Pennsylvania Prognosticatin’
Yikes, is it April 22 already? Seems like just yesterday we were dissecting Iowa caucus results. Where did the time go? And more importantly, how will it shake out tonight? Prediction time!
I’m going with Clinton 54-46—a big enough margin for her to frame it as a winning night, but small enough for nobody to really believe her. The polls have Obama pretty consistently in the low-mid 40s, and Clinton’s numbers generally 47-52ish. Assuming late breakers go more (but not completely) her way, I see her margin approaching but not quite reaching double figures.
The real prediction question, of course, is not just what happens tonight, but what happens tomorrow. How big a win tonight is a win? The problem for Clinton is that after Pennsylvania, there are no more Pennsylvanias, which is to say no more big delegate-rich states where she has the built-in demographic edge. The remaining contests—North Carolina and Indiana in two weeks, and then Kentucky, West Virginia, Oregon, South Dakota, Puerto Rico and let’s not forget Guam—are a mixed bag: Obama figures to take NC, OR, and SD; Clinton grabs WV, KY and PR; leaving IN as a tossup. After today, it’s hard to foresee a plausible significant aggregate effect on the spread of delegates or popular votes. Unless Clinton pulls out of nowhere a whopper of a win tonight in the 15-20 point range, giving superdelegates some seriously irritated bowels, what’s her path to the nomination? It may not be over tonight, but I'm thinking it's over on May 6.
Your PA call? Closest to the pin wins an all-expense-paid spa weekend with Mark Penn.
UPDATE: Just how remote is a Clinton nomination scenario by delegate count? At CNN's online delegate counter I gave Clinton big fat 20-point margins of victory not just in PA, but also in IN, WV, KY and PR. I gave Obama understated 8-point wins in NC and OR, and scored SD, MT and Guam dead even. The tally under this highly Hillarosy scenario: Clinton still trails Obama by more than 80 delegates.
UPDATE: The final PA margin came in at 54.7-45.3, a margin of just under nine and a half percent. I predicted 8 and commenter Tom predicted 11, so we’ll call it a tie; we can jointly visualize the prize…
Comments
I feel like a child caught in the middle of a bad divorce. I sure as hell hope Obama gets custody, but I doubt he'll get it tonight. Clinton by 5.
Posted 04/22/2008 at 11:41:16 AMSince nobody else will...
Obama 50.1
Posted 04/22/2008 at 01:45:52 PMClinton 49.9
Operation Chaos will provide Hillary a larger than expected faux winning margin in the neighborhood of 12 to 15 points. Of course, the defection of the Chaos troops back home will be immediate in preparation for the real deal in November.
Posted 04/22/2008 at 01:53:42 PMClinton by 7. *cringes*
Posted 04/22/2008 at 02:03:07 PMClinton by 5. (Counting on those new voters to go Obama though and cut into the lead she has in the polls.)
Posted 04/22/2008 at 03:25:50 PMIf I win can I exchange Mark Penn for a six pack?
Posted 04/22/2008 at 03:49:41 PMClinton 55 to Obama 44- or between a 9-11 point margin.
Posted 04/22/2008 at 04:02:13 PMThe average of polls is 51-41-6. Clinton will get most of the undecideds, Obama gets 2-3 points for organization.
Sean, you are a crazy optimist. I will buy you a six-pack--no, make that a case--if Obama wins by so much as one vote tonight. (Sorry BlanketNazi.)
Posted 04/22/2008 at 04:31:44 PMI listened to an ever thoughtful and very intelligent Carl Rove. He was quite enlightening and the news is not good, young progressives.
If Obama is nominated, McCain easily wins. IF the Hag is nominated, it's a horse race with McCain a bit ahead.
Heh, heh, if the super delegates name HRC then all hell will brake loose and Mc Cain will win.
What a political year!!!!!
Posted 04/22/2008 at 10:42:47 PMI listened to an ever thoughtful and very intelligent Carl Rove...If Obama is nominated, McCain easily wins.
Please. There are indications in national polls (and other reasons to believe) that Obama remains the stronger opponent. Rove is not just a partisan, but a maxed out McCain donor (something you'll notice that Fox doesn't bother to disclose when they bring him on as a so-called analyst). It continues to be in McCain's and the GOP's interest to help HRC chances for the nomination; Rove's commentary is transparently partisan spin, not objective analysis.
Posted 04/23/2008 at 06:40:06 AM"we can jointly visualize the prize…"
Well, I'm still trying to visualize the delivery of my prize from the last Pith-sponsored, Obama-Clinton contest (predicting the debate). If it arrives, I'll take you to lunch after academia dies down for the year. Sunset Grill, IIRC.
Posted 04/23/2008 at 11:00:37 AMBefore we all start taking the word of Karl Rove the Oracle...it bears pointing out that "the math" didn't work out for him in 2006.
Posted 04/23/2008 at 11:40:55 AMI actually think the Hillary approach of shamelessly scaring voters and only concentrating on a tiny, select number of battleground states might prove to be more successful in a general election than Obama's probable strategy of trying to run a decent, broad campaign that doesn't give up on large swaths of the country. Matt Taibi wrote recently that when you're trying to make a political prediction, always go with the worst-possible scenario and more often than not, you'll be right.
Posted 04/23/2008 at 12:18:19 PMI actually think the Hillary approach of shamelessly scaring voters and only concentrating on a tiny, select number of battleground states might prove to be more successful in a general election than Obama's probable strategy of trying to run a decent, broad campaign that doesn't give up on large swaths of the country. Matt Taibi wrote recently that when you're trying to make a political prediction, always go with the worst-possible scenario and more often than not, you'll be right.
Posted 04/23/2008 at 12:18:40 PMNice to know that even our Pith pros are not immune to the "accidental double-post."
Posted 04/23/2008 at 12:39:48 PMThe final final tally (meaning the latest one from the PA Department of State) puts HRC's winning margin at 9.2 percent.
As for MattP, I believe he learned in college (majoring in propaganda at the Karl Rove School of Government) that if you say it twice people are twice as likely to think it's true.
Posted 04/23/2008 at 02:20:44 PMbb, you are, if nothing else, shameless. You said:
"Rove's commentary is transparently partisan spin, not objective analysis."
I thought Rove's analysis excellent. One can be partisan (maybe opaquely even) and do an excellent analysis.
Why would you, of all people, make such a statement?
The Dems head for disaster.... Obama loses in Nov, and then the ruckus begins about the racist red states!
Posted 04/23/2008 at 06:39:16 PMOne can be partisan (maybe opaquely even) and do an excellent analysis.
I concede the point as a general matter, but an analyst cannot be taken seriously when he (a) has unmentioned personal ties to a partisan position, and (b) expresses views repeatedly that play to and reinforce strategic aims of those who share that partisan position. Rove asserts "as an expert" that Obama easily loses to McCain? This is precisely what McCain (to whom Rove has opened his personal checkbook) would like Democrats to believe as a way to increase the chances that McCain's preferred opponent, HRC, will win the nomination. Even if there were no conflict of interest, it would not qualify as excellent analysis; at best it's unsubstantiated speculation. But with Rove's conflict of interest, it can only be seen as partisan handiwork that compromises any credibility he might have as an expert political commentator on this particular matter.
Posted 04/23/2008 at 06:58:37 PMNonsense, bb. You do it all the time here on this board, and I like and respect most of what you write even if I disagree. Your efforts are perhaps the best of Pith.
Rove was good and it made sense. So he likes McCain.
God knows, you were getting giddy over Angela Davis, and BTW, you need to rethink that, really.
Posted 04/23/2008 at 07:15:17 PMIn 2006, Karl Rove claimed intimate knowledge of "the math" and said that Republicans would retain the House and Senate...so, lets not give him Oracle status just yet.
Posted 04/23/2008 at 08:08:36 PMSean B...
Well, as Wellington said after Waterloo, "It was close run thing." And so it was in '06 for heaven's sake.
Now you have the problem of overcoming your misgivings, doubts at 3 AM and telling us how Obama will win in Nov. This is a far easier call than the elections in '06, but perhaps will be troublesome for you and the other eager faithful here who hope against hope.
bb would agree, he senses the thing unraveling .
Posted 04/23/2008 at 10:31:19 PMJohn,
Obama has has 6 straight weeks of negative news coverage regarding his pastor, his comments about people 'clinging' to their guns, and every person he's ever known in his life is under a microscope...and yet, the polls still show Obama ahead, or tied with John McCain.
McCain hasn't really enjoyed a bit of negative coverage over the past few weeks, and as a result his positive ratings are still high. But once he starts talking about policy, about doing nothing on Health Care, about starting new wars in Iran, about staying in Iraq indefinitely, things will start to unravel a bit for his campaign.
Remember, the scion Karl Rove lost the election in 2000 and had to rely on the Supreme Court to overturn the results; and in 2004 he barely won re-election against the "most liberal Senator" from Massachusetts.
Posted 04/24/2008 at 09:30:06 AMSean, here are the unpleasant facts:
Electoral votes, McCain 326; Obama 203.
This is my analysis. Others, too.
Posted 04/24/2008 at 10:12:53 AMTom, my mistake. It's probably on my desk here somewhere. I'll get it to you.
Posted 04/24/2008 at 10:49:54 AMJohn,
Lookup the definition of the word "fact" sometimes, you'll be amazed as to what it actually means.
Posted 04/24/2008 at 02:08:12 PMLucky for us there are term limits, otherwise bad leaders could stay in office for years. What about that law where the President can stay in office after his term is up if we are in a war? True or false? Lucky America, we have had either a Bush or Clinton in the White House since 1988. 20 years and counting. Who needs fresh leadership when the same old same old will do? I mean look how great things are now, why would we need to change everything. Term limits are only for suckers. I say they should be for family as well. Jeb Bush must be really pissed. Wonder what he is thinking?
"George you jerk, Dad said I could be President after you but now you've gone and turned our country into a black hole, no one would vote for me now, not even if Dad uses the CIA mojo again to drum up some good ole American Fear." "Shut up Jab, Dad made me President cause I smarter than you, besides, votes don't matter, he made me President without getting more votes, you think Dad is gonna let something like the law stand in our way, stupid, he ran the CIA, they can do what ever they want to round here in these parts." "Its Jeb, stupid not Jab."
(Jab then sticks his tongue out at George Jr. and George Sr. spanks his bottom)
Posted 04/25/2008 at 09:16:34 PM