Hillary leads by 7.84% in Indiana

April 30, 2008

More bad news for Obama

I’ve come up with the following projections for Indiana.

Hillary Clinton 50.35
Barack Obama 42.51

Although the PPP gives Hillary a slightly smaller lead, it boosts her by confirming her larger lead in Indiana. My view is that winning Indiana and losing by less than 15 will strengthen Hillary’s hand. Although Hillary can’t win in terms of pledged delegates she can win in terms of the popular vote, which will give the Superdelegates enough reason to start justifying voting for her.



  1. “Although Hillary can’t win in terms of pledged delegates she can win in terms of the popular vote, which will give the Superdelegates enough reason to start justifying voting for her.”

    What you’re describing is an about-face of the rules that both candidates agreed upon last year. There is NO way such an argument is grounded. If it is, prove it. Otherwise, stop tarnishing your own reputation as a tipster.

  2. I think if Hillary could gain a second’s advantage by ditching the rules she’d do it. In any case the rules also entitle the SD’s to vote for whoever they want to. I’m just saying that the popular vote is a metric that could be used as justification by individual SDs, the fact that it has no formal bearing is irrelevant.

  3. This is all speculative. Hillary can abandon the DNC’s rules all she wants; it doesn’t mean that the DNC is going to uphold her rulings. If anything, she’s acting in contempt of the party’s rules.

    Howard Dean has remained resolute to the rules the Democratic candidates have agreed upon, and nothing short of a megaton 1,000 Wrights strong would be enough to sway his decision. If Sen. Obama remains the candidate with the most delegates (pledged and super) in the end, Hillary can complain about all she wants to the DNC. It doesn’t change the fact that Sen. Obama is the party’s nominee.

    If she doesn’t like that, then she should quit the Democratic Party. Otherwise, a popular vote victory, which still possible for her, is unlikely and ultimately futile.

  4. I like math. But if math gets you in a political race to a candidate who is likely to lose, ditch the math. Primaries are gauges, but they aren’t foolproof (see McGovern 1972 when he was very popular with party).

  5. McGovern never had it so good. This primary is more like 1960 than anything else: a young, charismatic, inspirational, and revolutionary (Kennedy being Catholic) candidate running against the older, more serious, more experienced establishment. It was an ugly primary, but Kennedy won the nomination and the election.

    Not only do I expect the 2008 Democratic primaries to resemble 1960, but the general election as well.

  6. OK, but Kennedy won with a very slim margin of the popular vote (not that the popular vote itself matters–it’s where it falls that matters) and frankly by Mayor Daley in Chicago doing a little good Chicago political dancing. I want a Democrat to win, I really do. And perhaps you are right that Obama is more like Kennedy than McGovern. I guess time will tell.

    I still wish someone could explain to me why the Democrats have tossed away the idea of a unified ticket when clearly it would have been the strongest thing going? I do realize it is too late now and has been for a while, but why didn’t someone pick up on early and steer it that way?

  7. I won’t argue with you that the 1960 Election was fishy. However, much like Paul Newman in ‘the Sting’, Kennedy won because he was a better cheat than Nixon. (That’s why the latter didn’t protest: out of fear that some of his own dealings would bubble to the surface.) Still, when it comes to presidential primaries, Sen. Obama is already the John F. Kennedy of my generation.

    As for the prospects of a unity ticket, you can thank Hillary Clinton for that prospect going down the tubes. There were numerous times where both Clinton and Obama seemed to look so well beside each other, but Hillary in her uncompromising quest for the White House chose to make Obama her enemy, not her opponent.

    The only way she could have won the nomination after Obama’s strong showing in Super Tuesday was to damage him so severely that he would be unelectable. To do that, she had to burn any possibility she had of being his running mate by doing the unthinkable: challenging a fellow Democrat on his patriotism, race, and experience. When it came to the point where she started saying Sen. McCain was more prepared for the presidency than her opponent, she crossed a line that no political opponent can do without ushering permanent consequences.

    There’s no doubt in my mind that Hillary is doing what she thinks is best for the country; she thinks that she will be a better president than Obama. However, much like Ulysses in Dante’s Inferno or Cortez when he sunk his own ships, Hillary forced her own people into a situation where the game is do-or-die.

    While the idea of a second President Clinton may meen that much to her, it doesn’t to the Democratic Party. They want to their nominee, Obama, to win, and Hillary is doing everything she can to prevent that.

  8. We’re agreed on one thing, a second President Clinton doesn’t mean anything to the Democratic Party.

  9. Well spoken, sir.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: