Oh, crap, just crunched the numbers and it looks like

Clinton will get the nomination.

Obama may get a bit of a 'bump', but it won't be enough to land New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and Michigan.

And, anyone hoping for real change - aka Edwards -- the big money and celebrity may have rendered that impossible.

:shrug:

Toss off.

:shrug:

Good luck with that.
Everyone get ready, here comes the flying monkeys.

If so, you have to realize Iowa was Obama's shining moment ... look at the trend lines - it's all about Clinton (not that I think that's necessarily a good thing) it's just how the next primaries work out.

See:

http://www.pollster.com

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008#Current_leaders

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

:hi:

Obama is going to get a serious bounce after tonight. We'll see about Nevada.

the first thing we had to ask ourselves was "is our data meaningful'? In this case, the answer is a resounding NO.

The polling trends you are currently tracking have a nasty habit of changing - sometimes dramatically - in a short period of time.

Especially once the candidates start targeting their campaigns.

So, GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. Your "math" conclusions are "garbage".

Sorry.

Oh, fuck, wait, I forgot to divide by charisma in step three. I'll be back with revised results later.

:rofl::rofl:

... the last time someone insisted they had The Math.

:spray:

New Hampshire will tell it.

If the "anybody but Hillary" crowd was hoping for an alternative to emerge from the pack, Obama's victory at least presents him (AND repositions him) as a viable option.

I think it'll be over on Super Dooper Tuesday (Feb 5th) when 24 states, all or in part, have their primaries. It's a very strange spread, though. Throughout primary season, some states split their party events. Most of the states have both Dem and GOP primaries on the same day, but some don't. A few stragglers wait all the way til JUNE (Montana Dems, New Mexico GOPs, and South Dakota - June 3rd. The Montana republi-CONS and New Mexico Dems go at it on Feb 5th). How's that for a bit of trivia?

Post them! Let's all crunch them together.

let me know and I'll help you follow the thread

nice try though

New Hampshire's polling about 3% more for Clinton than Obama (well within the margin of error).

South Carolina is neck and neck.

Clinton's got an 8-point lead on Obama in Nevada.

Clinton's WAY ahead in Florida.

However, a bunch of people just dropped out, and today's 31 to 29 poll can literally turn into tomorrow's 31 to 33 poll. :shrug:

Seriously, wait until more people actually get out there to vote. There's still aways to go.

the massive turnout in general and the stats showing that most new voters were for Obama.
There may be some change in the air that may mean new numbers are on there way.

Which it won't because of the relatively small number of voters to begin with.

Then move on to Michigan, South Carolina, Nevada:

In my opinion, on the Dem side of things:

Michigan will go Hillary;
South Carolina will go Edwards;
Nevada will go Obama.
but, Florida is all about Hillary.

and, while Super Tuesday may be to decide between Hillary and Obama -- many progressives/independents will sit out or write in at this point;

And, the winner will be Hillary - she's just way too far ahead/has too much clout/money/influence in these states to assume anything else is possible. Obama had his 15 minutes of fame and we all felt good cuz a black man won --- well, welcome back to reality, folks.

And the candidates aren't campaigning there. So nobody really cares what Michigan and Florida do.

Not that I think Hillary is out of it, but what you've posted isn't "number crunching."

In 2004, the results in Iowa dramatically influenced the New Hampshire vote, despite "the small number of voters to begin with" - ( And huh? this only makes sense if you meant what I don't think you meant, that there are a small number of *undecided* voters in New Hampshire. And I don't think it's true that there's a small number of undecided voters in New Hampshire.) After 2004 New Hampshire, it was all over, despite what polls had been reporting earlier about Kerry's tepid support in other states. Kind of depressing, in a way, that an event that involved so few people essentially selected the candidate, but that could easily happen again. Kerry was sinking in New Hampshire until after the Iowa caucuses, whereas recent polls this year show Obama and Clinton very close, with Obama rising. So the Iowa results don't even have to have a *large* effect in New Hampshire to give Obama the win.

As for feeling "good cuz a black man won" - yes, and many of us would also feel good about a woman becoming president.

and sadly stupid OP. It could be great fun. Whatever happens in NH, JE certainly won't win SC. You just demonstrated that you have no basis for making a political prediction. Who will vote for JE in SC? Some white people. And that ain't enough to win the primary there. Anyone who believes that black voters are going to flock en masse to JE, is simply living in a bizarre little dream world.

.

I'd recommend getting a refund. :)

I recall two weeks ago being told that Clinton would "certainly" beat Edwards in IA. I was told the "numbers were all there".

You need a housekeeper.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Delegate Tracker
Candidate Delegates
Clinton 111
Obama 59
Edwards 32
Richardson 11
Kucinich 2
Includes Superdelegates that have officially endorsed a candidate

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

Dean 137
Gep 74
Kerry 64
Clark 40
Edwards 28
Lieberman 27
Sharpton 3
Kucinich 2
CMB 1

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/17/politics/main593845.shtml

:D

nor, did he have the party establishment behind him. I don't make the rules, I'm just calling it as I see it.

I've been around this block a few times and unless there is some sort of cosmic realignment of the political universe, Clinton will get the nomination.

I'm not saying that is good or bad -- I'm a Gore supporter who defaulted to Edwards.

But, the fact is, the machine works a certain way and not much, in the last 100 years or so, has done much to change that (except the year Carter won the nomination).

I'd call that about as close to a cosmic realignment as we're going to get, wouldn't you?

And the week before Iowa, had a huge lead in NH on Wes Clark and John Kerry (over 20 points).

Those super delegates become weaker and weaker when their candidate of choice starts losing.

It's still way too early to be making predictions. Stop it, you're embarrasing yourself.

a bitter little card, but still a card.

What numbers did you crunch? Ooops. you didn't. Obama has an excellent chance of winning NH- better than Clinton's according to virtually all the political experts here in VT and NH. 50% of the dem voters in SC are African American and even before his win in IA, many who originally supported HC, began to defect and support BO.

And what rendered JE unelectable was that he didn't appeal to as many voters- and it wasn't only about money or celebrity.

read the thread before you go all militaristic/imperialistic on me, eh?

I'm just presenting facts per the way the system works - search super delegates on Google to get a clue.

Hate to break it to you, but take a look at who had the lion's share of SDs before Iowa in 2004. That's right. The FACT is that super delegates are not sworn for the cycle to the candidate they originally pledge support to.

And look up two words: Militaristic. Imperialistic. Pathetic not to know what they mean.

Get a clue. Your OP is an embarassment. And after SC, I intend to taunt you with it. That's snarky alright, but has nothing to do with imperialism or militarism.

taunt -- sorry I expressed an opinion/what I thought to be the truth, running away in fear now, hope that is enough to make you happy and you won't hunt me down.

Look at where John Kerry was in the polls pre-Iowa.

The following happens in every election.

1. Iowa and New hampshire change the polls drastically
2. People pay attention to the results and who is winning and many change their minds
3. Superdelegates vote for whomever they want, if Hillary loses in state after state, their votes will not be hers.

All this "change talk" was making me nervous.

Corporatists win! Corporatists win!

:toast: