of course in the real world (4.00 / 1)

you can't do this, but since we're talking about a non-race, as an experiment, remove her built-in advantages:
1) 16 years as a public figure
2) huge over-64 electorate
3) high early voting numbers
4) large Hispanic population

add in the SC win and Kennedy news, and you would have gotten a much closer race.

The point being, in a contested election, he would have addressed all those disadvantages to varying degrees.

---

by: along @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:51:36 AM CST

Performance (0.00 / 0)

What we have seen so far this primary season is that Obama over perform's from the polling and Clinton under-performs.

I think it will be close and at the end of Feb. 5th we will not have a clear front runner.

---

by: BDM @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:57:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

New Hampshire (0.00 / 0)

---

by: BDB @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:24:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed... (0.00 / 0)

Florida was no more a 'control' for Dems than Wyoming was for Repubs. It was a non race. It exemplifies how Florida would vote if there were no delegates at stake, no one campaigned and it was Florida.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:05:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Endorsements (0.00 / 0)

As much as we all constantly claim that endorsements don't matter, it looks like right now they really, really do. The Kennedy endorsement, for instance, is a bigger deal than I might have imagined. I have people coming to me saying how they take Obama seriously now that someone like Ted Kennedy supports him. People who wrote Obama off as all "hype" are taking another look thanks to this old-guard endorsement. And now Carter comes out in support of Obama, which is as close to an endorsement as Carter is likely to give. And this is just the beginning…

Richardson is yet to endorse. For Clinton, this wound be a boon, but for Obama is would be a godsend. All those naysayers about the Latino vote would have to shut up, at least temporarily, if the top Latino Democrat endorsed the black guy. And now we have Edwards posed to endorse. In the end, his endorsement might not count for much (maybe even less than Richardson and Kennedy?), but it is still a big one waiting in the wings. And of course there is Gore, who I think has powerful sway here in CA.

The window for additional endorsements is increasingly tiny. But I see endorsements playing a pretty big role in candidate's posturing prior to Feb 5th - and perhaps even a big role in how people vote.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:54:58 AM CST

Asymmetric (4.00 / 3)

Since Clinton represents the establishment, all endorsements are more or less assumed to be hers.  So they don't help her.

On the other hand, each endorsement Obama receives adds to his credibility.  More importantly, since each endorsement is somewhat surprising it also gets more media play which helps Obama keep the positive spotlight and give the sense of momentum.

But Clinton has huge up-front advantages, including the fact that an extimated 23% of all California voters have already voted with 56% of them voting for Hillary.  That gives Hillary a 13% handicap before the polls even open.  I don't think Obama can win on election day by more that 13%.  (Though turnout may be higher than expected, which helps Obama a lot, even if the vote is split.)

---

by: Mark Matson @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:14:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Have these votes been counted (0.00 / 0)

Or is it an extrapolation from polling?

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:13:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Extrapolated (0.00 / 0)

According to SurveyUSA 23% of the expected vote in CA already voted and it went 56-32 for Clinton.  This leads to about a 13% advantage for Clinton going in.  In other words, Obama needs 13% more votes on primary day to tie Clinton overall.

Of course, this is dependent on actual voter turnout.  Even if Clinton and Obama split the primary day vote 50-50, if more than expected show at the polls then the 13% lead will drop.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:19:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It Seems To Me That... (0.00 / 0)

Obama should worry less about running against Clinton and more about running against Republican policies, issues, and values, including Bush.  The way to show that he can beat the Republicans is to start beating the Republicans, now.

A gutsy first move: take the human and compassionate position on immigration and stick it to McCain.  Make him disavow his old decent position and pander to the right with his new nativist position.

---

by: ArthurKC @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:05:06 AM CST

Just Saw This At Kos: (4.00 / 1)

First, from Grover Norquist:

"Oddly enough, people resent the idea that you might throw their mother out of the country."

Then, from Kos:

"Leave it to a Republican to frame the issue better than the Democrats have been able to, but the sentiment is dead on. And the electoral repercussions are deadly for the GOP."

---

by: ArthurKC @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:08:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Romney won the deportationists (0.00 / 0)

But they were only 40% of the GOP electorate.

IMHO the endorsements from Latino electeds will help Obama in CA, also his support for driver's licences for those who drive, including undocumenteds.  Of course that position isn't popular with some people, but my guess is that, as in FL, they are mostly GOPers who can't vote in the CA primary.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:17:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I tend to disagree Mike (0.00 / 0)

There are MANY retirees from the Northeast in Florida especially in the jewish communities and most still have family and connections to the NY/NJ area where Hillary is very popular. I think it is fair to say it more cases than not families are likely to share similar viewpoints in who they will support.

---

by: Jon Niola @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:08:06 AM CST

So many moving parts and unknowns (4.00 / 1)

I didn't pay a lot of attention to the FL results, but isn't it correct that Obama ran about even with Clinton when you exclude very early voters?  Or did I misunderstand what some of the reporting was?

Was there any analysis of turnout in FL as related to the fact that it wasn't supposed to generate delegates?  For example, was there particularly strong or weak turnout among groups that are likely to favor Clinton or Obama?

Having talked to my elderly mother living in S. FL, I suspect that this demographic group made a point of getting out to vote for Hillary (or mailing their ballot in early), even when they knew there were no delegates at stake.  It was too historic an opportunity from their perspective to miss.

While I really appreciate reading the thoughts of folks like Mike, Chris, Matt and others with political savvy and experience, I think there are so many important and largely unknown dynamics at play that, as the folks in AA say, we'll have to "take it one day at a time" in terms of making sense of this race.  In fact, given the inaccuracies so far in polling, things are probably not likely to be clear until the 2/5 votes are counted.  Among the interrelated factors that come to mind are:

--so many states are moving up the "paying attention" curve so fast;
--the still-large numbers of undecideds (and probably "not yet paying attention") in the polls that have been cited here and other places;
--the consistent signs of larger-than-expected turnouts we've seen so far;
--the sometimes stunning inaccuracy of polls so far in this race;
--the impact of Edwards' withdrawal in this environment (though Mike's point about white voters seems like a pretty clear plus for Clinton);
--the appearance of momentum for Obama, including an unknown but potentially very significant boost from the Kennedy endorsements--including the extent to which this (along with his drivers license position and other things) will help him win Latino votes in spite of Clinton's strength there;
--questions about further endorsements from the likes of Richardson, Edwards, etc.;
--the fact that Obama and Clinton are waging near-national-scale campaigns over the next week;
--the fact that a significant (expected or unexpected) event in the coming week could add whole new levels of volatility to this already very complex mix of dynamics.

Anybody add to (or subtract from) that list?

---

by: mitchipd @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:38:27 AM CST

Good list. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:27:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

2 weeks ago we had local polls (4.00 / 1)

here is So Florida and the St Pete Times showing hillary ahead by 30-39 points, and she won with ONLY 17% of the vote. I'd say Obama was having a surge, and without a ground game here to speak of, and all the anti-Obama hatemail to the jewish community he did well.
So PLEASE....Florid ais not an indication of anything. Actually the kennedy endorsement came thru for him, among liberals here in Broward.

---

by: gaiilonfong @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:51:37 AM CST

Actually, this post has it mostly wrong. (0.00 / 0)

You're right that Florida was something of a "control group", but you're wrong about what the results show.

If you look at the exit polls (always a good idea before you post something about what they contain), obama won those who decided in the last week or three days by substantial margins (and narrowly lost those who decided day of, easily explained by the 'hillary in florida' news of monday and tuesday).

now though you're wrong on that, you do get to something important: as in florida, mail ins will likely go hard for clinton in some really really important states, california primary among them.  the hill obama has to climb is that he must beat clinton by wide enough margins (in hundreds of competitive cds across the country) that he can overcome the votes cast absentee.

sorry for the faux news link, but it's the simplest format i could find (and fittingly, for the neanderthals that "read" faux' website):

http://youdecide08.f...

as for john edwards, my guess is he'll endorse obama within the next couple of days, timed to maximum effect. i bet a deal's been made by the timing of his announcement today: it knocks the news cycle off of clinton and florida in a way that suits obama quite nicely.

---

by: tokyo kisses @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:19:52 AM CST

Deluded. (4.00 / 1)

The scariest thing about so many Obama supporters is how deluded they are.  There's this messianic fervor that I usually associate with the right-wing there.  It's like, everything is good news for Obama?

I lived through a decade of "bad news for the Clintons" that never seemed to impact their approval ratings or results in the polls.  A week of bad news for Hillary resulted in another stunning rebuke of Obama, just like two good years of news for Newt Gingrich resulted in his ouster as Speaker.

---

by: attorney at arms @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:24:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Good points. (0.00 / 0)

I think the early voting vs late deciders issues are a very legit point, and as I said, there are things in the data that are more hopeful for Obama. But as you and others on this thread have pointed out, early voting is a big factor in Feb 5 states as well, and to win, Obama needs a bigger surge than he got in FL.
Sometimes I find that folks, especially partisans for one camp or the other, work so hard to slice and dice the data that they forget the ultimate result, and Hillary still won this race by a large margin.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:42:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The big difference is that... (0.00 / 0)

Obama wasn't organizing the state, and he made no local ad buys.  Obama has lower name recognition than Clinton. He needs to campaign in a state to do well. 

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:46:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Phony? (4.00 / 1)

"it was a phony victory"

Says you.

But the 857,208+ people who voted for Hillary Clinton say it's real.  For Obama supporters--or just Hillary haters in general--to cry election fraud in New Hampshire to turn around and plead for the voiding of a vote that almost 2 million Democrats participated in is sickening.

You know damn well that if the tables were reversed it would be more "Clinton voter suppression." 

Clinton cleaned Obama's clock in the first state with a large population to vote (unless you count another "phony" victory, in Michigan) after days of establishment Democrats pillorying Bill Clinton.

And when you look at the exits, please explain why Hillary is winning among people who identify amount VERY LIBERAL and LIBERAL and your guy is only winning among CONSERVATIVES.

Sounds like despite the toxic Hillary hatred in the blogosphere she represents the Democratic Wing of the Democratic party.

---

by: attorney at arms @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:20:30 AM CST

What about the ballot initiatives? (0.00 / 0)

What about the fact that Obama won with late deciders?

What about the fact that Obama outperformed the polls by at least 5%?

What about the fact that Clinton appealed explicitly to Florida voters before the election, and Obama didn't?

This post is so one-sided it is absurd. 

I personally don't know any Obama supporters who said there was fraud in NH.  Obama didn't even send people to monitor the recount (unlike Clinton).  That dog is not going to hunt.

Let's see how Liberals vote on Feb. 5th and beyond.  Then we can say who represents the "democratic wing of the democratic party." 

 

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:44:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Please (4.00 / 1)

Late deciders:  meaningless for the most part due to small sample size

Obama outperformed:  2 words NEW HAMPSHIRE  polls can suck

Clinton appealed:  And Obama had over a week of a national TV ad campaign appearing in FL,  Clinton didn't

Got anything else?

Indeed we will see how people vote on Feb 5th.  I'm quite content to wait.

---

by: RalphB @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:54:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Some fair points. (0.00 / 0)

But what about the fact that Hillary won easily?
Be careful that you don't rationalize so much that you forget the actual results.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:18:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Phony. (0.00 / 0)

I addressed this a little bit in a response above, but I wasn't suggesting that the voting or results were phony (personally, I hope the delegates will be seated at the convention), but the claim of victory in a state where the campaigns had agreed in advance not to campaign was phony.
I love how the partisan advocates on both sides accuse anyone writing about this race of being biased against their candidate. 

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:57:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama has had offices (0.00 / 0)

and people on the ground working in almost every one of the 22 states that will vote next Tuesday. Hillary has not. Hillary is the one airing an ads in CT, NY, MA, and 6 other states...but half of these states are places she simply shouldn't need to run ads - in particular, NY?? Why in the world would she need to run ads in NY? Unless she's not polling well there internally.

Both candidates have a decent shot at the nomination - but for the past week the momentum has been with Obama and I sure don't see that momentum coming to a halt.

---

by: Elise @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:36:20 AM CST

echh (0.00 / 0)

The importance of the state's age distribution cannot be understated... yet it has been, consistently.  We've seen that elderly white people are either too racist or too ageist to be interested in Obama (aside from those few shining stars that are not -- hi Grandma :), and they dominate the place. Florida is a weird place voting after a weird-as-hell non-campaign, and trying to use it to draw statistical inferences about the 5th of February seems utterly pointless to me.

---

by: pogopark @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:33:07 AM CST

easy on the stereotypes (0.00 / 0)

Clinton does better with the elderly, Obama does better with the young.  That's not a reason to call either of these two groups racist, ageist, or sexist.  It is a reason why Clinton can be expected to do better in Florida than in other states.
 

---

by: Joe Buck @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 17:15:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

thanks (0.00 / 0)

point taken.  I meant to draw from poll data, though -- it does seem to bear out to an extent.  I might have been overstating things, though.

---

by: pogopark @ Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:13:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]