Fork Hillary 3: The Final Forking

[E-Sabbath]

You’re missing what I saw above.

Hillary, within the last week: +6, +5, +18, +5, +3, +10. I mean, WTF? And Survey USA is good, too.

[BobLibDem]

You have to look at sample sizes too:

Insider Advantage- 681 LV, Clinton +10
PPP- 1124 LV, Clinton +3
Rasmussen- 695 LV, Clinton +5
SurveyUSA- 597 LV, Clinton + 18
Strategic Vision- LV not given, Clinton +5
Quinnipiac- 1340 LV, Clinton +6
Time- 676 LV, Clinton +8

Looks like the largest Clinton leads are with the smaller of the samples.

[Biggirl]

@E-Sabbath

You’re missing what I saw above.

Hillary, within the last week: +6, +5, +18, +5, +3, +10. I mean, WTF? And Survey USA is good, too.

Not me! Team Clinton missed it. Plus, except for the +18, that’s still shows Obama ‘catching up’.

[Spoke]

@Mr. Rosewater

It’s beginning to seem as if it’s more nails than coffin.

I’ve been telling you, we’ll need a stake.

[Phlosphr]

@spoke-

I’ve been telling you, we’ll need a stake.

Ya know - in Nightmare on Elm Street frigg’in Freddy kept coming back and back and back…we may need to consult a witch doctor or Shaman or something…

Seriously, though with her husband getting $800K from the Columbians - the same folks who just cost HRC’s chief strategist his job, and all the other misgivings of ger campaign…It’s got to come to an end at some point.

Further, Colin Powell praised Obama’s efforts on several fronts in an interview this morning with Diane Sawyer [Clintonista extraordinaire] and it appeared she is finally getting the hint…that yes, Clinton is not going to win.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

[quoting] Sean Wilentz has an exceedingly weak piece arguing that Clinton would be the easy winner in any fair primary system. Now, the primary system is full of irrationalities, so one might think that it would be possible to come up with a decent argument, but alas he fails at the task. Rather, the core of his argument is to assert again and again that the GOP winner-take-all model is only only fair way of apportioning delegates because…that’s how we do it in Presidential elections! But, of course, winner-take-all plurality voting is notoriously the least accurate of vote count systems commonly used in liberal democracies, and it is precisely that feature that led to the popular vote winner losing in 2000 and given different weather patterns in Ohio could have very easily led to the popular vote winner losing in 2004. Indeed, not using winner-take-all is one of the very few defensible aspects of the current primary system, and certainly Wilentz doesn’t even begin to make an argument about why PR is so much worse as to render the winner illegitimate (and I’m not counting “we do it that way in other parts of our anachronistic election system” as an argument.)

I don’t understand the dismissal of the “anachronistic” election system. If we selected a president in the general election by arm-wrestling, then it would seem that a primary system that didn’t use arm-wrestling would be foolish. The winner-take-all general election may be other than ideal, but it’s the one that must be used… so why tout a different system as superior in the primaries?

[Santo_Rugger]

@Phlosphr

<snip>
Further, Colin Powell praised Obama’s efforts on several fronts in an interview this morning with Diane Sawyer [Clintonista extraordinaire] and it appeared she is finally getting the hint…that yes, Clinton is not going to win.

Did we watch two different clips? I just saw the interview, and she asked two questions concerning Obama (paraphrased):

“What about that Rev. Wright guy?”, and “What about his lack of experience?”

Powell handled both questions masterfully, and even though he declined to endorse a candidate, used the deflamatory remarks by Sawyer to exalt Obama similarly to the way Governor Patrick did when he was offered similar fodder.

[Shayna]

Utah Democratic Party Chair Wayne Holland Endorses Barack Obama

Utah Democratic Party Chair and Democratic superdelegate Wayne Holland today endorsed Barack Obama, citing his ability to energize the Democratic Party and plan to strengthen the economy.

“Sen. Obama has helped to energize our State Party,” said Holland. “Obama was clearly the choice of Utah Democrats on Feb. 5 and is the choice of the majority of Utah Democratic candidates to head the ticket in November. While it is not only important for me to reflect the sentiment of our Party, I also have a responsibility to endorse the candidate whom I believe will help unite the many voices of our ‘big tent’ Utah Party and help us build for the future.”

. . .

[DSeid]

Besides the fact that that’s one more superdelegate off the fence is the fact that he is “a labor negotiator for the United Steelworkers Union” … that Union has not yet made an endorsement since their first choice, Edwards, dropped out, and both Clinton and Obama would love to snag them before PA votes. One hopes that his timing bodes well for how those decisions are being made. They could have a significant effect.

Union endorsements are powerful in Pennsylvania, where January’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 4.8 percent, the highest since December 2005.

<snip>

… the United Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers unions could affect the outcome. Both are strong in Pennsylvania’s western and Appalachian regions; both have been neutral since Edwards dropped out.

The Steelworkers asked the Democratic candidates and McCain this month for their positions on the nation’s trade policies, and Steelworkers President Leo W. Gerard said the answers “will be especially important” in helping their 175,000 members and retirees decide how to vote in the primary.

[Shayna]

Excellent background info. Thanks, DSeid!

And more endorsements (though not superdelegates). . . Two former Oregon governors endorse Obama

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Two former Oregon governors say they will support Barack Obama for president.

Barbara Roberts and John Kitzhaber gave their endorsements to the Illinois senator on Thursday, just before the Democratic Party of Oregon holds its platform convention this weekend.

. . .

[Phlosphr]

More good news for Obama.

[Shayna]

@Phlosphr

More good news for Obama.

Yay!

I’m going to be attending our state’s caucuses on Sunday and voting for the 2 pledged delegates Obama earned in our district. Who knows, maybe we can convince a Hillary supporter or two to switch over.

[Phlosphr]

@Shayna

Yay!

I’m going to be attending our state’s caucuses on Sunday and voting for the 2 pledged delegates Obama earned in our district. Who knows, maybe we can convince a Hillary supporter or two to switch over.

Oh great I hope so! I’ll send some good vibes.

[BrainGlutton]

If you like to gamble: Intrade is now favoring Obama to win the nomination, with an 86% chance to HRC’s 12.8%.

[MovieMogul]

The Deathwatch has her chances at 10.2%.

[Shayna]

Clinton Campaign Owes UC Davis Money

Campus May Turn Debt Over To Collection Agency

. . .

The University of California in Davis is ready to take the Clinton presidential campaign to a collection agency if they do not pay back the thousands of dollars they are still owed.

. . .

UC Davis is planning to put its final bill out this week, and if the debt has not been settled within a month, they are going to turn the matter over to a collection agency.

Why anyone thinks she’d do a better job at running the country than she’s done running her campaign is a mystery to me. Do the people (in general, out in the public) who still think her “experience” would make her the better President, even know how fiscally irresponsible she is? Do they know what a gargantuan mess her campaign has been? If they know, do they just brush it off as irrelevant? How do they justify giving her control of a multi-billion dollar budget when she can’t even pay her own bills on time?

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

I don’t understand the dismissal of the “anachronistic” election system. If we selected a president in the general election by arm-wrestling, then it would seem that a primary system that didn’t use arm-wrestling would be foolish. The winner-take-all general election may be other than ideal, but it’s the one that must be used… so why tout a different system as superior in the primaries?

Well, what’s the evidence that primary WTA matches up well with general election WTA? Hillary decisively won CA, NY, MA, and NJ. If nominated, Obama will win all of these in a close election. Obama won IL and MD, which Hillary would win in anything short of a GOP rout.

OTOH, the correlation between general election popular vote success and general election electoral vote success seems pretty well established: only one miss in the past 130 years. And there’s at least commonsense reasons to assume that the candidate who wins the most votes in the primaries is the most likely to rack up the most votes in the general, all other things being not crazily unequal. So you’d presumably want your delegate selection system to at least roughly model that.

[RTFirefly]

Hillary’s up by 13 in Puerto Rico:

Hillary Clinton supera en Puerto Rico a Barack Obama, su rival en la primaria demócrata, con una cómoda ventaja de 13 puntos porcentuales, reveló una encuesta divulgada ayer por la empresa Research & Research.

La intención de los electores, que se identificaron como demócratas, reflejó un respaldo de 50% para la senadora por Nueva York frente a 37% del senador por Illinois. Otro 13% se identificó como indeciso.

IMHO, that’s good news for Obama. Nobody expects Obama to win PR if Hillary’s still running at that point - I kinda figured it for a 65-35 Hillary win. After Pennsylvania, PR is Hillary’s only real chance to pick up more than ~10 delegates, net, in a single primary.

[Onomatopoeia]

@Shayna

Do the people (in general, out in the public) who still think her “experience” would make her the better President, even know how fiscally irresponsible she is? Do they know what a gargantuan mess her campaign has been? If they know, do they just brush it off as irrelevant? How do they justify giving her control of a multi-billion dollar budget when she can’t even pay her own bills on time?

My take is they do know, or have heard, but either don’t believe it, or don’t care.

[SenorBeef]

@Bricker

I don’t understand the dismissal of the “anachronistic” election system. If we selected a president in the general election by arm-wrestling, then it would seem that a primary system that didn’t use arm-wrestling would be foolish. The winner-take-all general election may be other than ideal, but it’s the one that must be used… so why tout a different system as superior in the primaries?

Why, though? The party primaries are not mock elections. How does, for example, Clinton narrowly winning texas by popular vote, and hence giving her a huge win, in a state she surely won’t carry, somehow make the primary results more likely to reflect the best candidate?

I haven’t seen anyone make a case that a GE-style primary would somehow be better able to reflect how a candidate would be able to do in the actual GE.