Election Predictions: HRC will win the Presidency, Obama will be VP
This is a post from a law school friend of mine, Craig “Mr. Stallion” Kline. He has contributed to Urbanagora before and is an occasional commenter. He has bold predictions on many subjects and he believes himself to be infallible.
Everyone pretty much knows this by now. As much as it is now easy to hate Edwards, he still does matter. Not as much as Gore, contrary to what Edwards said on Colbert, but nearly as much because of how important North Carolina will be. A timely Edwards endorsement will give HRC a substantial bump. Commentators are correctly noting that Edwards was not favored to win NC before he dropped out, and his presence on the ticket didn’t propel Kerry to victory in NC in 2004. Fair points. But this primary is different than both of those races, because of who the undecided voters are. The undecided voters are moderate ‘Reagan democrats’ and working class white males. Edwards does well with these demographics.
Edwards alone won’t be enough to propel HRC to victory in NC. Even with a victory in PA, the margin should still favor Obama in the high single digits. It seems HRC will need something more- an
McCain will pick Romney as VP
McCain’s campaign manager works for a company owned by Mark fucking
Romney’s ascension to the McCain ticket will be of great value for HRC, and be a lot of trouble for Obama. First off, Romney will paint the west red, locking up a large number of Obama’s western states up for the Republicans.
Romney is an attack dog, who is all-of-the-sudden a media darling, certain to get preferential treatment. Poppy Bush and Karl Rove have made it clear to McCain that Romney is their guy– and of course, both Bush and Rove want HRC in the White House.
As HRC said herself “it took one
Party
When conducting polls, a polling company must ensure that its sample is random. It is rather contradictory to ensure the randomness of anything, because of course this means subjecting the sample set to a number of criteria, which if the sample set does not pass, it is rejected as an insufficiently random sample. Therefore a filter operates negatively to select only certain samples as “random.”
What is meant by “random.” Statistical randomness means conformity to the ‘normal curve’ distribution within a %5 margin of error. So a sample set of voters will be tested on a number of parameters; party, age, gender: and the sample will be rejected if the data regarding party split, age, and gender is not ‘randomly distributed along the normal curve.’
Normally it is a simple matter to determine what the normal distribution of age, gender, and party split are: one simply uses US Census information about national averages over the past five years. This is what all the major polls do, and it is standard operating procedure.
But for this election cycle, five year averages for party split data are wildly inaccurate compared to all other proxy measures of the party split parameter. Since 2005, the
Consider: the democrats are crushing the Republicans in fundraising, more than 2-to-1, the primary turnout for democrats has shattered every record, beating Republicans 2-to-1 (even back when both nominations were contested, and open primaries for both parties were held at the same time), democrats are dominating the advertising cycle, spending more than 2-to-1, and receiving a similar percentage of media coverage.
In Congress, Democrats are expected to make huge gains, climbing to 60 Senators and overwhelming the house. Besides
Once the Democrats have chosen a nominee, and once Gore brings both his popularity and global warming initiative into the fold: we are looking at a 1964 type landslide.
Both States will be seated, as Obama now readily concedes. The Credentials Committee is chaired by 3 close friends of the
It should be noted, that senior persons in the parties and government knew all along that both
The delegates will be seated, but probably with a %50 penalty akin to what the Republicans did.
The %50 of the delegates seated will also probably be based half on the actual primaries they conducted, and half on the total popular vote of the rest of the primaries and caucuses.
The Nomination will go to Convention
Both the Obama and Clinton camps released projections from before the Iowa Caucus, and it revealed something important: they both anticipated battling long through February 5 and into April. Both camps had projections that closely matched what has happened, and infact both camps had projected 11 straight for Obama in February.
Some in the media commented on these projections when they were released, which was right before March 4th. Most of the media continued promoting the lie that “no one saw this coming,” and that HRC had underestimated Obama.
Similarly, the media promotes the lie that the party leaders are going to step in and force a superdelegate vote or a “convention-before-the-convention” in July. That is not going to happen.
Conventions were designed for issues for
Furthermore, it has been obvious for some time that the superdelegates who have not yet sided with Obama are, largely, holding out for
HRC’s only chance to win the popular vote, is if the superdelegate remain undecided even after being demanded to chose by Dean. They will remain undecided.
I was wrong to say Obama currently leads in everything. He still trails in superdelegates, and that should conspicuously stand out to observers. What the hell are they waiting for.
HRC will win the Popular Vote
Of course this won’t be determined officially until the Convention. The
So with the
A 10% victory in PA will bring that lead down to zero. Four million voters are expected in the
With the national popular vote evened up, or close to it, HRC will put forward the popular vote argument and the battle lines will become clear. Obama only has a chance in three remaining primaries: NC,
The Edwards endorsement will hurt him in NC, but he should have enough to win big. Nearly 2M voters are expected in NC, and perhaps even more will rally to Obama if they realize he is in trouble. A 10% margin of victory should net Obama 200,000 +.
But that same day, Obama needs to win
Some may suggest that Obama will compete in
Even without further damage to Obama from political developments– a near certain conflict with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, and further character assassination– HRC is projected to win the popular vote, as a number of commentators have already observed.
A Crazy Convention will nominate HRC
It is hard to imagine what the narrative will be at this point, but if I know one thing, it is that the establishment does not like to give up its ownership of empires.
For example, in 1968, the most obvious comparison to this year, Bobby was leading a revolution of young voters quite akin to Obamarama. Bobby opposed the Vietnam war, and wanted to shake up
In 2000, Bush stole the election with the cooperation of the establishment. In 2004, Bush stole it again. The systematic manipulation of the election through corporations like American Intelligence Group, ChoicePoint, and Diebold is blatant. Choicepoint was 95% incorrect when identifying suspected felons, and supplemental ballots were oftentimes not distributed in violation of standard operation procedure.
To think that the establishment will just roll over and watch Obamarama shut down Gitmo, prosecute criminals in the Bush administration, leave Iraq, repeal Bush’s executive orders, talk with Iran, and all the much wilder things he has said in the more distant past (pursuing reparations, decriminalizing marijuanna, releasing non-violent drug offenders), is insane.
Many youngsters who have no experience in real politics think that this nomination process has been historically contentious. That is a misunderstanding. The democratic nomination process has been mild compared to contests of similar length and importance. Bush treated McCain mush worse. Gary Hart and Ted Kennedy were slandered way more. Ditto McGovern, not to mention JFK and Bobby.
Gore, Kerry, and
Obama has not yet overcome those obstacles.
Al Gore will endorse HRC after the Convention
Or at the Convention. There is a lie that the MSM spreads, that Gore and the
Gore used this ‘distancing’ to remain ‘neutral’ in the run up to the 2008 presidential campaign. Gore has never been neutral, not in 1992, 1996, 2000, or 2004. He is not neutral now. But in order to win a Noble Prize in the best light possible, he had to ‘depoliticize’ himself. Of course this process of de-politicization has only worked in the eyes of the young: who are oftentimes completely uncritical of the global warming movement. Many older Republicans see Gore as he is: a highly partisan,
Unfortunately, Americans are very gullible, and without examining the science or knowing how to interpret linear regressions, they are anxious for a global carbon tax or a cap and trade system that will allow global body, possibly under the auspicies of the WTO, to regulate global carbon consumption.
Even if such a global body were completely staffed by Obamas and Kennedies, the group itself would be targeted for capture by the Bush/Rockefeller people, and the resulting control would ruin our prospects for increased liberty. Global carbon control is a nightmare. The only reasonable comparison is OPEC, which has obviously been a great detrimental to world wealth.
Obama will accept the VP
The media has constantly hyped up the conflict between Obama and the Clintons, when it is actually fairly mild. Bill mentioned the name “Jesse Jackson,” an excellent and very real candidate in 1986 by the way, and the media wants us to believe there was a huge racial flap. Obviously, the race issue was going to run its course somehow. Similarly, the name Hussein Obama, in conjuncture with growing up in a Muslim country, automatically inspired the secret Muslim rumors. Those were issues certain to emerge, and they were dealt with in a relatively mature fashion by all parties and the electorate.
Don’t get me wrong, the
The media will constantly play up the idea that the party is in danger of being divided. It will cite the polls that show McCain close in the general, using 5 year party split data. This will build a narrative that Obama needs to accept the VP in order to save the Democrats and ensure a public mandate for change in 2008.
He will lose some die hard supporters that hate HRC, but his legend will only be further augmented by “saving the party” in accepting the VP.
Comment by tet on 20 April 2008 at 6:37 pm:
Thank you, Craig, for this eminently sane and practical understanding of how American politics work. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Tom
Comment by craig on 20 April 2008 at 8:50 pm:
whoops, obviously i mean 1988 re: Jesse Jackson.
the rest is kosh, save the terrible spelling errors.
Comment by Augur on 20 April 2008 at 9:07 pm:
craig - would you be willing to make a wager on HRC winning the nomination?
Comment by thetodd on 21 April 2008 at 8:09 am:
A few questions:
1. Why did Obama remove himself from the ballot in Michigan and decline to campaign in Florida if he expected the outcome you are projecting?
2. I am knowledgeable about statistics but not about the polling industry. Statisticians usually use the words “representativeness” and “stratification” to describe what you call “randomness”. Do people involved in polling really use the word “random” in the way you describe?
3. Throughout this post, what does “will” mean? Despite what Billy’s intro paragraph said, I assume that you don’t assign a 100% probability to every prediction you make :) In particular, I am curious what probability you would assign to the following outcomes: McCain picks Romney as VP, Clinton wins Dem nomination, Clinton wins presidency, Clinton wins Indiana, and Clinton picks Obama as VP (assume she has already won the nomination).
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 21 April 2008 at 8:37 am:
Welcome, Craig.
Furthermore, it has been obvious for some time that the superdelegates who have not yet sided with Obama are, largely, holding out for Clinton. … [Obama] still trails in superdelegates, and that should conspicuously stand out to observers. What the hell are they waiting for.
Here’s what there waiting for: electoral legitimacy. Sure, the superdelagates could all make up their mind and finish this thing. Indeed, I think most of the undecided superdelegates have made up their minds on who they support. But suppose they did end this thing now and the loser refused to quit and even won contests afterwards. It would be terribly destructive to the party.
So, I think the superdelegates are being mindful of the enormous enthusiasm for both candidates and are avoiding rocking the boat. I don’t think there’s any reason to believe the uncommitted superdelegates are secretly for Clinton. Especially since every few days or so a new uncommitted superdelegate comes out for Obama.
I think the superdelegates will break for Obama after June 3.
Comment by Mike on 21 April 2008 at 8:58 am:
Just a couple of the many questions and disagreements I have with this post.
First, you base a significant amount of your analysis on the fact that “undecideds” are anti-Obama and reluctantly pro-Hillary. For normal voters, it’s most likely that they really are undecided. For Superdelegates, I think the far more plausible explanation is not that they are anti-Obama, but that they are afraid of the Clintons. The Clintons are going to take the nomination to the convention regardless. Contrary to what you said, the superdelegates cannot “end” this, at least not in the eyes of HRC. Sure, they can push him over 2025, but because their votes are not required and they could change their mind, Hillary will take this to that very last second before giving up. Consequently, if you are a superdelegate, why would you put yourself on the line until it’s absolutely positive that HRC will lose. Hillary has shown quite clearly a vengeful and vindictive streak against those who do not support her. See her comments “fuck them bill” about white working class in 1995, her attacks on Moveon.org which was literally created to help save her husband, etc. So if you’re an undecided superdelegate, why risk getting on her bad side?
Secondly, how does the popular vote “count”? It’s only an argument to persuade superdelegates. And how would it count “in full” when Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan? And no one campaigned in either state? I think if HRC relies on Michigan and Florida to push her over the top in the popular vote argument to the superdelegates, it will be a very weak argument.
And the rest of the argument is based on unsupported conspiracy theories about what the “establishment” will do. Do you have any proof about any of this?
Comment by Mike on 21 April 2008 at 9:22 am:
I forgot to add that your argument about the “undecided” superdelegates flies in the face of many “undecided” superdelegates coming out in support of Obama over the last few weeks. So is it only the superdelegates that have, to date, not endorsed that you are talking about? What if someone endorses Obama tomorrow?
Comment by Augur on 21 April 2008 at 10:23 am:
Puerto Rico was actually changed from winner take all to proportional relatively recently to favor Obama. Even w/ a caucus Hillary would have won - this was a much bigger score for Obama than shifting it from a caucus to a primary was for Hillary. How do you reconcile this with your conspiracy theory?
I thought there were elements of truth and elements of wacky conspiracy theory - but overall this was a bold post. Welcome to the Agora
Comment by tet on 21 April 2008 at 11:24 am:
May I remind you, Augur, that conspiracy theories have turned out to be the most consistently reliable historical theories available.
The powerful of humanity do work together to move circumstances in their direction–everything happening in Europe in the 17th Century, for example, moved in directions charted by Cardinal Richlieu. Roosevelt and Churchill did conspire for the US to aid Britain against the Nazis even though the US public and Congress were against them.
Conspiracy theories are only wacky if they turn out not to be true.
Tom
Comment by Brian on 21 April 2008 at 11:37 am:
My personal predictions for the rest of the Democratic primary:
Hillary wins Pennsylvania by 8-10 points, enough to keep her from dropping out but not enough to fundamentally change the dynamics of the race.
In the following couple weeks, a small trickle of superdelegates announce who they’re supporting, most but not all going for Obama, thus narrowing but not overcoming Hillary’s lead in superdelegates.
On May 6, Obama wins both North Carolina (by a sizable margin) and Indiana (by a smaller but not insignificant margin - maybe by 5-10 points).
Hillary EITHER drops out that night or the next day, OR, if she doesn’t, a more significant wave of superdelegates comes out for Obama, including significant national leaders, effectively ending her chances. The whole thing’s officially over late May/early June, at the latest.
Would be interested in hearing how everybody else thinks things will go.
Comment by Hanno on 21 April 2008 at 11:41 am:
Oh Boheme you befoul me. You and your loopsie. Always taunting me with your sexiness…
Comment by Augur on 21 April 2008 at 3:15 pm:
PA prediction: Obama wins PA very narrowly or loses by less than 3%
If Obama wins the popular vote in PA, Hillary Clinton drops out shortly thereafter.
I know this is a bit of a radical prediction (it’s more fun to be bold than to take the common wisdom approach BJP takes) and it’s more of a heart than head prediction, but I do think the PPP poll has the best model of the major polls.
Comment by kofi the his failure to address makes me wonder if Mr. Stallion is part of the conspiracy on 21 April 2008 at 10:05 pm:
I question why Barck can’t be an operative of the establishment. He has had a relatively unexplained and unmerited meteoric rise. Perhaps an indication of unscrupulous powers at work? And what better way to lull the masses into acceptance of the establishment rule then by tricking them into supporting a supposed-vehicle of change? What better way to incorporate an entire new generation into the machine? If the establishment is so powerful, would Barack have been allowed to succeed as much as he has if he was genuine?
Comment by tet on 22 April 2008 at 12:05 am:
Kofi, politics in America is like Alien vs. Predator. No matter who wins, we lose.
I am staying above the fray because Obama is as likely to continue the war in Iraq, take bad money from lobbyists, and wreck the economy as any of the rest of them.
We’re still screwed if he wins. We’re just not screwed quite as fast as if Hillary tops the ticket.
McCain is a sacrificial lamb.
Tom
Comment by Katie on 22 April 2008 at 10:31 am:
Tom,
What do you mean by “McCain is a sacrificial lamb?”
Do you think he has no chance at winning the general? Just curious.
Comment by tet on 22 April 2008 at 12:15 pm:
Katie, the masses see the economy as being in the shitter. We’ve been in Iraq longer than we were in Europe during WW2 and the situation isn’t improving. W has the lowest approval rating of any president in the last 70 years.
The GOP could run Jesus and they’d lose this year.
Tom
Comment by Diogenes the Dog on 22 April 2008 at 12:55 pm:
Jesus. Now there’s an interesting candidate. Thing is, he could only run as a Republican. If he ran as a Democrat, you’d see all kinds of smear ads. Such as…
What does it say about Jesus Christ’s family values when he spends all his time with prostitutes?
Jesus Christ is a bachelor. He prefers to spend all his time with a close group of male companions dressed in flamboyant costumes. What kind of message does this send to our children? Jesus Christ: Are his values America’s values?
How can we trust a man who says he’ll cut taxes when he spends so much time with tax collectors? Jesus Christ: Wrong for the Economy, Wrong for America
Jesus Christ says everyone should love each other as they love themselves. But should we really love the terrorists who want to destroy our way of life? How can a man who loves terrorists protect us from them? This November, tell Jesus Christ, hugs don’t protect our children.
POPE: If you have any question about what Jesus Christ’s made of, just spend three minutes with the men who worked with him.
VO: Here’s what those men think about Jesus Christ.
MALE #1: I worked with Jesus Christ.
MALE #2: I worked with Jesus Christ.
MALE #3: Jesus Christ has not been honest about what happened in Jerusalem.
MALE #4: He is lying about his record.
MALE #5: I know Jesus Christ is lying about coming back from the dead because I treated him when he came down from the cross.
MALE #6: I know. I was there. He was never dead to begin with.
VO: Paid for by Christians for Truth.
It’s like Molly Ivins said: When spineless goes up against shameless, shameless wins every time.
Comment by Mr. Stallion on 22 April 2008 at 1:34 pm:
good questions all; I will respond in order (please ignore the shortness or blunt nature of some responses and disagreements, obviously when speaking of predictions, disagreements can sound dismissive or condescending):
augur: sure we can wager.
thetodd: 1) there is no reason for Obama to have taken his name off the ballot in Michigan. For those who would say this move helped ‘deligitimize’ Michigan…the fact is Michigan will count just as much as Florida, so his move only deligitimized the vote in the eyes of his supporters.
2) you are probably correct about the term of art used by pollsters. I did statistical work for general election pollsters in undergrad, and we check to makes the sample sets are “random.”
3)my best guess is my best guess. I think all these things will happen, and furthermore, that all these things are rather obvious.
Allan Niemerg: your point has some merit, and since you have articulated it well, I will not repeat it.
But consider: Dean, Richardson, Pelosi, et all know the value of “letting the voters be heard,” but have nonetheless insisted that the supers vote now or soon.
The Obama campaign itself is calling for the nomination process to come to a close, so it is clear that there are few within the Obama camp itself which are persuaded by the logic that we need to wait until Puerto Rico has been heard.
It is true that even if the supers pushed Obama over 2025, HRC could contest the nomination at the convention. But such a move would be largely irrelevant, as there would be no legal or precedents argument HRC could put forward for the basis of her nomination.
Such is not the case today. It is consistent with historical precedent for the supers to chose, at a brokered convention, the candidate who won the popular vote. HRC would not be able to win the popular vote if the superdelegates pushed Obama above 2025: the numbers are close as it is, and a dramatic loss, such as having Obama reach 2025, would certainly cost HRC a substantial amount of electoral support.
Mike: yes people are afraid of the Clintons, but some people are also bought and sold by the Clintons.
You are incorrect to say that the popular vote only “counts” in the minds of the superdelegates. Parties can be held accountable as state actors, particularly when setting whole-sale policy about what votes counts for certain tallies, and 14 Amendment issues can be raised.
In Florida, the lawsuits are already filed. The reason Michigan may very well count ‘in full’ is because Obama forfeited his right to run in Michigan by voluntarily removing himself from the ballot.
The answers to this election will be provided by analyzing how politics do run, not how they should run: herein lies the forgivable mistake many zealous Obama advocates make.
There is quite a bit of evidence about what the establishment will do. Historical analysis helps: 1968, 1972, 1984, 2000, 2004. Current analysis of establishment proxies helps: HRC leads by ~28 in the superdelegates. Listening and trusting in the corporate narrative offered up by MSNBC, Chuck Todd, Pelosi, et al?
That doesn’t help. It didn’t help when the election was stolen in 2000, when we were lied into war in Iraq, or when the election was stolen in 2004. We should all be suspicious that the corporate media fawns over Obama.
Mike:
You are incorrect that “many” superdelegates are supporting Obama in the “last few weeks.”
Obama got a nice bump in supers in late February, but hasn’t added many since March 4. He has picked up one or two, here and there, but mostly he has picked up important endorcements from non-super delegates. He picked up two senator endorcements this week, for example, that many of my classmates confused with superdelegates.
Although he has narrowed the margin by a couple in the last few weeks, it is only a corporate narrative that supers are “flocking” to Obama.
Augur:
You are incorrect that the shift from winner takes all to a proportional system hurts HRC.
Obama is going to win the pledged delegate total…it is not in dispute. The only thing in dispute is whether a brokered convention will be decided upon who leads in pledged delegates…since that has never happened.
Instead, HRC needs to win the popular vote. Puerto Rico has an insane voter turnout, much much higher than any State in the Union. Trading the 20-30 pledged delegates HRC might have additionally netted in a winner-takes-all format, for a 70,000-100,000 advantage in popular votes is a good trade for HRC.
You are right that it would be better for her to have BOTH the primary and the winner-takes-all format, but since politics is a game of compromises, the Puerto Rico development is an advantage for HRC.
Tet: Amen brotha!
How many people are aware that the Gulf of Tonkin attack was a hoax? Or that the US government planned to fake terrorist attacks on the US, involving hijacking or blowing up US airplanes, in the 1960s?
How many people know about all the Nazis hired straight into the CIA throughout the 1940s-1970s?
Only those who study the National Security Archives instead of listening to the corporate media, which is owned by the military industrial complex.
Brian: I disagree. Obama has no chance in Indiana.
Auger: I’m hoping for an Obama win in PA also.
Kofi: I am closely related to a number of persons ‘involved in the conspiracy.’ I regularly meet with State department officials, US ambassadors, and intelligence officials: some of whom are my family.
tet: for what it is worth, I obviously agree with what you are saying.
There are tons of reasons to fear Obama: but there are way way way more to fear HRC.
Obama’s senior policy wonks are war criminals and worse: Zbigy Brzezinski, Anthony Lake, Gen. McPeak, Sarah Sewall, etc. He has some, though minor, policy advisors from neo-conservative think-tanks associated with the UC and Harvard.
He is supported financially by George Soros and Senator “You can call me Jay” John D. Rockefeller IV.
But for all his foibles, Obama offers America the chance of another JFK: a guy who rode in on the coattails of evil, only to rebel against the establishment and stick up for Americans when it mattered most.
That’s the only legitimate hope. Everything else is born of youthful ignorance and corporate narratives. And luckily, we can have that hope in Obama whether he is President or VP…or ever if he remains in the Senate as a strong leader.
But you are right..his stance on the Afghanistan war is asinine, his ‘redeployment’ is not really a withdrawal..as we will still defend the green zone, and there is no reason to think he can take on the oil interests (rockefellers) and the lobbyists (soros) when he is supported by both.
Katie:
Tet is dead on, McCain has zero chance.
No one in the GOP has any shot whatsoever. Crist, Jindal and Schwarzennegar are some of the only “Republicans” who will be leftover to team with Bloomberg in 2012.
And if Hillary wins this year, Arnold/bloomberg is a nightmare for 2012. Comprehensive immigration reform will secure approval for ‘the Arnold amendment.’
Arnold has already told the Kennedy biographer that Warren Buffet and Jacob Rothschild are financing his run for President. They tend to make profitable investments.
Comment by Mr. Stallion on 22 April 2008 at 1:40 pm:
minor clarification to Mike:
the endorsements Obama picked up this week, were two former Senators, who are no longer superdelegates.
There are many former elected officials who have lost their status as supers. Nunn and Boren are the names of the recent endorsements I am talking about.
Comment by Anonymous on 26 May 2008 at 2:50 am:
You bombed out. Edwards endorsed that Obama. BTW, I’m with Hillary all the way.