by Nancy in Cali, Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:28:33 PM EST
Do Not - I repeat - DO NOT believe the reports you read on MSNBC and other places that claim only Obama can beat McCain.
We all know it's an electoral game in a General Election and in analyzing the exit polls from CNN, I have drawn the conclusion that ONLY HILLARY can beat McCain and win the White house for the Democrats, Obama CANNOT DO THIS and I will show you why.
by Jr1886, Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:49:13 PM EST
Here's a prediction thread. The three biggest shocker from my predictions: Obama will win California, Massachusett, and Missouri.
Obama's column( in order of certainty with 1= Most certain & 17 least certain)
8- Democrats abroad
13- New Mexico
So Obama will win 16 states and Democrats abroad. This is huge
by Englishlefty, Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 11:36:43 AM EDT
Home state advantage has tended to be an important factor in presidential primaries. Since the present system was established in 1972, the only candidates to win a primary or caucus without also taking their home states have been Shirley Chisholm in 1972, Jerry Brown in 1980 and 1992, Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988, Bob Kerrey in 1992 and Wesley Clark in 2004.
All of these events can be explained away. Chisholm and Jackson's powerbase was within the black community, not within their home states. In 1980 Michigan was apparently not seriously contested by anbody aside from Brown and LaRouche. Kerrey's win in South Dakota was probably aided by the state's proximity to Nebraska and his campaign was dead by the time the primary season reached Omaha. Similarly, California was almost dead last in 1992, so Brown's defeat was already assured. Clark's victory in Oklahoma could be put down to the conservative nature of that state as much as anything else, whilst the candidate came from a neighbouring state and had dropped out by the time Arkansas came round.
Clearly home support is important, then. There's no other way to explain, for instance, Dean's victory in Vermont in 2004. Yet if one compares a map of primary/caucus wins from 1972 to the 2004 map you'll see a much simpler picture. Some of this is because campaigns tend to be much more national. Sectional or regional candidacies just aren't viable. But I'd also argue that the power of being a favourite son candidate just isn't what it used to be.
Read on, and I'll use the early-state polling to explain why...
by RT, Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:07:51 AM EDT
An AP analysis of Census data indicates that our early primary states aren't particularly representative of America as a whole. We knew that already, of course, but there's nothing like backing it up with numbers.
According to the AP analysis, New Hampshire is the third-least representative state, ranking 49th of 51 states (including D.C.). Iowa is 41st out of 51, and South Carolina is 24th, in the middle of the pack. (The story didn't mention Nevada, and it provided no link to the complete list, durnitall.)
The five states most representative of the U.S. as a whole were Illinois, Oregon, Michigan, Washington and Delaware. (So why not lead off with a Delaware primary?) More after the cut.
by Peter from WI, Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:15:28 AM EDT
Ever wish you could bang pollsters and professional survey outfits over the head and say "dammit you're doing it wrong!" like I have? Seems like it, since right here on MyDD, there's been a lot of discussion around Bowers' Inflated Clinton Poll Theory and the Democratic Strategist even picked up on it. Well what if we could actually design what a survey looks like? Check below the fold for more...