Apr 15 2008
Pennsylvania minus one week
A merciful mid-campaign lull precluded the need for a “minus two weeks” thread, but things are well and truly picking up again now. Real Clear Politics’ Pennsylvania Democratic poll average has Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama 47.4 per cent to 40.4 per cent, which is not as much as she would like. However, the most very recent poll from SurveyUSA puts it at 56-38 (UPDATE: Whoops, that’s not the most recent poll after all. There have been quite a few others since that have been around the RCP average). Statistical anomaly, or Obama’s elitist chickens coming home to roost? I report – you decide.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Hillary by 9%
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Glen, the stats tell a very different story. The Kid’s demographic is far far wider than that. Face it, he wouldn’t be this far ahead otherwise.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Oh cmon you’re telling me that the black vote in Philadelphia won’t give Obama a big margin against Hillary??
I know whites are voting for him but blacks are voting for him in droves for obvious reasons and they are his core voter group just as senior whites are Hillary’s.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
#1062 - FG - [The Kid] - your polite way of calling Obama the Boy?
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Yeah, that’s wrong Glen. While Obama will win the black vote handsomely, he is also tied with Hillary, even in PA, in that new forgotten minority of white men. Women, and particularly older women, are where Hillary’s advantage is.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Make it lively tomorrow during the count guys - I will be flying about remote regions of the state and only able to see the blog on my phone (but can’t post). I reckon it should be possible to pick up what happens from you lot, though, to say the least - in fact I’ll probably know more about it, and earlier, than most people on the planet
It is sobering to note, as you have HarryH, that it will probably all grind on and on after tomorrow.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Finns
#1604
The greatest fighter of all time gave Bert Newton a look when he called him ‘boy’
but Ferny does have form #1092
Glen
#1601
Finns #1594 poll figures were accurate , so the following blog to yours had no relevance to what you said. The stats tell the story Finns quoted
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
#1067 Ron, if I were a Obama supporter, i would be really pissoff for my candidate to be called the Kid, especially if my candidate happens to be black.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
It’s a comparative term Finns - compared to the rest of the field
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
It’s you that’s made the link to Obama’s race, Finns. Noone else has.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
FG - Obama is a RACE candidate!!!!
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 pm
If you say so Finns
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
FG - Obama is black and you called him the Kid. 1 + 1 = 2
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Still the dung beetle Finns. You made the link, not me.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
FG - Another Barry Hall defence.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Time to hand out the medication again.
6 Weeks! OMG, and look what we’ve got:
Obama is black and you called him the Kid. 1 + 1 = 2
…are you sure Finn?
Did you say “+”, and “=”?
Sure about that?
Can you go and check for us, as it’s VERY important, and well, you seem so smart with this stuff.
Could you do 2+2 for us, if you’re not too busy? Please?
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
1611 That’s funny, I thought Obama was a candidate who happened to be black. So Hillary has no race? That must be because she’s white and therefore her race is invisible.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Can we move on from this please.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Clearly I meant he is a goat.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Finns - You are being absurd and abnoxious about this ‘kid’ business. When I lived in New Guinea before independence, the whites there still used the term ‘boy’ as in ‘house boy’ etc.. This term goes back a long way into the unpleasant world of slavery and colonisation. Never did I hear the use of ‘kid’ as a synonym, and believe me, I heard every possible variation and abusive term for the indigenous peoples.
‘Kid’ refers to youth, not colour, and you are being dishonest to suggest it is a substitute for ‘boy’ in the sense of its use as a racial slur. That’s why it doesn’t appear in the ‘Racist Slur Database’ linked below. What you are attempting says a lot more about you than anyone else here.
http://www.rsdb.org/
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
sorry William - I missed yours before posting
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
That’s okay JV, I allow a few minutes’ tolerance after I lay down one of my edicts.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Hi PBs
My prediction that even a Pa state-wide vote Clinton:Obama of 54:46%, Obama can still win a narrow majority (net 3) of Delegates in the 161 available.
Here are the calcs:
35 delegates split according to state-wide result: Clinton 19: Obama 16
20 PLEOs (pledged elected officials) Clinton 11: Obama 9
3 unpledged delegates Clinton 2 : Obama 1
Sub Total Clinton 32 : Obama 26
There are 19 Electoral Districts with number of delegates available varying from 3 to 9. Those districts with a high African American demographic, high youth demographic because of university campuses will favour Obama as follows
Electoral District Avail. Delegates Clinton Obama
1st 7 2 5
2nd 9 2 7
3rd 5 3 2
4th 5 3 2
5th 4 2 2
6th 6 2 4
7th 7 4 3
8th 7 2 5
9th 3 2 1
10th 4 2 2
11th 5 3 2
12th 5 3 2
13th 7 4 3
14th 7 2 5
15th 5 2 3
16th 4 2 2
17th 4 2 2
18th 5 3 2
19th 4 2 2
Totals 103 47 56
Sub Total (from above) 58 32 26
Clinton 79 Obama 82
Adding this projection to the existing delegate count
Clinton 1508 Obama 1647
we get Clinton 1587 Obama 1729
with Hiliary still in denial and Obama steadily increasing his delegate lead.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
1622
William Bowe
‘edicts’?
I thought that was the Pope’s job!
(Like wearing funny hats William?)
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
William, tq for your edicts. i have made my point anyway.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
1620 that’s ‘obnoxious’ not ‘abnoxious’. I’m not suggesting anything is wrong with your abs. I’m sure you have a 6-pack Finns.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Off subject but relevant to the issue of the nature of Whitehouse Administrations and why a change now may well be a good thing at the right time.
Seems that if Rumsfeld or Cheney were in the Whitehouse at the time of JFK then the USA would be a backwater right now.
McNamara on SBS telling that nuclear war was a hairs breadth away on 3 occasions and, one General adviser was telling JFK to attack Cuba (theyh didn’t know until 1992 that they had heaps of nuclear bombs there already and Castro had recommended they be used.) Makes a good case that an ex-General should never be Secretary of Defence or an ex-head of a defence company either. Seems it was lucky the USA had their first? non military SoD at the time.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Umm…KR…the Pope give encyclicals or even decrees. Edicts are given by sovereigns.
And I thought you were a republican Billbowe.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Ferny - what about benign dictators? What do they issue
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 pm
I don’t know, JV. There’s never been one.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Firm requests perhaps??
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
1628
Ferny, you’ve not read:
The Papal Edict of 1054
Excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople
????
It was a big hit, and divided the Eastern and Western churches for the last 1,000 years.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 pm
They’re all papal bull anyway
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Ferny, for a more up to date Papal Edict:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X9dBOXT7xzM&feature=related
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Ha! KR - that was actually a papal bull
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Edicts are for whimps. If you wanna show real Holy Ghost power - clobber ‘em with a bull! Bet they stay down!
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
You beat me to it JV
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Ron, I’m not letting your most recent comment through moderation as it breaches my guillotine motion at 1618.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Ferny - They don’t get any tougher than Malleus Malficarumthat Pope Innocent VIII wrote for the Inquisition, which must have been the most bullish papal bull, although you could argue that that anti-contraception ones of more recent times cause more misery in total.
Those bulls make a benevolent ruler like William look very soft with his rules!
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Edicts, JV. Lesser beings have mere ‘rules’.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Thats OK William ,
I was replying to Finns question to me in #1608 and as you know it was a long post. when it went into ‘moderation’ , I checked back & saw your edict & realised I’d wasted my time but thats fine
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Vote1Maxine #1623
We are on opposite sides here , however that was an outstanding job. You’ve highlighted the quirk in their Primary system of mulit level apportionment. the same may have occured in Texas.
However under the POTUS system with 2 exceptions , Hillary would win all
electoral college votes and even a 1% win by her is sufficent to claim she wins the big States & the more important ones like Ohio & Florida which is why for mine a 1% win is sufficent for her because Obama & her have thrown everything at this Primary
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Obama wins by 0.5%.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Thanks Ron, however I beg to differ. 51 : 49 Clinton : Obama would give Obama at least a 5 delegate majority excluding recalculating the Electoral Districts delegates (I’m too tired). Don’t forget Ron that Clinton at one stage had a 20 point lead over Obama and PA is regarded as a Clinton strong hold. Anything less than a 10 point lead by her would be regarded as a poor result. A 1 point lead as a disaster. Time to put on my Obama pajamas and dream of an Obama upset in PA lol.
Good night all. tomorrows gonna be riverting.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 am
Things are happening this morning (USA time). Obama picks up a new Ohio superdelegate Enid Goubeaux and a new USA Today/Gallup poll shows Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton by ten points nationwide.
Ouch - that’s going to hurt just a bit.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 am
Vote1Maxine
#1645
Maxine , my second paragraph was referring to the Nov election when a different count system is applied ie the winner if Hillary (or Obama indeed for that matter) even by 1% gets all electoral college votes. Therefore I was saying a 1% win in this Primary is all she needs to argue she has won another big State & therefore can get all electoral Penns. college votes in November
Now in termss of delegates won for Primary purpose if it was 1% , then you are correct. As to the former 20 or 10 point lead that will be Obama’s story naturally. But the alternative argument is its been a 7 week campaign and the side at the end of the game (even a footy game) no matter the margin is the winner. Obama would prefer to be in Hillarys shoes with a win than not which tells you who has the best story to tell (despite what the journos spin is from both sides
Obama to be fair will have his bragging rights in North Carolina & with a big margin
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 am
1645
Catrina
RCP now has Obama up by 10pts nationally.
There’s a faint smell of desperation in the Clinton campaign, as she does a Rovian style slap, and I think Dems who aren’t rusted on to her will start to turn.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:38 am
KR
You got to admit it, the kids got talent!
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:47 am
Talent and brains enough to get a really sharp team together who could get the country electrified. Some talent! But more than that, he’s got the ability to be himself, and he’s very likeable. God, just the thought of ending the Bush disaster and putting someone with that talent in the Whitehouse is enough to inspire hope! LOL
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:49 am
Just up - a new article over on the New York Times [1] which is basically saying that Clinton is going to need to defeat Obama by margins of 15 percent of more across the state in order to avoid simply dividing the 188 delegates at stake tonight. I just don’t see it happening.
[1] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/in-pennsylvania-what-constitutes-a-win
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 am
1650
Catrina
That’s always been known, and is just the arcane numerology of the Democrat primary system.
Clinton is trying to talk down expectations (her people were saying under 10% would be OK, you know, a ‘win’), but that’s only so she can stay in the race, not because it actually puts her any closer.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:00 am
Asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer whether Clinton had to win big to stay in the race, John Murtha, a Pennsylvania congressman who has backed the Clinton campaign, said: “Well, she has to. That’s all there is to it.”
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:14 am
I’m looking at Hillary’s blog and comparing this with Obama blog - wow - there is such a big difference. Both have blog entries up about the Pen election day. The Hillary post was published at 09:59 and its now 11:05 and she has attracted 39 comments. Obama’s blog entry kicked off at 07:03 and has racked up 474 comments and there are another five or so blog entries pulling in around 200 other comments. Thing is that even PB can generate more traffic that that.
I mean - that has to be worrying someone inside campaign HQ over in Dorothy land.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:27 am
Just did some quick arithmetic.
Between 4.20 PM and 5:20 PM (60 min) - the PB comment count was 23.
Between 09:59 AM and 11:05 AM (66 min) - the Clinton comment count is 39.
Between 07:03 and 11:05 AM (242 mins) - the Obama count is 474.
PB = 0.38 cpm
HR = 0.59 cpm
BO = 1.95 cpm
Where ‘cpm’ is comments per minute.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:32 am
New thread up.