Super Tuesday Projection: 1/30

Based on polling and analysis and interviews with campaign officials.....

Hillary Clinton has an edge in New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Arkansas.

Obama has an edge in Idaho, Minnesota, Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Dakota and Illinois.

The following states lean to Clinton right now: California, Connecticut

The following entities lean Obama right now: Colorado, Democrats Abroad

True tossups: Arizona, Delaware, New Mexico, Utah, American Samoa, Alaska, Massachusetts

For Republicans, I'd say John McCain has a distinct edge in California, New York, New Jersey, Alabama, Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut and Tennessee.

Mitt Romney has an edge in Utah, Maine, Montana, Alaska, West Virginia.

Mike Huckabee used to be the governor of Arkansas.

And Missouri is a toss.

Comments

What about Mo. for Ds?

Posted by a | January 30, 2008 12:46 PM

Re: Delaware as a tossup. One thing I've found interesting is just how much of the leadership in the state has swung behind Obama. After Joe Biden dropped out, Governor Minner endorsed Clinton. But both of the candidates vying to replace her (the Lietenant Governor and the state Treasurer) endorsed Obama. And the two candidates running for Lieutenant Governor (the state Insurance Commissioner and the Wilmington City Council president) endorsed Obama as well.

But I wonder if this might hurt more than it helps. The support is so uniform that there's no real incentive for any one of them to go out and really try to campaign for Obama, link themselves to him, that sort of thing -- because it's not going to give them an edge over their rivals. So instead of getting full throated support, he's got this large group of leaders who've endorsed him and have kind of left it at that.

On the other hand, they all seem to be pushing the same "change" narrative, so maybe that'll filter out a bit to Obama's benefit.

Posted by jbryan | January 30, 2008 12:47 PM

All bets are off now that Edwards is out. If you're a Wal-Mart Democrat and you weren't already supporting HRC, that means you're part of the anti-Hillary crowd. These folks are MUCH more likely to go for Obama now that Edwards is out. Trust me - I live in Missouri.

Also, Edwards could've stayed in until after Super Tuesday. The only reason he drops out before then is to endorse someone. Does anybody see him endorsing HRC? No way, unless he's had a change of heart about status quo, lobbyists, etc.

And how about the precise timing? Sort-of cancelled out and/or erased HRC's "win" in Florida. Obviously orchestrated in partnership with the Obama campaign.

Chalk up another news cycle in the Obama column.

Posted by JBS | January 30, 2008 12:51 PM

first post-SC poll has Connecticut tied, 40-40, for Dems:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ct/connecticut_democratic_primary-273.html

Posted by matthewcc | January 30, 2008 12:53 PM

Sounds pretty good. I think I would have swapped MN and AK. Also the polling says AZ and MA are not particularly competitive, but you must have information that the Kennedy endorsement is likely to have an impact. (I guess the recent rassumsen poll that CT is now tied might give everyone pause).

I tend to think TN might be competitive, depending on African-American turnout. Also I suspect Obama will win Illinois by a larger margin than Clinton will win New York.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 30, 2008 1:02 PM

Will #of states won matter on Wednesday or delegates won?

If the elections are close in all those states, won't the delegates pretty much even out?

And Obama has an advantage in the rest of the February states. (Maryland, DC, Hawaii, Nebraska, LA, Washington, VA)

So as long as Obama can keep within a couple of hundred delegates of Clinton, the election is going to go through March I'd say. If Obama manages to win more delegates on Feb 5, very tough for Clinton to recover. If Clinton blows Obama out, then it will be tough for him to come back.

Posted by Mike | January 30, 2008 1:02 PM

Obama will win Missouri. Edwards is/was popular here, but most of the people who weren't already supporting him are part of what is a very fervent Anti-Hillary crowd. Therefore, they're likely to shift to Obama.

Also, the Claire McCaskill endorsement cannot be overlooked. She is a very beloved Democrat in Missouri, and has huge followings in St. Louis, Kansas City, Jefferson City, and Columbia - which are where 90% of Missouri Democratic Primary voters live. The Obama tv spots featuring her have been on quite a bit, and have been well-received.

Posted by JBS | January 30, 2008 1:03 PM

Massachusetts is a tossup? This poll's a few days old, but says Clinton has nearly a thirty point lead in the Bay State.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ma/massachusetts_democratic_primary-539.html

The Kennedy endorsement will help some, but, as respected as Teddy is in Massachusetts, it's unlikely that Bay State voters will allow themselves to be told who to vote for. As results in New Hampshire displayed, the Clinton brand is still extremely popular in New England.

All bets are off now that Edwards is out. If you're a Wal-Mart Democrat and you weren't already supporting HRC, that means you're part of the anti-Hillary crowd.

Unlikely. Obama's coalition has been a mix of African Americans and younger, typically upscale white liberals ("latte" liberals, as it were). Most analysis I've seen suggests blue collar Wal-Mart Democrats will mostly break for the candidate who has made the economy the principal focus of her campaign, Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Jasper | January 30, 2008 1:08 PM

Marc, I think you missed Missouri. I imagine this is an "Obama edge" state, but who really knows. I haven't seen any polling in most of these places.

Posted by RS | January 30, 2008 1:12 PM

Which is why Gore, Biden, Edwards, Carter and Richardson all could have a tremendous impact on the campaign if they endorse in the next few days (before the superbowl, by then its too late). They could make the difference.

Posted by JC | January 30, 2008 1:16 PM

CT is 40-40 according to the last poll, CA has 20% undecided and 3 million independent voters, Obama speaks to more than 15,000 in Denver right now and according to Gallup has slashed Hillary's Jan 20th, 20 point lead to 6.

YES WE CAN

Posted by yiannis | January 30, 2008 1:45 PM

Speaking of Massachusetts, I'm pretty sure Romney's been well ahead there in every poll, and it would be pretty shocking for him to lose.

Posted by right | January 30, 2008 1:46 PM

I mostly agree. CT is probably a toss up. I would probably give Clinton a slight edge in Missouri right now. If you crunch the numbers it is possible--perhaps even likely--that Clinton and Obama will be within 100 delegates of each other after Tuesday. It'll be interesting to see how the media covers it, because we could see results similar to Nevada where one candidate wins the popular vote but the other candidate picks up more delegates. I'll be interested to see what the polling looks like now that Edwards left the race.

Posted by Ben | January 30, 2008 1:50 PM

I predict a very close race on 2/5 delegate wise. But if Obama stays within 50 delegates it will seem as a huge loss for Hillary, and the momentum goes to Obama in the remaining states.

Posted by Mark from NY | January 30, 2008 1:56 PM

Kudos Mark on your New England predictions. A lot of people have assumed that Hillary would win big in Mass, Conn., NJ and New York. I see those races tightening severely and having results similar to NH (slight Clinton wins). Those states, have similar demographics to NH, but have less middle aged blue collar workers (exc. Massachusetts), pockets of minorities (places like Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford, and Newark), and rich suburbs.

Posted by Robert | January 30, 2008 2:04 PM

50 delegates? I'd say 100 delegates and it's a big win for Obama. The Clintons are winning on name recognition. For Obama to come from nothing to staying going toe to toe with Billary and NOT being blown out of the water on what amounts to a National Primary is a big win for him and will show the rest of the country that he is for real.

Posted by C.B. | January 30, 2008 2:05 PM

Mitt Romney has an edge in Utah, Maine, Montana, Alaska

Saying Mitt Romney has an edge in Utah is quite an understatement.
As for Maine and Alaska, Paul will give him a run for his money. We'll see how those caucuses pan out.

Posted by bbartlog | January 30, 2008 2:22 PM

Both late-January MO polls show double-digit leads for Clinton (44-31, 43-24).

Posted by dt | January 30, 2008 2:22 PM

i read here people depend too much on polls. This time around,poll dont mean much. Unfortunately, i think by feb. 5, the clear winner will emerge. One thing people must understand is, people lie. thats what happened in New hamsphere. I feel some people here are ijflating the numbers to their benifit. MOST OF YOU ARE WRONG. Come feb 5th, we will know who's the candidate. For starters, i think HRC will get 64% of New york. Thats all i will say.

Posted by wes | January 30, 2008 2:25 PM

You guys are really grasping at straws to prop up Obama. It won't even be close on Tuesday. Blowout for Hillary and the race is effectively over.

Not that this wasn't predictable a long time ago. But the media had to dress up the game to make the outcome seem in doubt. This event only comes along once every 4 years for them.

Posted by robert ethan | January 30, 2008 2:32 PM

Jasper, Jasper, Jasper...

The "analysis" you cite gets Edwards' supporters and/or Wal-Mart Democrats all wrong. First, it assumes that they're comparing how much attention HRC has been giving to the economy as compared to Obama. Most have not been doing this (like most people), and instead have simply associated each candidate with the main themes of their campaign.

1) Edwards: Populist fighter for change
2) Obama: Bring people together for change
3) Clinton: Only one with the strength/experience to deliver change

In other words, nobody believes that HRC has made the economy the "central focus of her campaign." In fact, I almost thought you were kidding when I read that. Edwards is the only one who could claim such a central focus. HRC's would be herself, Obama, and/or George W. Bush. Obama's would be himself and/or the American People.

That being said, I think Edwards' support breaks down like this:

1) Populists/Blue-Collars of many stripes
2) Those not yet convinced that Obama is for real
3) 2004 Leftovers

This doesn't look like a coalition that would be apt to swing to Obama at first glance, or when you're simply citing the "analysis" you've seen on cable news, but it looks that way when you're actually in fly-over country and you're able to appreciate just how strong the Anti-Hillary sentiment is.

Think about it. Hillaryland isn't a place people show up to fashionably late. If someone is practical enough or informed enough to consider how HRC and Obama compare on economic emphasis, they're practical enough or informed enough to consider how they compare on the following:

1) Lobbyists
2) Status Quo versus Change
3) Electability (particularly with Independents on the table versus McCain)

If you weren't with her already, it's because of one of these 3 reasons, or for personal, visceral, likability reasons. So you either go with Obama or you sit this one out.

How have I come to these conclusions?

1) Well, I spent the week leading up to the Iowa Caucuses volunteering in that state for Obama - talking to hundreds upon hundreds of people on their front porches, in their living rooms, and over the phone.
2) My gut.
3) I live in Missouri and I think about it as I drink my Starbucks Nonfat Vanilla Latte... in Wal-Mart.

Posted by JBS | January 30, 2008 2:45 PM

In the last Massachusetts poll, Mitt was up 19 points, and you give it to McCain? He also had a 19 point lead in Colorado, which you left out. More important, the last California poll only showed a slight margin for McCain over Mitt in California, and the internals of the poll showed McCain's strength overwhelmingly concentrated in the San Fran Bay area, suggesting that Mitt could win a majority of the delegates in the state while losing the statewide total. Mitt's not out of this by any means.

Posted by Dave | January 30, 2008 2:49 PM

A lot depends on how much comes out regarding Antoin Rezko the Syrian, Abdulmuhamid Chaim the Algerian, Ali Ata the Saudi, Milorad Blagojevich the Chetnik, and assorted other former associates of Obama in the South Side Terror Cell that manipulated Chicago politics for the past two decades.

Axelrod The Fixer tried to slide another 70,000 in dirty money under the door last night while everyone's attention was directed elsewhere, but they are Ratcheting Up The Pressure On The Rats involved and soon they will start to squeal and squeak in order to save themselves.

Blagejovich is already pointing the finger at Obama to take some heat off of himself. Rezko is in chains for taking funny money from the Middle East in order to finance a Flight From Custody. It's ugly dirty South Side politics in the worst tradition of Bill Daley, with the new "Mob" hailing from Arabic Islamist backgrounds.

Posted by robert ethan | January 30, 2008 2:52 PM

The infamous robert ethan strikes again. Listen, you clown. This garbage might be okay for The Politico, but it's not welcome here. You'll either get owned or ignored - either way, you lose.

Posted by OMG | January 30, 2008 2:58 PM

As in college football this year, the polls and predictions have often been drastically wrong, and I think they will continue to be unreliable.

Two new dynamics make things really unpredictable:

1) Edwards. Despite all of the pundits' prognosticating, I don't think anyone really knows how his decision to drop out of the race will ultimately effect things. The timing of his decision is interesting, but he has a lot going on in his personal life with his wife having cancer, so who knows why he decided to drop out now.

2) McCain. Will Democratic voters realize that Obama has a MUCH better chance of beating McCain than Hillary who has a similar history to McCain on Iraq and Iran. Will they take into account the fact that Hillary is the only person on the planet who can unite and mobilize the Republican party right now?

Posted by ARR | January 30, 2008 3:00 PM

Don't forget that Iowa is now a delegate tossup. When Edwards left, his delegates to the county conventions are now free to support either Clinton or Obama when the delegates to the national convention are chosen.

Posted by WhatAboutIowa | January 30, 2008 3:02 PM

Holy shit, Tuesday is going to be crazy.

Posted by crazymonk | January 30, 2008 3:19 PM

Are both of these races heading to the conventions?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | January 30, 2008 3:30 PM

A couple of things:

I live in Minnesota, and Hillary Clinton is going to be annihilated. Minnesota has a single metro area, will 100,000+ college students located in a single city. And in 2004, 69% of voters under 25 voted in Minnesota -- the highest rate in the nation. Also, Alaska is overwhelmingly male, so I'm not sure how Clinton wins there.

Posted by zoid | January 30, 2008 3:54 PM

I think Obama will do much better than expected in NY. He won't win but he will embarrass our Senator and take a bucketload of delegates from her.
I have yet to receive one phone call from my Union which has endorsed the Senator. That speaks of arrogance to me.

Posted by AnnM | January 30, 2008 3:55 PM

I think Obama will do much better than expected in NY. He won't win but he will embarrass our Senator and take a bucketload of delegates from her.
I have yet to receive one phone call from my Union which has endorsed the Senator. That speaks of arrogance to me.

Posted by AnnM | January 30, 2008 3:55 PM

After the tied post-SC/Teddy Connecticut poll, all I can say is I'm absolutely aching for some new polling done in all the 22 Super Tuesday states. Need more numbers bad.

Posted by jbryan | January 30, 2008 4:07 PM

Why the Republican Party needs to rally around Mitt Romney

If all the media and exit polls in Florida are true and Republicans are leaning more to the left, the country better brace itself. The last thing we need is a left leaning republican setting policy for the future of the United States. The harm that could ensue would be just as bad as a Democrat and cause damage that our children will reap for years to come.

The media continues to give positive feedback to John McCain and all Democrats for that matter. The only candidate that continually receives negative press is the most conservative candidate left. Mitt Romney has changed positions, but the change has been toward the right not the left. Mitt Romney still is a moderate but leaning right Republican. He is not a moderate Republican leaning left as is John McCain. The latter combination only entitles and strengthens the Democrat views.

We should welcome with open arms a person who leans more right. Continuing to discredit that person only hurts our party. We are a party of change and should embrace people like Mitt Romney who genuinely care about the future of our children and the sanctity of the family and the sacredness of marriage being between a man and women. He has tried to unify the three legs of the conservative stool the Republican party so often speaks of, and the Reagan principles that we so admired. Governor Romney is the only candidate who has reached out to social conservatives, economic conservatives and defense conservatives to unite the Grand old party again.

Sean Hannity today all but endorsed John McCain on his radio show. Saying we as Republicans need to be moderate. This will only slowly change the United States to lean more and more left and eventually end up like European countries today. Socialized medicine, declining family values and principles, higher taxes, bigger government, and inefficiency to combat terrorism.

In the words of Mitt Romney:
"I think what will happen across the country is that conservatives will give a good thought to whether or not they want to hand the party's nomination over to Senator McCain. He has not been their champion over the last several years," Romney said in an interview Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Has the party responded? Only time will tell. February 5th will be a defining moment for Republicans who still look for a candidate who is a unifier not a divider within the party.

Even if the Republicans don’t get the nomination our ideals must not change.
Would we have had Ronald Reagan without first having Jimmy Carter?

Think about it!!

Posted by Brian | January 30, 2008 4:24 PM

Dear Romney,

Live to fight another day. Let McCain get destroyed by Hillary or Obama so we can all see what a foolish choice the GOP made.

Come back at the next election and get elected once the country realizes what a dumb move it was to put Hillary in office.

Posted by sam | January 30, 2008 4:41 PM

If McCain isn't considered a fiscal conservative, you haven't been paying attention. Since when does conservatism have to mean anti-immigration? You want to deport 12 million people? Think about the logistics and reality of that happening.

Posted by Joe M | January 30, 2008 4:58 PM

RE: Edwards voters. In an AP-Yahoo poll conducted last week, 40% of Edwards supporters ranked Clinton as choice #2 while 25% selected Obama. Something to think about.

Aside to Mark: How can you say California leans towards Clinton with a straight face? 23 point advantage Clinton among absentee voters in latest LA Times/CNN poll. They're half the electorate in that primary, most already voted. Or do you think that poll is unreliable?

Posted by RW Rogers | January 30, 2008 5:04 PM

You want to deport 12 million people? Think about the logistics and reality of that happening.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the Republican base is pretty tied up in knots over killing brown people in other countries, deporting brown people from this country, and fear of gay people.

Posted by justinb | January 30, 2008 5:09 PM

justinb,

Don't you mean that brown people from other countries are trying to kill us? To wit:

http://www.gotwinlakes.com/images/9-11wtc.jpg

Posted by ProfNickD | January 30, 2008 5:30 PM

Because the Democratic delegate count depends more on congressional districts than on state popular vote counts, it's impossible to really judge who wins what in any meaningful way without a much more sophisticated analysis than what Marc's given us.

Throw in the curveball of Edwards dropping out (and no one reliably knowing who his folks will vote for) and this is anyone's ball game.

The debate tomorrow night - the first one-on-one - should be something to see, and might have a HUGE impact. HUGE.

Plus, the Super Bowl is likely to make any weekend political news not to matter much, shortening the short calendar even more.

This is a heavy weight fight for the ages, easily the most exciting and probably important primary election of our lifetime.

Posted by Jimmy James | January 30, 2008 5:32 PM

I did some very rough math on the back of a napkin based on the number of delegates available according to the NPR website. Basically, for the states listed in a particular camp (I only care about the Democrats), I split the delegates 65% - 35%. For the leaning states, I split them 55% - 45%. For the toss-ups, 50-50. Now, that is a very crude way of looking at it, but at that very crude level, the delegate count on Tuesday would be about 829-777 in favor of Clinton. Obama is currently ahead 63-48, so the totals would then be 877-840 with Clinton in the lead.

You can play around with the numbers, and this doesn't include super-delegates, but the bottom line as I see it is that there would have to be a major game-changing event in the next week for either candidate to leave Tuesday with a commanding lead.

Posted by Curtis | January 30, 2008 6:50 PM

Are we all forgetting the method of delegate distribution? Not all of these states are winner take all. That said, what might be a better indicator is strength of organization, not polling. Am I way off here? Help!

Posted by Mike H. | January 30, 2008 7:02 PM

I think Curtis is right on. After all is said and done, chances are HRC and Obama will be fairly close in delegate count. The potential wildcards are an unexpected endorsement (Gore being the biggest) or some gaffe in the debate (hardly likely given it's their umpteenth debate. My hope is that the momentum shift we're seeing (note late deciders in Florida) and the tightening national polls, and some more high profile endorsements, some changing from HRC to Obama, will lead to a shift in the super-delegate landscape. That's where the deciding factor may be. These "professionals" may realize that to beat McCain (who trumps HRC on experience) you need someone who can draw independents and disaffected Republicans. The Obama "movement" is the way to beat McCain and to ensure Democrats are elected to Congress around the country.

Posted by Garth | January 30, 2008 7:13 PM

cracking up here about Obama having an edge in Idaho.

IDAHO??
There's something so unbelievably bizarre in you even writing that....hilarious.

Posted by rikyrahs | January 30, 2008 7:27 PM

The notion that HRC "unites" the GOP behind John McCain still seems like a stretch. Even with months to grow accustomed to the idea, too many Republicans genuinely hate him. So how does he bring them back, with his VP pick? If he picks Huckabee the independents get nervous. Picks Rudy and the base isn't pleased. That means a non charismatic pick like Haley Barbour. Might work. But what if anything at all goes south in Iraq and the independents remember how much they hate the war? Clinton doesn't need to convince the voters who don't like her, she just needs them to stay home.

Posted by Jay Mold | January 30, 2008 7:28 PM

This is as silly or dreamy a post as I have seen in a long time. Clearly, Marc is an Obama booster.

Here are some (uncomfortable for some) facts:
1. Whites will not vote for Obama
2. Hispanics will not vote for Obama
3. Blacks will vote overwhelmingly for Obama
4. Women will break overwhelmingly for Hillary

Obama will win only in IL, GA and maybe MA. The rest of the states will either overwhelmingly or marginally go to Hillary. This whole talk of Obama momentum is media spin.

Hillary is going to end up with a lead of 200+ delegates on Super Tuesday.

Before anyone calls me a Hillary booster, I am a republican..and am looking at this from outside.

Posted by loser | January 30, 2008 7:30 PM

Do you really think that Obama will do so well?

Here're my thoughts.
Leaning Obama: IL, CO (a caucus state they have really targeted).
Leaning Clinton: AR, OK, CA (huge early voting edge for Clinton + Bendixen's latinos) .
Toss up: Everything else (including NY).

There are lots of undecided everywhere. It's a two-way race. Where is Clinton over 50? Is she over 50 in NY? Depends on the pollster. Undecided women could break either way, depending on what's in the news, ditto for all the undecided men now that Edwards has dropped out.

Posted by Byron | January 30, 2008 7:38 PM

Here are some (uncomfortable for some) facts:
1. Whites will not vote for Obama

This is irrefutable. Iowa, NH, and rural Nevada contain no white people. Ergo, big victories for Clinton and Edwards.

2. Hispanics will not vote for Obama

Hispanics are universally racist and support only their own. Namely, white people.

3. Blacks will vote overwhelmingly for Obama

Despite the numerous endorsements of black politicians for Clinton, one can not argue with this statement. Blacks have robot brains that are programmed by Bill Cosby to vote as one singular unit.

4. Women will break overwhelmingly for Hillary

Obama has done poorly with women, except for the states in which he has been a candidate. Since Obama also does poorly with whites and Hispanics, we now see an amazing statistic - black males comprise 30% of Iowa, 30% of New Hampshire, 45% of Nevada, and 55% of South Carolina.

Shocking numbers indeed!

Posted by Craig | January 30, 2008 7:46 PM

OMG,

How dare Robert Ethan report or question Obama's character and shady dealings...for shame! Spit on him, excommunicate him, never allow him back into our exclusive latte drinking treehouse! Not ever!

What do you really know about Obama?

We are all shallow to look the other way when unpleasant matters surface regarding a candidate for the position we currently seek to fill. Albeit our preferred candidate.

Posted by Here in Chicago | January 30, 2008 7:47 PM

"Loser," you might want to run your #1 premise by the good people of Iowa. I think to say at this point that he only wins three states is crazy, but then again, I support him, so I admit there's bias.

As for the country uniting behind McCain against Hillary being some stretch of the imagination, I think the danger on wonky blogs like this one (I'm not casting stones -- I'm here, aren't I?) is to overestimate the specificity of people's beliefs. I lived in Texas for a dozen years, and there's nothing subtle about some people's dislike of Hillary. There are inanimate objects they would vote for over her.

Posted by JMW | January 30, 2008 7:53 PM

How dare Robert Ethan report or question Obama's character and shady dealings...for shame! Spit on him, excommunicate him, never allow him back into our exclusive latte drinking treehouse! Not ever!

There's certainly justification in questioning a candidate's character and looking critically at their past acquaintances, business decisions, and certainly their voting record. But the Rezko stuff has been in the press and out in the open for more than a year, and every time it comes up, there is no substance. All one ever hears is, "Just wait until this all comes out!" Well, it's been a year. How much longer do we have to wait?

Posted by Craig | January 30, 2008 7:54 PM

Here are some (uncomfortable for some) facts:
1. Whites will not vote for Obama

This is irrefutable. Iowa, NH, and rural Nevada contain no white people. Ergo, big victories for Clinton and Edwards.

2. Hispanics will not vote for Obama

Hispanics are universally racist and support only their own. Namely, white people.

3. Blacks will vote overwhelmingly for Obama

Despite the numerous endorsements of black politicians for Clinton, one can not argue with this statement. Blacks have robot brains that are programmed by Bill Cosby to vote as one singular unit.

4. Women will break overwhelmingly for Hillary

Obama has done poorly with women, except for the states in which he has been a candidate. Since Obama also does poorly with whites and Hispanics, we now see an amazing statistic - black males comprise 30% of Iowa, 30% of New Hampshire, 45% of Nevada, and 55% of South Carolina.

Shocking numbers indeed!

---
Ha ha.. nice sarcasm! I love it. You are feisty.

Unfortunately, that does not change reality. Let's touch base after the votes are counted ;)

Posted by loser | January 30, 2008 7:56 PM

Here's the irony about Latinos...they think they're white and look down at blacks. Whites, however, think most Latinos are only good for mowing their lawn or trimming their hedges.

Posted by Jose | January 30, 2008 7:57 PM

cracking up here about Obama having an edge in Idaho.
IDAHO??
There's something so unbelievably bizarre in you even writing that....hilarious.

I live in Idaho and Obama will win the caucuses here. He actually has an office in Idaho and the endorcement of the party here. Idahoans caucusing for Hillary Clinton is laughable.

Posted by samc | January 30, 2008 8:00 PM

"Loser," you might want to run your #1 premise by the good people of Iowa.
===
There is a difference between a caucus and primary vote. The secrecy of the primary ballot changes the dynamic. That is the "hard" reality of America.

--
I think to say at this point that he only wins three states is crazy, but then again, I support him, so I admit there's bias
==
We shall see who is crazy. Good luck to your candidate.

Posted by loser | January 30, 2008 8:01 PM

McCain has an edge in MA? Not hardly. Romney is ahead by 20+ points.

Posted by JaredPH | January 30, 2008 8:46 PM

Some people who comment seem to know nothing about politics, do they ?
Yes Idaho will overwhelmingly go for Obama as he has the support of almost all the Democratic elected officials of the state and is the only one who has a - very active - office up there (first time ever in a Presidential election !).

CA is electing most of its delegates by district and I can guarantee you Obama will sweep the Bay Area and probably the Central Valley.

Obama has an office in Alaska. Clinton does not. At the very least AL is a toss-up.

Ita to one of the first commenters regarding DE. I don't think it is that much of a toss-up.

I could go on and on.

Posted by Benjamin | January 30, 2008 9:01 PM

Ha ha.. and some know everything about politics..
--
Knock, knock.

Who is at the door?

Oh, it is me, Hillary. I want your advice on how to beat Obama ;)

Posted by loser | January 30, 2008 9:19 PM

Here in Chicago,

I wasn't referring to the Rezko stuff - that's fair game. I was talking about all the buzzword use, an obvious boiler-plate subliminal smear designed to play upon the worst in people. For example:

Syrian, Abdulmuhamid Chaim, Algerian, Ali Ata, Saudi, Chetnik, Terror Cell, Arabic, Islamist...

We know what the purpose is behind using those words in association with a particular candidate. Don't play dumb with me.

Posted by OMG | January 30, 2008 9:28 PM

American Samoa a toss up?

Come on, Samoans, Obama grew up in Hawaii! You have the chance to help elect the first Polynesian president!!!

My prediction: in the end, the American Samoans will come home to their own. :)

Posted by John Z., Mt. Pleasant, IA | January 30, 2008 9:37 PM

ROFLMAO @ John Z

Posted by loser | January 30, 2008 9:44 PM

Actually make American Samoa the fourth (e)state for Obama ;)

I apologize to JWM, I will be proven wrong, he will win 4 "states" ;) ;)

Posted by loser | January 30, 2008 9:48 PM

Robert Ethan -

Get off this site scumbag. Prick!

Posted by robertwilldie | January 30, 2008 10:03 PM

Here are some (uncomfortable for some) facts: 1. Whites will not vote for Obama

This is irrefutable. Iowa, NH, and rural Nevada contain no white people. Ergo, big victories for Clinton and Edwards.

I think that loser meant to say "1. White republicans will not vote for Obama"

And I believe he may be right.

Posted by Tom Ames | January 30, 2008 10:35 PM

If someone is practical enough or informed enough to consider how HRC and Obama compare on economic emphasis, they're practical enough or informed enough to consider how they compare on the following...

JBS: You're making it waaaayyy more complicated than it need be. People don't need to be well informed, or to do complex analysis when forming opinions about what different candidates stand for.

For better or worse, Hillary Clinton is associated with a sort of traditionalist New Deal style of politics that emphasizes the federal government's role in maintaining the safety net. Less affluent, traditional lunchpail Democrats are firmly in Hillary's camp. It's not a matter of exhaustive analysis. Working people don't have time for that. It's more of a political Rorschach test.

Obama, by contrast, is associated with traditional Bill Bradley-style process liberalism. You know, issues like political reform, the environment, foreign policy, etc. These things are nice, and are naturally emphasized by the upscale voters Obama attracts in droves. But downscale voters don't have the luxury of being able to base their voting decisions primarily on such items, because they're the ones having difficulty paying the oil bill, or putting groceries on the table. Indeed, in broad terms, the economic issue is an especially powerful one for Hillary Clinton's campaign, given the prosperity associated with the Clinton brand. I don't think it will be particularly close on Tuesday. But we shall see.

Posted by Jasper | January 30, 2008 11:18 PM

Obama share of white votes..
NH - 36%
NV - 34%
SC - 24%
FL - 20%
Source: mydd
--
Tom : You are right, whites are voting for Obama (and GWB's approval rating at 30-31% is good!).

Posted by loser | January 30, 2008 11:21 PM

Very well said, Jasper.

The air-fairy "change" mumbo-jumbo flies over the top of most "worrying about bread and butter" middle and lower class voters.

Posted by loser | January 30, 2008 11:25 PM

I know a lote of white republicans turning democrat for the first time in their lives that would tell you otherwise, Tom.

Posted by Graham | January 30, 2008 11:39 PM

Jasper,

1) I guarantee that you and "loser" are the same person, because nobody could in good conscience compliment you on your post in reply to mine.

2) You missed my point. Do you really think I need to be told that people "don't need to be well-informed or to do a complex analysis to form an opinion about what a candidate stands for?"

What I was getting at is this:

1) To the average Democratic voter who previously supported Edwards, there are no real distinctions between HRC and Obama on economic policy, because it hasn't been a hallmark of any campaign besides that of Edwards himself. We know that any Dem would roll back the Bush tax cuts, keep the minimum wage indexed to inflation, take a new approach to trade deals, cut corporate welfare, etc.

2) So what does that leave you with at this point? In large part, likability. So I'll say it again - if you were an Edwards supporter and therefore weren't with HRC already, you probably just flat-out don't like her. Which means you're more likely to go with Obama. And my point is further reinforced if one believes that the economic differences between HRC and Edwards are blurred by the "Clinton Economic Legacy of the 1990s." If you weren't with her already, you're not going to shift to her now.

I mean, for God's sake, Jasper - do you need me to draw you a picture?

Posted by JBS | January 31, 2008 12:33 AM

JBS:
I am not Jasper.. I am a loser (unless Jasper is one too ;)). Seriously, I am a different person.
I was not responding to Jasper's response to your post.. more the substance of his post.

Posted by loser | January 31, 2008 12:56 AM

It is bizarre when one person in one state pretends above to know how everyone else in that state feels and how they will vote.

One office in a state will make that candidate win? Is it even an edge?

Much of the campaign is fought on t.v. and the radio and the paper. Obama had more offices in NV and had paid staff according to news reports. Hillary's people were volunterrs.
Obama had the big union. And yes I know that Hillary had machinery there dug into the firmament.

Thee are so many moving pieces that these predictions for alska and Idaho seem at most self-serving and at worst wishful thinking.

Try to remember that iowa was a neighboring state for Obama where he spent much of a year and 30 or more million dollars: we just do not know if it was a tsongas-winning-NH kind of deal there or if he really can win states demographically similar to Iowa or Florida.

It is not a D&D game in some virtual world and rolls of the dice: real people vote the way they want to for their own reasons.

Some of the people who fill up stadiums for Obama also go see High school musical on ice and Hanna montana when they come to town: people get autographs and then never look at them again: people go see the rodeo but don't buy a horse: realtors show houses to people who aren't even shopping.

something is happening but we don't know what it is.

Posted by Michael C. | January 31, 2008 8:01 AM

It is bizarre when one person in one state pretends above to know how everyone else in that state feels and how they will vote.

One office in a state will make that candidate win? Is it even an edge?

Much of the campaign is fought on t.v. and the radio and the paper. Obama had more offices in NV and had paid staff according to news reports. Hillary's people were volunterrs.
Obama had the big union. And yes I know that Hillary had machinery there dug into the firmament.

Thee are so many moving pieces that these predictions for alska and Idaho seem at most self-serving and at worst wishful thinking.

Try to remember that iowa was a neighboring state for Obama where he spent much of a year and 30 or more million dollars: we just do not know if it was a tsongas-winning-NH kind of deal there or if he really can win states demographically similar to Iowa or Florida.

It is not a D&D game in some virtual world that hinges on rolls of the dice: real people vote the way they want to for their own reasons.

Some of the people who fill up stadiums for Obama also go see High school musical on ice and Hanna montana when they come to town: people get autographs and then never look at them again: people go see the rodeo but don't buy a horse: realtors show houses to people who aren't even shopping.

something is happening but we don't know what it is.

Posted by Michael C. | January 31, 2008 8:02 AM

Giving McCain the edge in Massachusetts was a mistake, right? Romney's been up in every poll, no? Wasn't he a reasonably popular governor, and so forth?

Beyond that, has anyone noticed all the recent state polls that show this thing tightening up considerably - yesterday I believe there were such polls for MA, CT, and CA. We'll see how the debate goes tonight, and what happens when we get some polls with Edwards out of it, but there seems to be some momentum for Obama, at the moment.

Posted by John | January 31, 2008 10:52 AM

I'm afraid the race won't be that close on the Dem side next Tuesday. I say that as someone who would be extremely happy with either Hillary or Obama, but I think she will blow him out. He might win Alabama and Georgia where he was showing strong in the polls. Absentee ballots and the last-second voters who lean toward safe, security-based candidates like Clinton, should concern the Obama campaign.

I thought he would have been leading in progressive states like Missouri and Minnesota but the polls say that even in states like those that really don't favor her she's leading.

Obama does have a shot at Colorado, although a very slim one. But if Clinton wins California, New York, New Jersey, and sweeps through the midwest it'll be the beginning of the end. Granted, Obama has received unbelievably positive notices in the press for 3 years and it would be nice to have a Dem candidate who's given the benefit of the doubt for a change. But what could be said that would make him a viable choice if he gets wiped out in Ohio, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey which are vital states for the Dems.

Posted by Squire | January 31, 2008 11:43 AM

To the average Democratic voter who previously supported Edwards, there are no real distinctions between HRC and Obama on economic policy, because it hasn't been a hallmark of any campaign besides that of Edwards himself.

JBS: On the merits, your claim here is just wrong, because there are substantive (albeit not vast) differences between HRC's and Obama's positions on healthcare and Social Security.

But my main point is, it is irrelevant whether or not there are "real distinctions" between the two candidates on economic policy. And that's because most Edwards voters (not all, mind, you, but most -- and I'm referring to lower income whites), just like most downscale, blue collar voters in general, don't visit blogs or candidate position websites in an effort to nail down the intricacies of their respective policy differences.

Rather, they pick the political "brand" they think works best for them. Obama's "brand" is process liberalism (political reform, civil rights, the environment, foreign policy) and Hillary's "brand" is traditionalist New Deal welfare state liberalism (defending Social Security, Medicare, childcare programs, unemployment insurance, etc.).

In a sputtering economy, the latter brand beats the former by a country mile, at least among less affluent whites.

Also, you're just flat out wrong that economic policy "hasn't been a hallmark" of Clinton's campaign. Fighting poverty has not been a hallmark of her campaign as it was for Edwards -- that's true -- but nine out of ten times her stump speech talks about "fighting for working families" and "the middle class" and "universal healthcare" and so on and so forth.

It has been the Obama campaign that has mostly eschewed focusing on the economy in favor of reform issues. I think they're about to find out that's not a winning strategy in 2008.

Posted by Jasper | January 31, 2008 1:19 PM

Jasper I beg to differ with you. My family is a middle class blue collar family and we do follow politics intensely, we read the blogs as well as the books by and about the candidates. Just because we are blue collar does not mean that we automatically support New Deal politics. We make too much money for any kind of government assistance, but barely get by - we pay hundreds of dollars each month for our families health insurance, but a person down the street from us makes more money and they get free health insurance. I am white - I support Obama, I am a woman - I support Obama. Reason - it's time for the Clinton dynasty to move out. Maybe if people would see that she doesn't want to earn the presidency, she feels she's entitled to it - they would move camp and support Obama.

Posted by Shell | January 31, 2008 2:45 PM

Jasper I beg to differ with you. My family is a middle class blue collar family and we do follow politics intensely, we read the blogs as well as the books by and about the candidates. Just because we are blue collar does not mean that we automatically support New Deal politics. We make too much money for any kind of government assistance, but barely get by - we pay hundreds of dollars each month for our families health insurance, but a person down the street from us makes more money and they get free health insurance. I am white - I support Obama, I am a woman - I support Obama. Reason - it's time for the Clinton dynasty to move out. Maybe if people would see that she doesn't want to earn the presidency, she feels she's entitled to it - they would move camp and support Obama.

Posted by Shell | January 31, 2008 2:45 PM

My family is a middle class blue collar family and we do follow politics intensely, we read the blogs as well as the books by and about the candidates.

I would suggest you and your family are the exception, not the rule.

I support Obama. Reason - it's time for the Clinton dynasty to move out.

I would suggest most people in your socioeconomic stratum will vote because of their economic self-interest -- not because of some sort of antipathy for the Clintons. The Clintons understandably remain widely popular among most working class people.

Maybe if people would see that she doesn't want to earn the presidency, she feels she's entitled to it - they would move camp and support Obama.

I don't think most people voting for Hillary care what she "feels" she is or isn't entitled to. They just support the candidate they believe most likely to improve the quality of their lives.

Posted by Jasper | January 31, 2008 3:58 PM

I think its fair to say Obama could win: GA*, IL*, CO*,(definite) CT, KS, MN, MA(Tossups)and do well enough in the others to make the basically even (considering Obama now leads in delegates), and much like tha above commentator pointed out with Obama, I think HRC fainling to win IA, IL, MN, and especially if she follows that up with a loss in Ohio, would pretty much stand as a testament to Hilary's inability to carry the Heartland-- something that would doom us in the general.

Posted by socraticsilence | January 31, 2008 5:20 PM

Also need to add CO to Romneys column, most recent denver post poll had him up 19% and most of the GOP leadership in state has rallied to him.
CO is a caucus state and like Obama - Romney has a good ground game already organized

Posted by cj | January 31, 2008 7:25 PM

Obama will win Illinois, Alabama, Georgia, and the rest will go for Hill. The news media is really pumping this thing up for whatever reason but are clearly ignoring the state polls, which indicate Hill in no danger of losing more than a handful of the races on Tuesday. She already has four wins to his two (yes kids, Florida and Michigan were wins even if they end up being just beauty contests, which they won't because Hill will have the delegate majority to seat them at the convention). So on Wednesday morning, Hill will have won roughly 20 plus states to Obama's 5 or so. Even if the delegates go only slightly to Hill's favor, what party is going to nominate the candidate that lost three quarters of the states in a 2 person race. That would seem the height of folly. Obama's gone by the end of next week, only to reemerge as the Veep to Hill's Madame President on Jan. 20th 2009.

Posted by Harold J. Boyle | February 2, 2008 5:27 PM

I work in government office in MN and i can tell you a lot of people who work in health care field are voting for Hillary. Specially Brown skin people don't like Obama and he will get about 10% of those vote. Hillary is very favorite among all women.

Obama's supporters are louder and Hillary's are quieter. Ultimately, Hillary will win with 10% margin in MN.

Posted by Uma, mpls, MN | February 2, 2008 7:12 PM

Ethan= Intelligent
Monk= Hilarious
Roberwilldie= Hypocrite
Hillary= Winner

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 6:11 PM

woohoo

Posted by Jeffry | February 5, 2008 7:20 AM