Pennsylvania Primary: To the Bitter End?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
For instance:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colorado/election_2008_colorado_presidential_election

Obama wins CO by 3, while Clinton loses the state by 14.

On April 22nd.

I'm doubting those numbers remain the same for Obama or Clinton, depending on the nominee in September or October. Especially after Obama has to go through the Republican attack ringer. And, if Clinton pulled out, McCain has to deal with Clinton's fighting (she can more unload on McCain than she really can on Obama... she has to tread on a bit of eggshells going after a fellow Dem... and yes, this is Hillary treading on eggshells).

[asleepathewheel]

So looks like Clinton will win by ~200k votes and 10% of the vote.

Banner day for her campaign.

I guess she'll keep on truckin' for a few more weeks.

Chris Matthews sounds pretty distraught

[asleepathewheel]

Ron Paul managed over 100k votes bully for him.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Incidentally, Obama pretty consistently wins Republicans and Independents who vote in primaries/caucuses (although that advantage has decreased over time).

I believe that is what Rufus and I may be speaking of. As Obama gets dragged more and more into the muck (and believe me it'll get worse with the Republican attack machine), he loses the Republicans and Indeps who liked him before the campaign really got messy.

While Obama may have significant advantages in the polls now as opposed to Clinton, I do think that a lot of those states will settle in the side of the aisle they normally do and a handful of states will come into play again. So who can win them? And I think that is a good question.

Actually, I think Obama would probably keep many GOP and indy voters. But, in the end, that would chiefly help him lose red states by smaller margins. The big question is not who does better nationally -- I think Obama would -- but who can turn enough red states blue. If Hillary can take Florida, it doesn't matter that she loses the whole rest of the confederacy 90-10; if Obama can't take Florida, it doesn't matter if he gets really close in Colorodo and Kansas.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Actually, I think Obama would probably keep many GOP and indy voters. But, in the end, that would chiefly help him lose red states by smaller margins. The big question is not who does better nationally -- I think Obama would -- but who can turn enough red states blue. If Hillary can take Florida, it doesn't matter that she loses the whole rest of the confederacy 90-10; if Obama can't take Florida, it doesn't matter if he gets really close in Colorodo and Kansas.

I do think Obama is more of a high risk, high reward, and Clinton is more of the safe pick (keeping Kerry's votes, she has much better chance at swinging Ohio and Florida to her side).

I do think Obama would make some of the margins smaller in red states, but I do think he'll lose some of that indy support when he goes against McCain.

[Ramo]

I'm doubting those numbers remain the same for Obama or Clinton, depending on the nominee in September or October.

I don't think those numbers will hold up either. My position all along, in fact, has been that either Dem would beat McCain (but not necessarily in CO or NV - the map is different).

But to consider relative advantages between the candidates in the general election, general election polls are the least bad proxy. It's not like Clinton hasn't been waging McCain's campaign against Obama for him...

Well, in states like Iowa, you are going to have your bases settling in and then fighting over the middle, and I'm not sure Obama will be able to get away with spending less than Clinton in those states when you are up against McCain... especially in a state like Iowa where there are lot of white blue collar workers.

Colorado and Nevada will likely go Democrat regardless. As will probably Wisconsin. Clinton won in the primary in New Hampshire.

So then in the end, regardless of who comes out of the Dem side, it'll come down to Ohio, PA, and FL. And Obama will likely have to spend far more there than Clinton did.

That is not a coherent argument. At all. Why don't OH, PA, and FL magically get passes as well?

Remember Obama outspend Clinton 3-1 in PA, but will likely lose by 10.

Like I said earlier, I'm not convinced that his 2.5-1 spending advantage was worth all that much in the first place. Lots of people were saying that they were sick of all the Obama ads. I think he went way past the point of diminishing returns.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That is not a coherent argument. At all. Why don't OH, PA, and FL magically get passes as well?

Demographics. White blue collar workers don't seem to mind switching parties (Reagan Democrats, etc). I don't see the same for other groups. For example, I think highly educated professionals will vote Dem no matter what. Same with black voters.

[Ramo]

Professionals voting Dem is a recent phenomenon. They used to be the most reliable Republican constituency. They definitely can't be taken for granted...

Look Obama loses some socially conservative working class Dems, while Clinton loses so-called "creative class" Independents. It's probably a wash.

And I don't see why polls wouldn't capture this loss for Obama, but would for Clinton.

[asleepathewheel]

Ramo-

Do you think Obama is going to carry Ohio, Penn, and/or Florida in the general election?

(frankly I think you could throw Michigan in there as well due to the similarities between it and Ohio/Penn)

[Imran Siddiqui]

You really think that a state "trending Dem" would reject Clinton that heavily against McCain? I mean that just looks silly in such context.

And I dunno what the polls say in Ohio, PA, and FL and I'm not basing anything on polls in those states. I'm just saying that the way the demographics are, I think Obama may just reduce the scale of McCain's wins in red states, but it'll come down to the big 3 again.

I mean, in 2004, Bush could have lost both Colorado and Iowa and still won.

Maybe Obama can flip a bunch of formerly red states, but that's a high risk, high reward strategy. Especially if he continues to have problems with white blue collar voters.

[Ramo]

You really think that a state "trending Dem" would reject Clinton that heavily against McCain?

Ummm... I just stated that I didn't think that those numbers would hold up. And trending Dem doesn't mean that it is necessarily Dem.

And I dunno what the polls say in Ohio, PA, and FL and I'm not basing anything on polls in those states. I'm just saying that the way the demographics are, I think Obama may just reduce the scale of McCain's wins in red states, but it'll come down to the big 3 again.

It's a bit hard to argue about unsubstantiated demographic claims...

Maybe Obama can flip a bunch of formerly red states, but that's a high risk, high reward strategy.

That might be troublesome if I thought the election were to be close. I don't think it's going to be. I think macro factors like whether Sadr controls the Governate of Baghdad after the October elections will be a tad more important than electoral college calculus (and I think one Dem candidate can more effectively argue this point against McCain than the other).

Ramo-

Do you think Obama is going to carry Ohio, Penn, and/or Florida in the general election?

(frankly I think you could throw Michigan in there as well due to the similarities between it and Ohio/Penn)

Definitely PA and MI. Probably OH. FL is pretty unlikely. The electoral college logic is that Obama gives up FL and leaves a chance for a loss in OH for offense and defense in a wide variety of states (such as the ones that I mentioned).

[asleepathewheel]

I just see Obama's problems in the primary in those states extending to the general election. Hillary seems to have won on the backs of the older vote, and I see a significant block of them moving more to McCain than Obama. I don't see Obama being elected if he doesn't pull 3 of the 4, and I don't, frankly think he can.

As far as Iraq goes, I know that election is scheduled for Oct 1, so definitely a situation that might come to a head immediately before the election. An all out civil war would certainly hurt McCain. But, for god knows what reason, he is polling pretty well right now all things considered...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Chris Matthews sounds pretty distraught

His man crush lost. I wonder how Olberman took the news.

Any exit polling on how the clinging to religion comments played with voters?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I just see Obama's problems in the primary in those states extending to the general election. Hillary seems to have won on the backs of the older vote, and I see a significant block of them moving more to McCain than Obama. I don't see Obama being elected if he doesn't pull 3 of the 4, and I don't, frankly think he can.

Neither Hillary or Obama is electable. Hillary is hated by too many men, and Obama is a "negro", who many white voters just won't consider. Whichever one of them wins the nomination will be subjected to an eight month smear campaign designed to show that they are a feminazi lesbian or a Black Panther Muslim. It doesn't matter how true any of it is. It will simply keep being repeated until enough dopes believe it.

I don't see what is so difficult to understand: enough Americans who live in the right places are right wing yokels and rubes such that the Republicans will win every time. I don't know why foreigners worry about this so much. They should be trying to distance themselves from the US rather than hoping against hope that American voters won't prove themselves to be a bunch of pudnockers... again.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Aggie, shouldn't you stick to trolling Asher? You actually seem to know something about that...