This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

PA primary predictions.

edited April 2008 in Politics
While Politics have been huge for me for the last month, not everyone lives in PA, let alone the country. Anyhow, I figure I’ll ask.

What’s your prediction for tomorrows PA primary?

I predict a single digit loss (around 4-6%) for Obama, which will be hailed in the media as a negative event for Clinton as she needs to win somewhere between 60-65 percent of the vote.

However, currently www.drudgereport.com is reporting that “Clinton” internal polling is suggesting 11%. I believe however that the Obama supporters want it more and are more energized and since primaries are about motivation of the voters, it could vastly cut into her projections. So we’ll see how many actually come out.

However I predict that nothing will ultimately be resolved and Obama will go on to win NC and Hillary Indiana.

I'll be working with the Obama campaign all tomorrow, should be fun.
«1

Comments

  • I will watch Obama on today's daily show.
  • Hey Scott, snag me an Obama button, will you?

    I'm so pumped for voting tomorrow. Wooo PA!
  • edited April 2008
    Clinton by 9-10%. Of course, I've gotten pretty much everything wrong so far.

    The worst case scenario for the party is to have Hillary get at least 65% of the vote. That keeps her in the game, at least mathematically.

    I agree with Dean. This needs to end. The Democrats could have marched into the Whitehouse a few months ago. Now they have a genuine race on their hands. Hillary has caused a tremendous amount of damage. I hope this is remembered 4 or 8 years from now.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • I see Obama, just barely.
  • If he can keep it within a couple of percentage points (< 10%) I think he can chalk it up to a win.
  • I predict much hemming and hawing will be emanated.
  • I'm predicting 54.5 Clinton, 45.5 Obama. Most of the polls seem to be running around 3 or 4 on the low side, to around 6 or 7 on the high side. The more respectable polls seem to be on the high side, and I'm being pessimistic on top of that.
  • My guess is that Obama will pull a surprising but very close win. I'm willing to bet on the sheer number of active supporters getting people out to vote coupled with the "unpollables" swinging his way.
  • My guess is that Obama will pull a surprising but very close win. I'm willing to bet on the sheer number of active supporters getting people out to vote coupled with the "unpollables" swinging his way.
    I wish.

    From an outsider's view of the election, the early predictions seem to almost always work out, albeit with very different margins.

    But we'll see. I'm hoping Obama wins, but I'm predicting Clinton will get it by about eight points.
  • What I find most amusing is the way the media is reporting on the mass Republican-to-Democrat voter registrations. They keep reporting that Obama is getting the most benefit from this. If Obama is getting the most benefit from this and he can not "close the deal" doesn't that mean the Democratic base wants Hillary?
  • What I find most amusing is the way the media is reporting on the mass Republican-to-Democrat voter registrations. They keep reporting that Obama is getting the most benefit from this. If Obama is getting the most benefit from this and he can not "close the deal" doesn't that mean the Democratic base wants Hillary?
    The media is fairly off its mark here, as Obama is hardly the only one reaping the benefits. You have multiple situations occuring simultaneously:
    1. Republicans, typically moderates, who have changed to Democrats because they support Obama for leadership or change in Washington reasons.
    2. Republicans who have heralded the call of Conservative radio/TV hosts (such as Limbaugh) and who have jumped on board Hillary's boat because she is felt to be an easier mark in the general election.
    3. Republican women who have felt stigma from die-hard feminists for not signing up with Hillary, and so have jumped ship.

    This does not cover every situation, but most of them. Ultimately, what will be the better question will be how many of those who have jumped ship will jump back prior to the general election.
  • edited April 2008
    2. Republicans who have heralded the call of Conservative radio/TV hosts (such as Limbaugh) and who have jumped on board Hillary's boat because she is felt to be an easier mark in the general election.
    I don't understand why more people can't see that this is what they want. They think they can beat Hillary. They might very well be able to do just that. A Hillary/McCain run would be just as inspiring as Bush/Gore or Bush/Kerry and probably lead to the same razor thin margin. Obama/McCain would end in a margin like Reagan/Mondale.

    I really hope that those people get into trouble for election shenanigans. Voting with the specific intent to screw up the results is not cool.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • It's just near noon and I just put my 'Bama vote in. We've had automatic and personal callers spamming the house for the past three days, and one of them was finally able to sway the women of my household toward Obama. So we've got four votes under one roof.

  • I really hope that those people get into trouble for election shenanigans. Voting with the specific intent to screw up the results is not cool.
    If you can cite the law being broken I will stand with you on this one.

    I have to wonder if the media will report on the mass defections as Republicans switch back in time for the general election. (In some states election funds are doled out based on voter registration numbers.)
  • I think that it is going to be very close and I can't really say who is going to win. All can I hope for is another Barack attack and for him to take another state!
  • edited April 2008
    If you can cite the law being broken I will stand with you on this one.
    Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 3599.36 makes it a felony in Ohio. This article talks about why it's so hypocritical of Republicans to whine so much about voter fraud and then pull something like this.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Good luck proving anything, votes are confidential.
  • Good luck proving anything, votes are confidential.
    On Thursday, March 20, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that the "Cuyahoga County Board of Election has launched an investigation that could lead to criminal charges against voters who maliciously switched parties for the March 4 presidential primary." According to the report, "One voter scribbled the following addendum to his pledge as a new Democrat: "For one day only."

    "Such an admission amounts to voter fraud," the report continued, attributing that conclusion to BOE member Sandy McNair, a Democrat. The report said the four-member board - two Democrats and two Republicans - had yet to vote on whether it would issue subpoenas, although Ohio's secretary of state, Democrat Jennifer Brunner, is empowered to cast tie-breaking votes when the BOE is deadlocked.
    Source.
  • edited April 2008
    If you can cite the law being broken I will stand with you on this one.
    Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 3599.36makes it a felony in Ohio.
    That law only covers Ohio and is not likely to stand up to a court challenge. If this law did stand up in court there would be no point in voting in Ohio because voting outside of your party would put you in violation of this law.

    This particular law came up in discussion already and the whole idea was shot down in part because it is a "thought police" type of law

    "Secretary of State Brunner has not been contacted by anyone regarding the prosecution of alleged improper crossover voting," Brunner spokesman Jeff Ortega said. "Prosecution of such activities is the exclusive domain of the county prosecutor or the Ohio attorney general."

    "We will not make a blanket statement that we would never pursue a case such as that, but it would be our position that a case such as that would be very hard to prosecute," said Ted Hart, spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, who added that a senior attorney in his office said it would be difficult to ascertain voters' motives on particular days. "The county prosecutor would have the first right of refusal."
    source

    My personal opinion (and I have discussed it with some "left wing" bloggers who agreed with me) is that we need to get rid of open primaries and not allow voters to switch parties (or register) from the time primaries start to the time they end. The only exception would be to allow people who will be of voting age when the primary comes around to register early (before they turn 18) so they will not miss the primary.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • Regarding the so-called "voter fraud." Personally, I'm of the mind that if the parties allow anyone to be a member simply by filling out the form, then they get everything they deserve. If I apply for membership to the Democratic party, and I write on my little form "I hate the Democratic party and everything it stands for, and will try at all opportunity to undermine it from within," and my little form is accepted, then screw them for allowing it to be accepted
  • A political party isn't the government. It is really not much different from say, an anime club. Internally they can organize themselves in any way they want. They choose to have elections in the form of primaries. They decide on the rules for those primaries. If the rules they have decided on cause them to get fucked over, that's tough shit.
  • A political party isn't the government. It is really not much different from say, an anime club. Internally they can organize themselves in any way they want. They choose to have elections in the form of primaries. They decide on the rules for those primaries. If the rules they have decided on cause them to get fucked over, that's tough shit.
    Yes but... Primaries are paid for by the states not the parties. This allows the states to interfere with the process (open primaries).
  • "One voter scribbled the following addendum to his pledge as a new Democrat: "For one day only."
    Yeah, but how do you link that up with the person who wrote it? Isn't that supposed to be anonymous?
  • Yes but... Primaries are paid for by the states not the parties. This allows the states to interfere with the process (open primaries).
    Maybe I can get state money to help form a local gaming club...
  • edited April 2008
    That law only covers Ohio and is not likely to stand up to a court challenge.
    Why do you think that? It's been effective since 1997. No one's challlenged it since then. What legal basis is there for challenging it?
    If this law did stand up in court there would be no point in voting in Ohio because voting outside of your party would put you in violation of this law.
    No. You can change parties all you want. Falsely changing in order to falsify an election is what the law prohibits.
    This particular law came up in discussion already and the whole idea was shot down in part because it is a "thought police" type of law.
    Where was this discussed? When was it discussed? How is it a "thought police" type law?

    As far as the potential for prosecution, you're right. The bastards will most likely get away with it. However, I didn't say that someone would get in trouble. I said I hoped someone would get in trouble.
    "One voter scribbled the following addendum to his pledge as a new Democrat: "For one day only."
    Yeah, but how do you link that up with the person who wrote it? Isn't that supposed to be anonymous?
    Not necessarily.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited April 2008
    Just because a law has not been challenged does not mean it would survive a legal challenge. I do believe (no sources ready) that "loyalty oaths" for political parties are not entirely legal. Has anyone been charged under this law and found guilty?

    My first reading of the law gave me the impression that the law was written to prevent people who are running for office from joining a party and then doing a 180 when they get elected.

    Can you change parties all you want? Is there no time limit? Can I change parties on the day of the primary in Ohio? What constitutes "falsifying an election"? Is there a strict legal definition available of the term so that we can properly debate it?

    Where was it discussed? Pick a political blog or cable news channel. That is where it was discussed and found to be not worth prosecuting. There was also an issue (can't find sources) of Clinton or Obama telling Republicans to cross over and vote for them in the primaries. Not sure if it was done in Ohio or not by those two campaigns.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • edited April 2008
    My prediction, the winner will be a democrat? (I looked that one up. Had I gone with my intuition and put republican the fail might have been worth it for the lulz)
    I think I will use the psychic method of making my predictions more precise after the fact.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • I don't know about anyone else, but I'd really like to see the sources you're referring to, Steve.
  • My prediction, the winner will be a democrat? (I looked that one up. Had I gone with my intuition and put republican the fail might have been worth it for the lulz)
    I think I will use the psychic method of making my predictions more precise after the fact.
    You're talking about the general election in November, right?
  • edited April 2008
    Where was it discussed? Pick a political blog or cable news channel. That is where it was discussed and found to be not worth prosecuting.
    You have a hard time with sources. Remember when it was discussed that Obama rides a unicorn? Yeah, they talked about it on CNN the other day. I don't remember exactly who said it. I don't remember exactly when it was said. Sound reliable?

    I find your citation of "Pick a political blog or cable news channel" to be particularly unpersuasive. Now, whether it's worth prosecuting is a fair question. It might not be. But, you did not say that it wasn't worth prosecuting. You said,
    If you can cite the law being broken I will stand with you on this one.
    So I cited it.
    There was also an issue (can't find sources) of Clinton or Obama telling Republicans to cross over and vote for them in the primaries. Not sure if it was done in Ohio or not by those two campaigns.
    I wonder why you can't find the sources? Could it be that it's not true and you're a shit-talker?
    My first reading of the law gave me the impression that the law was written to prevent people who are running for office from joining a party and then doing a 180 when they get elected.
    . . . and we all know what a legal scholar you are . . .
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
Sign In or Register to comment.