In a better world/country (0.00 / 0)

the extra time would give the candidates an excellent window to double-team on Bush, McCain, the GOP instead of sniping at each other. Let them show us how good they are against the real bad guys, not their fellow Dems, and let us judge them on that. Who knows, maybe they'll get so bored they'll actually decide to cover some new ground and talk about FISA, Iraq, the Bush/McCain economic meltdown, the Bush/McCain energy/environment disaster, Iran, Afghanistan, restoring liberty in America, rebuilding the US infrastructure, deep electoral reform, openness in government, the imperial presidency -- you know, trivial stuff like that.

---

by: DaveW @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 13:21:10 PM CDT

A comparison (0.00 / 0)

of the Demographics in the Pennsylania SUSA poll with three prior races: Missouri, Wisconsin and Ohio.  The SUSA data doesn't align on age, and there is no income data.

The table tells a couple of stories about Ohio.  First, for all of the talk about the differences between Ohio and Wisconsin, they were actually quite similar.  Note, However, the biggest shift is in the importance given to experience, and the less importance given to ability to create change.  This suggests that the 3 AM phone had a pretty significant on the electorate:

---

by: fladem @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 13:36:50 PM CDT

This data (0.00 / 0)

shows Clinton's margin in the three states.  The fourth column shows the difference in her performance in Wisconsin to Ohio.

A couple of things jump out at me:
1.  The electorate in both Wisconsin and Ohio was substantially more polarized around gender that was Missouri.
2.  Clinton's 3am ad didn't change her margin on the experience issue, it changed the importance attached to the issue.
3.  Clinton's margin in Ohio versus Wisconsin changed most notably amount men (up 38 points from her performance from Wisconsin).  

---

by: fladem @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 13:48:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

3am didn't make the difference (0.00 / 0)

On the very same day that Obama won Wisconsin by 17%, he was still trailing in Ohio by 10%. As such, the two states may look similar based on these demographics, but clearly something much  deeper is at play that separates the two states. We just can't see it in these surface demographics. They were already 27 points apart more than a week before the 3am ad.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 13:59:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I disagree Chris (0.00 / 0)

The 3am ad has an impact in Ohio and most importantly the Obama/Goolsbee leaks from the Canadian officials had a strong effect. Obama did not respond forcefully enough and Hillary capitalize on that. Put the leak and the 3am ad together, you get a +10 Clinton victory in Ohio. In Texas, there's no doubt the 3 am ad screw us up. I was in TX volunteering for the Obama campaign there and the 3 am ad changes everything. We still win though by winning more delegates.

ARG is a team of blindfolded monkeys on crack throwing feces at a number chart.Looks like the monkeys hit Clinton's numbers today. MB

---

by: jr1886 @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 14:41:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You and I (0.00 / 0)

Touched on this a bit way back when, in one of your updates on the state of the race (I think it was after NH...talking about coalitions)

Basically, demographic data can mask large cultural differences.  Clinton seems to clean up with the white working class in areas dominated by Southern Baptists, and in the Rust Belt, whereas Obama is competitive with, if not stronger than, Clinton with the white working class voters in the mid-west, mountain west, and pacific northwest.  Perusing exit polls, he also seems to do reasonably well with the white working class in the southwest as well...getting good margins on the white vote overall in most states (44% in Texas, e.g., and winning it in New Mexico) and doing well w/ voters who make under $75K.  Hard to say for sure, but I do think there's a cultural thing going on here.

And the Southern Baptist issue, don't know if it's been explored on this site but it's definitely real, and I think it might have to do with the Clintons, coming from Arkansas, simply knowing how to appeal to them.

I really think the larger dynamic that isn't being discussed enough in this campaign is the regional/cultural difference between the white Clinton/Obama supporters...and no, I'm not talking about Obamabots being "latte-sipping, Prius-driving" whatever-you-want-to-call-them.

For whatever cultural reasons, Obama just seems to dominate west of the Mississippi with white of all economic tiers.

---

by: mopper8 @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 15:03:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry, but ... (0.00 / 0)

OH and WI are much different states than this demographic data would indivate.

---

by: shaej @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 14:01:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A silver lining (0.00 / 0)

I think Clinton is mistaken if she thinks that a victory in Pennsylvania will sweep her to strong wins in Indiana and North Carolina.  Even if she wins PA 60-40, which is probably her best case scenario, the 40-45% baseline Obama supporters  are going to go to the mattresses in North Carolina and Indiana, and I bet the money and volunteers would stream into the Obama campaign to make a strong stand, and at the very least rally enough support for a straight tie in those states.

I think he's also in an advantageous position insofar as even if she meets expectations in PA, no one will say "Obama should really drop out." On the other hand, if she underperforms, or even loses (not impossible), there could be a major swing away from her, especially with media pressure, party pressure, and as undecided voters come to the conclusion that the race is really effectively over.  

The bottom line is that Clinton needs a strong trifecta of a 10+ win in Pennsylvania, and 5+ wins in Indiana and North Carolina to claim any sort of mandate for keeping her campaign going.  Anything short of that (especially a poor performance in Pennsylvania), she'll have to drop out after Indiana and North Carolina.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 13:39:10 PM CDT

Winning will be enough (0.00 / 0)

Look at the way the gap closed in Texas and Ohio (which I wouldn't be surprised to see in Pennsylvania). That didn't delegitimise her victory in the Texas primary at all.

Unless there's a definite effort to the contrary, expectations will be set from the (probably much closer) polling of the week or so before the election in PA.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 13:45:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

If she loses PA though, I think she is really done this time.  

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 13:52:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Momentum no longer exists in this campaign (0.00 / 0)

I think that's what some folks are missing.

I'm not sure "momentum" as such is a real phenomenon, except that winning affords the winner unbelievable amounts of free media and a priceless opportunity to get his/her message out via the victory speech.  If those opportunities are seized wisely (and usually someone has those opportunities precisely because he/she is a wise campaigner), they present a great chance to eat into the opponent's coalition.

At this point, though, the coalitions are nearly set in stone, the messages are fine-tuned, and I find the notion that one of these two is going to magically find the key to unlocking the other's base kinda silly.  Maybe I'm just to determinative, but I think the Wisconsin and Mississippi results just drive this home.  Clinton couldn't have dreamed up a better weak for her in the run up to the Wyoming caucus, and she still got crushed there, because it's a state that's rich with his voters and lacking in hers.  Same with Mississippi.  Momentum, or lack thereof, had nothing to do with it.  And so it shall be at the end of April/early May.

Obama's team is going to do their thing with the ads, the interviews, and the field work (of which I'll be a part) in PA, Indy, and NC.  Clinton will do her thing, mainly with the paid media and the spin and such.  They might even have a debate.  And when it's all said and done, Clinton's coalition will v likely be bigger than Obama's in PA, and Obama's, IMO, will be bigger in Indy and NC, and momentum will have nothing to do with it.

---

by: mopper8 @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 15:13:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Poke a hole in the Field scenario in MS (0.00 / 0)

I have to agree with you Chris on this scenario. While Giornado has provided great analysis this primary so far, I have to say I usually find holes in his analysis most recently in Mississippi when he predicted a 17-16 delegates spit in favor of Obama. Here's what I said then:

While I really appreciate this thorough analysis by the Field, I disagree with the notion of using a 17% Margin of Victory. Barack Obama margin of victory in Mississippi will be greater than 17% points even by using the most conservative estimate.

Let's start with 2000 exit poll:
Electorate composition by race:

White 40%
Black 55%
Latinos 5%

2004 electorate composition by race:

White 40%
Black 56%
Latino /others 4%

So using the very accurate spreadsheet provided by pollster.com let's run through a few scenarios:

The Field scenario

[40% of electorate] White 77% to 23% for Clinton
[56% of electorate] Black 85% to 15% for Obama
[ 4% of electorate] Latino 70% to 30% for Clinton

Results: Obama 58% to Clinton 42%

Look @ the numbers closely. To get to the field scenario, one must used a very conservative turnout model and low Obama's level support among almost every group.

*** Black turnout will be higher than 56%. They likely to make up 60% of the electorate because Obama's campaign excited them and they will come out in droves

***Obama's support in the Deep south among White 2008:

AL 25%

TN 26%

OK 29%
SC 24%[with John Edwards running]
GA 43%

Average 29.4%

Obama's support among black in all 5 states

AL 84%

TN 77%

Ok n/a

SC 78%

GA 88%

Average 81.75%

Plug this in the spreadsheet with Hillary getting her highest share of 67% among Latino with an electorate of 60% black, 36% white, & 4% Latino I get:

Obama 60%
Hillary 40%

My predicted final outcome:

AA making up 60%: Obama 92%-08%
White 36% : Clinton 70%-30%
Latino 04% :Clinton 67%-33% getting her usual share.

Result:

Barack Obama 67.3%

Hillary Clinton 32.7%

After rounding:

Obama 67%

Hillary 33%

Net Obama delegates:

Obama 19 delegates

Hillary 14 delegates

+5 net delegates for Obama

Ckeck these prediction on Wednesday morning

I nailed the delegates split and was darn correct on the racial percentage support for both candidates.

I was wrong on the turnout model. I had AA making up 60% of the electorate when in a reality they only were 50% of the electorate.

The Field analysis is still very useful and they have been correct many times but in Pennsylvania I think they will be wrong. There's a 1 in a billion chance that a Hillary's margin of victory would 60%-40%. I ll post a detail response very soon.

link http://ruralvotes.com/thefield...

ARG is a team of blindfolded monkeys on crack throwing feces at a number chart.Looks like the monkeys hit Clinton's numbers today. MB

---

by: jr1886 @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 14:15:56 PM CDT

Giordano burned? (0.00 / 0)

I wonder if Giordano felt burned by his over optimistic projections in Texas, and is now holding to very conservative projections in Mississippi and Pennsylvania to avoid messing up like that again.

---

by: jlkenney @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 14:46:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The lull (0.00 / 0)

These six weeks will be intereting.  As long as we are talking about The Field, you will note there Al's analysis on why he thinks the Obama world tour will help.

I just wonder what momementum shifters there could be out there.  Are the remaining supers really going to stay on the fence?  Even a trickle to Obama, like last week, would be a good thing.  And for crying out loud, where is Richardson?  He made it quite clear how he felt about all of this before TX/OH.  Why won't he come out and do the deed?

---

by: tvanniman @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 14:30:02 PM CDT

A couple of other quibbles with the field's predictions (4.00 / 1)

I had two other quibbles with the field's predictions, both of which would make it closer.

Firstly: District 5.  This is a very white, rural district that Clinton will certainly win.  It has 4 delegates.  Giordano gave Clinton 3 of them.  To do that, she needs 62.5% of the vote.  I'd imagine that's achievable, but it is worth remembering that one of the main population centers in the district is State College, home to Penn State.  There ought to be a huge Obama vote there.  I'm not sure of the math, but it seems at least plausible to me that a big Obama win in Centre County would keep it close enough to prevent a 3-1 split in favor of Clinton.

Secondly: the two inner city Philadelphia districts.  Giordano predicts PA-01 (Brady's district) as +1 Obama, and PA-02 (Fattah's) as +3 Obama.  This is certainly possible, but conservative.

First, Brady's district, which has 7 delegates.  It's 45% Black, 15% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 35% White.  The white population includes both working class South Philly Italians and near Northeast Irish, etc, but also liberals in center city, Queen's Village, Northern Liberties, and such.  The Hispanic community is heavily Puerto Rican.  Obama would need 64.5% of the vote to get 5 delegates.  I'm going to guess that at least some of the white population is not registered democrat, for a primary electorate that is, say, 52% Black, 30% White, 15% Hispanic, 3% Asian.  If Obama gets 85% of the Black vote (he got 91% in Mississippi, so it could well be higher), that gives him 44% of the total vote to start out with.  If he gets 37% of the Asian+Hispanic vote, that's another 6.5% of the total - 50.5% of the total vote.  He'd need 47% of the White vote to get the fifth delegate.  Better Black turnout, worse Hispanic turnout, better Obama numbers among Hispanics, and better Obama numbers among Blacks, all of which seem possible, would allow for a lower percentage of the white vote.  This seems achievable, if not necessarily likely - the main body of the white population of the district should be Clinton voters.  +1 Obama is the most likely result there, but +3 should be a distinct possibility.

In District 2, I like Obama's chances to go +5 even better.   It's a 9 delegate district.  To get seven delegates, Obama needs 72.5% of the vote. The district is 61% Black, 3% Hispanic, 4% Asian, and 30% White.  This district, though, the white population looks much better for Obama - lots of educated liberals like Chris and me in Center City, West Philly, and Northwest Philly, if also some working class whites in Roxborough and some suburbanites out in Cheltenham Township in Montgomery County.  So, let's imagine a turn out model that is 65% Black.  If Obama gets 85% of those, He has 55.25% of the total vote.  If we imagine about 5% Latino and Asian, that's another  1.75% for Obama or so - 57% from the non white vote alone.  He needs another 15.5% to get the seventh delegate.  Out of 30% White voters, Obama only needs 52% to reach the magical threshold, which seems likely, although my particular turnout model might need to be tweaked.  You can play with the numbers, but Obama 7, Clinton 2 out of the 2nd district seems even more achievable than Obama 5, Clinton 2 out of the first.  

Getting both would make the numbers 82-76 instead of 84-74.   Given that the basic demographics seem to be at a point where both districts are right on the border, a serious push in Philly ought to be able to make the difference and secure that +4 for Obama.  If Obama can get those delegates and also win the three odd-delegated Philly suburban districts (PA-07, 08, and 13), he'll be +11 out of the Philly region, which should go some ways towards neutralizing Clinton wins in the rest of the state.

---

by: jlkenney @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 14:45:22 PM CDT

I ran the numbers on Monday (0.00 / 0)

Here's what I guessed:

PA-08: (Patrick Murphy, Obama endorser.)  Will go 4-3 or 3-4.

PA-06: (Jim Gerlach (R)).  Clinton wins 4-2 or 3-3 tie.

PA-07: (Joe Sestak, Clinton endorser).  Will go 4-3 or 3-4.

PA-13 (Allyson Schwartz, Clinton endorser).  More likely to go 4-3 to Clinton than anything else.

PA-01 (Bob Brady, Neutral).  At least 4-3 Obama.

PA-02 (Chaka Fattah, Obama endorser).  6-3 minimum for Obama, possible 7-2.

---

by: Adam B. @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 15:39:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

4-2 Clinton in PA-06? (0.00 / 0)

She'd need 58.4% to get four delegates there.  Most of the Democrats in the district presumably live in the inner, Montgomery County parts of the district (Lower Merion, Norristown, Conshohocken), whereas the outer suburbs in Chester and Berks County where Clinton might do better are heavily Republican (and the Hispanic parts of Reading are mostly in the 16th District).  I think that should be an even split, unless Obama totally collapses.

I'm less sure of the others.  PA-13 has northeast Philly, which should be Clinton country, but also nice Montgomery County suburbs - Clinton could certainly win, but I'm not sure it's more likely than her winning PA-07 or PA-08.

---

by: jlk7e @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 15:50:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is the best possible situation for Hillary (0.00 / 0)

RELATIVELY speaking, of course; certainly, at the beginning of the campaign, or even after Super Tuesday, she would not have wanted nor expected to be in the position she is now in.

However, after the series of losses that she suffered before winning Ohio and Texas, she has all that she could reasonably ask for: six weeks with no primaries, and then a huge one.

She has six weeks to tear Obama down. Six weeks to wage a relentless campaign to convince voters that he's not ready for the job. If she does that, and Obama suffers another Ohio-like defeat in Pennsylvania, Democrats may well start having huge doubts about him, and rightly so.

The '3 AM' approach is a good one for her. She's already the preferred candidate among Democrats; where she's losing is with independent and Republican crossover voters. She has to tear him down in their eyes, do what Karl Rove did to John Kerry: convince them that he's 'unfit to serve'.  

---

by: Jason C. @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 14:52:53 PM CDT

If she does, (0.00 / 0)

she runs a very real risk of alienating Democratic voters. When she calls Obama unfit to handle US security, she's directly parroting the GOP/Rove attack on all Democrats, including herself. How can Dems vote for her when she's doing co-campaigning with McCain? The nuttiness (or simple hypocrisy) of this approach has not become obvious yet to political non-junkies, but I think Obama will have the smarts to start running against the Bush-McCain-Clinton trifecta. He might also point out that even if she did manage to get nominated, she'll lose to McCain because she gave him the best possible arguments against her security-handling ability. It will be pretty hard to convince anybody that if McCain would be a better president than Obama, he wouldn't also be a better president than Clinton.

---

by: DaveW @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 16:07:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

When has Hillary worried about alienating people? (0.00 / 0)

It's not first and foremost in her mind, if that's what it takes to win, so be it... which is why she must be stopped.

---

by: neutron @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 17:24:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And Don't Forget (0.00 / 0)

That the dominant pattern throughout this primary season has been: she starts with a lead, he comes to town, lead dwindles, he either wins or comes very close (Ohio, of course, excepted).  The more Obama face time, the less the Clinton lead.  We've got Michelle in the next town over tomorrow, so I suspect we'll start seeing more Obama signs in the neighborhood come Friday.  

As for the phone call ad, if it was effective at all, much of that effectiveness was based on the last-minute timing of the thing. I don't doubt they'll do another last minute smear, but I do doubt it will be in the commander in chief vein, since he's almost been inoculated by the last one and the contradictory facts that followed.  

Personally, I'll be more interested to see what her 527 attack apparatus comes up with. Here, he's got six weeks to get to know us

---

by: ched @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 17:23:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree with DaveW, too (0.00 / 0)

That if they go all negative, all the time, there'll be substantial backlash, a la S. Carolina.  Us plain folk are starting to catch on to the Clinton tactics; hopefully, the press is doing the same, as evidenced by their apparent shame at being suckered by the media-bias nonsense, and their not-terribly-slow calling of BS on the commander in chief "threshold" bit.  Based on Hillary-Penn-Wolfson's performance until OH-TX, I think their success there was more luck than design, but I suspect that they'll think that if a little negative is good, more must be better.  And I think it will backfire.

---

by: ched @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 17:42:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

PA-03 (0.00 / 0)

I'm a democratic committeeperson in PA-03.  Right now I'm neutral - I don't particularly like either senator.  Clinton's too DLC, and Obama pushes the partisan gridlock myth too far (I hope he doesn't really believe it).

That said, I've been sounded out by a half dozen Obama supporters and no Clinton supporters.  The Obama supporters really seem to have a grassroots movement kicking into high gear. I've given my precinct street list (with the good telephone numbers) to the Obama people because they asked for it.  I'd do the same for Clinton, but they haven't asked, and I don't think they will.

PA-03 is one of the few places where PA's closed primary will help Obama.  Delco has gone for democratic national candidates for several election cycles - but there is a large GOP registration advantage here and the republicans have split their ballots.  The registered dems tend to be much more activist and progressive than their neighbors.  I see very few registered republicans changing their registration to vote for Clinton.

If the Clinton campaign intends to rely on Rendell and Sestak's coattails, they're making a huge mistake. They have no coattails here - Rendell because he's been such a disappointment and Sestak because of his two war funding votes.

If Clinton wins PA-03, she'll do it by a couple of points.

---

by: AndyFarquhar @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 20:42:30 PM CDT

Meant PA-07 not PA-03 (0.00 / 0)

Long day.

---

by: AndyFarquhar @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 20:57:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]