View Full Version : Rasmussen: Obama moves into statistical tie with Hillary in California
If this is accurate... this is HUGE. California is among the strongest Clinton state out there. It's only one poll though.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/california/election_2008_california_democratic_presidential_primary
Election 2008: California Democratic Presidential Primary
California: Clinton 43% Obama 40%
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in California shows Hillary Clinton with a very narrow three-percentage point lead over Barack Obama. The survey was conducted in the hours immediately following Florida’s Presidential Primary and before John Edwards dropped out of the race.
Two weeks ago, Clinton led Obama by five percentage points in California.
The survey found Edwards with 9% of the vote while 4% said they would vote for some other candidate and another 4% were not sure.
[...]
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the state’s voters were certain they had settled on their final choice. That meant nearly a third could still change their mind, a figure that grew when Edwards left the race.
[...]
This telephone survey of 807 Likely Democratic Primary Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on January 29, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
alnorth
01-30-2008, 11:38 PM
Well, at this point a narrow loss is not much worse than a narrow win in any state. Its not early anymore, this is D-day for Obama.
The democratic primaries are not winner-take-all in any state, they ALL award delegates proportionately to the vote. (The GOP is winner take all in a few states) If Obama wins by 3%, he gets maybe a handful more delegates than losing by 3%. Momentum will not be meaningful after the vote because the nominee will likely be clear.
So, since there is no winner take all and one of the candidates is likely going to die after the election, then theres not much extra value in narrowly winning or losing a state, Obama just needs to be competitive everywhere, and absolutely murder Hillary in the states he is strong at.
If you support Obama, think of Feb. 5 as one really big popular vote count and he needs a good majority of that. If Obama barely loses in CA, he's fine if he doesnt get killed anywhere and absolutely destroys Clinton in a few big states. The opposite is also true for Hillary, but she probably has a bigger margin of error with her pledged superdelegates.
Well, at this point a narrow loss is not much worse than a narrow win in any state. Its not early anymore, this is D-day for Obama.
The democratic primaries are not winner-take-all in any state, they ALL award delegates proportionately to the vote. (The GOP is winner take all in a few states) If Obama wins by 3%, he gets maybe a handful more delegates than losing by 3%. Momentum will not be meaningful after the vote because the nominee will likely be clear.
So, since there is no winner take all and one of the candidates is likely going to die after the election, then theres not much extra value in narrowly winning or losing a state, Obama just needs to be competitive everywhere, and absolutely murder Hillary in the states he is strong at.
If you support Obama, think of Feb. 5 as one really big popular vote count and he needs a good majority of that. If Obama barely loses in CA, he's fine if he doesnt get killed anywhere and absolutely destroys Clinton in a few big states. The opposite is also true for Hillary, but she probably has a bigger margin of error with her pledged superdelegates.
Good analysis, but a few notes.
1) I think it's "proportional" by congressional district. Meaning that the winner of the district takes the delegate for that district. I also think that that means you can lose the popular total and win the delegate total by winning in rural areas and losing big in the urban areas.
2) Obama won more delegates in Nevada even though he lost the overall vote total. Obama really did win in Nevada.
3) Super delegates. Don't know much about them, but they are a big deal in this race.
Jenson71
01-30-2008, 11:51 PM
Obama can rally the superdelegates to his side, which is what happened to Howard Dean (he lost pledged delegates in 2004). I read they are 20% or so of the total vote for the Democrats? That's pretty significant.
alnorth
01-30-2008, 11:52 PM
If it ends up being close, I'm counting on those super delegates to carry the day for Clinton! I think McCain just might have a decent shot at beating Hillary due to this silly irrational Hillary-hatred.
If she loses next week, then to be honest I do think that after a while Obama's very significant charm will just be too much and McCain probably wouldnt have much of a chance against him.
If it ends up being close, I'm counting on those super delegates to carry the day for Clinton! I think McCain just might have a decent shot at beating Hillary due to this silly irrational Hillary-hatred.
If she loses next week, then to be honest I do think that after a while Obama's very significant charm will just be too much and McCain probably wouldn't have much of a chance against him.
I hope the super delegates take your reasoning into account. It may be silly, but it's real. At least among white men (ie, ChiefsPlanet). You'd think that those super delegates would have a good (better?) understanding of "electable" than than the average voter.
Obama can rally the superdelegates to his side, which is what happened to Howard Dean (he lost pledged delegates in 2004). I read they are 20% or so of the total vote for the Democrats? That's pretty significant.
700+ of the 2000+ needed.
Ultra Peanut
01-31-2008, 02:37 AM
The big thing is staying within striking distance, because the post-Feb 5 states -- including Texas -- look pretty good, and when Obama comes into a state to campaign, it usually does pretty wonderful things to his numbers.
The big thing is staying within striking distance, because the post-Feb 5 states -- including Texas -- look pretty good, and when Obama comes into a state to campaign, it usually does pretty wonderful things to his numbers.
I didn't think about the proportional delegates, but I'm really glad to be reminded. I was worried that it would be decided by Hillary on Tuesday. But I bet it won't. And Obama will have some momentum if he is still there after Tuesday.
Ultra Peanut
01-31-2008, 02:41 AM
Honestly, this primary season reminds me why I wish electoral votes were awarded proportionally.
If Obama's within 100 delegates or so after Tuesday, the race is really his for the taking.
Ugly Duck
01-31-2008, 05:35 AM
Rasmussen: Obama moves into statistical tie with Hillary in California
The "early voters" are Clinton votes that were cast before the Obama surge.... just like in Florida. Recent polls don't take the early votes into account.
The "early voters" are Clinton votes that were cast before the Obama surge.... just like in Florida. Recent polls don't take the early votes into account.
Good point.
Gallup has almost the same numbers...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104071/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx
The latest Democratic numbers show Hillary Clinton with a 43% to 39% advantage over Barack Obama among Democratic voters nationwide. That four-point lead is the narrowest since early January, and it is a continuation of gains by Obama. [...]
For results based on these samples, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
Carlota69
01-31-2008, 02:25 PM
Good analysis, but a few notes.
1) I think it's "proportional" by congressional district. Meaning that the winner of the district takes the delegate for that district. I also think that that means you can lose the popular total and win the delegate total by winning in rural areas and losing big in the urban areas.
2) Obama won more delegates in Nevada even though he lost the overall vote total. Obama really did win in Nevada.
3) Super delegates. Don't know much about them, but they are a big deal in this race.
In Nevada, and in the caucus I was a part of, Obama recieved one more delegate than he should of. I saw it with my own eyes.
it went down like this...
In the room I was in, there was the Obama peeps, The Hillary Peeps and the Edwards peeps.
Obama had something like 78 people and divided by 15% (or some math like that), his number came out to 3.8, so they gave him 4 out of 7 delegates.
Hillary had the second most and her number came out 2.1. At first they gave her the remaining 3 delegates, but the room went into a tiff. They thought it should be rounded to 2, since 2.1 is closer to 2, not 3. Well since they couldnt give the remaining delegate to Edwards, the room demanded that it go to Obama, even though 3.8 is farther from 5 than 2.1 is from 3.
Yes, Obama had 2 mjore delegates than Hillary here in Nevada, but after what I saw, I wonder how true that really is.
FWIW, I thought that remaing delgate should of gone to Edwards.
In Nevada, and in the caucus I was a part of, Obama recieved one more delegate than he should of. I saw it with my own eyes.
it went down like this...
In the room I was in, there was the Obama peeps, The Hillary Peeps and the Edwards peeps.
Obama had something like 78 people and divided by 15% (or some math like that), his number came out to 3.8, so they gave him 4 out of 7 delegates.
Hillary had the second most and her number came out 2.1. At first they gave her the remaining 3 delegates, but the room went into a tiff. They thought it should be rounded to 2, since 2.1 is closer to 2, not 3. Well since they couldnt give the remaining delegate to Edwards, the room demanded that it go to Obama, even though 3.8 is farther from 5 than 2.1 is from 3.
Yes, Obama had 2 mjore delegates than Hillary here in Nevada, but after what I saw, I wonder how true that really is.
FWIW, I thought that remaing delgate should of gone to Edwards.
Well, based on this...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/The_official_word_on_Nevadas_delegates.html
Statement by Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby
Regarding the Nevada Caucus
(Las Vegas, Nev.) “Today, two out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president. That is an overwhelming majority vote for a new direction. Just like in Iowa, what was awarded today were delegates to the county convention. No national convention delegates were awarded. The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.”
And...
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/NV.html
On Jan. 19, party caucuses meet in each precinct to choose delegates to county conventions. The delegates selected are not bound to any candidate. At the county conventions on Feb. 23, delegates to the state convention are chosen. They are not bound to any candidate. The state convention is April 18-20, during which delegates choose 25 of the 33 delegates to the national convention. Sixteen of the 25 delegates are allocated proportionally to presidential candidates based on the support for the candidates in each of the state’s three Congressional districts. Nine delegates are allocated to candidates based on the support among all of the delegates attending the convention. The remaining eight unpledged delegates are chosen from party leaders.
It doesn't really matter yet.
Carlota69
01-31-2008, 02:38 PM
Well, based on this...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/The_official_word_on_Nevadas_delegates.html
Statement by Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby
Regarding the Nevada Caucus
(Las Vegas, Nev.) “Today, two out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president. That is an overwhelming majority vote for a new direction. Just like in Iowa, what was awarded today were delegates to the county convention. No national convention delegates were awarded. The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.”
And...
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/NV.html
On Jan. 19, party caucuses meet in each precinct to choose delegates to county conventions. The delegates selected are not bound to any candidate. At the county conventions on Feb. 23, delegates to the state convention are chosen. They are not bound to any candidate. The state convention is April 18-20, during which delegates choose 25 of the 33 delegates to the national convention. Sixteen of the 25 delegates are allocated proportionally to presidential candidates based on the support for the candidates in each of the state’s three Congressional districts. Nine delegates are allocated to candidates based on the support among all of the delegates attending the convention. The remaining eight unpledged delegates are chosen from party leaders.
It doesn't really matter yet.
True...just saying the Caucus on the democrats part was a little off, and certainly not well organized. I was in the Obama camp, but I had a hard time with the way my room gave out the delegates.
True...just saying the Caucus on the democrats part was a little off, and certainly not well organized. I was in the Obama camp, but I had a hard time with the way my room gave out the delegates.
It's actually really confusing. I can see why it might be disorganized to a degree.
If I understand right (aside from the wait-till-April part), I don't get the impression that the room-specific math would have any impact on the outcome.
There are 25 national delegates total for the whole state. Obama is estimated to "get" 13 of them based on the distrubtion of his wins in the state. 12 are estimated to Hillary (though it seems not committed to either).
Based on my understanding, the one delegate difference you are refering to is out of something like 8,000 possible delegates throughout the state. That those 8000 will go to county conventions and vote for a smaller number to go to the state convention. Those will in turn vote to send 25 delegates to the national convention.
So your 1 is really 1/8000th of the procress. Not 1/25th of it.
Is that right?
Carlota69
01-31-2008, 03:11 PM
It's actually really confusing. I can see why it might be disorganized to a degree.
If I understand right (aside from the wait-till-April part), I don't get the impression that the room-specific math would have any impact on the outcome.
There are 25 national delegates total for the whole state. Obama is estimated to "get" 13 of them based on the distrubtion of his wins in the state. 12 are estimated to Hillary (though it seems not committed to either).
Based on my understanding, the one delegate difference you are refering to is out of something like 8,000 possible delegates throughout the state. That those 8000 will go to county conventions and vote for a smaller number to go to the state convention. Those will in turn vote to send 25 delegates to the national convention.
So your 1 is really 1/8000th of the procress. Not 1/25th of it.
Is that right?
The way it was explained to me in the room by the unbiased guy from Washington is this--
1) only 2 candidates are entitled to the delegates being awarded in that room (7 in this case).
2) they take each number of supporters for each candidate and divide it by 15% (or something like this--not exactly sure). That number represents how many delegates the candidate gets.
3)After calculating Obamas' numbers, which came out to 3.8, he was awarded 4 delegates, then 5 after the tiff.
4)Those 5 people went down to the courthouse (or somewhere official), representing Obama, and 2 went representing Hillary.
Thats how it was handled in Nevada. Weird I thought.
alnorth
01-31-2008, 03:38 PM
The way it was explained to me in the room by the unbiased guy from Washington is this--
1) only 2 candidates are entitled to the delegates being awarded in that room (7 in this case).
2) they take each number of supporters for each candidate and divide it by 15% (or something like this--not exactly sure). That number represents how many delegates the candidate gets.
3)After calculating Obamas' numbers, which came out to 3.8, he was awarded 4 delegates, then 5 after the tiff.
4)Those 5 people went down to the courthouse (or somewhere official), representing Obama, and 2 went representing Hillary.
Thats how it was handled in Nevada. Weird I thought.
jAZ's point is that the 1 person difference here was only a county delegate, so the outcome in your story is nearly irrelevant.
Its not a difference in the national delegates reported by the press, your 1 extra obama guy gets to vote for the guy who gets to vote for the delegates, so 2 people removed from the real thing.
Iowa works the same way, we only voted for the people who will move on to the county caucus, and they vote for people to the state caucus, who vote for Iowa's small share of the national delegates.
Carlota69
01-31-2008, 03:40 PM
jAZ's point is that the 1 person difference here was only a county delegate, so the outcome in your story is nearly irrelevant.
Its not a difference in the national delegates reported by the press, your 1 extra obama guy gets to vote for the guy who gets to vote for the delegates, so 2 people removed from the real thing.
Iowa works the same way, we only voted for the people who will move on to the county caucus, and they vote for people to the state caucus, who vote for Iowa's small share of the national delegates.
Fair enough. It was/is a new process for me...still trying to figure it out..
The way it was explained to me in the room by the unbiased guy from Washington is this--
1) only 2 candidates are entitled to the delegates being awarded in that room (7 in this case).
2) they take each number of supporters for each candidate and divide it by 15% (or something like this--not exactly sure). That number represents how many delegates the candidate gets.
3)After calculating Obamas' numbers, which came out to 3.8, he was awarded 4 delegates, then 5 after the tiff.
4)Those 5 people went down to the courthouse (or somewhere official), representing Obama, and 2 went representing Hillary.
Thats how it was handled in Nevada. Weird I thought.
I get it now. They couldn't send the extra one to Edwards because as you explain, they can only go to 2 candidates.
The math seems to have been screwed up, most definately.
That said, my point here is merely that the impact of the error isn't that Obama get 1 extra of the 25 delegates to the national convention.
Your room wasn't responsible for 7 of the 25 delegates.
But rather 7 of some much larger number (hundreds or thousands... maybe 8-10K) that will move on to the county convention and vote to send a smaller number to the state convention. And then those will vote on how to use the 25 delegates.
Carlota69
01-31-2008, 03:46 PM
I get it now. They couldn't send the extra one to Edwards because as you explain, they can only go to 2 candidates.
The math seems to have been screwed up, most definately.
That said, my point here is merely that the impact of the error isn't that Obama get 1 extra of the 25 delegates to the national convention.
Your room wasn't responsible for 7 of the 25 delegates.
But rather 7 of some much larger number (hundreds or thousands... maybe 8-10K) that will move on to the county convention and vote to send a smaller number to the state convention. And then those will vote on how to use the 25 delegates.
Gotcha. Like I said, the process is all very new to me...thanks for clearing it up for me. I was a little disturbed by what I saw. I'm glad to know that it may not have had the impact I thought it did. :thumb:
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.