What Constitutes a 'Victory' in PA

[Puppycow]

Both campaigns will try to spin the result of today's primary in the best possible way for their candidate. All polls indicate a likely victory for Hillary Clinton. But many think that a narrow-margin victory won't be good enough to save her campaign.

But there is a more objective way (not perfect, but better) to tell whether or not the result is a 'victory' in the sense of improving either candidate's odds of ultimately clinching the nomination. That more objective measure is the Intrade Real Time Quote for each candidate. If Hillary's stock goes up, and Barack's down, she won, and vice-versa. If they don't change much, it's essentially a tie.
The current quotes:
Obama: 81.5
Clinton: 15.3

Note: It's not a perfect measure, as what it really measures is the conventional wisdom, not necessarily the true odds, but it's certainly more objective than the spin you'll hear from the campaigns or many pundits.

[T.A.M.]

If she wins by more than 10% it is a clear victory. Will it make a BIG difference in the overall election...unlikely, it will just prolong the outcome...IMO.

Less than 5% and she will be doing some serious thinking...

TAM

[TheJim]

She has less than 1 percent chance at the nomination overall so it is all about when she exits.

If she loses today she will concede tonight or tomorrow.

If she wins but less than around 5 or 6 she might try to make it too NC/IN but she will not get any money might not last the week. Also the super delegates will flood to Obama.

If she wins 5 or 6 to about 12 percent she will end it after losing NC.

If she gets over 12 ish percent she will be in it to the end.

[Dragoonster]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Note: It's not a perfect measure, as what it really measures is the conventional wisdom, not necessarily the true odds, but it's certainly more objective than the spin you'll hear from the campaigns or many pundits.

The predictive powers of those are pretty good on a lot of things I take it?

But in this case, unfortunately the pundits do tend to affect normal sheep voters a lot more than the group that would be trading.

As far as predicting whether Hillary will concede, I seem to recall her or Bill saying they needed Ohio and Texas to keep going, and of course when the caucuses were final she'd actually lost Texas. Then that was just absorbed into her pro-primary anti-caucus excuses...I think they can spin anything at this point...oh good grief, I had almost two months without getting upset with this stuff...

[ConspiRaider]

HA! You Obamaniacs are so cute. "Even if she wins, she, like, doesn't!" "She has a less than 1% chance of winning the nomination!"

Recognizing that we U.S. Democrats are saps in the recent presidential campaigns, there's no way to tell what will happen in November. Probably - being saps - we'll lose to McCain.

But today, Hillary Clinton is going to take the Keystone State like the Steelers took all those Super Bowls.

GO
HILLARY!

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

HA! You Obamaniacs are so cute. "Even if she wins, she, like, doesn't!" "She has a less than 1% chance of winning the nomination!"

Recognizing that we U.S. Democrats are saps in the recent presidential campaigns, there's no way to tell what will happen in November. Probably - being saps - we'll lose to McCain.

But today, Hillary Clinton is going to take the Keystone State like the Steelers took all those Super Bowls.

GO
HILLARY!

See, the dems have this thing called proportionate representation, so even though you are likely to wet yourself if Hillary wins by two votes and a smudge, it won't have much of an effect on the balance of delegates.

[Dragoonster]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

HA! You Obamaniacs are so cute. "Even if she wins, she, like, doesn't!" "She has a less than 1% chance of winning the nomination!"

I like Hillary just fine and wouldn't mind if she were the new Pres. My problem is that the DNC has formed a mathematic standard of deciding their candidacy and she has almost zero chance of reaching it (while Obama has a good chance of getting the required delegates). At this point she seems to be holding the process up, which of course is her right, but I'm hopeful the democratic candidate will win in November and it'll help (imo) if she accepts her loss sooner rather than later.

As far as bias, my favorite candidates are/were:

Kucinich
..
..
..
Obama
Hillary
..
..
McCain
..
..
.. (x 30)
..
Bush

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Anything less than 7% Hillary win, she is in real trouble. Little to no chance of finishing ahead on delegates or popular vote. Might limp on to the next states but only so she can go out after a defeat rather than a victory.

7% to 14% Hillary win. She gets limited momentum from it and keeps it alive until the next states vote. Needs to win every state from then on to keep momentum alive.

14% plus. She gets real momentum - can afford to lose later states and stay in the race to the end.

[Brainster]

John McIntyre of Real Clear Politics agrees with most of the thinking on this thread:

Quote:

Here is a quick guide to sort through the inevitable post-PA spin.

--Obama wins: Race is totally over.

--Clinton wins by 5 or less: Race is effectively over.

--Clinton wins by 6-9: Status quo, which favors the front runner Obama, particularly as the clock winds down.

--Clinton wins by 10-13: Clinton remains the underdog, but her odds of being the nominee will be considerably higher than the conventional wisdom in the media.

--Clinton wins by 14+: Totally different race, as Clinton will be on a path to claim a popular vote win that will give her every bit as much of an argument as the legitimate "winner". In this scenario anything could ultimately happen, including neither Clinton nor Obama becoming the eventual nominee.

My guess is that she wins by 10 points; enough to keep her in the race, but not enough to change things much at InTrade.

[President Bush]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

Hillary Clinton is going to take the Keystone State like the Steelers took all those Super Bowls.

http://news.steelers.com/MediaConten..._XXX_80316.pdf

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

HA! You Obamaniacs are so cute. "Even if she wins, she, like, doesn't!" "She has a less than 1% chance of winning the nomination!"

Recognizing that we U.S. Democrats are saps in the recent presidential campaigns, there's no way to tell what will happen in November. Probably - being saps - we'll lose to McCain.

But today, Hillary Clinton is going to take the Keystone State like the Steelers took all those Super Bowls.

GO
HILLARY!

I am from PA (yes I am going to vote in an hour or so here), I am a Steeler fan and at the beginning of the race I was for Hillary.

What the Clinton supporters forget is that short of a MAJOR victory in PA on the order of 15% or better Hillary does not have a chance.

Using the sports metaphor you started, it's like the Pirates being down by 10 runs in the bottom of the 9th with no men on base and 2 outs. YES it is possible to score 10 runs in one inning, YES it is possible to score a few runs with two men out, YES it is possible to score 10 runs with no men on base…. it is HIGHLY unlikely to score 10 runs in the bottom of the 9th with no men on and 2 outs.

I understand that it's hard to admit defeat when faced with this scenario and the team should wait until that last out before calling the game but by the same token the manager of the team shouldn't say to all the players "if we don't get these 10 runs now you guys are all losers and will never win another game!" There is a time when you take the lose and suck it up for the betterment of the team in relation to future games.

Look, the problem we "Obamanicas" have with Hillary is WE ARE ON THE SAME TEAM. We want a Dem in the White House, I would have voted for either.

The longer Hillary sticks around the more divided the team is. If you want an example of that "you" are calling "us" Obamanicas now…. Us vs. Them, how divided is that?

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

HA! You Obamaniacs are so cute. "Even if she wins, she, like, doesn't!" "She has a less than 1% chance of winning the nomination!"

Recognizing that we U.S. Democrats are saps in the recent presidential campaigns, there's no way to tell what will happen in November. Probably - being saps - we'll lose to McCain.

But today, Hillary Clinton is going to take the Keystone State like the Steelers took all those Super Bowls.

GO
HILLARY!

CS:

Can I ask you, as a Hillary supporter, why you feel the need to attack the Obama supporters here? When was the last time, if ANY TIME, that I attacked a Hillary Supporter?

Like who you like...your vote counts. I do not have one, so why all the "nah nah nah!!" attitude?

TAM

[TheJim]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

HA! You Obamaniacs are so cute. "Even if she wins, she, like, doesn't!" "She has a less than 1% chance of winning the nomination!"

Does cute mean the truth? Obama needs 378 and Clinton needs 517 delegates to get the nomination.*

There are 308 super delegates still open with 65 of those being add-ons. Add-on delegates are those that will be named by each state in the spring. Most states have only 1 or 2 while CA has 5. CA has already said that 3 will be Clinton while 2 will be for Obama and most states have said similar things about splits if applicable. Of course this is not an airtight predication but it looks like the split of this group will be around Obama 36 Hillary 29. This drops the magic numbers to Obama 342 Clinton 488

I will use polling data from pollster.com and alway take Obama's lowest score and/or Clinton's highest (which ever will most help Clinton) of the last week of polls and plug them into slate.com delegate counter to get the best case scenario for her. So for example in North Carolina the lowest support for Obama is 47 percent though the poll shows Clinton at 34 I will plug it in Obama 47 which will automatically give Clinton 53 percent of the delegates. There was no polling data for Guam or Montana (so i used S Dakota's result for Montana). With this most favorable methodology** Clinton receives 338 while Obama gets 228. This drops the magic numbers Obama 114 and Clinton 150.

Obama would need only about 46 percent of the remaining SD while Clinton would still need about 61 percent of them. This while she has gained less than 1 percent since super Tuesday.

And than of course there is the money. Clinton right now is in debt at least million if not greater and this was before the media buys of the last week while Obama has close to 40 million in the bank.







*Numbers here according to the http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/
**These where for the most part the lowest poll number for Obama so it assumes he gets 0 undecided.
the breakdown ended up being PA 39-61 Clinton GU tied as it did not really matter one way or another IN 39-61 Clinton NC 47-53 Clinton WV 27-73 Clinton KY 26-74 Clinton OR 52-48 Clinton PR 37-63 MT 46-54 Clinton SD 46-54 Clinton.

Quote:

But today, Hillary Clinton is going to take the Keystone State like the Steelers took all those Super Bowls.

Wrong sports metaphor it is more like the Washington Generals scoring a lay-up down by 25 with 43 seconds on the clock. Yes theoretically it could happen but it is just a blip before the end of the game.

[David Wong]

Yeah the fund raising is everything. I don't know if there's such a thing as a Pennsylvania victory big enough to jump-start her fund raising.

Also, even a 14-point win only picks up 20 delegates on Obama, and if everything else falls the way its polling, she goes into the convention down by 110 delegates (factoring in her advantage with the supers). So whatever argument she can make about electability, it has to be enough to convince 210 of the remaining 300 supers.

If she wins Pennsylvania by 20 or 25, then maybe she'll have something. But even low double digits doesn't fix her math problem. It's kicking a field goal when you're down by 11 with a minute left in the game.

There's your sports analogy for you.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by David Wong

If she wins Pennsylvania by 20 or 25, then maybe she'll have something. But even low double digits doesn't fix her math problem. It's kicking a field goal when you're down by 11 with a minute left in the game.

Actually kicking a field goal when you're down by 11 makes some sense. Close the gap to 8 points and pray that you recover the onsides kick (which you have to do at some point anyway), score a TD and the two-point conversion. If you're 12 points down, the field goal doesn't help at all.

Hillary's main hope at this point is to hang around and hope that Obama does something incredibly stupid. The problem that she's had is that the (arguably) stupid things that Obama has done are not seen that way by the liberal base of the Democratic Party, so she's reduced to making meta-arguments (that Obama's missteps will hurt him in the general election).

[Dragoonster]

Yep, the raw numbers are sobering, or should be, for Clinton. Obama has won more popular votes, more primaries, more caucuses, more states, more total delegates, more delegates from states. All she has more of is superdels (by just 20), and of course, the established media machine and networking she and Bill have built up.

If the situation were reversed the media would constantly be on Obama to quit, and not offering pipe dream scenarios. Or maybe they'd still be trying to drag it out as much as they are, enabling Obama instead of Hillary for their ratings, and I'm not as jaded as I should be.

It's like the 49ers being down 20 points with five minutes to go and their hometown announcer saying they're shown heart, have a chance, great play...keeping up the hype just to keep people from switching to the Raiders, and/or because the network affiliate won't let them switch to a better national game.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Hillary's main hope at this point is to hang around and hope that Obama does something incredibly stupid. The problem that she's had is that the (arguably) stupid things that Obama has done are not seen that way by the liberal base of the Democratic Party, so she's reduced to making meta-arguments (that Obama's missteps will hurt him in the general election).

Yes I guess we'll have to wait for the general to see the hate come out.

TAM

[Puppycow]

http://www.drudgereport.com/

http://thepage.time.com/

[TheJim]

Dragoonster you bring up a good point about if the roles where reversed. If they where this race would have been declared over weeks ago and if Obama was trying to play it out he would have got the Hukleebee treatment. The large media would at most have a single reporter if that following Obama and IF he could get on TV for an interview it would be filed with nothing more than questions about why are dragging this on or when are you going to endorse.

[Brainster]

Don't trust exit polls. InTrade has Hillary up 1.7 to 17.0, while Obama's down 0.4 to 81.4 (down 0.1 compared to what the OP mentioned).

[David Wong]

Yeah exit polls are worthless.

[dudalb]

UNless Obama actually wins the state, both sides will declares victory.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Don't trust exit polls. InTrade has Hillary up 1.7 to 17.0, while Obama's down 0.4 to 81.4 (down 0.1 compared to what the OP mentioned).

Remember the 2004 Ohio/Florida exit polls debacles.

[The Painter]

I truly and honestly hope this decision goes to the convention floor. Screw change, this old time politics.

[Puppycow]

Little change so far: Obama 81.9, Clinton 15.8

Probably have to wait 24 to 48 hours know for sure.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I am going with Matthews and saying that 8% is the tipping point.

[David Wong]

55% reporting, Hillary up by exactly 8:

54 to 46.

If she can't manage double digits, I expect a lot of superdelegates to go ahead and come out for Obama this week. No reason not to.

[T.A.M.]

Now the media are changing the goal posts...before it was, well if she doesnt win big, its over.

Then it was, well if she doesn't win by more than 10%

Now it is, well she needs to split Indiana and NC.

Add this to the Hillary Campaign "never ending, Lets find some metric that shows us ahead", and it is enough to give you a headache.

TAM

[maxpower1227]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

But today, Hillary Clinton is going to take the Keystone State like the Steelers took all those Super Bowls.

You mean fraudulently? Or were you referring to their Super Bowls other than the most recent one?

[kallsop]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Now the media are changing the goal posts...before it was, well if she doesnt win big, its over.

The media will keep the facade going as long as possible. It's good for (their) business. Until such time as it clearly impedes either of their candidates winning in November (Obama or Clinton), then it will turn nasty in a hurry and Hillary will be trashed and discarded in a heartbeat. There is no way Hillary can win short of revelations about the Obamessiah attending a hate America, hate whitey, anti semitic Church for 20 years. Come to think of it, that won't be enough.

Maybe we will all be surprised and Hillary and Bill will bow out gracefully. Sure

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by kallsop

The media will keep the facade going as long as possible.

charade

Quote:

There is no way Hillary can win short of revelations about the Obamessiah attending a hate America, hate whitey, anti semitic Church for 20 years. Come to think of it, that won't be enough.

Maybe we will all be surprised and Hillary and Bill will bow out gracefully. Sure

Repent and Accept the Obamessiah!

[David Wong]

For the record with 98% reporting the margin is 9.6%.

She gains about 217,000 popular votes on Obama takes 16 delegates off his lead.

[David Wong]

If Obama wins North Carolina by the same margin the polls are predicting, he will gain all of those delegates back, plus one.

[Brainster]

In terms of the OP on this thread, Hillary won. Her shares jumped 0.8 cents to 16.1 while Obama's rose 0.1 cents to 81.7 as I post. Which means that tonight's big loser was.... Al Gore!

Seriously, though, this didn't move the needle much. It's enough for Hillary to carry on, but the clock is still not her friend.

[Puppycow]

By the NY Times count, it came in a shade under 10%, but essentially rounds up to 10%.

Quote:

Candidate Vote % Delegates
Hillary Rodham Clinton 1,249,174 54.7% To be determined
Barack Obama 1,034,664 45.3
99% reporting | Updated 1:13 AM ET

Real time quotes have barely budged so far, indicating that this was about the result expected.
Early delegate estimate is 78 for Clinton, 63 for Obama, a difference of 15. This will probably be revised in the next 24-48, but a difference of 15 would cut his delegate lead to 127. Basically, she got a field goal, but she needs about 3 touchdowns to win.

[Brainster]

The morning after: Obama's down to 80.0, Hillary up to 18.6.

[dudalb]

Actually,after rereading the title for this thread, and seeing no mention of Obama or Clinton, I would say that Gettysburg definently constituted a win for the North.

[Vorticity]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

By the NY Times count, it came in a shade under 10%, but essentially rounds up to 10%.

No, it doesn't.

According to the CNN election center ( http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...ults/state/#PA ), the final count is:

Clinton: 1,260,208
Obama: 1,045,444

That comes to 54.657% for Clinton and 45.343% for Obama. The difference between those two numbers is about 9.3%. If you're going to round, then it rounds to 9%.

This may sound like nitpicking, but all day long I have been listening to the talking heads repeating over and over how "Clinton got the double digit win she needed to stay in the race!" Even Clinton herself came out with a soundbite to this effect.

As a math guy, I'm tearing my hair out. It's innumeracy in action. They made the elementary mathematical mistake of rounding before taking the difference!

The soundbite should be "Clinton fails to garner double digit victory needed to stay in race." Imagine if public opinion and the election were decided by a simple rounding error!

ETA: The numbers in your link give essentially identical results.

[kallsop]

Originally Posted by Vorticity

The soundbite should be "Clinton fails to garner double digit victory needed to stay in race."

That's odd. I thought the soundbite is "Obama outspends Hillary 4:1 and gets crushed in PA. Will he pull out for the good of the party?"

[Vorticity]

Originally Posted by kallsop

That's odd. I thought the soundbite is "Obama outspends Hillary 4:1 and gets crushed in PA. Will he pull out for the good of the party?"

Hey, I wouldn't care about it at all, except for the fact that there seems to be so much focus on this whole double digit thing:

"Clinton needs a double-digit victory..."
"Clinton got the double-digit victory..."
"Now, with her double-digit victory, Clinton has momentum..."

And on and on and on. Even Clinton herself said: "I won that double-digit victory that everybody on TV said I had to win..."

NO. YOU. DID. NOT.

This isn't political for me, it's mathematical. Learn how to use the rules for rounding numbers properly, people.