Election 2008 Dem Presidential Primary Predictions

Note: The Google advertisement links below may advocate political positions that this site does not endorse.

Date of Prediction: 2008-03-02 Version:1

Prediction Map

Confidence Map

Prediction States Won

		26 \|	52 \|
Clinton	11
Edwards	0
Obama	4
Richardson	0
Other	0

Confidence States Won

		26 \|	52 \|
Clinton	0
Edwards	0
Obama	0
Richardson	0
Other	0
Tossup	15

Prediction Score (max Score = 104)

Score	State Wins	State Percentages
9	9	0

Analysis
No Analysis Entered

Member Comments

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-02 @ 21:39:43
Montana, Vermont, S. Dakota & N. Carolina all lean Obama.

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-02 @ 22:52:55
You might change the percents. It's also very unlikely Hillary stays in the race if she loses Texas.. her campaign has essentially said as much. Last Edit: 2008-03-02 @ 22:53:24

By: Lord Bitememan (R-MI) 2008-03-04 @ 22:29:54
I know it's a built-into-the-site thing, but I can't help but look at this map and wonder "is this the 'half the United States has been incinerated in a nuclear fire' primary scenario?"

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-06 @ 12:20:22
It is pretty messed up, it would be better if Leip just displayed the actual result in each slide. But then it's harder to tell who the newcomers are and appropriately ridicule them! (Just kidding)

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-06 @ 15:53:00
Yeah lets not let anyone put a scenario together that doesnt represent the final outcome approved by the commenter. How Democratic. This is a forum of free thought isnt it? Shouldnt it be constructive critcism not ridicule. I find no humor at the expense of someone else thoughts I dont agree with. How Democratic. Last Edit: 2008-03-06 @ 15:59:24

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-06 @ 21:34:14
About as democratic as trying to reinstate two states that had beauty contests and/or hoping super delegates bail your campaign out.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-06 @ 22:06:34
Well, Superdelegates were created by the Democratic party like it or not that is the system. so I guess they are. Last Edit: 2008-03-06 @ 22:29:19

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-06 @ 22:11:53
You're dodging the point again. In what way is a superdelegate different from a commentator? Leip created the comment system here as well, after all. Superdelegates are not elected to pick nominees, they are elected to either be governors or Senators. If they side with the candidate that lost the popular/pledged delegate count, then it is in no way democratic? "Part of the process" does not equal democratic it is more 'Democratic' with the meaning being "Of the Democratic party" rather than "of democracy" or the will of the people. There is really nothing democratic about a bunch of guys in a smoke-filled room hand-picking a nominee. You're wrong on this one (factually, as democracy's debate isn't really subject to this level of interpretation), but you have a point about some of the other stuff you've said on here. Last Edit: 2008-03-06 @ 22:13:48

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-06 @ 22:26:46
If neithier candidate gains the 2025 then its brokered in which case we need a decision. Its not stealing something that wasnt acheived by the system in place. Again I revert back to the 2000 election George W Bush won the electoral vote so was elected president Now did he win florida in my view no, but that is debate able. The electoral college has been in place and is used similiarly to the superdelegates.

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-06 @ 22:30:49
If you disagree with the superdelegates then the other option would be to make the primaries winner take all, something again I support. We would have never gotten this far had that been the case and the larger states would get the representation that rightfully deserve...

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-06 @ 22:52:14
There are other options.. a more rational one being either a national primary or a shortened schedule that forces all the states to vote before the end of March. But in either case, your logic here is majorly flawed. You rightfully condemn Bush's 'win' in Florida. He did not win -- he was appointed by his friends on the Supreme Court after a bitter and close race. Now, we are in another bitter and contested race. Again, Florida has messed up. And again, we are perhaps going to have a candidate selected by appointed elitists. The problem with your logic is that you fail to realize: the Electoral College isn't why Bush won -- it was the courts. If butterfly ballots had been overturned (as they should have been) and those counties re-voted, then Gore would have easily carried Florida. Do we want another President chosen in the same way as President Bush? As a Democrat, are you really O.K. with having that comparison made?

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-06 @ 22:59:43
There is no smoke. Smokers are prosecuted and spat upon. There will be no hand picking. That term infers that the supers could pick another candidate that did not run in the primaries, as happened in the bad old days. Either Clinton or Obama will be the nominee. Liberalrocks is correct. The supers are part of the system. A regretable part, perhaps or perhaps not. They are elected officials - accountable to the voters - and party officials that would otherwise take the place of other citizens as delegates. They will not overturn a 1-200 Obama pledged delegate lead, if that in fact turns out to be the case. It would be political suicide for them to do so, both from the standpoint of their own political viability and the image of the party and its candidate going into the general election. Suppose, however, that Clinton were to close the gap to say 50 pledged delegates, 2-3% of the total, and gain the lead in the national popular vote? Certainly that should be viewed as a virtual tie. No one contends that the system for allocating delegates, however well intentioned, is perfect and beyond question. Clinton would have a powerful argument that she should be the nominee. I suspect that a large number of delegates, super and otherwise, would lean heavily upon the candidates to join up on the same ticket for the purpose of party unity. I could see a Clinton-Obama ticket arising out of such a situation. The nomination process is not perfect - anything but. It is undeniably democratic, and emblematic of our national heritage as a representative democracy and republic. It is a far cry from the smoke filled rooms, when party bosses really did call all the shots without the input of the electorate. I invite you to let the process go forward, and withhold projections of gloom doom chaos and conspiracy. This is exciting! Lets enjoy the spectacle!!

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-07 @ 00:35:25
Nor, technically will there be a 'brokered' convention, although this has become the vogue term for a contested convention. The last brokered convention was the Democratic convention in 1952, when 4 candidates had large blocs of delegates going in. Aldai Stevenson, who had not run in any primaries and denied even being a candidate when he got to the convention was selected on the 3rd ballot. This kind of thing used to be fairly common. The last 'contested' conventions were in 1976, on the Republican side, and 1960 for the Dems. In each case, there were only 2 viable candidates (Ford-Reagan & Kennedy-Johnson), so is was impossible, as it is this year, that a nominee would not be selected on the first ballot. Only after the first ballot are pledged delegates able to change their votes, making 'brokering' possible. Incidentally, the last candidate nominated at a contested convention to go on to win the general election was FDR, in 1932. He was nominated on the 4th ballot after cutting a deal with another candidate, Gardner, to make him his VP. I think its would be a longshot that the candidate is not selected prior to the convention. What advantage do supers have to sit out and not announce their intentions for 2 months?

By: whoblitzell (I-JPN) 2008-03-07 @ 01:54:50
My definition of a brokered convention is one in which the candidate is not known before the convention and both are still 'in the race' when it goes to the floor vote. If a negotiation must take place to get a candidate, then thats a brokered convention =P

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-07 @ 02:40:35
Wingindy, thats exactly the process and unless there is event changing news or momemtum that is the direction were headed in. Although I think like you said its a longshot not to have a deal and know who the nominee will be before the superdelegates are forced to vote on the convention floor. That too though is very possible at this point as this race has proven its been about the longshot being achieved.... Last Edit: 2008-03-07 @ 02:56:45

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-07 @ 09:58:14
True. If Clinton does manage to pull within 50 pledged delegates by June 7 and there's no resolution to FL & MI, Obama would need 2/3 of the as yet unaligned supers to put him over (Clinton, obviously, would need more). Then I suppose it has to go to the convention to have FL & MI worked out by the credential committees. If Obama still leads by 1-200 delegates, and he would need only 60-100 of about 350 remaining unaligned supers to reach 2025, it seems to me that at least that many will side with him following the final contests, avoid an unecessary contested convention, and give him an additional nearly 3 months in which to concentrate on the general election. So I suppose longshot is too strong a word. Last Edit: 2008-03-07 @ 14:42:49

By: Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2008-03-07 @ 12:53:52
I dont know if say "50" is the magical number we shall wait and see...

By: Lord Bitememan (R-MI) 2008-03-14 @ 00:53:11
You guys really don't seem to like each other very much.

By: wingindy (I-IN) 2008-03-14 @ 00:56:57
This is actually one of the calmer discussions. We used to all gang up on CR. Now he's just enjoying watching, I suspect.

User's Predictions

Prediction Score	States	Percent	Total	Accuracy	Ver	#D	Rank		#Pred
2014 Senate	28/36	14/36	42/72	58.3%	1	442	308	T	382
2014 Governor	28/36	13/36	41/72	56.9%	1	442	224	T	300
2012 President	50/56	34/56	84/112	75.0%	1	469	630	T	760
2010 Senate	28/37	13/37	41/74	55.4%	5	172	375	T	456
2008 President	47/56	27/56	74/112	66.1%	70	128	734	T	1,505
2008 Senate	29/33	13/33	42/66	63.6%	3	108	316	T	407
2008 Dem Primary	9/52	0/52	9/104	8.7%	1	-	235	T	271
2008 Rep Primary	28/49	4/49	32/98	32.7%	3	-	118	T	235
2007 Governor	3/3	3/3	6/6	100.0%	3	91	1	T	167
2006 Governor	19/36	6/36	25/72	34.7%	1	25	310		312
Aggregate Predictions	269/394	127/394	396/788	50.3%

Links

Back to 2008 Dem Presidential Primary Prediction Home - Predictions Home