Open election thread

by Henry on February 6, 2008

I’ve got nothing much in the way of predictions (as I’ve noted before, I’m not that kind of political scientist) but feel free to chat in comments as results come in from Super Tuesday …

{ 19 comments }

1

Seth Finkelstein 02.06.08 at 1:01 am

What do the prediction markets predict?

2

hypatia cade 02.06.08 at 1:22 am

IEM predicts Clinton by a 3-5% margin. But IEM was wrong about Iowa….

3

leinad 02.06.08 at 2:18 am

Clinton’s got NY and MA, Obama and Romney have to win CA or it’s over tonight.

4

Colin Danby 02.06.08 at 2:31 am

So far we’re pretty close to Al Giordano’s form guide. I’d provide a full set of urls except multiple urls puts you in moderation limbo around here, but here’s the 8PM segment of the guide: http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=448 and y’all can figure out how to find the rest if you want.

5

john in california 02.06.08 at 2:59 am

I’d like to say that I proudly voted for Dennis Kucinich, keeping my unblemished record of voting for the non-winner since Jimmy Carter lost to raygun, intact. I fell sooo clean! (And irrelevant!)

6

JimPanzee 02.06.08 at 3:17 am

What is going on in Utah? Is that some sort of Mormon-led protest vote? I know only 1% is in but Edwards is leading with 39%…um…

7

JimPanzee 02.06.08 at 3:32 am

CNN just took the Utah-Edwards thing down and replaced it with a more sensible Clinton lead.

8

SCM 02.06.08 at 4:49 am

Obama won’t and doesn’t need to win CA. He’ll win 12 or 13 states without it, and keep close enough to HRC in the delegate count to keep momentum for the rest of Feb, which looks good for him. HRC needs to win CA by a large margin to cause Obama some pain.

9

leinad 02.06.08 at 6:11 am

In CA: Clinton 54, Obama 33, Edwards 10% with 20% counted.

large enough for you?

10

dr ngo 02.06.08 at 6:18 am

large enough for you?

Not without knowing which districts (or even precincts) the “20% counted” represent.

Absent that information, these numbers could foretell a close Clinton victory or a complete blowout. (And even the Clinton victory would not be assured in my mind without the networks’ imprimatur, on the assumption that they have some people working for them who DO know that the first 20% of votes counted are not necessarily a random sample of the electorate.)

11

Laura 02.06.08 at 6:43 am

Most of California’s delegates are distributed proportionately, by Congressional district, with some districts worth an even number of votes and some worth and odd number. So if the race is close, winning in a district with an odd number of delegates at stake is more valuable. Until this kind of microdata is available, it’s really hard to say what the margin of victory is.

12

lemuel pitkin 02.06.08 at 3:22 pm

Romney again talks about the great Republican presidents “Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush.” Too bad he couldn’t work up the nerve to run against the current Bush overtly; still, it’s interesting.

13

P O'Neill 02.06.08 at 3:25 pm

So after the Straight TalkingTM MaverickTM taunted Mitt Romney about his seemingly shaky support in “the place where they know him best”, Massachussetts, the STM couldn’t break 50% among his own home voters in Arizona.

14

Steve LaBonne 02.06.08 at 4:35 pm

The Democratic nomination is looking more and more certain to be decided by the superdelegates. It’ll be very interesting to see whether the chits the Clintons can call in will outweigh the nervousness of a lot of officeholders about running downticket from Hillary.

15

K H 02.06.08 at 7:51 pm

My big frustration in reading about elections is the “horse-race” aspect of the coverage. I’ve heard that Obama’s and Clinton’s positions are mostly not very different. So what I’m wondering now is, what will an Obama victory vs a Clinton victory mean for the overall process, in the future? Speculation is, well, just speculation. But I’d rather hear speculation on what an Obama vs a Clinton victory would mean for how the Democratic party and politics in general is going to work than speculation about who will win.

What is the significance of Clinton’s (apparently) more lucid positions about health care, vs Obama’s (apparently) greater support from small donors? What effect will the enthusiasm among people in the Obama camp mean (or is it just a consequence of his more youthful base of support)? Has one led a more substance/fact-oriented campaign than the other? What will it mean for the Democratic party if the Obama campaign’s strategies succeed, vs the Clinton campaign’s? I haven’t followed the discussion all that closely so far, but it seems like there’s a real story to be told there, and a much more interesting one than trying to guess each candidates’ support from various demographic groups to the nth decimal place.

16

SCM 02.07.08 at 4:17 am

leinad — 52/42 in CA doesn’t cut the mustard. HRC lost last night because she needed to win.

17

Christopher Anderson 02.08.08 at 3:06 am

What has now become clear is that the democratic phase of the Democratic nomination process is over. Neither Clinton nor Obama can win enough delegates to lock the nomination without superdelegates. In short, the superdelegates are now going to decide the nomination.

The great horror of this is the prospect of a brokered convention that leaves half the part feeling betrayed and enraged by a highjacked election (remember the recount battle anyone?) The prophylactic is obvious enough: the superdelegates need to commit themselves to voting for whomever gets the most votes from primary and caucus voters by the end of the season.

Who can carry this off? It seems to me that Dean should be working on getting both Clinton and Obama to tell “their” superdelegates to go with this plan for the good of the party.

Of course, it would also be helpful if the liberal bloggers embraced the idea….

18

Steve LaBonne 02.08.08 at 1:35 pm

The devil is in the details. For example, what do you do about the votes from Michigan and Ohio?

19

Steve LaBonne 02.08.08 at 5:19 pm

I meant Florida, of course, not Ohio.

Comments on this entry are closed.