Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
PA primary predictions.
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.
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.
Comments
I'm so pumped for voting tomorrow. Wooo PA!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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 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.
Yeah, but how do you link that up with the person who wrote it? Isn't that supposed to be anonymous?
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. Not necessarily.
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.
I think I will use the psychic method of making my predictions more precise after the fact.
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, So I cited it. I wonder why you can't find the sources? Could it be that it's not true and you're a shit-talker? . . . and we all know what a legal scholar you are . . .