Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Prediction Winners: Mississippi and Pennsylvania

Now that official Fix t-shirts have become a decidedly hot commodity (did you see that guy sporting one at Jazz Fest?), people are clamoring to win one in our primary prediction contests.

But before we look ahead to North Carolina and Indiana, we need to make sure we honor those who came before. Without further ado we present the winners of the Mississippi and Pennsylvania prediction contests as collected by post.com politics producer Sarah Lovenheim. (Yes, we know Mississippi happened nearly two months ago, but somehow we never posted the winners. Bad Fix, bad!)

First, let's recap the primary results: In Mississippi, Sen. Barack Obama won with 61 percent of the vote while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton trailed behind with 37 percent. In Pennsylvania, Clinton carried 54.6 percent of the vote, Obama lagged with 45.4 percent, according to the Associated Press.

Now, a look at our winners. If you find yourself in the winner's circle, send an e-mail to me at chris DOT cillizza AT washingtonpost DOT com to claim your shirt. Make sure you include preferred size and a mailing address. (For those of you who have already won, your shirts are on the way. Sorry for the delay, but The Fix is a one-man operation!)

Our Magnolia State winner is jsperez. He/she accurately guessed both Obama and Clinton's percentage points.

We also wondered whether Obama would continue to successfully woo black voters, as he did in the southern states of Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. Sure enough, he swept those voters again, winning 90 percent of the black vote. Kudos to Renul and Naveen.Sattaru who accurately predicted that. T-shirts for both!

In the Pennsylvania primary, JDugas nailed the Democratic results. Many of you were off by merely .3 percentage points!

And we have one more Pennsylvania prediction winner: Scott S.

Scott S. met our challenge and guessed the next day's storyline. He predicted: "Clinton wins, but fails to win by the margin she needs to make significant dents in Obama's delegate and popular vote leads."

If you didn't win an official Fix t-shirt this time around, sign on tomorrow and make your predictions for the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

By Washington Post editors  |  May 5, 2008; 9:48 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gas Tax Fight Grows Hotter
Next: Primary Prediction Contest: The Hoosier-Heel Primaries

Comments

Yeah Hillary you are the one. The one with workable ideas. With the experience to enact solutions to the nation's problems. Obama is a streak of lightning that will extinguish itself with the last vote of spring. Hopefully Hillary will win Indiana by 58 to 38 and NC by 52 to 48

That is The Truth.

Posted by: The Truth | May 6, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the best choice to be US President. Obama needs to go to a refresher course in experience. He is so out of touch. Yes I want a gas price reduction even for three months. Gas is so outrageously overpriced and I get pinched by big oil. Where does Obama stand on Guns, Gays and God? I say see the light and "Go Hillary"

Posted by: The Light | May 6, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I'm astounded, if not amazed, at how patriotic Americans want to overthrow the Democratic process and behave like 3rd world dictators staging a coup de tat! I include the Clinton campaign in that assessment! Barack Obama has an insurmountable delegate lead! He has earned the Democratic nomination! There is no way superdelegates will deny him that, but I am absolutely shocked by the number of people suggesting this man, who has fought hard and won the vote without slinging mud, should just step aside, get to the back of the bus, or otherwise "throw" what he's worked for to some other candidate. Some of you have truly lost your minds. Are you so blinded by whatever twisted ideology is driving you to think this way? I'm beginning to see that Reverend Wright isn't the only person in serious need of a character overhaul! You patriotic Americans who are trying to overthrow the Democratic process are hypocrites, at best, by my fear is something far more wicked is driving you, and for that, I am disgusted. Obama has earned this nomination and he has every right to stand there proud, at the convention, savoring his victory! Job well done! Job well done!

Posted by: Wanakee Hill | May 6, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Scriv:

The last Prez we elected with more than three years' national experience was HW. The one before that was Nixon.

Posted by: FlownOver | May 6, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

CLINTON'S EXPERIENCE BY OSMOSIS MAKES HER UNELECTABLE!!

IF CLINTON GETS THE NOMINATION, AMERICA LOSES!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S HARD DRUG HISTORY MAKES HIM UNELECTABLE!!!

IF OBAMA GETS THE NOMINATION, DEMOCRATS LOSE!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Here's what I think will happen:
Results:
IN: Networks call it late. Clinton 53, Obama 47 (+2 delegates for Clinton)
NC: Immediate call. Obama 57, Clinton 43 (+15 delegates for Obama)
Newspaper headline: "Obama and Clinton win as expected, but Edwards' endorsment could speed up things. Edwards endorses Obama, says he's the new leader America has been waiting for."

If Edwards endorses, then expect many more to come Obama's way.

Posted by: coloneldiego | May 6, 2008 6:58 AM | Report abuse

IN-
Clinton: 58%
Obama: 42%

NC-
Clinton: 49%
Obama: 51%

Posted by: korova | May 6, 2008 6:58 AM | Report abuse

Well, it's sad to think that we are about to launch into the continuing saga of Bubba Clinton

Bill and Belinda's Excellent Adventures

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/2622,features,bill-and-belindas-excellent-adventure,2

Why oh why haven't you dumped him Hillary if you are so tough and have 3 cojones?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2008 4:53 AM | Report abuse

Nope all you drunken toxic kool aid drinker
Obamabots need put down those mugs of Obama
kool aid and get used to saying President
Hillary Clinton. Obama and his Campaign
Self Imploded sorry Obama Lovers but Obama
is toast! Just Vote No Barack Obama in 08!

Posted by: Sherry Kay | May 6, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

Actually, knowing the New York Post, there headline is more likely to read; BAM! Take That Hil!!!

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 6, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Boy, what a bunch of useless commentary. Scrivener, as "exciting" as the prospect of a brokered convention in which Al Gore captures the nomination is, that's about as unlikely as President Bush admitting Iraq was a mistake, and pushing for a timetable for withdrawal. Don't hold your breath. But I can see you've convinced yourself --or Hank Fonda has-- so why don't you put together a screenplay? I'd read something like that. But don't waste time on this blog talking about your political fantasies, which will NEVER materialize. Next, the notion that the Democratic Party will not unite is absolute hyperbole. In 2000, over 50% of McCain supporters vowed to vote for Gore or not at all. On election day, there were defections, but it was less than 18%. (Source: NY Times --they debunked this nonsense over a month ago.) When you ask people, in the midst of a heated battle for the presidential nomination, what they'll do if the other candidate loses, they're going to give you a childish answer like that. The reality is that primary voters are the most partisan of all voters. And the notion that Hillary Clinton voters defect to John McCain --the POLAR OPPOSITE of her candidacy-- is nothing to bet the farm on. I could be wrong, but I doubt I am. I call their bluff. And if I'm wrong, and Hillary voters do vote for McCain, screw 'em. They really need to grow up if that is how they vote. And I don't want to hear one word from them about how awful the economy is four years from now, and I don't want to hear how upset they are that John McCain --their second choice?-- is still sending kids to die in Arabia, in a war that can't be won. John McCain is an awful candidate. He should be destroying both Dems in general election matchups --in the midst of their "nasty" campaign-- but instead they're both beating him, albeit narrowly. Polls in May are exactly that: polls in May. When the real world tunes in after Labor Day, and realizes how little John McCain has to offer, they will select Barack Obama. If you can't get over his Harvard degree --like that's a bad thing, I'll take it over some nobody whose father-in-law bought him his Senate seat-- then frankly you're not ready for this whole voting thing. Stay home. But I'm calling your bluff, too! I think you want a bright President, I think you want a shift from Bush-McCain economics, foreign policy. And I think you know it's true.
Grow up, America!

Indiana: Obama 50.2% Clinton 49.8%
North Carolina: Obama 58.6% Clinton 41.4%
Headline: BAM IS BACK! Obama Sweeps North Carolina & Indiana primaries; End to Nomination Fight Now in Sight!

I live in NYC, BAM is the New York Post's sobriquet for Obama.


New York City Secession 2010

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 6, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

So everyone who loves the United States of
America just Vote No on Barack Obama!

Posted by: Claudine | May 6, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

scrivener .... the problem for Hillary is that her strategy won't work. Obama cannot be stopped from winning the Whitehouse, no matter how many crazy Pastors he has.

Why?

New registrations. High black turnout. Youth turnout.

All the polling you are seeing simply does not take into account how many more people are going to turn out and vote for him in November.

The media love a horse-race... it sells papers and gets hits on websites... but what we are going to have is a good ol' fashioned shelacking.

So ultimately, Hillary will only destroy her self and her husband's legacy.

Posted by: Boutan | May 5, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

The "dilemma" is not Obama vs. Clinton in a dead heat. Two great candidates, two eminently qualified candidates, two candidates who have a fervent and loyal base? It should be an embarrassment of riches for the Democrats.

Instead, because of Clinton's "kitchen sink" and divisive, polarizing politics, it's a rich embarrassment.

For sure, Obama has endured two self-inflicted wounds (Wright and bitter), but Clinton's body blows have been far more damaging.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom, I disagree with nearly everything you post up here, but that one meme you keep posting is one I'm all for. It is clearly obvious why the Democrats have failed to crack 50% in the popular vote for 32 years. They are incompetent, disorganized, and clueless within their own party!

It should surprise no one that these same people who have promulgated this form of politics within the party throughout that period are now the primary coalition of party activists who back Clinton. They're mostly 50-60 years old and cannot fathom why their candidate isn't cakewalking to the nomination. Could be because their form of politics is a miserable failure, but whatever.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Now...here's a much better movie scenario with Obama as VP:

Clinton checkmates him through backroom deals. Obama teams up with Bloomberg or Hagel to run on a third party ticket as the VP.

Now, THAT is a Hollywood scenario that would be fun to watch. Completely implausible, but fun nonetheless.

Of course, the converse is also possible. Clinton decides to run as a third-party presidential candidate with Ed Rendell as her VP. That one would give me a heart attack.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone predict that Pennsylvania would mean virtually nothing in the delegate race??


Winning a massive state by 9% is relatively unimportant.

Clearly, the Democratic Party is broken - it is not just the nomination process which by trying to fix it with Florida and Michigan, they made it worse.

With all respect to Idaho, a beautiful state, there are relatively few democrats there. Why should Idaho produce a delegate lead for Obama comparable to the delegate lead that 200,000 voters produced for Hillary?

Clearly, much of the Democrats' system does not make sense.

The Superdelegate system as well clearly does not solve the problem of a close race. One may argue that it makes the race worse by prolonging it and creating the perception that the voters are not ultimately in charge of the process.

Well, the democratic party itself appears unable to deal with the situation.

How in the world can these people be expected to govern the country if they mess up their own nomination process so badly???


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 5, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

If Obama had been vetted, he wouldn't have put the Dems in this dilemma.

And yes, he is inexperienced. So is Hillary. Gore is experienced. He can win. They can't. Hillary's high negatives rule her out. Obama can't deliver the base. The party must turn elsewhere...

...if not, the Dems lose.

Posted by: scrivener | May 5, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

So, your whole logical argument comes down to a Henry Fonda movie?

Dude, if you could come up with a serious white knight, I may be swayed to your side. But Gore is done, and Edwards is unelectable.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Please go watch the early '60s movie, "The Best Man" starring Henry Fonda as a noble presidential candidate up against a devious challenger. See how he handles the dilemma. He wins by throwing his delegates to a third candidate, thus checkmating the his polarizing, self-aggrandizing nemesis. He becomes the party's kingmaker and conquers his competition by losing the top job. He lives to fight another day...

Please, somebody, get a copy of this flick to Obama, asap...

Posted by: scrivener | May 5, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

The "apprentice" argument is insulting. Obama has been in the race for close to 18 months. Clinton, too. They have slugged it out, fairly or unfairly. They are vetted and proven. One of the two will be the nominee.

This Gore nonsense has to stop. Edwards couldn't hack it and couldn't get people to support him in the primaries. He couldn't raise enough money, he couldn't get enough votes. He is not your white knight either.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

scrivener, as I said before...there is a REASON why Gore is not in the race! He is retired! Dude (or dudette), he is not your white knight. He is not getting back into politics.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Boutan:

Yes, shameless... your argument is precisely why Obama must toss to Gore, because Hillary already has destroyed the Dems' chances. She can't win. Obama can't win.

Gore might be able to win, and he can take Obama along as his VP/apprentice (because when all is said and done, this country won't elect someone with three years' national experience as president of the US).

(Gore is to be faulted for not getting into this race earlier, because all of this was highly predictable. But he still has a better chance of winning than does either Obama or Hillary.)


Posted by: scrivener | May 5, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

scrivener, we'll have to agree to disagree.

The NY Times this week published a poll that showed 68% of Democrats and 60% of all voters approved of Obama's handling of Wright.

Howard Dean raised nothing close to Obama, and had nowhere near 1,500,000 donors. He did raise money, and he did use the Internet very well, and he deserved a lot of credit. But Obama is an undeniable power broker in the party. The amount of money and the number of donors are something the superdelegates will not overlook.

I don't think the Democrats will pass him over for Clinton. It's not going to happen. And your scenario of bringing Gore in from the cold and Edwards from the loser pile is a non-starter. Democrats will have to live with Obama or Clinton. There is no white knight out there. Clinton has tried her best to damage Obama, but the (yes, some legitimate) body blows and low blows will not be enough and Obama will live to fight for the General Election.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

I actually don't think Hillary believes she can win. She is smarter than that.

I have it from a reliable source that Bill is pushing her to destroy Obama so he loses to McCain, giving Hillary another shot in 2012.

Hillary sees the same numbers we all see, and knows Obama is uncatchable. Just watch her try and tear him down though.

Shameless.

Posted by: Boutan | May 5, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Howard Dean raised gobs of money, too... the first internet-savvy fundraiser. Where did that get him? After the scream, he was done. Rev. Wright, bitter-gate, aloof-gate, etc. has done in Obama.

Obama can deliver the bucks from his upper- middle class base. What he can no longer deliver is the white suburban voter and the white working class and rural voter.

So Obama can't be the presidential candidate. However, if he's savvy, he can parlay his delegates and checkmate Hillary -- IF someone like Gore is willing to come in and save the party from Hillary.

Posted by: scrivener | May 5, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Naturally, when I said "one thing", I meant "two things".

It's late, I'm tired, and I had to dodge sniper fire to press "Submit".

:-)

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

You need to talk to some Congressional candidates, scrivener. Obama's downticket appeal is very strong, and, most importantly, his fundraising prowess and donor list is the envy of every single politician in the country. I'm a donor to the Obama campaign and I got a call yesterday from the Governor of my state asking for money. This was not an isolated incident. I get emails and phone calls (to say nothing of Facebook requests) from politicians every week.

Obama is bankable GOLD for the active politician superdelegates. They aren't factoring Wright into the equation, and the latest polls show that Wright has had a negligible effect on the campaign. They care about one thing: can I get some of that money you're raising, and can I get those new Democratic voters on my side? Given that Democrats in historically tight districts can win based only on driving turnout, those new voters are critical. Obama delivers them, and the money.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse


Who do you predict will win the North Carolina & Indiana Democratic Presidential Primary?

North Carolina
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2320

Indiana
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2220


.

Posted by: Frank, Austin TX | May 5, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Yes, he's the nicer candidate. But you know where nice guys finish...

Obama can't deliver the white rural and suburban vote. The supers look at Ohio, then Pennsylvania, and they see a failing candidacy. The coalition that Barack put together in the Potomac primaries, especially Virginia, has dissolved -- mostly due to the Rev. Wright controversy, but also due to Obama's inability to connect to working folks, as well as his aloof manner.

The downticket argument may have held pre-Wright. But not now. Not this year. Obama's done for, unless he cedes his delegates to Gore or Edwards and runs, probably successfully, as the VP candidate.

Posted by: scrivener | May 5, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama will not and should not "throw his delegates" to Gore or Edwards. Please.

First off, Gore is no longer an active politician. He is done. He makes MILLIONS as a board member of Apple and through his other work.

Second, Edwards cannot win a national race. He has not earned the right to be the party's nominee.

It will be Obama or Clinton, and one can only hope that Clinton does not go completely bonkers and destroy the party in a quest for power.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

The superdelegates are going to side with the person who helps them win their own down-ticket races. Obama's coattails are significantly longer, and his fundraising prowess dwarfs Clinton's. Most of the superdelegates are, after all, active politicians. This will be why they go Obama.

Oh, and he's the better candidate, too. He doesn't pander, he isn't shrill, and he hasn't purposefully attempted to split the party along age, race, and gender lines for his own benefit.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Tony:

I happen to agree -- I can't see the Dems rewarding Hillary's self-aggrandizing and polarizing campaign...

...which is why I've been advocating here that Obama (after he loses in Indiana and loses or wins by a hair in North Carolina) should suspend his campaign and throw his delegates to an Al Gore or a John Edwards.

That's the only way he can checkmate Hillary -- especially if she keeps proving that he can't deliver the white suburban and working class vote. Then Obama could run for VP and salvage his quest for a White House top job.

I believe, however, that he's already said publicly that he would support Hillary (not just "the Democrat" as he should have said) should he fail to secure the nomination.

Posted by: scrivener | May 5, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama got angry because he sees that HRC can snatch the nomination away from him....But she won't. It's one thing to say "he didn't close the deal", quite another to say "she deserves the nomination".

The SD's would be idiots to give it to HRC. What if she still loses in Nov? then they have no excuse. At least with BO, they can always say they sided with the voters.

I just don't see how she gets the nomination, short of an Obama implosion (Wright does not count).

Posted by: Tony in MN | May 5, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

I respectfully disagree that Scott S. got the PA story line right. He saw the trees but missed the forest.

Clinton's 9.2-pt. victory came as a result of OVERWHELMING Hillary support in the rural counties AND the suburban Philadelphia counties -- showing dramatically how she was winning the white suburban AND blue collar vote.

Her margins in those suburban and rural counties (some by as much as 75-25 pct.) set in motion the steady dissolution of the Obama coalition, a collapse that began in Ohio.

Hillary's capture of the white suburban vote was the signal change in this campaign. THAT was the story line -- NOT that Obama retained his popular vote and pledged delegate leads.

Pledged delegates aren't going to decide this race; your awarding of the honor to Scott S. seems to display that just maybe, Chris, you still don't get what's happening.

(Please don't take offense, but that's the way I see it. I'd be interested to see if others here agree.)

One final point: I'm watching Obama's rally on C-SPAN, live. It's the FIRST TIME I've seen him get angry, and really attack Hillary by name instead of by nuance. So Obama's finally got it -- but it's coming too late. If he had gotten angry and passionate two months ago, maybe he could have closed the deal Tuesday.

Posted by: scrivener | May 5, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company