Why would Edwards ... (0.00 / 0)

endorse now? ... and would it really matter? ... it might have a while ago .. but I think that time has passed

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:59:50 AM CDT

Delegates (0.00 / 0)

An Edwards endorsement would probably bring most, if not all, of his delegates with him.

---

by: Kanamit @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:11:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Would it? (0.00 / 0)

An Edwards endorsement might have made a big difference earlier, but now? Surely most of the Edwards delegates (like most other Edwards supporters) have their own preferences by this point, and their own ideas about who the voters of their state or district would want them to support.

---

by: KCinDC @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 21:55:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Have you heard any superdelegate news? (0.00 / 0)

especially from the supers you said were all ready to vote Obama, and the ones the LA Times talked to?

John McCain won't insure children

---

by: magster @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:00:31 PM CDT

After last night (0.00 / 0)

most all of the Supers will be on hold until things unfold in the upcoming primaries. The other day a poll said that 33% of the ones polled said 'electablility' is their main criteria. I think that percentage will grow as the main issue here is not who one personally likes - it is about winning the WH.

Once again last night Clinton showed she can win the Reagan Democrats and Obama showed he has a big problem with those same RD's and working class white and rural white voters. That will play big with the Supers because if McCain wins those he wins the election and it has been clearly demonstrated that Clinton has a natural following among those voters. As such she has the best chance of winning them and winning the election.

Even Super Delegate Obama supporter Donna Brazile, who is uncommitted at this time, started hedging her bets last night on CNN. She knows what it takes to win the electoral map and as much as she is in love with Obama she knows that ultimately the more important thing is to win the WH.

The other thing about last night is Obama out spent Clinton 3 to 1 and could still only come within 10%. Supers will look at that too and say if that with even 3 times more money Obama can't buy a win then something is terribly wrong with him in the eyes of the voters.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:34:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

'Electability' (0.00 / 0)

is not synonymous to support for Clinton, simply because she's arguing that she's more electable, especially considering you'd be hard pressed to find national or state matchups indicating that Clinton is undeniably better now and in November against McCain.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:37:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

last night was (0.00 / 0)

support with exactly the contingency I mentioned. And last I looked Clinton wins Massachusetts against McCain and Obama doesn't!!! Massachusetts!!!!

---

by: Super Delegate @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:10:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nope (4.00 / 1)

Survey USA - April 11-13, Obama 48 McCain 46. Granted, very weak numbers. Just like Hillary has weak numbers in Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan and others. None of which are set in stone. He would win MA and she could certainly win all those states. As I have pointed out time and time again, they both have different strengths and weaknesses. For instance, how will she compete with independents? You always gloss over that. In poll after poll McCain thumps her among unaffiliated voters which is why winning Reagan Dems only brings her to a national tie. Obama has the opposite problem - he is stronger with indies but only ties with McCain because he doesn't do well with Reagan Dems. The whole thing is much more complicated than you keep insisting.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:25:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And (0.00 / 0)

Clinton is at 56% vs. 40.1% vs McCain. Just thought I
d mention that for contrast opposed to Obama who is within the margin of error. That's a 16 point lead.

And no I don't gloss over strengths and weaknesses. I point out that Clinton holds what is traditionally strong for us and Obama does not and that what he does hold is totally untested and therefore unreliable. If he can't win in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania and if he can't hold a commanding lead in place like Massachusetts then those are big red flags you should be real concerned about if your priority is having a Dem in the WH.  

---

by: Super Delegate @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 18:10:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You do gloss and just did (0.00 / 0)

No mention of the states in which she is weak where Dems are traditionally strong, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Wisconsin or in swing states like Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina. And who says he can't win in PA? Fine, he lost the primary but again that has nothing to do with the general election. He even holds the lead there in the RCP average over McCain. And don't even think about posting the Pollster average where he trails because you have already told me you don't like their methodology.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 13:09:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A serious outlier (0.00 / 0)

Massachusetts is not going for McCain, I think that poll is just off, for any number of reasons.  In January 2007, they had McCain beating Obama 50-45, and it was as wrong then as it is now.  Clinton is only one point up on (or even with) McCain in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Oregon, up by only 3 in Washington, and down by six in Iowa.  Two can play at that game.  

My point is that it goes both ways, and you cannot credibly argue right now, on April 24, that Clinton will categorically be significantly more likely to defeat John McCain in November, based on polls or anything else.  It's pretty much dead even at this point, and these things change dramatically.  A few weeks before Iowa, many had Obama as the third most likely nominee behind Clinton and Edwards.  They were pretty wrong.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:35:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Indeed (0.00 / 0)

Kos has a post up about this which explains all.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:37:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also (4.00 / 1)

it's worth noting that simply because a voter supported Clinton in the primary doesn't mean that they will necessarily support her in the general election, or will necessarily not support Barack Obama.  

It's entirely possible that they voted for Clinton against Obama, and have no intention of voting for a Democrat in November (in which case, how is she more electable based on primary numbers?)

Similarly, it's entirely possible that they voted for Clinton because they liked Clinton even more than they liked Obama, and will still certainly support either Democrat in November (in which case, how is she more electable than he is?)

The bottom line is that there are very few people who will only voted for Clinton in April AND will only vote for Clinton in November, and considering Obama's strengths in other demographics, he could certainly match, if not outweight, that number.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:42:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

asdf (0.00 / 0)

 "Also  
it's worth noting that simply because a voter supported Clinton in the primary doesn't mean that they will necessarily support her in the general election, or will necessarily not support Barack Obama. "

And vis versa

---

by: Super Delegate @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:11:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

So I don't think it reflects well on your judgment to insist that Clinton is somehow so much 'electable' than Obama.  I'm not saying that he is, because he isn't (by that much, I don't think, but that's another discussion).

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:25:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

FWIW (0.00 / 0)

I trust my judgment on matters like this. I've been through lots of elections and worked in quite a few. It's all about the electoral map and the types of voters it takes to win those states and who the opponent is. In this case Clinton is the better match-up and stands the best chance of beating McCain and what he brings and does bring to the table.  

---

by: Super Delegate @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 21:46:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pennsylvania (0.00 / 0)

was Clinton's last best opportunity.  The road ahead for her is pretty dim, except for Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico.  Obama will almost certainly cancel out, if not overtake her Pennsylvania margin in Indiana and North Carolina (given current conditions and polls), and will make decent gains in Oregon, Montana and South Dakota.  

That also doesn't address superdelegates - the people who went with Clinton because they wanted to be on the winning team endorsed her months and months ago.  The people who haven't endorsed yet are the ones who didn't care who the winner was, as long as they were on the team eventually.  Obama has a 90% chance of winning the pledged delegate total and popular vote total, etc. - all the metrics that would factor into a such a decision.  The superdelegates will ultimately get behind him, or else they'd essentially be staging a coup, and I truly cannot see that happening.  If I'm right, we'll be wrapped up no later than June 3rd, perhaps as soon as May 13th.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:22:51 PM CDT

Making predictions (0.00 / 0)

Maybe you should publish your final November predictions in mid-October. I think in races with fairly static fundamentals there isn't a lot to be lost by making your prediction six weeks out except the noise of the latest cable TV scandal du jour -- which seem to mean nothing at the ballot box.

Lierberman/Lamont, Webb/Allen -- I think those races pretty much finished where there where in mid-October.

John McCain

---

by: joejoejoe @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:25:08 PM CDT

Fallout from MI (0.00 / 0)

I read somewhere - can't find it now - that actually Obama didn't get the MI uncommitted, but only got have of that.  Some went to "union candidates", or some such.  Wish I could find the link where I read that...

I'm still totally unsure of what is going to happen in Indiana - SUSA seems to show it, as a similar state to OH and PA.  But other polls seem to show it similar to Missouri.

There's a big difference, there.  In the Missouri scenario you look at a tie, in the OH, PA scenario, you look at another 9-10 win by Clinton.

Still, in any event, we should look for NC to erase any delegate gain, from PA.  Although, I doubt we see another 20 point contest, because the Hillary team has had time to adjust in the ground game.

---

by: JC @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:29:08 PM CDT