News   May 02, 2024
 181     0 
News   May 01, 2024
 1.8K     1 
News   May 01, 2024
 414     0 

U.S. Elections 2008

Who will be the next US president?

  • John McCain

    Votes: 8 7.8%
  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 80 77.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 15 14.6%

  • Total voters
    103
Check out RealClearPolitics, which averages all the available polls and updates daily:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/in/indiana_democratic_primary-639.html

The average has gone in Hillary's favour in the last day or so, prior to that it was mostly Obama's.

If she loses Pennsylvania, she has to concede the race. Her entire campaign is her appeal in states we need and large states with electoral votes that can help Democrats win, PA is the backbone of her campaign.

I don't think she'll lose, I'm not familiar with the Downs research company, but LA Times/Bloomberg is the only mainstream source I've seen that shows Obama ahead in PA.

Nobody knows until Tuesday evening! ;)
 
Decided to crunch some numbers.

As of 4/19/2008.

Obama has 1,644 delegates and superdelegates
Hillary has 1,498 delegates and superdelegates

Using just the delegates left from the primaries of the 8 states (less Guam and Puerto Rico) here is what the polls (primarily SurveyUSA) suggest:

Pennsylvania delegates won
Obama - 63
Hillary - 85

Indiana
Obama - 28
Hillary - 40

Kentucky
Hillary - 32
Obama - 13

Oregon
Hillary - 22
Obama - 27

West Virginia
*polls unavailable, 28 total delegates up for grabs, Hillary projected to win large majority

Montana
*polls unavailable, 16 total delegates up for grabs, Obama projected to win large majority

South Dakota
*polls unavailable, 15 total delegates up for grabs, Obama projected to win large majority

There's Guam with 4 delegates and Puerto Rico with 55 delegates as well, its worthy to note that the territory of Puerto has more delegates than Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia, Oregon, and Kentucky. Its fair to treat Puerto Rico as a large group of votes, because 55 delegates can help make or break this election.

Its worthy to note that even with the added delegates of her wins in PA, KY, and IN that she would have 1,677 total delegates after those races. We'll have to see about Guam and Puerto Rico and the other states left.

If Hillary's delegates are to be considered from Michigan and Florida, she would have gotten 73 Michigan Delegates and 105 Florida delegates. So her delegate total with FL and MI would theoretically be 1,855 if she also wins the 3 mentioned states of PA, KY, IN.

Its very true that Hillary won't have enough delegates to get over the requirement without FL or MI, but neither does Obama. This is amazingly close.

You forgot North Carolina - selective are we not....

North Carolina is currently fairly strongly Obama and has a considerable number of delegates. If Hillary does not win BIG, i.e. 60/40 range then North Carolina will likely wipe out gains made in Pennsylvania.
 
Michael Moore weighs in...

My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore
April 21st, 2008

Friends,

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.com
MMFlint@aol.com
 
You forgot North Carolina - selective are we not....

North Carolina is currently fairly strongly Obama and has a considerable number of delegates. If Hillary does not win BIG, i.e. 60/40 range then North Carolina will likely wipe out gains made in Pennsylvania.

I focused on Hillary's delegate count only, and that's why I focused on the states she is likely to win. It wasn't a snub to Obama, if I had been talking about Obama I would have talked about the states he'll be winning.
 
Most polls show Hillary winning by 4-9% tomorrow. Not good for her.

Money-wise, her campaign is pretty much in the red, so I don't see how she's going to last without cash.
 
The Financial Times with an excellent editorial on the race, out today...


Democrats must choose Obama
Published: April 20 2008 18:59 | Last updated: April 20 2008 18:59
Barack Obama goes into Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary as strong favourite, whatever happens, to secure the Democratic presidential nomination. Yet the vote could still go either way.

This is a sign of how close this race has been and how deeply it has divided the party.

Mr Obama and Hillary Clinton are both strong candidates and each appeals powerfully to distinct segments of Democratic support. This has heightened the risk of bitter division.

After Tuesday’s vote, the Democrats should move quickly to affirm Mr Obama’s nomination. That is not just because his lead in elected delegates is already unassailable and the contest should be brought to a swift conclusion. It is also because he is, in fact, the better candidate.

The contenders’ differences on policy look small and in reality are even smaller. Their disagreement on healthcare mandates, for instance, frequently emphasised by Mrs Clinton, is of little practical significance. A mandate to obtain insurance, as proposed by Mrs Clinton, does not achieve universal coverage unless enforced with punitive sanctions, which she does not advocate.

Both candidates, in effect, are proposing near-universal coverage. The virtues of their schemes (much improved access, no denial of insurance to those with pre-existing conditions) as well as the defects (weak control of costs) are much the same.

In almost every area of policy, whether their thinking is good (as with improved support for displaced workers), bad (their opposition to liberal trade) or too vague to say (Iraq), there is little to choose between them.

As voters understood all along, this has therefore been a contest of character, temperament and (sadly but inevitably) identity. Mr Obama’s most loyal supporters, once they were persuaded that he might actually succeed, have been black. Mrs Clinton’s, certain at the start she would win, are women.

Mr Obama has fought a brilliant campaign, out-organising his opponent, raising more money, and convincing undecided Democrats as well as the country at large that he was more likeable, more straightforward and more worthy of trust.

On form, he is a spell-binding orator and holds arena-sized audiences in thrall. He is given to airy exhortations, it is true, but genuinely seeks consensus and has cross-party appeal.

Mrs Clinton’s campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate’s fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise.

In fact, the campaigns have underlined the contenders’ respective strengths and weaknesses.

Mr Obama’s consistent and relaxed demeanour attested to his coolness (in both senses, his swooning young admirers would add); it seemed to affirm his authenticity. In contrast, Mrs Clinton’s hyperactive advisers dressed her in a new personality each day, sometimes several in the course of an interview. They wheeled out Bill Clinton, to remind people of the 1990s, then reeled him back, to help them forget.

Too many course corrections, not enough course.

Mr Obama has had some travails – over his association with Jeremiah Wright, the ranting demagogue pastor, and most recently over condescending remarks about small-town Democratic politics.

In the first case, he responded with a masterly speech about race that may even have improved his standing. In the second, he was evasive and unconvincing – yet the public seems to have given him the benefit of the doubt.

The US has the urge to be inspired a little. Electing the country’s first woman president ought to be very inspiring. But not this woman – with her dynastic baggage and knack for antagonising the undecided – running against this man.

The Democratic party has waited an awfully long time for a politician like Barack Obama. Enough already.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
 
Hillary won by 10 points in PA...same is in Ohio and a pretty good night for her. Obama's support was heavily concentrated in Philly, while Hillary cleaned up in white blue collar areas like the Lehigh Valley and Scranton (and pretty much the bulk of the state).

Hard to say what will happen overall.
 
Yea, that article that states "Democrats Must Choose Obama" certainly doesn't have a slant to it, now does it? LOL

The Democratic party faces a challenge. There are two tremendous candidates, but Obama has won mostly states where Democrats have very little chance in winning, and I do think Hillary's campaign is making a strong argument now that she's had several major wins in March and April. Obama simply can't close the deal.

If Obama were the best candidate, he would have appeal to the point where he would have had enough delegates by now.

If you can't win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida you're in trouble for a general election. Hillary also has problems in states like Wisconsin and Minnesota, so there are reverse trends that are bad for both candidates.

I guess its good the Democratic party is being faced with the idea it can't win now so they can prepare for the fall. McCain really does have a good chance at winning this election, even after the last 8 years.
 
Hillary won most of the states that are traditionally democrat. Are you saying McCain will take California, New York or Pennsylvania because Obama couldn't? That doesn't make any sense. The fact that Obama won many of the traditionally republican states means he's a shoe in to win the presidency as he will easily take the traditional democratic states. IMHO that is.
 
Ohio and Florida voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and they were Reagan-Bush Sr states as well (like much of the US went).

Of course California and New York and Illinois are going to vote Democrat this fall, that isn't the question.

It may have been too far back in this thread, but I discussed in detail the problem of not winning large battleground states. At present, if the election were held today, McCain is showing he's ahead in Ohio and Pennsylvania against Obama.

You cannot win the Presidency if you lose PA or Ohio and are a Democrat. The Democrats have a smaller base in this nation, and many states that have given Obama primary delegates will not be voting for him this fall.

That's what I mean by he can't close the deal. If he was a stronger candidate, she wouldn't have won by 10 points in PA. He may have every state from South Dakota to Idaho down pat, but they won't be voting for him in the fall.

I think the Democratic party is rather screwed. We have two candidates that have two distinct bases, both will have a hard chance at winning by the nature of the setup.

There's one folly in your idea of Obama winning Republican states so he'll naturally win Democratic states: not all of the top ten states are naturally Democratic voting. There are major states like Florida, Texas, and Ohio who have consistently voted Republican. Hillary is hugely popular in Ohio, has appeal in Florida beyond any candidate we've fielded in years. She has Pennsylvania if she runs as well. Obama does less well with the Democratic base, that's why he's polling behind McCain in Pennsylvania. Obama has more of a problem of getting the Democratic base to show up for him than Hillary does of attracting former Republicans.
 
No question Hillary is slightly better positioned for Ohio, etc. than Obama. I would argue with the PA characterization; Pennsylvania being in play in the current--ie post-Reagan--political climate is simply a Republican fantasy. Not gonna happen. It's about as likely as New Jersey being a swing state; that is, there may be circumstances under which it could be competitive but it's extremely unlikely.

Meanwhile, with Obama (and, likely, Jim Webb as a running mate) the Dems get some very interesting possibilities. Virginia is edging toward being in play, which would be a HUGE development. Nevada could swing too. Colorado and New Mexico would have strong chances of going Dem. So I don't see the Ohio/Florida thing as a huge disadvantage, since it's pretty much the only argument people have for Hillary. But winning either or both, even with Hilary, would be very, very tough against McCain.

The difference is this: Obama brings with him a shot (let's say a generically-decent Democratic shot) at OH and FL. Elsewhere, he totally scrambles the map. Hillary, meanwhile, would have a slightly better shot at OH and FL, but virtually no ability to move states into play anywhere else. I'll take Obama.
 
I agree, allabootmatt. Clinton's rather better for the Democratic base, but Obama has much more upside potential. If you look at the polls, he has the potential to swing a lot of formerly solid Red states. Even Texas had him only one point behind back in February. The Democratic base is the big question. They should surely be motivated to kick the Republicans out after all these disastrous years, but the nomination has been so acrimonious that some supporters of the losing candidate might still stay home out of spite.
 

Back
Top