Obama Camp's Past Predictions on Pledged Delegates, IN and NC

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:24:06 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Back in February, Bloomberg and Politico published an internal spreadsheet from the Obama campaign with calculations on the pledged delegate and superdelegate split. The Clinton Campaign brought up the spreadsheet today, asking if Obama still thought he was going to win Indiana by 7 points.

The memo is here in Xcel. If you don't have Xcel, I've converted it to pdf and you can view it here.

Check all the states, the campaign was off on several. It predicted only a 5 point loss in PA, a 7 point loss in Ohio and an 11 point win in Guam. For NC, it predicts an 8 point win and for Indiana, a 7 point win. Also, for Montana, an 11 point win. For South Dakota, a 15 point win. For Puerto Rico, an 8 point loss. It also predicts double digit losses in KY and W.Va.

What do I take from this? Obama knew back in Feb. he needed to work to convince the rural and blue collar voters of Ohio and PA and was unable to do so. Those states are critical in November. Why should the superdelegates believe he can take them in November?

< Hillary on Pledged Delegates and the Popular Vote | SD Shuler To Follow Voters In His District (to Clinton) >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Camp's Past Predictions on Pledged Delegates, IN and NC | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The program is actually named Excel (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:30:50 PM EST

but if you don't have Excel and don't want to pay the outrageous price of Excel or Microsoft Office, you can download OpenOffice for free

As for the actual spreadsheet, I believe that the term is SWAG (scientific wild a$$ guess)

Yes, they were off in PA and I think that an IN loss is only about how much.

Curious that they had NC as only an 8 point win but it seems clear that it's going to be very tight.

I think that spreadsheet becomes (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:37:16 PM EST

wildly inaccurate after TX. Who thinks he's going to break 35% in KY? I sure don't.

Do they care? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by tdraicer on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:26:29 PM EST

>Why should the superdelegates believe he can take them in November?

Because Obama is Magic!

Seriously, the real question in my mind is not whether the Supers think Obama is the stronger candidate (it ought to be obvious to any political professional that isn't true) but whether they care. There is more than a little evidence a lot of the party establishment would not only rather have a weak Democratic president than a strong one, but a Republican president rather than a strong Democratic president.

A President Hillary would actually want them to do things, and that is always risky. And most pols hate risk.

J, While I agree with you on this: (none / 0) (#3)
by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:38:30 PM EST

Obama knew back in Feb. he needed to work to convince the rural and blue collar voters of Ohio and PA and was unable to do so.

My question is: what did Obama do to address this problem? We've seen Clinton reinvent her campaign again and again to address weaknesses and build on her strengths. Obama seems to have run the same campaign from the beginning to now (leaving out, of course, his more recent calls that Clinton should drop out so that he can win--if you want to call that strategy.)

I won't speak for you, but I feel like our choice in tee shirts ("Got Experience?") means we're on the same page here: He's just not nimble or seasoned enough as a politician to handle a prolonged challenge. One note does not a symphony make.

Part of the problem (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by cawaltz on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:06:01 PM EST

Obama is not nearly as seasoned as Clinton and I think his campaign shows it. I am still convinced he is running, not somuch because he WANTS to be President, as much as a bunch of politicos thought he should capitalize on his popularity and make the run. In other words he is running because THEY wanted him to make the run and convinced him it would b a good idea. I wish he would have waited a cycle or two because a) then we wouldn't have two historic firsts batting it out and b) I do believe he is smart and capable and given time might actually come up with ways to transform politcs in Washington.


Axelrove has said, I read somewhere (none / 0) (#12)
by Cream City on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:15:45 PM EST

that it's important to pick a strategy and stick to it. So Obama may change tactics but not the basic strategy -- unless he has the guts, too, to change his campaign management when events call for it.


: Even if (none / 0) (#13)
by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:25:14 PM EST

it's a bad strategy I guess. Not a smart strategy imo.

yup, but he has changed something, the signs. (none / 0) (#18)
by thereyougo on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:01:43 PM EST

now its recapture the American dream.

I don't see those unity/hope ones anymore.

Hillary is taking the initiative, like the leader she is. Its her talking about the high gas prices, its her talking about having everyone vote, when he wanted to pressure her to quit. Obama is the reactionary candidate. He only reacts when Hillary starts the conversaion.

in short, he's sending the message he's boring and weak.

for all his roll the shirt sleeves visual on tv, he doesn't appear like a workhorse like Hillary but a showhorse. He should be quiet, and let Hillary talk talk, because when he opens his mouth nothing really comes out.


Never said that (none / 0) (#20)
by Chuck001 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:05:01 PM EST

Kathy says
" Obama seems to have run the same campaign from the beginning to now (leaving out, of course, his more recent calls that Clinton should drop out so that he can win--if you want to call that strategy.)"

Kathy, you made that up, didn't you?

Obama never said that. Source? Can you explain?

Obama never asked Hillary to drop out. In fact he said she should stay in the race. [ During their last debate.]


Is there any other option... (none / 0) (#4)
by hopeyfix on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:39:38 PM EST

For Mac users? I don't have Excel and it doesn't open on Firefox, and I really would like to see it.

Thank you in advance.

OpenOffice does have versions for Mac Users (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:08:08 PM EST

and they all open/save Excel files


The way Jeralyn posts PDFs (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:40:29 PM EST

just doesn't seem to work for me either.


try this link here (none / 0) (#6)
by Jeralyn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:47:09 PM EST

: Thanks! (none / 0) (#7)
by hopeyfix on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:48:54 PM EST

You're super, Jeralyn ;)

: Perfect (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:50:27 PM EST

Thanks.

You can open with Numbers trial (none / 0) (#16)
by Marvin42 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:42:15 PM EST

From Apple, if you still have a trial.


Non-AA projections.... (none / 0) (#9)
by waldenpond on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:58:13 PM EST

I think, given the demographics in the states, if he get 88-90% of the AA vote, his projection of the non-AA vote should look something like this:

North Carolina    .36 non-AA
Indiana    .46 non-AA
west virginia    .42 non-AA
oregon    .52 non-AA
kentucky    .38 non-AA
Montana    .54 non-AA
south dako    .57 non-AA

I used quickfacts.census.gov for the base of the AA vote and have updated it for the polling expectations:
North Carolina    33
Indiana    17
west virginia    4
oregon    2
kentucky    10
Montana    4
south dako    3

It Looks Like The Race Is Tighter In OR Too. (none / 0) (#15)
by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:34:01 PM EST

If I am reading it right.

I wouldn't rely on the spread sheet (none / 0) (#17)
by maritza on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:06:30 PM EST

Sometimes it was right on and sometimes it is not.

The lesson I draw (none / 0) (#19)
by AF on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:45:32 PM EST

Is that Obama's difficulties in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania were foreseeable at the beginning of February.

You can argue he hasn't done enough to overcome them, but you can't argue that anything he did in February or March caused them.

what popularity? (none / 0) (#21)
by cpinva on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:10:25 PM EST

......as much as a bunch of politicos thought he should capitalize on his popularity......

to be blunt, who ever heard of him before now? he was a non-entity chicago pol, boosted by his mentor, who couldn't even be bothered to take care of his own constituents. he won his senate seat by legal action, not by votes.

if you did a random survey of people on the street, i'd bet money that 9 out of 10 never heard of him before last year. so much for his "popularity". ok, i'm sure his family and friends liked him before now, but i don't count them.

whoever convinced him to run now did him no favor. obviously he's a smart guy, nice family, interesting life story, etc. given some legitimate seasoning, he could have been a solid contender. that's the real tragedy; his ego allowed him to be sucked in to a contest he's not really prepared for. should he win the dem nomination (not looking real promising at the moment), he'll lose in the GE. he will forever after be fatally damaged goods to the democrats.

the harsh truth is he only appeals to the AA community (can you blame them?), the young too innocent to see beyond the facade and the "creative class" desperate to show how enlightened they are. he either can't or won't try to win the core democrats.

i honestly wonder how he made it through law school, homework and studying are clearly not his forte. he's an extemporaneous horrow show, which explains his refusal to take on sen. clinton mano-a-womano, no holds barred in debate.

the pity is he could have been a good president, in 2016.