I've been pretty light on the posting, but I am determined to predict nearly all of the primaries. I did miss the all important Wyoming Republican primary and I'm not predicting territorial or ex-pat primaries. Except for Puerto Rico, of course, which counts for more than Oregon despite not being able to vote in the General Election. Really. But I won't have a perfect attempt record. I do know I've attempted more primaries than Zogby. And I'm sure I've been more accurate.
As for Pennsylvania, Clinton wins by 6%. I thought Obama would catch her in six weeks, but apparently not. Pennsylvania is a pretty interesting state, both in the primary and the general. Of course, it rarely factors into the primaries. So, I really wonder about the polling. It's a lot harder to predict what a "likely voter" would be when turnout is expected to quadruple. And I think that says a lot about why the polling has been all over the map despite the pollsters being there for so long. Pennsylvania's history of irrelevance and corresponding low turnout in the primaries makes extrapolation of previous data to this election difficult. And I think the trend of Obama outperforming the polls still holds, but less so. Which is why I'm going on the low side of the spreads.
Some things to watch:
The Margin: Obviously. Clinton's campaign is becoming increasingly quixotic. But she won't even think about ending her campaign unless she loses by 10%. For what it's worth, Chris Mathews says she needs an 8% win. I don't see her going anywhere without a 15% win, followed by a 5% win in Indiana. And highly favorable rule changes on Michigan and Florida. And 30% wins in Puerto Rico, Kentucky, and West Virginia. And so on....
Bucks County: This is a traditional Republican county that has recently become very competitive. Polling there is very inconclusive, both for the primary and general elections. It's not really so much of an indicator of anything, but more a measure of what's really going on in Bucks county. Which is not clear.
Update: Well, Hillary not only won, but she beat the spread too. But she's like a 2-6 NFL team at midseason that just won their 3rd game. She's kept herself alive, but she didn't do anything to change the nearly insurmountable odds against her. But I think she's moved ahead of John Edwards now to become the third most likely candidate to win the nomination. She needs a convention floor fight to win, and I'd still favor Al Gore over Hillary to win that fight. I'm starting to think that on Inauguration Day, we will be in a four-way court battle between McCain, Bush, Obama, and Clinton over who should be president. I think the courts will call it for McCain. And, no, it doesn't matter what the actual legal issues are, they'll call it for McCain. As John Yoo has proved, legal arguments can be reversed depending on which side you want to win.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hey Tom!
Easy to say after the fact, but I'm not at all surprised by Clinton's victory last night. Obama and his staff have proven woefully inept at managing a frontrunner's agenda.
But none of this is really important. What's really important is this: all three remaining candidates appeared on an episode of WWE Monday Night Raw.
If this election was a television show, we'd say that was the night it jumped the shark.
Now I know that it's a great platform to reach people through a show that reaches millions, but good god, seriously "Do you smell what Barak is cooking?" Did that just really happen? Hill-Rod? McCainiacs?
Call me crazy, but instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator, how about we raise the level of public discourse in this country and talk about real issues?
What you gonna do when all the McCainiacs run wild on you?
I'm not sure the McCainiacs really can run wild. Aren't most of them in wheelchairs or at least need walkers? When I think of McCainiacs running wild, I think of the Monty Python sketch about the criminal gang of old ladies who go around mugging people.
As for raising the level of discourse, it won't happen. The media loves McCain and knows damn well he can't hold his own in a debate about real issues. So they won't bring any of them up. Look at McCain's Gas Tax Holiday proposal. It's probably the stupidest proposal ever made. So where's the media on it?
(crickets chirping)
Oh yeah, they won't talk about it because anyone whose taken a college level economics course knows that it won't save consumers any money because gasoline supply is inelastic in the summer.
Speaking of lowering the level of political discourse, check out the Rude Pundit, who proudly lowers the level of political discourse.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
I'd recommend the "John McCain is a Total Dick" post.
Now that I think about, I'm going to add the Rude Pundit to my links.
Okay, for the record, I will say that the Rude Pundit actually had the best coverage of Katrina. He's from New Orleans and drove there to live blog the Katrina aftermath from the French Quarter. He lived there for about two months. That's dedication to a story. Despite his language and attitude, he's actually a committed journalist and a very shrewd observer of politics. And funny as shit.
Oh, and as for Obama's campaign, he's playing a prevent defense. In the end, it's probably a smart move. Obama wants to preserve the "I'm a different kind of candidate" image. Being ruthless wouldn't really help that image. And, much as I dislike the prevent defense in the NFL, I think it works well as a campaign strategy. Miracles do happen in football, but they happen much more rarely in politics.
Speaking of "ruthless", anyone know the origin of the word? Does it come from the biblical story of Ruth (who was clearly not ruthless)? It's my favorite from the Hebrew Bible. She almost takes a Taoist attitude towards her predicament. And it's her compassion rather than ruthlessness that saves her.
Actually, I think the etymology is from the word "Rue", isn't it? Check out this link from the Online Etymology Dictionary: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ruthless&searchmode=none
Dave, you're correct.
Pete
Post a Comment