This is my final "average case" prediction for tonight's results. Chris Bowers' projection of a 90 delegate win for Clinton looks roughly on target ... my number crunching puts it closer to 70 delegates, but the differences are so small that they're really just guesses. I've revised Utah from a toss-up to a strong Obama state based on the Deseret Morning News poll, and Alabama from a slight Obama lead to toss-up.
Use this as an open thread. Also, the Utah GOP primary results map is below.
I'm going to throw caution to the wind, ignore what happened in New Hampshire and Nevada, and predict an Obama wave that carries him to a 50-100 vote delegate lead. Everything has been moving his way in the polls in the last week and this time no Hillary tears or Bill race baits are going to stop him.
Posted by: Ron | February 05, 2008 at 07:29 AM
I really enjoy the feeling that absolutely nobody has any real idea what's going to happen. It's like the super bowl of dorks. I'm getting a bunch of friends together and going out drinking.
One minor note - the only recent poll in NM has Obama up 48-42, so I'm not sure why it's Hillary +5-10.
It seems like one of the reasons that no one knows what's going to happen is that the two pollsters who have done the most state-level polling are forecasting wildly different results. Zogby has Obama up 5 in CA, while SurveyUSA has Clinton up 10. A similar pattern, not quite so dramatic, repeats in other states.
SUSA in particular seems to be calling a big Clinton win. Their poll in MA seems to come from a completely different state than the others here. Not that they can't be right - no one has any idea. It's just striking that different pollsters have projected big wins for both sides.
Posted by: DivGuy | February 05, 2008 at 07:59 AM
I didn't think Utah was going to turn out so well for McCain, but there you go. Obviously the people of Utah are looking for a straight-talking political maverick who isn't afraid to stand up to his own party out of principle, like McCain. The results just can't be interpreted any other way.
/sarcasm
Posted by: Stephen | February 05, 2008 at 08:33 AM
There are still like 10% of voters who were undecided and probably another 15-20% who were very soft leaners which is why the polls vary so dramatically depending on how hard the pollsters push leaners and how accurate their likely voter screens are. We just have to wait and see what the results are and even then it may take a few days to fully sort out how the delegates are awarded.
Posted by: Ron | February 05, 2008 at 09:02 AM
DivGuy ... I haven't been able to track down that poll. If it's Zogby, then it's worthless. But I still think Clinton has an advantage among Latinos, who are a huge percentage of the NM Democratic electorate. I feel like that offsets Obama's likely strength in Santa Fe.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | February 05, 2008 at 09:08 AM
DivGuy ... the Zogby polls either overcounted men, or undercounted women. Either way, they're wholly innaccurate, unless something unbelievable has happened to the democratic electorate.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | February 05, 2008 at 09:18 AM
Dismissing polls because of weighting concerns seems generally unwise. Obviously, Zogby should be taken with a few grains of salt on those grounds, but saying that they're worthless seems too extreme. Zogby's record has been pretty decent so far this primary season, no?
Posted by: John | February 05, 2008 at 09:45 AM
Here's the NM poll - it's a small sample over a long period of time, but I don't really know enough to speak to that.
On Zogby, I found a post or two saying that Zogby's internals were all messed up, but I couldn't find any confirmation. Are Zogby's internal numbers published somewhere?
Posted by: DivGuy | February 05, 2008 at 09:52 AM
And anyway, the new CA poll showing Obama up 49-36 cannot be primarily a function of gender miscalculation.
I dunno. I'm not arguing that Obama's going to win, but like John, I'm hesitant to throw out polls when the main thing we know, it seems, is that there's a wide range of polls.
Posted by: DivGuy | February 05, 2008 at 09:57 AM
If we throw out the highs (Zogby) and the lows (SUSA), like in figure skating, she's ahead by two or three, right?
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | February 05, 2008 at 10:05 AM
That sounds about right, Nicholas. If she wins the statewide popular vote 52-48 and pretty much ties in delegates, Obama would take that considering how far he's come in the state in such a short time.
Posted by: Ron | February 05, 2008 at 12:06 PM
I'm going to go against all the intuition I've built up about Zogby over the years, and put in a good word for their performance this primary season.
In their better moments, they've called it almost on the nose. In their worse moments, they've been in the middle of the pack.
They nailed the GOP in Iowa, NH, and FL, and did better than anyone else with respect to the Dems in NV.
I'm still more prone to trusting Survey USA, even though they're less battle-tested this primary season (having only polled SC and FL where we know the results).
SUSA and Zogby went head-to-head in three primaries so far - SC-D&R, and FL-R. Even by SUSA's own scorecard, Zogby did better.
I can't believe I'm saying this. I really can't.
One place where I don't trust SUSA is with the youth vote in Massachusetts and California. SUSA says Hillary's got a 10% advantage among MA 18-34 year olds, and if you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. While it's true that if Obama does as well amongst that age group as he's doing in most places, it'll just get Hillary's advantage a hair under 10%, every little bit helps.
Similarly CA, only more so. Obama supposedly only has a 4% edge among 18-34's, and an 8% disadvantage among the 35-49 group. If he's up by 14% instead of 4% among the under-35's, and even among 35-49's, Hillary's lead is cut in half.
We'll find out in about 9 hours. But tonight really will be quite a test of pollsters - there'll be quite a bit of separating the wheat from the chaff.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | February 05, 2008 at 02:19 PM
Here's a prediction: If this comes down to a brokered convention or to the decision of the superdelegates, you're going to see a lot less votes turning out for the Dem nominee, whoever it is.
Seriously, tell people that the whole primary they've been following and supporting and contributing to and all the rest didn't matter. Watch people freak out and either stay home or just vote McCain.
Posted by: Trevor J | February 05, 2008 at 03:05 PM
The arithmetic says the superdelegates will decide, barring a decisive win tonight.
So long as they ratify the choices the voters have made, there shouldn't be a problem down the road.
But this is a wake-up call to the Dems to drastically reduce the number of superdelegates. Having superdelegates as 20% of the delegates means that the supers can potentially reverse a pretty lopsided outcome by the voters - even a 60% majority among the pledged delegates still leaves one with only a 48%-32% advantage overall, which the supers can turn into a 48-52 deficit.
It's a bad thing to have even the possibility of such an outcome.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | February 05, 2008 at 03:28 PM
Right, "so long as," ltc. But this isn't quite the same setup as the electoral college. Don't the SD's have a little bit more freedom?
Posted by: Trevor J | February 05, 2008 at 03:35 PM
Yes, they do. But fucking up their own party's fortunes isn't exactly in their interest. I think they'll be able to figure that out.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | February 05, 2008 at 03:45 PM
Hard to call the overall night before California comes in. But a Clinton win in MA is likely to get some headlines.
Be interested to see the total vote count. Looks at this stage as if Clinton is slightly ahead on the overall votes cast (but CA still a big ?)
Posted by: Andrew | February 05, 2008 at 09:57 PM