SDOGPEIT

[kapkomet]

Well, yes, it's early. But I had to start the thread.

 

[CanOfCorn]

I'll tell you one thing...it sure is SUPER!!!

[NorthSideSox72]

Just for fun, let's take a look at the most recent Super Tuesday state polls for the Dems, which are all taken PRE-SOUTH CAROLINA (which will effect southern states a lot), and the recent Kennedy and Morrison endorsements (which may effect MA and, again, the south), but since mid-January (after primaries and caucuses got going). Consider this the "before" snapshot, since we'll get the "after" later this week or on the weekend (NOTE: Not all SDOGPEIT states have any January polls, including MN-88, OK-47, KS-41, NM-38, DE-23, ID-23, ND-21, AK-18)...

 

California - 370 Delegates

Average of 3: USA Today / Gallup, 1/23-26; PPIC, 1/13-20; Rasmussen, 1/14

Clinton: 41.3% (+9.4)

Obama: 31.7%

Edwards: 10.7%

 

New York - 281 Delegates

Avg of 2 recent polls: USA Today/Gallup, 1/23-26; Quinnipiac, 1/14-21

Clinton: 53.5% (+27)

Obama: 26.5%

Edwards: 10.5%

 

Illinois - 185 Delegates

Research 2000, 1/20-24

Obama: 51% (+29)

Clinton: 22%

Edwards: 15%

UNDECIDED: 12%

 

Massachusetts - 121 Delegates

Survey USA, 1/22-23

Clinton: 59% (+37)

Obama: 22%

Edwards: 11%

UNDECIDED: 8%

 

New Jersey - 107 Delegates

Quinnipiac, 1/15-22

Clinton: 49% (+17)

Obama: 32%

Edwards: 10%

UNDECIDED: 9%

 

Georgia - 103 Delegates

Rasmussen, 1/22

Obama: 41% (+6)

Clinton: 35%

Edwards: 13%

UNDECIDED: 11%

 

Missouri - 88 Delegates

Avg of 2 recent polls: Rasmussen, 1/24; R2000, 1/21-24

Clinton: 43.5% (+16)

Obama: 27.5%

Edwards: 23%

 

Tennessee - 85 Delegates

WSMV-TV, 1/19-21

Clinton: 34% (+14)

Obama: 20%

Edwards: 16%

UNDECIDED: 30%

 

Colorado - 71 Delegates

Denver Post, 1/21-23

Obama: 34% (+2)

Clinton: 32%

Edwards: 17%

UNDECIDED: 17%

 

Arizona - 67 Delegates

Behavioral Research Center, 1/20-24

Clinton: 37% (+10)

Obama: 27%

Edwards: 15%

UNDECIDED: 21%

 

Connecticut - 60 Delegates

Hartford Courant, 1/9-17

Clinton: 41% (+14)

Obama: 27%

Edwards: 9%

UNDECIDED: 23%

 

Alabama - 60 Delegates

Rasmussen, 1/23

Clinton: 43% (+15)

Obama: 28%

Edwards: 16%

 

A few interesting thoughts on these...

 

--Look how few places anyone has 50%+ - Clinton twice, Obama once.

--Edwards still reliably holding 10-15% of the vote in these states

--Minnesota is pretty big - surprised there are no polls yet

--MA is likely to have a tectonic shift after the Kennedy endorsement

--Watch the southern states with large black populations (GA, TN, AL) to shift after the SC results

 

Discuss...

 

[Rex Kickass]

Also, watch out for NJ and CT too. If Clinton's lead appreciatively shrinks here over the next few days, she's in a lot of trouble.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I get more and more turned off by this election with every passing day. The Republican field is still a mess ( although I think both Guiliani and Huckabee are done for after this week ) and none of the candidates have any new ideas. The Dems all talk about "CHANGE!!!" without offering anything really specific.

 

Honestly I'm seriously thinking about taking this election off.

[kapkomet]

I get more and more turned off by this election with every passing day. The Republican field is still a mess ( although I think both Guiliani and Huckabee are done for after this week ) and none of the candidates have any new ideas. The Dems all talk about "CHANGE!!!" without offering anything really specific.

 

Honestly I'm seriously thinking about taking this election off.

Because, Bush Sucks, and it has to be better with them in charge. The Democratic Platform since 2004 has been "Bush Sucks" and "we can do better!!!", and we see how that's going with the current Congress, don't we?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I get more and more turned off by this election with every passing day. The Republican field is still a mess ( although I think both Guiliani and Huckabee are done for after this week ) and none of the candidates have any new ideas. The Dems all talk about "CHANGE!!!" without offering anything really specific.

 

Honestly I'm seriously thinking about taking this election off.

 

 

Because, Bush Sucks, and it has to be better with them in charge. The Democratic Platform since 2004 has been "Bush Sucks" and "we can do better!!!", and we see how that's going with the current Congress, don't we?

 

You guys are welcome to think that if you want, but if you actually look on their websites, most of the candidates have a lot of specifics they are suggesting. I think they all have plans, and they all have specific CHANGES they want to make.

 

So to me, that's not the issue. The issue is, which one might actually get it done. McCain looks like that guy to me, in the GOP - he knows how to actually work across the aisle, he's consistent in his convictions, and he isn't overly divisive. Obama similarly for the Dems, has a track record of not being as divisive and actually working with the other party.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh hey, little noticed, there are 11 non-state delegates up for contest in this primary season, including American Samoa, who goes to the polls on SDOGPEIT as well with its 3 mighty delegates. No word if anyone plans to campaign there.

 

ETA: Sorry, change that - they have 3 pledged delegates based on results, but they also have 10 Supers, for a total of 13 delegates. That's only 5 less than Alaska. And I'd guess that Samoa is probably pretty pro-Obama, given he lived in the Asia Pac region and grew up there for part of his life, not to mention he is multi-racial.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The first Dem poll in California taken after the SC Primary is out (adding in that company's few previous results to show trend)...

 

SurveyUSA (888 LV in latest), most recent first...

 

____________1/27__1/13__12/16__12/3__10/14

Clinton...........49........50........49.......50.......57

Obama...........38........35........30.......24.......20

Edwards...........9........10........14.......16.......13

 

The incredible shrinking lead for Clinton: +37, +26, +19, +15, +11. Clinton's number is nearly the same, but it seems like Obama has taken a little bit of Edwards' numbers, and a whole lot of everyone else who dropped out.

 

[southsider2k5]

The first Dem poll in California taken after the SC Primary is out (adding in that company's few previous results to show trend)...

 

SurveyUSA (888 LV in latest), most recent first...

 

____________1/27__1/13__12/16__12/3__10/14

Clinton...........49........50........49.......50.......57

Obama...........38........35........30.......24.......20

Edwards...........9........10........14.......16.......13

 

The incredible shrinking lead for Clinton: +37, +26, +19, +15, +11. Clinton's number is nearly the same, but it seems like Obama has taken a little bit of Edwards' numbers, and a whole lot of everyone else who dropped out.

 

Is CA winner take all for the Dems?

[Texsox]

You guys are welcome to think that if you want, but if you actually look on their websites, most of the candidates have a lot of specifics they are suggesting. I think they all have plans, and they all have specific CHANGES they want to make.

 

So to me, that's not the issue. The issue is, which one might actually get it done. McCain looks like that guy to me, in the GOP - he knows how to actually work across the aisle, he's consistent in his convictions, and he isn't overly divisive. Obama similarly for the Dems, has a track record of not being as divisive and actually working with the other party.

 

gp

[NorthSideSox72]

Is CA winner take all for the Dems?

As I understand it, the Dems don't have any winner-take-all primaries. At least not according to what I've seen. Can someone else verify that?

 

[southsider2k5]

As I understand it, the Dems don't have any winner-take-all primaries. At least not according to what I've seen. Can someone else verify that?

 

That would be good news for Obama. All he has to do is keep it close there, for respectabilities sake.

[NorthSideSox72]

That would be good news for Obama. All he has to do is keep it close there, for respectabilities sake.

That's what I have been saying/thinking.

 

Obama will gain a bit this week in the South, probably, after SC. NY and IL are forgone conclusions. AK and assorted mini-states are probably not worth the time. If I'm Axelrod, I'm emphasizing for Obama (in order of importance)...

 

--California

--New Jersey

--Massachussetts

--Missouri

--Minnesota

--The mountain west group - CO, AZ, NM (and UT and ID, only because they are right there, though they are small)

--Kansas (he's sort of from there, he should make a quick appearance to remind people of that)

 

Obama already has a lead in a few of those, but is well behing in NJ, MO and CA. Other states are close. If he can make most of those at least close, and do well in the south... that would be a big overall win for him.

 

At this point, I would imagine that Clinton and Obama are really pushing Richardson to endorse. He could be a huge help in CA, the mountain west and OK. He could hand NM to whomever he likes.

 

[Rex Kickass]

As I understand it, the Dems don't have any winner-take-all primaries. At least not according to what I've seen. Can someone else verify that?

 

Correct. After 1988, the DNC changed primary rules and no longer allows winner take all primaries or caucuses. If you get 15%, you get delegates.

[GoSox05]

Because, Bush Sucks, and it has to be better with them in charge. The Democratic Platform since 2004 has been "Bush Sucks" and "we can do better!!!", and we see how that's going with the current Congress, don't we?

 

 

Yeah but he does suck.

[CanOfCorn]

Concerning Illinois...I find it interesting that the candidate actually FROM Illinois is getting trounced by the candidate that is a Senator from Illinois but born in Hawaii. Guess that just goes to show you that Midwesterners don't like deserters!

[HuskyCaucasian]

Concerning Illinois...I find it interesting that the candidate actually FROM Illinois is getting trounced by the candidate that is a Senator from Illinois but born in Hawaii. Guess that just goes to show you that Midwesterners don't like deserters!

Barack is more of an Illinoisan than hillary ever was. She's a carpet bagger. Went to Littel Rock, became a southerner. Moved to NY and became a Yankees fan.

[Rex Kickass]

That's what I have been saying/thinking.

 

Obama will gain a bit this week in the South, probably, after SC. NY and IL are forgone conclusions. AK and assorted mini-states are probably not worth the time. If I'm Axelrod, I'm emphasizing for Obama (in order of importance)...

 

--California

--New Jersey

--Massachussetts

--Missouri

--Minnesota

--The mountain west group - CO, AZ, NM (and UT and ID, only because they are right there, though they are small)

--Kansas (he's sort of from there, he should make a quick appearance to remind people of that)

 

Obama already has a lead in a few of those, but is well behing in NJ, MO and CA. Other states are close. If he can make most of those at least close, and do well in the south... that would be a big overall win for him.

 

At this point, I would imagine that Clinton and Obama are really pushing Richardson to endorse. He could be a huge help in CA, the mountain west and OK. He could hand NM to whomever he likes.

 

He's been to NJ, but its not worth a ton of his time. So much of NJ feels part of New York, so the state does kind of view Clinton as their home Senator too, believe it or not.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

He's been to NJ, but its not worth a ton of his time. So much of NJ feels part of New York, so the state does kind of view Clinton as their home Senator too, believe it or not.

Good point.

 

[Rex Kickass]

NJ and CT are firewall for Clinton. She needs a big win in NJ, NY and CT, plus a huge margin in CA and it's over.

 

If it's less than 15 points in NJ, CT and single digits in CA, we have brokered convention in our hands I do believe.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Quick question:

My wife last voted in 2004 and has since moved since we got married in 2005. My question i, when she changed her drivers license, does that change her voter registration location, or does she have to file a change of address?

[Balta1701]

Quick question:

My wife last voted in 2004 and has since moved since we got married in 2005. My question i, when she changed her drivers license, does that change her voter registration location, or does she have to file a change of address?

At least out here, you have to re-register to vote every time you move.

[HuskyCaucasian]

At least out here, you have to re-register to vote every time you move.

thanks.

actually, just found my own answer..

http://www.elections.il.gov/VotingInformation/Register.aspx

 

[NorthSideSox72]

First Minnesota poll is out, but it was actually taken pre-SC win for Obama, and pre-Edwards dropping out.

 

Minnesota Public Radio, 478 R, 1/18-1/27

Clinton: 40%

Obama: 33%

Edwards: 12%

UNDECIDED: 13%

 

Yet another state where the gap was already narrow, and an SC victory for Obama plus him visiting there soon should bump his numbers up. This is really more of a "before" sample anyway.