Why are you only using five polls from those four days? RCP has 18 polls between the 8th and 19th of April. (I even removed the American Research Group poll (12-13) that gave Clinton a twenty point lead, and left the one point Clinton lead from Zogby.) That average is also the same on RCP from 04/18 - 04/21. It averaged out to 6.1. That is not a significant difference, considering places like Zogby and Rasmussen have a "margin of error of +/- 4.1 percentage points."
Those eighteen polls averaged out to 6.1 (04/08 - 04/19). That was the same from the RCP average from 04/18 - 04/21. The "margin of error of +/- 4.1 percentage points" is the same or similar for places like Rasmussen and Zogby (I got that from the polls you picked out, Zogby had a more recent one with +/- 3.8). I think that makes more sense.
The Cat: Kudos on a hard fought victory for your candidate. Now what's next? What do you imagine to be her path to the nomination? Do you think she's going to receive the 75-80% victories she'll need in the remaining races to be competitive among pledged delegates? Or do you think she's going to receive the 65-70% of remaining super delegates to compensate for her deficit in pledged delegates? Beyond just saying it's not mathematically impossible for HRC to get the nomination, if we're going to continue this bloody battle, I'd love it if one of her supporters would suggest a credible path to victory for her. I don't think anybody believes she can be competitive among pledged delegates. Nor is it likely she can be competitive for the popular vote without successfully retroactively changing the rules and including MI and FL. Both of those ships sailed when her lead shrunk from 20 to 9 in PA. That leaves super delegates. Do you honestly believe they will break for Clinton in the extremely lopsided way she'd need them to? And, if so, when do you believe that will begin if not now?
First of all, it's a difference no matter how you slice it. Second, the reason I don't include those is that I am showing you the point in each race that Obama was at his peak. I don't care about the overall trend. I care about when Obama peaked, and if there was a significant downward trend after said peak, then the "theory" brought up in this thread was incorrect.
I have never said I believed Clinton would win this nomination (well, not in the past two months, anyway). I have repeatedly said over and over again that I expect Obama to win and plan on voting for him in November. So if you're asking for me to detail what I think will happen to get her the nomination, you're asking the wrong person. I do believe she can be competitive in the popular vote, if you include Florida (which in my opinion was fair) and give Obama the uncommitted support in Michigan, which was mostly his to begin with. I do think that is a compelling argument if that occurs -- that a majority of American voters participating in the Democratic primary selected her to be president. Do I think it will work? No, I don't. I fully expect superdelegates to break at some point in Obama's favor. He'll rack up the nomination, Clinton will support him, and he'll roll to a blowout victory in November. But at the moment, given how tight the popular vote is and the popular opinion is, I think it would be a mistake for Clinton to drop out. Her supporters are very enthused and very passionate, and she's earned the right to let the process play itself out and go from there. I think it would be a mistake for this party to push them away. Yes, it would make more sense if the Dems could turn to the general election in November. Yes, in a fair world there would've been even more of a national primary, and this would be over with. But it's not, and the rules call for a contest dragging on through June 3 -- there's nothing wrong with continuing the campaigns. Ideally, will the rules be altered for next time? Sure, but as you guys have said so often, the rules shouldn't be changed midway through the game. (Hell, if we want to talk fairness, eliminate the caucus system and the idiotic delegate distribution crap. I can't begin to talk about how silly and hypocritical the Democratic party is with all it's bull**** about wanting to "expand the map," when they punish any and all regions of a state that didn't vote for Kerry with fewer delegates. But, that's for 2012 and another thread. I'll digress.) The rules as of now stretch the primary season through June 3, and with the popular vote and opinion so close and with so much enthusiasm and money donated by Democratic voters to Clinton, I think it would be unwise to drop out.
Significant? No... It's a difference within the margin of error. No, it's not. You don't get to decide when it starts. It begins the day they both start campaigning in the state and it ends when the results come in. The theory is about the trend.
The choice is Clinton's. She can continue to batter Obama via negative campaigning and hope that the stars align and the superdelegates decide to reverse course and vote for the second place candidate, fight out a long legal battle about Michigan and Florida, and hope for a miraculous victory. All of this has probably a five to ten percent chance of happening. Or she can stop hurting the party's 90-95% nominee and stop helping the Republicans - the undeniable side effect of her campaign. The choice is hers. Is it a fair choice? No. Is it asking her to sacrifice? Yes...but - it's not unlike the choice Ralph Nader faced in 2000 - a choice that Hillary was reportedly LIVID about him making - but it's her choice nonetheless.
Why don't you tell me the theory (to you), then? I feel like I'm arguing an abstract, and I want to make sure I understand what you're claiming before I respond to that.
That's the fundamental disagreement I have. If I believed this would hurt the Democrats, I'd really think twice about my position. But I firmly believe this will help Obama or Clinton in the fall.
Her path may be to smear Obama enough for him to lose to McCain in the General, then come back in 4 years to take her crown. Remember, her life's ambition is to win the Presidency. If Obama wins this thing, that ambition is t*** up.
I can kind of see that from the enthusiasm, interest, and turnout coming from each state. But you're underestimating the Republican spin machine if you think they won't turn this protracted battle into a negative.
Thanks for the reasoned response, The Cat. A couple quibbles: ON FL AND MI: Seating FL and MI proportionate to the renegade primaries they held IS changing the rules in the middle of the game. Considering those totals toward the popular vote is disingenuous as well. Clinton herself said, "It's clear Michigan won't count" back when she was campaigning in Iowa and NH. Moreover the 55-40 split in MI is totally arbitrary for two major reasons. Number one, it's impossible to divine the leanings of the uncommitted voters. Number two, it's impossible to divine the leanings of the HRC voters if they'd had the opportunity to vote for Obama (or Edwards or anyone else for that matter). And I think it's just intuitively true that when only one major candidate is on the ballot he or she is going to get a disproportionate percentage of the vote. Michigan was the only state in which the race was between Hillary and not-Hillary. Results of such a race have no place in the popular vote count -- especially when it was a renegade race, held with prior understanding on the part of all candidates, the DNC, the state party and all of the voters as well as the agreement on the part of all candidates that it would not and SHOULD NOT matter -- particularly when the popular vote count is so important to arguments concerning our ultimate nominee. Florida's a little bit of a different story, but not much of one. In this case as well, all candidates agreed that nothing about the Florida primary should matter. Arguing in favor of those vote totals counting toward ANYTHING at this point constitutes changing the rules in the middle of the game. And I just have to say here that arguments involving words like "disenfranchisement" or "undemocratic" are particularly dishonest and destructive. If Hillary or anyone in her campaign had any issue whatsoever with the DNC ruling on FL or MI, she or they ought to have said so then -- and taken the lumps they would have taken in IA and NH for doing so. This is not about principled stands or what's right and they know it and I assume you do too. It is about doing whatever they can to eke out a victory up to and including changing the rules in the middle of the game. And when they use those words and suggest that the Democratic frontrunner is trying to disenfranchise voters, that is extremely harmful in states we will need to win in the fall. I absolutely agree FL and MI need to be seated. But there is absolutely no way anyone can argue, in fairness, that the vote totals in those races should count in any determinative way toward the outcome of this primary race. ON WHETHER OR NOT AN EXTENDED RACE IS HARMFUL: I agree with you that we have races scheduled through June 3 and those races should occur. Further I agree that no one should be bullied into removing himself or herself from consideration in those races. BUT... This kitchen sink stuff IS damaging to our party and it ought to stop. If Hillary wants to stay in and argue she's more electable, better on the issues, more experienced, a better Democrat, whatever, fine. But given the status of this race now and the extreme likelihood that Obama will be the nominee, her campaign is doing a lot of stuff that's out of bounds. If you want me to itemize this list, I will; I assume my past posts will suffice. Meanwhile, Obama, while he has responded to criticism, while he fought back some and has hit Hillary on things like trade, has absolutely not thrown the kitchen sink at her. Nary a mention of Whitewater, cattle futures, impeachment or any other familiar scandal (and we will hear ALL about those in the fall if she wins), virtually no mention about phantom snipers, Chelsea on 9/11, etc, and virtually no vetting of the myriad unknown donors to the Clinton Foundation. All this while Hillary is all too happy to make hay of the bitter comments and to talk about Wright, Rezko and Ayres. Do you honestly believe Obama couldn't come up with some bad Clinton associates in kind? So why isn't he hitting her like she's hitting him? Two reasons. First, his campaign is premised on a different sort of politics. Second, while she is necessarily engaged in trying to tear Obama down and make him appear incredibly flawed as a candidate (the only way she can win), he is necessarily engaged in reaching out to her voters and not offending them such that he can bring them into the fold for the general. She's throwing sinks while he's defending with one hand tied behind his back. I don't mind her staying in the race, but I don't one bit like the way she's doing it because I think it's very bad for our chances in the general election. I expect a lot of super delegates feel the same way.
I'm not your "brah." Jorge is. And what is this "brah" stuff anyway? Are you some kind of pothead, hackey sack playing surfer? "Ending the race" would constitute a change in the rules, sure. But nobody's ever suggested that. "Ending the race" would mean cancelling the primaries or taking Clinton's name off the ballot. Suggesting to her she should drop out for the good of the party is not changing any rules; in fact, it's not especially uncommon in cases where one candidate has very little chance of winning. Not only has no one attempted to force her out of the race or off the ballot -- it would be impossible to do so. And suggesting to super delegates that they should commit to a candidate is not only not a change in rules but is a thing that both campaigns (and every campaign ever) are actively engaged in. Nobody has ever argued for a rule change on Obama's behalf.
There's a very fine line between changing the rules and crucifying Hillary in the press and in the liberal blogs for staying in the race. While no, the DNC hasn't advocated "changing the rules", they've doing everything possible to force the issue upon Hillary
Hillary is leading in the popular vote count, yet some of these Obamatrons think she is 'damaging the party' by continuing to campaign. What planet do these 'trons live on? Unreal.
Sorry, I missed this post. But who's to say they were leaving out the other four states, as mc mark was claiming? Estimating those states by the percentage and turnout, she still leads.
