Nomination At A Glance, February 12th

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 13:47


All polls were conducted starting on January 23rd or later after John Edwards left the campaign:

Democratic Nomination At A Glance
State Date Polls Obama Clinton P. Delegates
P. Delegates Jun 7 32 1,019 937 3,253 / 3,566
Democrats Abroad Feb 12 0 -- -- 7
D.C. Feb 12 1 63.0% 27.0% 15
Maryland Feb 12 6 54.2% 34.0% 70
Virginia Feb 12 6 54.5% 36.8% 83
Hawaii Feb 19 0 -- -- 20
Wisconsin Feb 19 2 45.5% 44.5% 74
Ohio Mar 04 1 39.0% 56.0% 141
Rhode Island Mar 04 1 28.0% 36.0% 21
Texas Mar 04 1 38.0% 48.0% 193
Vermont Mar 04 0 -- -- 15

The strategy for Clinton here seems obvious: use Wisconsin to set up March 4th. The problem, just as obviously, is that Obama's wins over the weekend and (probably) tonight could flip Wisconsin, and then flip March 4th. If that happens, the campaign might end before the Pennsylvania Interval. If not, then the fights over super delegates and Michigan / Florida will continue, and we definitely slog on to Pennsylvania on April 22nd (with stops in Wyoming on March 8th and Mississippi on March 11th, both very solid Obama states).

Also, I should not that I am seeing conflicting reports on the projected pledged delegate totals from Florida, a delegation that I believe the DNC credentials committee should, and will, seat. An earlier projection from wikipedia showed Clinton 95, Obama 63, and Edwards 27. A new projection shows Clinton 105, Obama 67, Edwards 13.  I honestly don't know which one is correct. Any help on this matter would be appreciated in the comments.

Update: Old Ohio polls removed, and the new one from Survey USA has been added. All polls are now post-Edwards.  

Chris Bowers :: Nomination At A Glance, February 12th

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Nomination At A Glance, February 12th | 40 comments
Can you expand upon the Ohio polling? (0.00 / 0)
Why such low percentages (are there a lot of undecideds, does Edwards still have a lot of support)?   What were the percentages in each of the two polls?  Are they equally trustworthy?  
I haven't seen any OH polls (0.00 / 0)
Electoral-vote.com and Pollster.com don't have 'em. As far as I knew, the latest poll out of Ohio was done in December. Who did those two polls and what were the results?
[ Parent ]
Both polls (0.00 / 0)
Include John Edwards. They are the oldest polls in the averages, and the only ones conducted before Edwards dropped out.  
[ Parent ]
Oh... (0.00 / 0)
Gosh, it would be nice to see a few new polls from Ohio, then...
[ Parent ]
yeah, if thats the case (0.00 / 0)
Obama is doing a lot better. And he has lots of time still to get up there and run around the state to work the oBAM!a seduction magic. I think thats why supertuesday was good for Clinton, she got lucky in that Obama simply didn't have enough time to get around and work his show. With OH and TX he has lots more time; plus with her name rec Clinton can only go down.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Texas also (0.00 / 0)
Only one poll since Edwards left and it's about two weeks old (end of January).  Maybe it hasn't changed, and I don't have any amazing insight into how it might change, but I can't imagine it's static through Super Tuesday and everything since.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
Ohio Polls (0.00 / 0)
Survey USA has Clinton up 17 in Ohio.  http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
[ Parent ]
Somewhat baffled (0.00 / 0)
There seems to be a lot of concern over at Daily Kos about the possibility of low turnout. One could think that it's due to Obama's people not coming out to vote, but what about Clinton supporters who have become too disaffected to vote because their candidate is losing?

I'm not really sure what to believe about the low turnout stuff...people were saying the same thing about Louisiana, and Obama ended up winning by over 20%.

New Hampshire scared the crap out of everybody (4.00 / 2)
We all remember NH from last month--Up by 10, but low turnout for Obama and increased turnout for Clinton let Clinton win the state and stay in the race.

Whenever Obama's supporters hear "low turnout" we instantly think it's Obama's voters who aren't showing up. Of course, this just makes us work harder at GOTV.

[ Parent ]
WI (4.00 / 1)
Obama is up by 11 in Wisconsin.  But this doesn't hurt Hillary at all.  As others have pointed out, this is an open primary so it doesn't count.
Wisconsin Polls (0.00 / 0)
American Research Group had Hilary up by 9 on Feb 7.  http://www.presidentpolls2008....
[ Parent ]
Can Clinton win? (0.00 / 0)
This is a serious question to everyone here:

If Obama wins ten primaries in a row this month, do you seriously believe it's likely that Clinton will in in Texas and Ohio on March 4th?  

Even if he wins Wisconsin (0.00 / 0)
I think that Obama is going to have a very difficult time in Ohio. So yeah, that could keep her in the game for a while.  
[ Parent ]
That's interesting (0.00 / 0)
I've heard that it's more likely for Obama to win Ohio than it is for him to win Texas. Although they are both about 12% African American, Texas has a much higher percentage of Hispanic voters which should help Clinton. Obama hasn't had a problem winning over white voters recently.

Also, do you think Clinton has to win both to stay in the race? The New York Times piece about the Super Delegates made it clear that many of her supporters believe she has to win both.

I think that if she loses both, she'll drop out on March 5th. If she loses one, it'll be a slow and lingering death. If she wins both, it goes on to PA.

[ Parent ]
Texas & Ohio (0.00 / 0)
It isn't so much that she has to win both as she has to build up her delegate count to compete with Obama's and these are her two best chances to do that.  If she wins both by a 1% margin, it won't be enough to sustain her.  If she has a blowout in either state, then it will diminish whatever happens in the other states (provided Obama doesn't match her big state blowout with his own.)
[ Parent ]
When will they face reality? (4.00 / 1)
The Clinton camp has been bragging about winning the "big states" like NY and CA, despite the fact that Obama's victories everywhere else give him more delegates. It's like they have no idea that these elections are proportional and not first-past-the-post.

If Clinton wins Texas and Ohio, even if it's by 1%, she will continue to say that she is in the lead because she has won the big prizes. The media continues to treat this as some sort of winner-take-all game. Clinton would justify her continuing campaign--even if she has no chance of catching Obama--if she "wins" Ohio and Texas.

At what point will they face reality and realize that they cannot win the nomination unless they have more elected delegates than Obama? If after TX and OH Obama is still ahead by 100+ delegates, would Clinton drop out even if she receives a majority of the vote in those two states?  

[ Parent ]
Ohio is still in the Midwest (4.00 / 1)
whatever other dynamics people think are at play, Ohio is still very much a Midwestern state.

That's all I'm saying.  

[ Parent ]
FL projection (0.00 / 0)
The new projection (105-67-13) appears to be the one I posted on my website here, which comes from an e-mail (and attached spreadsheet) I received from DNC member Jon M. Ausman of Florida.
Florida & Michigan (0.00 / 0)
I've actually come to the conclusion that whether we seat these delegates or not doesn't really matter from the prospective of who wins.  This is going to be decided by super delegates and they are going to go with whomever they think the voters support.  So the impact of these states is important in that respect, but everyone knows there are asterisks next to those totals, thus the formal seating doesn't matter.
[ Parent ]
There is no Texas primary... (0.00 / 0)
The odd rules of Texas' contest:

The "winner" of the statewide popular vote in the primary doesn't get any delegates. Those are apportioned by state Senate district. 2/3 of the delegates come from the primary, which is actually 31 distinct primaries.

The remaining 1/3 come from precinct caucuses which will apportion the statewide at-large delegates.  

Further Reading

Umm...what? (4.00 / 1)
Even though you explained that concisely, I STILL don't get it...
[ Parent ]
I'm really doubtful she (0.00 / 0)
can walk away with Texas...or even win.  The Hispanic vote in Texas is not the Hispanic vote in California.  It is a name id. problem for Obama, not a racial issue.  Hispanics voted for Ron Kirk in the 70% range...

And, a vote in a heavily AA or heavily Upper-class liberal district is worth about twice as much as a West Texas or S.E. Texas (Hispanic leaning) vote.  Because delegates are awarded based on how Democratic voting was in 04 and 06, and Hispanics did not turn out.

Also, the AA vote is only 5% less than the Hispanic vote in Texas...which means if Obama carries AA by 80% (like everywhere else) Hillary's 60% lead (according to the Tx IVR poll) will be covered.

Obama then needs to keep rough parity among Whites, which he seems to be doing now.  Texas is not the racists south, Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio have all elected black politicians in white districts.

[ Parent ]
If Obama wins all Feb contests, and you include Dems Abroad (4.00 / 1)
That's 11 wins in a row for Obama.

It looks like by late tonight, it's going to be 9 wins.

Those delegates - going by a LARGER margin for Obama, than (I assume) Clinton will get on March 4, is worth 454 delegates.

While March 4 is worth 370 delegates.

Basically, Clinton needs some New Hampshire style comeback - but with a more lopsided win.


If this goes to Penn it goes to NC and beyond (0.00 / 0)
I still think Clinton needs landslides in OH TX and Penn to win it. NC looms out on the horizon as a Obama buffer. If its close through Penn and Clinton wants to duke it out, this will go to NC and the likely beyond.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
Dates vs. states (0.00 / 0)
If we look at delegates per election date, rather than states, there are two further election dates with substantial numbers of delegates:

4/22: PA (188 del)
5/6: IN, NC (218 del)
5/20: KY, OR (125 del)

Those are from the Green Papers and probably include ALL delegates, not just those up for grabs, but the point is that 5/6 is bigger than 4/22, mathematically.

Not that political considerations and the six week gap don't mean that PA is more important.

[ Parent ]
wisconsin (0.00 / 0)
a poll today showed OBama up by 10 in wisconsin. If he wins tonight, what's gonna stop him from winnign wisconsin?
Lightning bolt? nt (0.00 / 0)


John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
Chris (0.00 / 0)
Why would you say that the Florida delegates should be seated.  I really dont get it.  I would think it would be an outrage for them to be seated after it was agreed that they wouldnt.  Unless they hold another caucus, I can't imaging it being acceptable for them to be seated.  I realize it may happen, but I'm curious as to why you would say they should be.  
Only an outrage if (0.00 / 0)
it changes the eventual winner.  If seating FL or MI is percieved to change the outcome (especially if it changes things dramatically) it could be bad.  Just depends on how big a lead Obama has at the end.  The long stretch before PA could really be interesting.  I would think they would try to find some resolution in that time period.  Assuming it's not over before that.  
[ Parent ]
Made some guesses through 3/4 (0.00 / 0)
I made a few not-quite-random estimates (er, guesses) on results for the next month.  I took a conservative tack for Obama (sizable wins in DC, MD, and VA; close wins in WI, HI, and overseas; close loss in VT; medium losses in OH, TX; and sizable loss in RI). This was an experiment to see what things look like in this scenario after March 4.

I assumed that the pledged delegate count would track the % of caucus or primary vote, and that Obama % + Clinton % = 100.  I know these may not be watertight assumptions, but they're within my margin of error!

Here we go:

PrimaryEst Obama %Est Clinton %Total Pledged DelsObama PledgedClinton Pledged
PriorNANA19561019937
Overseas5545743
DC653515105
VA5842834835
MD6040704228
HI554520119
WI5248743836
OH45551416378
RI406021813
TX455519387106
VT48521578
Post 3/4 259613371258

Observations:

1) Obama still has a sizable pledged delegate lead after a sweep February, get swept March 4 scenario.  Here, the lead is 79 delegates.

2) The rest of the February slate (including today) is very important, and seems to be about equal in weight to the March 4 states, despite having fewer pledged delegates at stake (269 vs. 370).  This is a result of my assumptions about victory margins.  I assumed that Obama would have a big day today in DC, MD, and VA.  If anything, my projections for MD and DC are a tad conservative, although that's balanced by the reasonable chance that VA will be closer than 58-42.  The margins I picked for March 4: I assumed TX would be similar to CA (that's where guessing comes in!), as would OH.  I used NH's (stale) results to guess VT, and assumed RI would be MA-like (but more so).

Bottom line: In this scenario, Clinton only gains 3 electoral votes between now and the conclusion of the 3/4 primaries. PA's delegates won't be able to save her completely, and there are a number of other possible landmines waiting for her. (Oregon, for example)

 

It's hard, isn't it? (0.00 / 0)
Even with your conservative estimates, it's tough to come up with scenarios in which Clinton ever gains the lead in elected delegates.

I think we continue to understate just how important February 5th was to this campaign. After Iowa, the Clinton camp banked on 2/5 being the last day of the campaign, the day that they blew away Obama with a national primary and won the nomination. But instead Obama won more delegates and hasn't looked back since.

I wonder what the papers in the Clinton campaign look like. What are their delegate projections that would give them the lead in elected delegates? How are they planning to come from behind and win this thing?

[ Parent ]
Delegates (0.00 / 0)
I haven't found any pledged delegate numbers that mirror yours.  NBC has him up 54, with fewer total delegates.  I realize exact counts could vary 5-10 delegates, but this difference is a lot.  You have almost 100 more delegates allocated than they do.  Sorry minus 26 for Edwards, so you have more than 50 more delegates allocated.
[ Parent ]
He's using Chris's numbers (0.00 / 0)
Chris Bowers is not being paid enough, so send openleft a check today, because next thursday some tv news show or NYT or LAT is going to come snap him up. I dont know which MSM Chris is willing to work for, so dont hate.

If Chris says these are the base numbers for Obama and Clinton, then well those are the numbers.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
sorry, not hating (0.00 / 0)
just making sure I'm not getting over confident.  
[ Parent ]
Thanks for posting that (0.00 / 0)
I didn't mention that I was using Chris' delegate count in this diary as my starting point. His is the best count of pledged delegates I've found anywhere.

Also worth noting that my Potomac guesses seem to be similar to numbers kos passed along from Constituent dynamics:

DC: 10-4 Obama, 1 too close to call (10-5 in my scenario)
MD: 38-26 Obama, 6 too close to call (42-28 in my scenario)
VA: 45-32 Obama, 6 too close to call (48-35 in my scenario)

[ Parent ]
Sight Correctons (0.00 / 0)
Why have Clinton ahead 60%-40% in RI? Is the electorate more like MA or like CT? Remember, even though Obama lost MA, he  carried most of MA but the Boston area and he carried CT. So why wouldn't we expect an Obama win in RI? Also, even though the poll results above show Clinton better in OH than 55%-45%, I think Obama will do much better in TX than in this chart. Also, I thought he was favored in VT. So, the above results might be a little bit optimistic for Clinton but it is quite informative.

If it is a wash from now until 3/4, then the total pledged delegate lead by Obama of about 82 (Chris Bowers has the best numbers, but CBS and NBC are nearly the same) will hold nearly constant and be nearly equal to the superdelegate lead by Clinton. This is not good for Obama. Remember, the remaining uncommitted superdelegates (about 400 of them) are waiting for an overall lead by either candidate, but are probably not skewed either way. I don't think they are looking at just the pledged delegates, but also the committed superdelegates and the results of MI and FL. So I really think Obama needs an overall lead (including committed SDs) before the remaining SDs start to go his way.  

[ Parent ]
Slight Corrections (0.00 / 0)
Sorry about the spelling. Why didn't my spell checker get that?
[ Parent ]
Politico is reporting (0.00 / 0)
that Hillary's superdelegate lead is coming from DNC members, not elected officials, amongst DNC members she leads 125 to 58...that really pisses me off.  I don't know these people, and most of them came to power under the Clinton administration.  I know consensus is the Superdelegates won't go against the people, but we really need to just do away with them.
New Ohio Poll (0.00 / 0)
I just found out about a new Survey USA poll out of Ohio. Keep in mind that they have been the most accurate of any pollsters this season:

2,000 state of Ohio adults were interviewed 02/10/08 and 02/11/08. Of them, 1,812 were registered to vote. Of them, 720 were determined by SurveyUSA to have already voted, or to be likely to vote on or before the 03/04/08 primary. All interviews were completed after results in Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska were known. Half of interviews were completed before results in Maine were known, half after. All interviews completed before results of Virginia, District of Columbia and Maryland primaries were known.

Clinton: 56%
Obama: 39%
Undecided: 2%
(Keith Number: 5.7%)

There might be some issues with the demographic weights (Women are 59% of the voters, blacks are only 16%), but it's Obama's new starting point for Ohio. 17 points back.

Shifts numbers 5 in her favor, in OH (0.00 / 0)
Still Obama ahead, but definitely less than I'd like.
[ Parent ]
Nomination At A Glance, February 12th | 40 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox