Zogby Predicts Obama Rout In California

By Big Tent Democrat

And if Zogby is right, Barack Obama wins the nomination tonight, not on delegates, but on winning. [NOTE: I do not believe Zogby is an honest pollster, I believe he is a disingenuous pundit.]

Zogby has Obama winning by 13 points in California. If that happens, it is over. No spin. No excuses. Of course if Hillary wins by double digits, as SurveyUSA predicts, then I believe Hillary wins the nomination tonight also.

I know, I know, the race "goes on," but it will largely be over in either scenario imo. Of course, if it is neither scenario, we will have to look to the other states to see if tonight effectively ends the the race. And yes, I believe winning is more important than the exact delegate count tonight. No matter what the Media says.

More . . .

While Zogby tells us that Obama wins men (55-29) and women (45-42), Survey USA has Clinton winning women by 62-33. Also, Zogby hints that his polling has Latinos being a very narrow Clinton advantage while SurveyUSA has Latinos going big for Clinton by 67-31.

SurveyUSA's predicted turnout demos are also interesting. Survey USA expects Latinos to make up 26% of the electorate and African Americans to be only 9% (Obama wins the A-A vote 72-25.)

Finally Survey USA expects women to make up 57% of the electorate. Thus despite having Obama win men 54-39, Clinton's near 2-1 lead with women would garner Clinton a big victory.

The differences here are clear. Zogby expects Obama to do very well with women and Latinos. SurveyUSA does not.

Tonight will tell the tale.

< Hillary On Hallmark Channel Now: Town Hall Meeting | Hillary's Anti-Triangulation On Universal Health Care >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well I hope he wins (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:41:35 AM EST
    for selfish reasons.  

    1.  I agree with Karl Rove, Hillary has too big of negatives.  Why?  Greatly because the media hates her with their every breath. It's pathetic, but it's also the truth, as we've said right here. (On TV the other night, Arianna literally HISSED when talked about Hillary.  I've decided she's a crude jackass to be that way about someone in "her own" (LOL) party.  She obviously has no loyalty to the D's).  

    2. I want the Obamatown supporters to see what REAL  unfair treatment is.  I also want Obama and Mrs. Cookie Baking loyal-only-to-herself Obama to see what it is.  As soon as we have a candidate, the treatment will come. I keep looking at McCain and thinking, no way will this guy be elected.  I also thought that about Bush's first and second terms.  Obama isn't good under pressure -- he's never actually had relatively any pressure as a candidate -- and he's going to get pressure like he's never had it before.

    3. One of the best things for the D's in the longterm is to stop trashing the brand of a successful presidency (Clinton).  The long primary means the continual trashing and is only good for Republicans.  If it takes an Obama win in the primary to do that, then so be it.

    4. I want people like Kos, Aravosis, Marshall to see what their partisan divisiveness has done to their own readership, because once Obama wins, I think the Obamatown Supporters will find another hobby -- I really have the feeling that politics is team sports to them.

    5. And I've said elsewhere, given that Obama has already thrown my issue under the bus (healthcare) I don't personally think it would be horrible if we had McCain with a huge majority in Congress -- a majority of REAL D's, not Kos-Bluedog D's.  McCain's more rabid Supreme Court judges wouldn't get through.  And he could wallow in the Republican war, rather than pinning the blame for it on the D.

    So there are my thought.  I gotta stop looking at this stuff and get something else done today....


    team sports (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by eric on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:15:57 AM EST
    iI want people like Kos, Aravosis, Marshall to see what their partisan divisiveness has done to their own readership, because once Obama wins, I think the Obamatown Supporters will find another hobby -- I really have the feeling that politics is team sports to them.

    Well said.  Reading about people doing "the wave" at the Iowa caucuses started to get me wondering...


    This is silly. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:44:36 AM EST
    Everyone knows Californians hate the PATRIOT Act, so it's Gravel in a landslide.

    what does this say about Obama (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:08:55 AM EST
    Interesting diary at kos (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jen on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:17:48 AM EST
    Zogby Analyst is Obama Superdelegate

    small snippet from diary:

    So, it's interesting to note that one of the senior analysts with Zogby Polling -- the pollster who is predicting big Obama wins for today -- is also a major Obama superdelegate.

    There is no proof, ofcourse, of any bias resulting from this apparent juxtaposition, but this is nevertheless an interesting part of today's picture.

    Unfortunately, the link to the article is by subscription only.

    This nugget certainly provides. . . (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:47:07 AM EST
    support for BTDs opinion of Zogby.

    I'm trying (none / 0) (#91)
    by zyx on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:11:20 PM EST
    to figure out more why the Zogby poll is so very different from all the others.  

    I don't have THE answer, but there is interesting information to be gleaned if you just go to google's regular page and put, in quotes, "Zogby is".  Look at the first few screens.

    I know most polling operations are going to have some bad calls over time, but it seems that Zogby is particularly controversial, and not just for past bad calls.


    It's about who wins. (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:57:05 AM EST
    If Obama wins the popular vote and loses the delegate race, it's about the popular vote. If he loses the popular vote and wins the delegates, it's about the delegates. Short of a Clinton blowout, all of the pre-analysis has claimed Obama the winner tonight period.

    Zogby and the others (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Grey on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:59:33 PM EST
    I never believe Zogby and, today, it's for 4 reasons:

    1.  Survey USA has the CA race going 52-42 for Clinton.

    2. Gallup's national tracking poll today has Clinton at +5 with Obama stalling at 42.

    3. Ramussen's national tracking poll has Clinton at +7.

    4. Both Gallup and Rasmussen's national tracking polls are seeing sizeable movement toward Clinton.

    It's close, Obama has a degree of momentum, but I say Clinton takes California today.

    Random prediction (none / 0) (#1)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:33:14 AM EST
    Delegates won today: Obama 873, Clinton 815.

    As far as the polls.. Zogby's numbers are out of the mainstream, but the feeling that you get looking at the polls combined, is that Obama still has momentum and late deciders will break for him.

    Zogby has large undecideds though (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:30:20 AM EST
    That is a big factor...Susa had low undecideds...every poll I have seen that Zogby has seeming to be out on a limb has high undecideds...could this be a part of the difference he consistently has? (His CA Romney leading poll also has a large number of undecideds...and seems to be an outliers too)

    If you look at the spreads too for error rate...Zogby seems to be nailing the Republican races and missing on the Dem ones.


    Good link (none / 0) (#40)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:37:35 AM EST
    It's been a bad polling season for them.

    Funny how that works (none / 0) (#2)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:42:30 AM EST
    watching the media I've been feeling like Obama has had the momentum nonstop from the very beginning.  Nothing is ever bad for Obama.  Must be nice to be him.

    Regarding Zogby, this is his chance to gain some credibility.  Maybe one of his darts hit the bullseye on this one.


    Zogby's CA numbers are funky all around (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:44:07 AM EST
    He also has Mittens in a rout, while SUSA says that the Republican side is a dead heat.

    SUSA is a more reliable pollster, so I'm going with them.

    andgarden (none / 0) (#5)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:47:22 AM EST
    Can you explain?  The only thing I know about Zogby is what I saw when he was on John Stewart, which led me to believe he is an arrogant, partisan pr*ck.  Has SUSA been proven against Zogby?  Is there some bit of history I don't know about?

    I think Zogby's M.O. is to cook his polls (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:50:04 AM EST
    to get the result that he wants.

    SUSA is, in my experience, reliable. They haven't been stellar this primary season, though, and they wimped out from polling Iowa.


    That is precisely what he does (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:56:29 AM EST

    i think his powers of diviniation (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:58:04 AM EST
    are comparable to bill kristol's.  so i am pretty confident in that 52% that clinton has been getting in what i consider to be much more reliable data points.  

    that number is actually a little off her numbers in michigan and florida.  she got majorities in both those places.  

    i noticed josh and kos were kind of deflating expectations a little this weekend.

    but i can see the drudge headline for tomorrow now:  "obama miracle:  gets 40% in california!  still in delegate race, vows to fight on"


    Jon Stewart? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:42:14 AM EST
    And not the recently-deceased John Stewart, folksinger, member of the Kingston Trio?

    As I recall, Zogby was the only pollster who claimed to have seen a push towards Clinton in the days before New Hampshire.


    his own tracking poll showed the opposite (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:46:21 AM EST
    in the days prior to New Hampshire, even up until the night before he was showing momentum in the Obama direction...  His commentary on the morning of NH also spoke to that belief.

    He is full of charlatoni.


    Zogby called NH for Obama by 13%! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:39:39 AM EST
    according to my notes from NH (am I a political junkie or what?).  He was only off by . . . 16%.

    Zogby has turned the science of polling into silliness, almost single-handedly.


    Zogby is a gull monty (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:53:44 AM EST

    You should know this by now.

    He may throw a dart and get it right but it has nothing to do with polling.


    I know a guy who made a pile (none / 0) (#30)
    by scribe on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:01:32 AM EST
    in the dot-com boom of the late 90s, picking stocks by literally pinning the stock pages to the wall of the break room, and then tossing darts at them.  He was building management, i.e., the front-desk guard/greeter guy, not some stock market genius.  But his bank account looked like he was.

    Zogby's degenerated into that sort of genius - a dart thrower who got lucky in the past and parlayed that into an undeserved reputation.

    Oh, and "charlatoni" - is that a shape of pasta I've never heard of?  Sounds like it would taste good.


    I came up with Charlatoni (none / 0) (#32)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:12:49 AM EST
    and I am quite proud of it.

    With courtesy and respect (none / 0) (#52)
    by Lora on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:07:40 AM EST

    I would like to know a few specifics about Zogby which leads you to the conclusion that his polls are false.

    I have no interest in proving him right or wrong.

    I am curious because of your strong stance on Zogby without providing particulars (I read 17 of your recent posts that referenced Zogby to try and find them.

    The score card linked above by Virginian shows Zogby's error rate at 10 out of 28, a little better than middle.

    Why do you think you cannot trust his polls?


    Correction (none / 0) (#55)
    by Lora on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:09:00 AM EST
    I meant Zogby's error rate RANK.

    Go back to my 2004 diaries at dkos (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:33:50 AM EST
    I explain it in depth.

    I WILL give you one example from THIS year.

    In Iowa, Zogby had Clinton with a 5 or 6 point lead. Then the DMR poll came out which polled the SAME period that Zogby had polled and the DMR poll showed Obama up 6.

    LO AND BEHOLD, the NEXT DAY, Zogby had it even, the day AFTER THAT hehad Obama up 5.

    He is NOT a pollster. He is a charlatan.

    He had no DMR poll to copy in NH, and wnet down in flames.

    The man is a lying charlatan.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#95)
    by Lora on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    I appreciate the example.

    wow (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:56:33 AM EST
    I'm surprised you were able to figure that out.  As soon as I posted, I worried that maybe folks would think it was the folksinger, or maybe the guy who lives two doors down from me who is also named John Stewart.  Yet again you have used your skills to help your lowly peers, and I commend you.

    I met the late folksinger last year (none / 0) (#42)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:44:03 AM EST
    I moved his piano for him.  Turned out he was married to a girl I knew in high school.

    Nice man.  Very tall.


    Well. . . (none / 0) (#33)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:13:10 AM EST
    As I recall, Zogby was the only pollster who claimed to have seen a push towards Clinton in the days before New Hampshire.

    He made that claim after the vote.  And I don't think he was the only one to claim that trend data in the last day or two showed a move to Clinton, ARG said the same if I recall.


    question (none / 0) (#4)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:46:12 AM EST
    Hi--I'm not following this line, below.  Do you mean Hillary is winning them?

    "Survey USA has Obama winning women by 62-33"

    I will say it again: one of the main reasons I want Hillary to do well is to knock that arrogant Zogby on his butt.

    I posted this elsewhere from Kos: Obama's equivocation on war:

    My mistake (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:57:25 AM EST
    Definitely Hillary winning them.

    phew! (none / 0) (#9)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:04:27 AM EST
    I never can understand those polls (mostly because everyone says, "Obama is winning!" then you look at it and think, "did I smoke some crack and didn't notice?"

    I am so nervous.  Today, I think, is going to be really antsy for all of is.  It's like Christmas eve, only the question tomorrow morning is whether or not you get a present.


    I'm excited!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:41:39 AM EST
    This is sort of the beginning of the end of no end in sight in Iraq.  Huge Giant Issue in my family.  Honestly no matter who "wins" this family wins today and Bush becomes such such such a lame duck after this with Democrats swarming to the polls and Republican voters cleaning out the shed and getting their tax receipts together.  Rock and Roll day here!  Over filled the coffee maker........coffee all over the floor ;)  America Swings Noticeably Documentably Left Today!  Down with BushCo, down with rubber stamping Repugs, down with all war all the time, down down down!

    I am not antsy at all (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:14:54 AM EST
    I really am not that big fan of either candidate.

    I like them both, but love neither.


    tepid, right? (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:14:00 AM EST
    I am a tepid believer in Zogby for what it's worth.  Tepid is a powerful adjective.

    You, the provoker of extreme antsyness (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:41:46 PM EST
    are just sitting back watching your handiwork.  

    well kathy, (none / 0) (#53)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:08:22 AM EST
    technically, if a poll shows you lead 50.5 to 49.5, you're winning. technically. normally, you and i would look at that and go "wow, that's nearly a tie!"

    however, you and i don't have an agenda, unlike apparently most of the MSM. so when they put up a headline that claims, in big, block letters "OBAMA WINNING", they are technically correct, and contextually misleading.

    that's why they make the big bucks.


    no that is what is happening (none / 0) (#68)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:33:09 AM EST
    i caught a blip of brit hume's show on fox the other day hosted by bret baier.  he was doing headlines, this was after the debate last week.

     the big headline of course was obama's momentum and there was blather about "tightening" then up on the screen they showed the results of an opinion dynamics survey of nationwide voter preference.  result?  hillary over obama 52 - 42.  but the spin was totally something else.  and this was on fox mind you, but they coulda been reading the momentum crap straight from kos' blog for all i know it sure sounded the same to me.  


    What a wonderful reason (none / 0) (#22)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:43:29 AM EST
    to vote for a candidate. Because of your animus against a pollster.

    Drudge Report loves Zogby! (none / 0) (#10)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:13:53 AM EST
    Anybody else think that he's splashing that poll all over his website just to mess with the Intrade crowd?  They were hurting after New Hampshire.  Fortunes were lost.  This is their chance to be mavericks again and recoup their losses!

    Nah (none / 0) (#15)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:24:17 AM EST
    He just likes being triumphant about a Clinton loss, since he's been paddling hate against her for years.

    that too (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:44:59 AM EST
    it's a 2 for 1 special.  This is the day he has been waiting for...  10 years in the making.

    I noticed he hasn't had a SINGLE POSITIVE HEADLINE on her behalf since the primaries began.  Even after her NH win, he had a split photo of her and McCain and never mentioned her name on the big splashy headline.  He never bothered to mention Rezko (typically the kind of story he likes) until he showed up in that picture with the Clintons.

    It's kind of funny observing Drudge become more transparent than ever.


    I'll vote for (C) (none / 0) (#12)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:21:22 AM EST
    neither Zogby nor SurveyUsa has it right, and that there will be no knockout punch tonight.

    I think Massachusetts will be the first real indicator of the night.  Clinton was supposed to trounce Obama here--she ran up the score on him in Southern New Hampshire, which is a very good predictor for Massachusetts.  But, then the Kerry and Kennedy endorsements happened.

    He really SHOULD win Massachusetts.

    I mean this seriously.


    Severe uphill climb. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:29:53 AM EST
    MA was supposed to be one of Clinton's firewall states--until the special K's got involved.

    Even after Kerry's endorsement, she was still kicking his butt there.

    The way she ran up the score in him in southern New Hampshire was a BAD sign for him in NH.  Really bad.  They kinda wrote off the prospects of winning it after NH.


    if obama wins (none / 0) (#56)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:09:50 AM EST
    massachussetts i will eat my keyboard.

    A hint: Keyboards taste better (none / 0) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:17:00 AM EST
    with ketchup.

    or sauteed in garlic.


    "special ks" That's good. (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:48:13 PM EST
    No way he wins Mass. (none / 0) (#66)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:31:27 AM EST
    He was down 37% just three weeks ago.  There's been improvement but nothing shows it's close.

    Actually (none / 0) (#87)
    by illissius on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:01:10 PM EST
    they were wrong about independents. It was 20-something percent. What they were right about is turnout -- predictions of 200000+ seemed completely preposterous to many, but that's what the DMR found, and that's what happened.

    Although, maybe the DMR and the entrance polls defined "independent" differently (registration vs. self identification or whatever), so maybe you can't actually tell how right they were on that count.


    Nice post (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:21:36 AM EST

    I agree with you completely.

    Any truth to (none / 0) (#14)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:21:36 AM EST
    what I heard at a bar the other day.   That many Hispanics will vote for Hilary and not Obama because there is a competition  as to which minority group is bigger.  The theory being if Hispanics vote for Obama, a black that would someway dilute the significance of the Hispanics which claim they are the biggest minority group and vote for Hilary would not dilute.  Anybody else heard of this theory?

    I think I heard you say it (none / 0) (#18)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:34:39 AM EST
    yesterday, but I haven't heard it elsewhere.  It would make some sense, but according to the US census, the Hispanic population is 3% higher than the aa population now.

    But, I get a little nervous when people talk about groups of folks voting in blocs.  It implies that there is no individuality.  Log Cabin republicans are a perfect example.


    in the case of Hispanics it is just talk (none / 0) (#25)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:48:38 AM EST
    there is absolutely no Hispanic bloc voting evidence.  Never has happened in the past.  Clinton may be a special case because she has fostered many ties with our community (I am Puerto Rican) but overall Hispanics vote on the issues and as recently as 2004 even split substantially for Bush.

    Bar theories are pretty scary (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:08:49 AM EST
    I heard one yesterday from a wingnut who says he is voting Obama.  This is his grand conspiracy.  All the wingnuts vote for Obama in the primaries because they already know that we are going to have a Democrat for Prez this go around so they will pick him.  Obama is so naive though that his first four years will be a disaster and he will be easy to whup in 2012.  What a plan.  I couldn't help pointing out that anybody who could run around with someone named Rezko and come out smelling like Jesus sounded pretty Slick Willy to me and they got stuck with him for eight long years and now look at his wife ;)  And Michelle Obama is so quiet ;)  One never knows when wingnuts are going to break out in a gun fight so I try to remember to always pack a Clenis Bazooka.

    These are the same people (none / 0) (#94)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:35:03 PM EST
    who said that Nancy Pelosi was such a crazed extremist that she would hand Congress right back to the GOP in 2008.  I just nod and smile.

    Survey USA shows the exact opposite (none / 0) (#17)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:32:35 AM EST
    and it was the most recent. Here we go again.

    Link to poll results (none / 0) (#19)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:35:07 AM EST

    I love the commentary, too.

    Polls and the public (none / 0) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:09:30 AM EST
    Hope this keeps some of the younger voters home, since they think it will be a rout. I think the saddest part is how polls influence voters and how they are used as a war of nerves.

    Did you really just say that? (none / 0) (#48)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:00:39 AM EST
    You hoping for people not to participate?

    Over at the Big Orange, (none / 0) (#34)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:13:44 AM EST
    Bill from Portland Maine does a tongue in cheek audition for NBC with his snarky 'predictions' for SuperTuesday. Here's a bit:

    And here's my schematic: if Alabama breaks for Obama along with Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota and California, but Hillary sweeps Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware and Georgia, and if they split Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts and Minnesota, giving voters in Missouri, New Jersey and New York the latitude they need to play a real part in this race, and turnout in New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah and American Samoa doesn't reach the unprecedented highs we've seen in previous contests, then Democrats Abroad could decide this thing>

    Wait, here's how your really nail the audition (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:20:03 AM EST
    "If Obama wins California, is this good for Rudy?  He did come in a strong 3rd in Florida.  Don't count out America's Mayor."

    I'm Sorry, But (none / 0) (#37)
    by bob h on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:27:38 AM EST
    I can't believe CA will be anything but very close.  If Clinton loses narrowly, she can insinuate sotto voce that it figures because everybody knows Californians are celebrity-obsessed airheads.

    I am an Obama skeptic, but I have to say I like the raps he is giving McCain lately.  I want McCain roughed up very badly.

    I just wish ARG would poll CA and break (none / 0) (#39)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:31:09 AM EST
    the tie.

    What do you mean? (none / 0) (#45)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:47:51 AM EST
    They did two days ago, and had Clinton 47, Obama 39. Of course, ARG is having a pretty bad polling season so far.

    That would lead me to believe (none / 0) (#50)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:01:32 AM EST
    that Obama would win CA.  But, ARG has to get lucky one of these times.

    It already IS a tie (none / 0) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:50:55 AM EST
    (SUSA + Zogby)/2 = tie!

    It's the delegates. . . (none / 0) (#43)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:44:15 AM EST

    A victory in California will only decide the contest  if it's a bellwether for the rest of the primary.  If a double digit blowout by either candidate means a substantial victory in other states then yes, it may be (close to) over.

    But at this point it's really the delegates that matter (not the "mo" as in previous primaries).  If either candidate comes out of tonight with a real delegate lead, no matter what states it's obtained it, then they're the leader.  If the delegate count is close, even if one of the candidates "blew out" in a couple of states, the race is still a tie.

    What constitutes a "win" ? (none / 0) (#47)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:52:37 AM EST
    I know that taking a big lead over Obama (i.e., over 200 pledged delegates) constitutes a an unambiguous win for Clinton, but beyond that, looking at all the variables(and keeping in mind the goal is 2025 delegates, not necessarily winning a majority of states), it's a little murkier to figure out what "victory" looks like for each side.  Clinton by less than 200 but more than 150 is also a pretty clear win for her, though not necessarily a knockout blow.
    I think I'd venture a guess that coming out ahead in the pledged delegate count, for the Obama campaign, also constitutes an unambiguous win for them.  He'd probably need a slightly smaller margin to have his own knockout blow against her--maybe 150+ delegates?  Given the favorable schedule for the rest of the month, I'd have to assume that a de facto tie (coming within 50 delegates of Clinton's total) also is pretty much a net win for Obama.  

    The ambiguity comes heavily into play if the clinton advantage is between 50 and 150.  Based on the expectations game, perceived momentum, respective fundraising prowess/cash on hand, and scheduling, I'd say that a Clinton win by close to 150 delegates is a fairly solid win for her campaign, and that keeping the margin under 100 is a fairly solid win for the Obama campaign.

    This is simply an evaluation based on the respective strategies and imperatives of the two campaigns.  

    Net:  Clinton by 200+: near-knockout win for her
    Clinton by 150+: very solid win
    Clinton by close to 150: tactical victory
    Clinton by 100: no net longterm advantage to either
    Clinton by 50-100: tactical victory for Obama, due to financial advantage and favorable primary schedule rest of month
    Clinton by less than 50: solid "win" for Obama, due to blah blah blah--plus he gets good media
    Obama by 50 or more: near-knockout win for the Obama campaign

    If Clinton racks up a huge advantage after tonight, I will congratulate the campaign and assume she will be the nominee.  If not, I will assume that this is either going all the way to the convention, or until she runs out of money.

    Re: (none / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:01:03 AM EST
    I basically agree with this.  Of course, no one is really knocked out until they run out of money.

    I'm hoping for an Obama(tm) to win (none / 0) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:07:19 AM EST
    Like I've said, it's better for my personal strategy ;-).

    Then McCain wins and we try with hopefully a non-empty suit in 2012.


    Magna cum Laude, Harvard Law (none / 0) (#62)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:17:45 AM EST
    1st black president of Harvard Law Review
    community organizer
    civil rights attorney
    constitutional law professor
    state senator
    united states senator

    multiple policy speeches
    experienced and competent foreign policy team
    opposed the AUMF

    how, exactly, is he an "empty suit"?

    I can put up with a lot from people who dislike him, but this is just a ridiculous characterization.


    Ok...stop me (none / 0) (#72)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:51:06 AM EST
    Community organizer: Not very good one, did not notice over 30 buildings falling into disrepair and bad management in his neighborhood. Lawyer: He never litigated, just wrote stuff. He had one job on the Rezko deal and failed to make sure the reserves were funded to protect the project and his client the non profit. Law professor: not a regular position, contract position. How many classes did he teach? State Senator: part time position.

    I can do the same thing with Clinton.. (none / 0) (#80)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:19:53 AM EST
    ...Wal-mart board--didn't utter a peep about union-busting
    15 years as a corporate lawyer
    Marian Wright Edelman feels betrayed by the Clintons.
    Nita Lowey got pushed aside so the "glamorous carpet-bagger" could jump ahead of a more experienced elected female democrat and run for Senate.
    A couple decades as the spouse of an elected official--failed to pass the one major initiative she was put in charge of.

    Seems like there's not a lot of "there" there, either.

    The dismissive tone towards Obama smacks of ageism to me.


    But, but, but it's supposed to be (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:53:13 AM EST
    not about the past but the future!  Ah, but attempt to define the future under Obama.  

    No, not an empty suit; agreed.  Just empty promises.


    Obama transcends. . . (none / 0) (#78)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:11:44 AM EST
    the space-time continuum.

    I doubt Obama's promises are "empty" except insofar as all political campaign platforms are somewhat vague and entirely subject to events and factors that are present during the campaign.


    Empty promises? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:02:56 PM EST
    What the hell is that supposed to mean?

    What makes them more empty than any other promises by any other candidate?

    They can only be judged empty after the fact - after they turn out to be unfulfilled.

    Given that his policy proposals are strikingly similar to Hillary's, does this mean hers are empty too?

    Or are you just reflixivly seizing on any nasty thing to say?


    As a Westerner I was going to predict (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:15:12 AM EST
    that California would break noticeably for Clinton but I chickened out ;)  

    i am thinking (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:17:00 AM EST
    she'll do at least maybe better than 55%.  so i'll put that out there.

    That could certainly happen (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:18:26 AM EST
    Obama didn't even bother with California (sent the Hamptons club instead), so I suspect even he thinks it will be a root.

    As a Californian (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:20:43 AM EST
    I would never predict them.

    Heh! (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:29:19 AM EST
    Well you all moved to my state and you just keep on coming.  I've been observing your type since the start of the invasion ;)

    Do you think that Obama's ambiguous (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:32:49 AM EST
    style leaves Californians wanting?  I know that speaking in that preaching preacher style has creeped out a lot of Colorado friends and family who are very Libertarian about faith and how to keep that to yourself.

    Libertarian Faith Attitude Not Limited To CO (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:51:59 AM EST
    That is the way I was raised and I am a native of MO. Obama's Committed Christian, Called To Serve brochure really freaked me out. I know he has to counteract the rumors that he is a Muslim, but that brochure was as extreme as some of the Republican mailings etc.  that we normally ridicule.

    Viral internet event (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:54:03 AM EST
    I think the Obama surge is one of the viral internet things. It comes, it peaks and is gone. They keep saying in time he would win. I don't think so, I see people falling off the train day by day. It's sort of like the kid dancing in front of his computer that catches on all over the world, it's it for a short period then it's gone. Axelrod is brilliant at creating it and exploiting it. I always wondered how politicians would use the web, I think we found out.

    Do you meant the Spiritualist? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:47:44 AM EST
    I call them religious imperialist. They choose the fun parts from world religions, but avoid the icky creepy parts. Or the I was so wounded by my privilege and comfort that I can relate to people of color. Or the scolders? Telling everyone how to live. Or the libertarian when it comes to paying taxes to help others, and entitled if its something for them? Yep, this great breed of the nouveaux populist.

    Libertarian as in to each his own (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    and being respectful of that and that there is no one right way to do anything where faith is concerned and if you think so keep it to yourself ;)  It's your little secret that you are going to heaven and the rest of us will be inhabiting hell okay?  Run with it......your the chosen one when judgement day gets here ;)

    i say the only fair way (none / 0) (#58)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:15:52 AM EST
    to decide this is in the ring. no-holds barred, use anything you want. last one standing is the winner. you won't have the issue of pesky losers to irritate you after the general election.

    I hope he wins too... (none / 0) (#70)
    by independent voter on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    for different reasons.
    I believe much of this enthusiasm will carry over into the GE and I sincerely hope the next administration. What if a new generation of true political activists is being drawn in right now?
    I have a daughter in college that has signed up to work on Obama's campaign...keep in mind, we are in Florida and our vote did not even "count".
    She has friends that are fired up (not to steal the slogan!) and want to be a part of this country and have a say in what America stands for.
    I know some (maybe many) of you will feel this is idealism. If Obama can inspire our college kids to become political activists that is huge, and will truly bring about the change he promises.

    I can see that as a big advantage (none / 0) (#84)
    by blogtopus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:43:33 AM EST
    I agree. For me that would be the BIGGEST advantage.

    It would also be the biggest lesson for all those activists: Voting without knowing is a dangerous game. It would serve them well to be extremely disappointed with Obama, to learn that sometimes you need to check your emotions at the door.


    Zogby (none / 0) (#88)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:22:31 PM EST
    Don't  panic.   Zogby  is no longer  considered  reliable  or  trustworthy.

    He's  the one who   predicted  a huge win  for  Obama  in  New  Hampshire.

    He's  also  the one  who predicted   John  Kerry  in  a   landslide.  

    Consider  the source.

    Here's lots of info on CA primaries: (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:08:09 PM EST

    700,000 newly registered voters in CA.  Turnout expected to rival the 1980 Presidential primaries.  Republican primary:  have to be registered Republican by cut-off date in Jan.  Dem.:  open primary.  

    Prediction:  crap shoot.

    Today's the day! (none / 0) (#97)
    by chemoelectric on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:57:15 PM EST
    I'm putting on my Captain America suit to go out and caucus!