tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post2283559304677479218..comments2010-01-24T15:31:12.814-05:00Nate Silverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08334852368748204318noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-31160675701493398752009-02-10T06:42:00.000-05:002009-02-10T06:42:00.000-05:00<A HREF="http://toytoytoytoytoytoy.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://toytoytoytoytoytoy.com/front/bin/home.phtml" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://toytoytoytoytoytoy.com/front/bin/ptlist.phtml?Category=258265" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://toytoytoytoytoytoy.com/front/bin/ptlist.phtml?Category=300129/#q15" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://toytoytoytoytoytoy.com/front/bin/ptlist.phtml?Category=258267" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://toytoytoytoytoytoy.com/front/bin/forum.phtml?bbcode=" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://toytoytoytoytoytoy.com/front/bin/ptlist.phtml?Category=258277" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://78cf.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://78kb.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://78pl.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://78bk.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://omb1.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://6lv9.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://6lv6.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://6ea9.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://6ea6.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://6ck9.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://6ck6.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://0lv0.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://0ea0.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://0ck0.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://8bl8.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://8kb8.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://8bk8.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://8dl8.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://8ea8.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://8bv8.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://8ct8.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://8pr8.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://8dh8.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://8br8.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://7bl7.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://7kb7.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://7dl7.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://7lv7.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://7ea7.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://7bv7.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://7ct7.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://7ck7.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://7dh7.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://7br7.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣用品</A>,<A HREF="http://toytoytoytoytoytoy.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://toytoytoytoytoytoy.com/front/bin/home.phtml" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://toytoytoytoytoytoy.com/front/bin/ptlist.phtml?Category=258265" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://toytoytoytoytoytoy.com/front/bin/ptlist.phtml?Category=300129/#q15" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://toytoytoytoytoytoy.com/front/bin/ptlist.phtml?Category=258267" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://toytoytoytoytoytoy.com/front/bin/forum.phtml?bbcode=" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://toytoytoytoytoytoy.com/front/bin/ptlist.phtml?Category=258277" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://78cf.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://78kb.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://78pl.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://78bk.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://omb1.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://6lv9.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://6lv6.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://6ea9.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://6ea6.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://6ck9.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://6ck6.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://0lv0.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF="http://0ea0.com/" REL="nofollow">情趣</A>,<A HREF=信次http://www.blogger.com/profile/02481689321253585436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-71539774524372532222008-04-28T09:50:06.947-04:002008-04-28T09:50:06.947-04:00Subject: In just 16 Months<BR/><BR/>Part 1<BR/><BR/>In just 16 months.. Remember the election in 2006?<BR/> Thought you might like to read the following:<BR/> A little over 16 MONTHS ago:<BR/> <BR/>1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;<BR/>2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;<BR/>3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.<BR/> <BR/>Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:<BR/> <BR/>1) Consumer confidence plummet;<BR/>2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;<BR/>3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);<BR/>4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);<BR/>5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;<BR/>6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.<BR/> <BR/>America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!<BR/> <BR/>Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work<BR/>with what's handed to him.<BR/><BR/>Quote of the Day........"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to<BR/>change it."<BR/>-- Barack Obama<BR/><BR/>Part 2:<BR/>Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics<BR/>enlightening and amazing.<BR/> www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html<BR/>http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html <BR/><BR/>Taxes under Clinton 1999 <BR/>Taxes under Clinton 1999-:Single making 30K - tax $8,400. Taxes under Bush 2008:Single making 30K -tax $4,500.<BR/>Taxes under Clinton 1999-Single making 50K - tax $14,000. Taxes under Bush 2008: Single making 50K - tax $12,500.<BR/>Taxes under Clinton 1999- Single making 75K - tax $23,250. Taxes under Bush 2008: Single making 75K - tax $18,750.<BR/>Taxes under Clinton 1999-Married making 60K - tax $16,800. Taxes under Bush 2008: Married making 60K- tax $9,000.<BR/>Taxes under Clinton 1999-Married making 75K - tax $21,000. Taxes under Bush 2008: Married making 75K - tax $18,750.<BR/>Taxes under Clinton 1999-Married making 125K - tax $38,750. Taxes under Bush 2008: Married making 125K - tax $31,250.<BR/><BR/>Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates.<BR/><BR/>It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever.<BR/><BR/>If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even<BR/>know what happened.<BR/><BR/> PART 3:<BR/>You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:<BR/><BR/>Boy, am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.<BR/><BR/>I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them.<BR/><BR/>I have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.<BR/><BR/>1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments. <BR/><BR/>Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77 http://tinyurl.com/zob77<BR/><BR/>2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.<BR/><BR/>Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal<BR/>aliens.<BR/> Verify at:<BR/>http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html<BR/><BR/>4.$12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary<BR/>School education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!<BR/> Verify at:<BR/>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html<BR/><BR/> 5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the<BR/>American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.<BR/> Verify at<BR/>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.<BR/> Verify at:<BR/>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.<BR/> Verify at:<BR/>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html<BR/><BR/> 8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.<BR/><BR/>Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused<BR/>by the illegal aliens.<BR/><BR/>Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html<BR/><BR/>10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's<BR/>two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,<BR/>their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.<BR/> Verify at:<BR/>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html<BR/><BR/>11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens<BR/>that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.<BR/><BR/> Verify at: Homeland Security Report:<BR/>http://tinyurl.com/t9sht <BR/><BR/>12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period."<BR/> Verify at:<BR/>http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf<BR/><BR/>13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to<BR/>their countries of origin.<BR/> Verify at:<BR/>http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm<BR/><BR/>14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex<BR/>Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ."<BR/> Verify at:<BR/>http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml <BR/><BR/>The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. <BR/><BR/>Are we THAT stupid?<BR/>If this doesn't bother you then just ignore this message. If, on the other hand, it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in Washington , D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restore some semblance of intelligence in our policies and<BR/>enforcement thereof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-3533158970006307332008-04-27T16:41:05.243-04:002008-04-27T16:41:05.243-04:00'Why aren't we counting the "votes" from France and Germany?'<BR/><BR/>Actually -- we are. US citizens, registered Democratic, living in France or Germany, voted in the "Democrats Abroad" primary. Obama won.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-74552530509116667092008-04-25T17:48:14.532-04:002008-04-25T17:48:14.532-04:00In your turnout model, do you include a variable as to whether or not the Republican race has been decided? This should be a big factor.<BR/><BR/>You could, for example, use a measure for the competitiveness of the Republican nomination, as measured by the entropy of the distribution of delegates among remaining candidates.<BR/><BR/>I suspect you will find that you have in general underestimated turnout.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-50061597738404381002008-04-24T12:49:25.088-04:002008-04-24T12:49:25.088-04:00"What about the fact that people residing in Puerto Rico and Guam have ZERO votes in the Electoral College? Why aren't we counting the "votes" from France and Germany?"<BR/><BR/>Puerto Ricans and Guamians(?) are US citizens; French and Germans are not. The US President is their head of state; he or she is not for Germans and French.Another Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-87354982925687148812008-04-24T12:00:25.440-04:002008-04-24T12:00:25.440-04:00Poblano,<BR/><BR/>have you done any analysis of "caucus effects", compared to either pre-caucus poll numbers or the demographic profiles of voters in similar primary states?<BR/><BR/>Turnout behavior and expectations differed dramatically between caucus and primary states - so "popular" vote arguments may be apples-and-oranges comparisons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-33228390134422167132008-04-24T10:07:07.080-04:002008-04-24T10:07:07.080-04:00The popular vote count that includes caucus estimates should include the Texas caucuses. Approximately 1.1 million people spent hours voting in those caucuses because they were told their votes would count. That's as many people as voted in the entire "big state" of New Jersey. Good luck telling them their votes count for nothing -- it just won't fly.<BR/><BR/>I think the best way to deal with popular vote in combined caucus-primary states is a weighted average based on the DNC weights (aka delegates). <BR/><BR/>So for Washington, we would have:<BR/><BR/>1 vote =<BR/>(0/78) * Primary vote +<BR/>(78/78) * Caucus vote<BR/><BR/>For Texas:<BR/><BR/>1 vote =<BR/>(126/193) * Primary vote +<BR/>(67/193) * Caucus vote<BR/><BR/>This is consistent with how the voters were told their votes would count, which makes it the most reasonable way to estimate popular vote. We just need to make people aware of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-22796167453911898992008-04-24T05:59:57.102-04:002008-04-24T05:59:57.102-04:00Ikl:<BR/><BR/>I don't think people will say that Indiana is 'prime' Obama territory, but it's the last state left where the demographics are relatively even between the candidates.<BR/><BR/>For example you can consider the percentage of residents over 65 (2006 census)<BR/><BR/>Indiana - 12.4%<BR/>Ohio - 13.3%<BR/>Penn - 15.2%<BR/><BR/>That's quite a big shift in the population demographic and makes the state actually contestable.<BR/><BR/>The other demographic that favours Obama is that the rural vote in Indiana is smaller than Ohio and Pennsylvania. A large proportion of the vote will come from Indianapolis and the industrial Gary.<BR/><BR/>Obama is likely to be strong in both places. In the former because he generally does well in the cities, and in the latter because that region is covered by the Chicago media market.<BR/><BR/>By contrast however Hillary has the advantage of the bigger Democratic endorsements which will provide organisations.<BR/><BR/>We can also look at the African-American demographic which tends to break for Obama.<BR/><BR/>Indiana - 8.9%<BR/>Ohio - 12.0%<BR/>Penn - 10.7%<BR/><BR/>So basically the 'core' support of both candidates is a lesser influence in this state and so both have a good chance of getting a victory.Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-47343993818229034812008-04-24T01:53:14.243-04:002008-04-24T01:53:14.243-04:00I don't understand why folks think that Indiana is a good state for Obama. Other than the northwest part being in the Chicago media market, I can't think of any reason that the state would be particularly good for him.<BR/><BR/>Poblano, what saith your model?iklnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-13239971820515674662008-04-24T00:55:41.469-04:002008-04-24T00:55:41.469-04:00For anyone in need of a good laugh, here are Barone's other predictions:<BR/><BR/>IN +20% for Clinton<BR/>NC -10%<BR/>WV +40%<BR/>KT +30%<BR/>OR -10%<BR/>PR +30%<BR/>MT +20%<BR/>SD +20%<BR/><BR/>He also predicted +20% for Clinton in PA. The only reason he wasn't off by 200,000+ votes is that turnout exceeded even optimistic expectations. His NC through OR predictions are semi-plausible, but the rest are certifiable.voshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-57013579944242192782008-04-24T00:48:36.625-04:002008-04-24T00:48:36.625-04:00brian dell: Barone was off by 155,000 votes in PA. His projections, even from his admitted standpoint of being optimistic for Clinton, are completely delusional and yet another prime example of the establishment media's intellectual bankruptcy. "Journalists" like Barone are the past; Bloggers poblano are the future.voshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-31429611821840596392008-04-24T00:38:07.891-04:002008-04-24T00:38:07.891-04:00Hillary supposedly signed this <A HREF="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf" REL="nofollow">DNC pledge</A> last year-- it makes her look like a pretty big hypocrite for making the argument that Florida and Michigan should be included as part of the popular vote count. (Something that I heard McAuliffe try and argue today.) <BR/><BR/>Here is the important part:<BR/><BR/>THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge<BR/><B>I shall not campaign or participate</B> in any state which schedules a presidential<BR/>election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,<BR/>Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by<BR/>rules and regulations of the DNC.<BR/><BR/>It's a pretty simple argument-- Hillary agreed to the rules beforehand <I>in writing</I> and now says they don't apply. She didn't agree to a popular vote contest or a Biggest States Won contest. She agreed to the system we have and is trying to change the rules mid-game.zoe in pittsburghnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-46464888790009691132008-04-24T00:27:43.275-04:002008-04-24T00:27:43.275-04:00"Nobody but nobody ... is going to give her credit for the uncontested primary in Michigan"<BR/><BR/>That's perfectly sound coming from a blogger, but when it's coming from a numbers guy talking about what the probabilities say, the statement is a bit too categorical. It makes the reader a bit skeptical of the numbers.<BR/><BR/>Michael Barone is still arguing that Hillary has a chance that doesn't require an earth shaking move in the polls.Brian Dellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01987594019787137564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-63149063242095652212008-04-24T00:10:02.521-04:002008-04-24T00:10:02.521-04:00You are the man. Really. I even assign your posts to my research methods class.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-67427547733838734612008-04-23T23:45:06.215-04:002008-04-23T23:45:06.215-04:00What about the fact that people residing in Puerto Rico and Guam have ZERO votes in the Electoral College?<BR/>Why aren't we counting the "votes" from France and Germany?Dave Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07355264650239868491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-23674117414606577702008-04-23T23:28:02.228-04:002008-04-23T23:28:02.228-04:00I can't think of a defeat margin in North Carolina and Indiana big enough to make Clinton pass up the massacre that Kentucky and West Virginia promise to be. <BR/><BR/>There will be a Kentucky and West Virginia primary.<BR/><BR/>I suspect she's convention bound in just about any scenario, and they'll have to drag her out kicking and screaming if she doesn't win the nomination.<BR/><BR/>But you can get a clue of the disaster that awaits Obama in those states by looking at the margins in the counties in far western Virginia and southeastern Ohio.<BR/><BR/>Even the western tip of North Carolina will be embarassing for Obama, but he'll more than make it up in the rest of the state.jakamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06765581865708942475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-70002812659881689272008-04-23T23:25:55.946-04:002008-04-23T23:25:55.946-04:00I love this site!<BR/><BR/>Michael Barone and others gave me my introduction to political geography with the Almanac of American Politics, which I have read and mostly admired every two years in the last three decades. But, he has since turned hard right. I believe he is the one who has started the ball rolling with a pseudo-serious analysis of the "popular vote" this season.<BR/><BR/>My two big objections: 1) So What? 2) How about a "Best Obama" scenario that takes the percentage delegate wins in caucus states and multiplies them by a factor to correct for typical primary turnout? In other words, why continue to ignore the overwhelming and perverse effect of disregarding the popular support in states with a long tradition, blessed by party rules, of using caucuses?Eulenspiegelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-35743601511060941092008-04-23T23:19:52.963-04:002008-04-23T23:19:52.963-04:00If Obama wins Indiana (and North Carolina), I'm not sure that there will be a Kentucky primary. But -- yeah, the states are a mess for him. There were three or four counties in Tennessee where Obama lost to *John Edwards*.Poblanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12585231813495339389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-36565215403747380412008-04-23T23:10:50.764-04:002008-04-23T23:10:50.764-04:00Oops...that -187,000 should be a +87,000.jakamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06765581865708942475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-66977884518363839962008-04-23T23:09:15.522-04:002008-04-23T23:09:15.522-04:00I think your margin of victory for Clinton in WV and KY would be that high only if all the contests were held on the same day. Although momentum hasn't counted too much this cycle, you have to believe that if Obama wins both NC and IN(as we predicted) her margin would not go higher than 20%. And remember, She only win two states so far with a 20+ margin.jr1886http://www.blogger.com/profile/03162835485455843393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-68249955285000026422008-04-23T23:00:01.286-04:002008-04-23T23:00:01.286-04:00Unfortunately, I think you underestimate KY and WV. Obama might make a small dent with campaigning, but the demographics are such that Obama will be lucky to get much closer than a 25-30 point margin.<BR/><BR/>My guesses:<BR/><BR/>NC: -22%<BR/>IN: -07%<BR/>WV: +23%<BR/>KY: +28%<BR/>OR: -17%<BR/>MT: -14%<BR/>SD: -11%<BR/>PR: +25%<BR/><BR/>Total Clinton Votes: -187,000jakamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06765581865708942475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-70486690387667978892008-04-23T22:52:23.782-04:002008-04-23T22:52:23.782-04:00My own projection, not based on a model but pure guesses, is very similar to what you model predicted. I disagree with a few of your projections:<BR/><BR/>Here're the states where we differ<BR/><BR/>Oregon-I peg the turnout at 70% vs. just 55% according to your model.Ithink because of their singular voting process and usually they turnout in great numbers, their turnout will be about 70% of the Kerry's total-so,660,000<BR/><BR/>Kentucky: 65% of Kerry's total may tunout-I used Oklahoma's turnout as precedent and I got 463,000<BR/>South Dakota: I put it at about 59.7% of kery's total-89,000<BR/><BR/>All the other states, my guesses are in agreement with your model.<BR/><BR/>Winning and losing margins:my prediction for now<BR/><BR/>NC:-17%<BR/>IN:-6%<BR/>WV:+18%<BR/>KY:+20%<BR/>OR:-14%<BR/>MT:-18%<BR/>SD:-15%<BR/>Puerto Rico:+15%<BR/>Total net Clinton Votes:-154,000<BR/><BR/>Basically, She only get +67,000 votes with PA included(without PA she will lose -154,000 votes). So, she has no way of catching up with Obama on the popular vote barring a major scandaljr1886http://www.blogger.com/profile/03162835485455843393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-26383991887634635242008-04-23T22:33:30.006-04:002008-04-23T22:33:30.006-04:00vosh:If only it mattered. Clinton supporters don't care about Hillary's hypocrisy and duplicity. If they did, they wouldn't be Clinton supporters anymore.<BR/><BR/>Terry McAuliffe was on CNN earlier claiming that the Obama camp went totally negative in the days before Pennsylvania voted, and that Hillary didn't, even in response. And Hillary's supporters will tell you that that's the truth.<BR/><BR/>Fortunately, media venues like the New York Times, and more importantly, the vast majority of superdelegates are having none of it.jakamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06765581865708942475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-35746171307916653112008-04-23T22:24:17.821-04:002008-04-23T22:24:17.821-04:00Outstanding, poblano. I was hoping for a breakdown of these hypotheticals. <BR/><BR/>Obama supporters: Every time Clinton supporters assert it's fair to count Michigan, direct them to Clinton saying Michigan "will not count for anything": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg<BR/><BR/>Florida should not count either, obviously, because the voters were told it would not count, Obama was not allowed to campaign and that drove down turnout. <BR/><BR/>Obama gains a lot of ground everywhere he campaigns. In order to even win the DNC+1 count, Clinton is not only going to have to stop that trend - she'll have to turn it completely on its head. Not happening.voshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4257917002416684161.post-80578491727234915432008-04-23T22:18:26.275-04:002008-04-23T22:18:26.275-04:00I think any surprise candidate other than Clinton or Obama (Gore, Edwards, what have you) is a recipe for automatic GE failure. It's too undemocratic, and would be a terrible precedent to set for all of the "new" voters.<BR/><BR/>But I absolutely agree that superdelegates are already following the national Clinton v. Obama numbers (which Obama has done beter for some time) and the national matchups vs. McCain, which Obama has had the edge in for some time.<BR/><BR/>On Hillary and negative attacks...in the days heading into Pennsylvania, she pretty much exhausted her negative issues against Obama. They're all out there now. The best thing Obama can do now is not give her anything new. He is wise to reject anymore debates. Debates are a theatrical farce anyways, and 21 is more than enough. I would advise him going forward to not fall into the trap of joining Hillary in the negative game. It's hard to just ignore her when she makes negative comments, but that's actually exactly exactly what he needs to do now. Negativity will go over less well in Indiana than in Pennsylvania...he'll really help himself by taking the high road in the next 14 days. <BR/><BR/>It's the "politics of hope" candidate that superdelegates fell in love with in February. That's the candidate he needs to re-become. If he does, the nomination is his, and Hillary spontaneously combusts. If he joins her in the gutter, he'll get burned too.jakamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06765581865708942475noreply@blogger.com