parent ]
but they lost the potomac (0.00 / 0)
because of those pesky black voters and the darn educated people.  I'm sure there are some excuses I'm missing.
[ Parent ]
Philosophical question (4.00 / 2)
  If the delegate/primary/caucus results up to this point were the exact reverse of what they are now, would we be hearing anything about how "flawed" the caucuses are? Would we be hearing anything about who can win the big states or the red states or the demographic breakdowns?

 Or would the narrative simply be "Clinton surging across the board", as Kerry was at this point last year?

 Put another way, if Obama and not Clinton were the establishment candidate, any talk of "caucus advantages" would be dismissed as sour grapes.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

IOIYAR (0.00 / 0)
Or a Clinton apparently.
[ Parent ]
abroad (0.00 / 0)

  • Democrats Abroad (7 pledged delegates): No polls on this campaign, and voting has been underway since February 5th. Early voting from some areas, such as Spain and Indonesia, has been favorable to Obama.

I'm not at all surprised by this. It's reflective of Obama's huge popularity overseas by non-Americans. My landlord travels all over the Third World. He's a Paul supporter; but he said (paraphrasing), "Can you imagine the kind of positive image that the U.S. would project with Obama as president? Not just a black person, but a mixed-race person, a second-generation immigrant, who spent part of his growing-up years in the Third World?"



The truth about Saxby Chambliss
The "DC Caucuses"/ and real delegates. (0.00 / 0)
THe 1/19 meetings weren't really a competition. It was the Delegate slating meeting for each campaign. Obama had more people show up than the Clinton campaign or Edwards and Uncommitted. People ran to get on the slate- and since it's proportional list, you wanted to be as high up as you could.( If Obama wins the west wards of the city, and gets two female and one male delegate-you want to be that high up on the Obama slate.)

The other matter confuses a lot of commentators. Very few of the pledged delegates have been elected to the "potential" candidate allocations.  In most caucus states, people have been elected to their county convention or the CD and/or State Convention. Math can change. There is a preferential ballot again- where do the Edwards/Biden county delegates go? If the Clinton delegates are 10 short from Alamosa County, but the Obama people brought their alternates, they step forward and are seated. Good organization up the food chain can flip a national delegate or two in every state that has this. That's why the numbers are pretty fuzzy. You really can 't count a national delegate til someone's got that credential from the state party as duly elected, especially since it's so contested.

[ Parent ]
Only Americans Can Vote in the Global Primary (0.00 / 0)
Non-Americans are not eligible to vote in the Democrats Abroad Global Primary. Only those voters who will be eligible to vote in the U.S. general election may participate. (So you can be 17, as long as your 18th birthday is on or before Election Day in November.)

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your comment.  Obama would receive warm receptions almost anywhere in the world he visits, and that would be a huge benefit to the U.S.'s standing in the world. Overseas Democrats may sense that and, given their unique perspective, may support Obama for that reason among others.

That said, both candidates would receive far warmer receptions abroad than George W. Bush.

[ Parent ]
Just voted in Virginia (0.00 / 0)
I was so excited to make a meaningful vote in a primary for the first time in my life.

And here was the scene at my precinct at 8:05 a.m.: absolutely banal. People trickling in and out, no excited supporters of anybody hooting and hollering anywhere to be seen, no 2-hour lines stretching outside and 4 blocks down. It was all so terribly...mundane.

I was robbed ;-)

D.C., Maryland and Virginia Polling | 45 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox