Super Tuesday III – Democrats Again

The rest of the states that vote on Super Tuesday are numerous, time-consuming, some delegate poor, and for the most part, unpolled. The polling companies have, as expected, focused on the ‘Big 6’, a few others, and then moved on. What I present to you is a condensed version of what the polls are saying from the rest of the states, for quick ease and simplicity.

Minnesota: The only relevant poll was taken from the 18th to the 27th of January, and had Hillary Clinton in first by 7% to Barack Obama (40 to 33). John Edwards polled in at 12% too. There is a 15% undecided in this poll, and adding in Edward’s 12%, that brings 27% of the vote back into play. Minnesota, being so close to Illinois, another Great Lake state, could be a state that is upset by an Obama win. I expect there to be a <5% difference, but which way is too hard to say this early. Pending how advertisements are received, what the news cycles are dominated by, and campaigning in the state, it really could go either way. 88 delegates up for grabs here.

Missouri: Another state that’s close to Illinois. There’s been a fair bit of polling there, and the average has Clinton ahead by 12% (45% to Obama’s 33%). On the 24th of January, Rasmussen released a poll that had Clinton up by 19%. SurveyUSA then released a poll, with data gathered over the 30th and the 31st of January, that gave Clinton only a 4% lead. I feel that the 4% poll is more accurate, and again we have a potential upset state. Again, whether the advertisements and campaigning have an effect, I see this going either way, but most likely going to Clinton. Though only with that 4%. 88 delegates available here too.

Tennessee:  And we come to a state that Obama should win. But, strangely enough, he isn’t leading in the polls. Not even close. It’s Southern, which Obama can claim to be ‘leading’ in (by account of his South Carolina win). It has a (relatively) high ‘black’ vote too. But the latest two polls have Clinton with a 14% and 33% lead over Obama respectively. Before those two, there was a poll that had Clinton up by 5%, which is what I would have thought to be the case. The companies tend to poll the ‘majority’ groups (white men and women or a certain age), so that could explain the numbers. Either way, I still expect a Obama win down in the South, so I can’t change on Tennessee. But if he does, it will either be small or large. Either 5% or 15%. 85 delegates up for grabs.

Alabama: And another Southern state, this time with accurate polling data. SurveyUSA’s latest indicates a tie, Rasmussen had a 5% lead to Clinton, and AEA/Capital Survey had a 5% lead to Obama. So all points to a very tight race in Alabama. This is what all the polls should indicate – and the ‘popular’ states do, as I reported on earlier. Except the ‘home states’, but that’s to be expected. In most polls there is roughly a 15% undecided, and no Edwards. There is, again, a large ‘black’ vote in the state, and it’s Southern, where Obama polls well. This will be an Obama win, and probably by something like 8% to 10%. 60 delegates up for grabs.

Colorado: This mid-west state, I had thought for such a long time, would be a Clinton win easy. The latest poll from the Denver Post has a 2% lead for Obama. This, looking at the data, isn’t too much of a surprise, as the previous poll was taken in September ’07. The mid-West is up for grabs between the two Democrats – Clinton may have won the Nevada primary, but it’s more of an East Coast state. What to say about Colorado? It’s a predominately ‘white’ state, and also a Republican state (having gone with the Republican candidate for the past 3 Presidential elections). If Obama picked it up, as I’m going to speculate he will, then it would send a message to the mid-West, and indicate that the racial divide between the Democratic voters is gone. Obama to win by 4%. There are 71 delegates in play.

Arizona: With its 67 delegates, this state is a Clinton win. All the polls, from last year to late January, have pointed towards this. Early on in the piece, May ’07, Clinton only had a 4% lead on Obama. It’s strengthened since then to somewhere between a 10% lead and a 21% lead. This state should be a walk-in for her – so much so that she won’t campaign there from here on in. She will win by 10%+, the plus to be decided by the ‘Latino’ vote.

Oklahoma: Here we have a changed state. April ’07, and it looked as though the state would be a very tight race – one poll indicating a tie. Then no polls were taken in the state for 9 months. Then they started up again in late January, and SurveyUSA, the only group to poll there, has obtained a 20% and a 17% lead for Clinton. Another cakewalk for Clinton, this time with a really big win. 18% or higher I’m guessing. But with only 47 delegates, it’s not as big a win in terms of pledges.

The rest of the states that vote on the 5th don’t have polling data at all, or relevant/ reliable data. Arkansas (47 delegates), Kansas (41), New Mexico (38), Utah (29), Delaware (23), Idaho (23), North Dakota (21), and Alaska (18) are all up for grabs. Of them, I expect Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, and Delaware to go to Clinton easily. Alaska I think will be n Obama win, meaning more of the mid-West in the form of Utah, Idaho, and North Dakota will be up for grabs. But with no real data for these states, my predictions are nothing but gut feelings and guesses. But with no more than 240 delegates tied to all of these states, their individual importance isn’t high. Alaska and New Mexico are of national note, Delaware maybe. But the rest aren’t really. Not to say that they are worthless. Each delegate will be important come the finish. But if Obama were able to split the 240 roughly even, then that would be a bonus.


3 thoughts on “Super Tuesday III – Democrats Again

  1. I support Barack Obama for reasons extending beyond “experience” and beyond “idealism” and beyond the minutiae details regarding whether a program will work exactly as intended.

    Yes, we need someone capable, but this man has gone up against the establishment time and time again and has succeeded. Who among us even thought he had a minimul chance of getting to the point he has gotten too against Senator Hillary Clinton? Yes, we may have hoped he would get this far, but would anyone have guessed his success? Certainly, the Clintons did not. The inevitable candidate is not so inevitable, and that just can’t happen. Or can it?

    Barack Obama has surrounded himself with smart people. He has faced a political machine that has been 20+ years in the making. Senator Obama has made effective decisions that have placed him within reach of the “clear frontrunner.” He has put together an organization and a machine that is effective beyond anyone’s imagination. “Lack of experience” is an extremely weak argument; but it is the Clintons strongest argument. I suggest that there is a hole in this bucket.

    A president is not a “manager.” He/She is a leader. The President is someone who inspires people and a nation to be better, to do better, and knows how to motivate those around him/her to give 100% all the time. A President is someone who can get the job done utilizing the talent around him/her and knows when he/she is out of their comfort zone and range of ability and not afraid to say so. At the same time smart enough to know how to get the best minds possible on the problem, and from different perspectives, and then helping them, help him, make the best possible decisions. Nobody… and I mean nobody, has all the answers. So who would you think has the courage, the conviction, the humility to accept that he/she does not know all the answers, but will strive diligently to find those who do? If your response is Hillary I would respectfully suggest that you are not being honest with yourself. If she were capable of that, I would not be here, writing this missive and President Clinton II would be well on her way to the Whitehouse.

    Hillary can’t motivate half the democratic party, let alone independents and moderate republicans. In all candor I would vote for John McCain or Mike Huckabee before casting a vote for Senator Clinton, not out of spite but because I believe in my heart that these gentlemen represent the change I am looking for much more than Hillary Clinton.

    If you look, point by point on the issues… the difference between Barack and Hillary are non-existent, I lean towards Barack relative to the ability to get this stuff done, but I respect those who feel Hillary is just as capable. So I’m left with deciding based upon who inspires me, who makes me want to do more, who makes me and my country want to be more. Who thinks in terms of “how do we do this?” not “can we do this?”

    From my chair Hillary sells us, we Americans short. She says HOPE is not enough. Hope is NOT enough, but it is an essential, critical first ingredient and without it…the cake will never rise.

    Please consider voting for Barack Obama. Find out more about Barack’s and Hillary Clintons positions at:

    Barack Obama:

    Hillary Clinton:

    With respect to all,
    David Pippin, Santa Rosa, CA

    Barack Obama for President 2008

  2. This is one of, probably *the*, best comment I have ever had on this blog. It sums up so much of why I, and so many others, am an Obama supporter. Inspiration.

  3. What a comment indeed, and what a great series you have going here. I find Obama to be a quite inspiring figure, I have to say. I may be making use of this a little down the track, probably on my increasingly obscure Blogspot site.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s