Democratic Nomination?

Originally posted by Strangelove
http://hill6.thehill.com/leading-the-news/dream-ticket-momentum-gains-strength-2008-06-02.html

Not choosing Mrs. Clinton actually only addresses the same political presumptiousness that Clinton is being accused of making. It's clearly a win/win situation. Frau Clinton accepting it and performing accordingly is in question, but one can't say she arrogantly pressumed she was the nominee if Mr. Obama is unwilling to consider her for the no. 2 position. After that, it becomes a matter of party lines. One can't accuse the republicans of being partial to party over country if the democrats aren't willing to do the same and put their money where their mouth is.

that being said, I feel like I need to see john edwards in there some where: VP or not.

Originally posted by Robtard
Republicans want her to win the nomination, as Obama has a better chance of beating McCain.

Anyway, another story about Clinton probably giving up the goose after the Primaries officially finish.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/03/primary.wrap.int/index.html

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't think Gallup polls of "purple" states, and the bizarreness that is the Electoral College, agree completely. Assuming typically red states stay red, and typically blue states stay blue. And considering the (albeit somewhat justified) vitriol towards the Clintons, I've been reading on the forums of late - I'd imagine that Shaky's comments aren't altogether unjustified.

Anyway, another story about Clinton probably giving up the goose after the Primaries officially finish.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/03/primary.wrap.int/index.html

The 2004 elections show that blue/reds states don't always stay their color.

I'm not dismissing Shaky's comment of "the Dem chaos is helpful to the the Reps" either. I am saying when all is said and done, as there will be one candidate winning, they'd prefer Clinton over Obama, as McCain has a better chance of beating her.

And I was saying I'm not sure that's true at least according to polling figures. California will pretty much always go blue and Texas will always go red as far as I'm aware. I'm not sure which states will supposedly turn purple, but Gallup defines it as any state that in 2004 went no more than 5% points in either direction, or that has a history of going back and forth. Out of curiosity which do you think will go purple that was formerly red? Also iirc the number of purple states is actually contracting.

(Other than: Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas (only for Clinton), Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri and of course Florida and Michigan)

Originally posted by Robtard
The 2004 elections show that blue/reds states don't always stay their color.

I'm not dismissing Shaky's comment of "the Dem chaos is helpful to the the Reps" either. I am saying when all is said and done, as there will be one candidate winning, they'd prefer Clinton over Obama, as McCain has a better chance of beating her.

I personally think that McCain has a better chance against Obama, but I am currently undecided.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And I was saying I'm not sure that's true at least according to polling figures. California will go blue and Texas will go red. I'm not sure which states will supposedly turn purple, but Gallup defines it as any state that in 2004 went no more than 5% points in either direction, or that has a history of going back and forth. Out of curiosity which do you think will go purple that was formerly red? Also iirc the number of purple states is actually contracting.

(Other than: Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas (only for Clinton), Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri and of course Florida and Michigan)

As you mentioned, there are the states like CA and TX which will stay their color, no matter what. I'm not exactly sure which reds will go purple as fact, I do think he could potentially turn a few red southern states his way though.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And I was saying I'm not sure that's true at least according to polling figures. California will pretty much always go blue and Texas will always go red as far as I'm aware. I'm not sure which states will supposedly turn purple, but Gallup defines it as any state that in 2004 went no more than 5% points in either direction, or that has a history of going back and forth. Out of curiosity which do you think will go purple that was formerly red? Also iirc the number of purple states is actually contracting.

(Other than: Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas (only for Clinton), Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri and of course Florida and Michigan)

I'm just going off the Rasmussen figures. Here's how I understand it.

Essentially there are 157 safe Democrat EC votes.
(California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), New York (31), Rhode Island (4), and Vermont (3).)

What Obama will need to do to win is get the 113 votes to get to 270.

There are 168 EC votes that he basically has little chance of turning.
(Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (10), Georgia (15), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (8), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (34), Utah (5), West Virginia (5) and Wyoming (3))

Which means he'll have to win these states:
Likely Democratic: Minnesota (10), New Jersey (15), Oregon (7), and Washington (11). Total 43 + 157 = 200.
Leans Democratic: Iowa (7), Michigan (17), New Mexico (5), Pennsylvania (21) and Wisconsin (10). Total 60 + 200 = 260.

And enough of these states:
Toss-Up: Colorado (9), Nevada (5), New Hampshire (4), and Ohio (20).
Leans Republican: Florida (27), Missouri (11), Virginia (13).
Likely Republican: Arkansas (6) and North Carolina (15).
To make up the difference.

If we take the most current polling as if it were an election result (which of course I'm aware it isn't):
Either Democrat would win:
Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), Washington (11), New Mexico (5), Pennsylvania (21), New Hampshire (4). Total + 157 = 215.
Only Obama would win:
Iowa (7), Colorado (9). Total + 215 = 231
Only Clinton would win:
Arkansas (6), Nevada (5), Ohio (20), Florida (27). Total + 215 = 273

Neither Democrat would win, or too close: New Jersey (15), Wisconsin (10), Missouri (11), Virginia (13), North Carolina (15), Michigan (17)

So essentially Obama would have to win a combination of the 4 or 5 of the last group of states in order to reach 270, or some combination of those and some of the ones only Clinton currently wins, or some combination of some of the above and also turn some typically red states. At least based on the most recent polls of McCain vs Obama and McCain vs Clinton. So I don't know if the statement that McCain has a better chance of beating her holds entirely true.

N.B. I'm perfectly aware that these polls will obviously shift when Obama finally gets the nomination, and that the only poll that really matters is the one that occurs on the election day. I just thought it would be interesting to try and do the EC math.
Sources blah blah blah: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_presidential_race_state_by_state_snapshot
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update

Wow. That was dumb and a waste of my nowadays limited maths skills. Apparently I could have just gone here:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun03.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Jun03.html
Basically shows same thing, that either would win, but Clinton has a distinct Electoral College advantage while Obama needs to win Ohio and New Mexico to win the Election. Deja vu 2004.

There's also this site running simulated elections, although I haven't fully looked at the methodology.
http://hominidviews.com/?page_id=1160 Obama vs McCain
http://hominidviews.com/?page_id=1251 Clinton vs McCain

That's certainly possible.

I would be very surprised if Ohio goes republican, after the disaster in 04.

I also think West Virginia and Virginia are slightly democratic, especially with Virginia's black group with Obama.

Also, Indiana might be a purple state:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/11/indiana_an_emerging_purple_sta.html

Originally posted by lord xyz
I would be very surprised if Ohio goes republican, after the disaster in 04.

I also think West Virginia and Virginia are slightly democratic, especially with Virginia's black group with Obama.

Also, Indiana might be a purple state:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/11/indiana_an_emerging_purple_sta.html

The overall bottom line point being essentially that the electoral college math is a whole lot trickier for Obama than it is for Clinton. I think even the most ardent Obama supporters should be able to see that.

He will imo almost certainly need the Clintons and their supporters on his side, and his VP pick will pretty much have to be a strong Clinton backer if not Clinton herself if he is to win in November.

This is without even taking into account that the Republicans and their 527s will do their very best to character assassinate the man, who has had very little vetting thus far imo compared to Clinton, his other Democratic rivals from earlier in the race and John McCain his ultimate opponent. I really don't know if he would weather a barrage of swiftboats as well as others would.

Surprising to see Michigan become Republican, it's like Texas being Democratic.

Actually, there was a poll early in the election (back when Clinton was still the frontrunner 🙁) that had her beating McCain in Texas.

Probably would have gone Republican in Nov. anyway, but there it was.

I'll find the link if I can.

I still don't see her winning, she's very unpopular with the religious vote...you know, that whole Lewinsky thing.

On a related note, there's actually very little to suggest that the protracted Primary process has hurt Democrat chances for the White House overall. More people currently identify as Democrat, and both the most recent Obama vs McCain and Clinton vs McCain have the Democrats in the lead. And the chances of either beating McCain has actually increased over the past few months in electoral simulations.

The Primary battle will probably only impact if the burn of past vitriol makes Obama unpalatable to Clinton's constituencies - which will largely be determined by how strongly Clinton calls on them to back Obama.

I also read another commentary that Clinton's Electoral College map is more broad-based essentially reflects the constituencies that her husband had in the 90s, while Obama's generally reflects the close races of 2000 and 2004 which relied on a few key states. Ironic in that iirc Obama is the one who did have or still has the intention to try and run a "50 state campaign" strategy come November.

However I imagine that if Obama does lose via his more difficult Electoral College math, that his supporters will somewhat blame Clinton - no matter how much she does to try and swing her supporters, instead of the Presidential candidate in question, when after 8 years of Bush this should be a cakewalk for either. Although I'm probably being unnecessarily and prematurely pessimistic.

Clinton to Concede

After a number of superdelegate endorsements, and assuming Obama receives at least 30% of the vote in South Dakota and Montana, Obama will reach the "magic number" of 2118 delegates to secure the Democratic nomination.

Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said on the "Today Show" today that once Obama gets the majority of convention delegates, "I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him and call him the nominee."

Also Clinton has signaled that she would be open to the Vice Presidential spot if it will help Democrats win the White House tomorrow.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080603/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

While I'm sure a bunch of you will be cheering and spitting on the Clintons' legacy, let's not forget the groundbreaking nature of this campaign. Sen. Clinton, a woman, has received the largest number of votes in presidential primary history (depending on which scenario you choose to follow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Popular_vote_table). If Clinton or another woman becomes the VP nominee, it will be a presidential ticket that will break boundaries and ultimately change the course of American politics. I, for one, am amazed beyond words that I have been able to witness it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I still don't see her winning, she's very unpopular with the religious vote...you know, that whole Lewinsky thing.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I still don't see her winning, she's very unpopular with the religious vote...you know, that whole Lewinsky thing.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Which constituencies are you referring to, Jews? Catholics? The Evangelical religious vote is clearly the way the Democrats would win the election? Really it seems like you just comment for the sake of commenting sometimes.

he does have a point though. every significant demographic can effect the outcome. a handful of disgruntled jesus freaks in a swing or even perhaps red state could tip the scales and make all the difference.