SUSA proved to be right on the mark in it's Super Tuesday polls, so hopefully these results are just as accurate.  

With proportional representation, it is important to try and get BHO as many votes as possible in each CD b/c of proportional representation.  

The difference between 58 and 59.1 percent could be a 2-2 split or a 3-1 victory in delegates.

Fired up, ready to go!

Everybody hit those doors, Metro stops and phone banks!

Here is the delegate allocation....

We need to make sure we tie at least in 5,6,9 and then win with sufficient margin other places to take a significant delegate lead

will be a tough nut for any candidate.  One would need to score 62% of the vote to take an advantage - the likely outcome is that all of the 4-delegate districts will split evenly, and the wins in terms of delegate count will come from the others.

The districts with the odd number of delegates will be the easiest - you just need to get more than 50% of the vote.  District 3 with 6 delegates is the next place one might get a pickup - you would need to get 58% of the vote to take 4 out of 6.

Districts with 7 delegates would go 4/3 unless you score more than 64% of the vote, in which case it would go 5/2.

That being said, a huge overall win in all 3 of the Chesapeake states will give another jolt of momentum to the campaign.

I'm most curious about District 9. It seems obvious to me that Richmond and Hampton Roads will go for Obama, and I'd bet on NoVA going Obama--but by a smaller margin. Not so sure about Southwest. It's telling, I think, that the counties around Bristol and Johnson City in TN went pretty heavily for Clinton. A Webb endorsement could help, but I think 6 and 9 are going to be the toughest nuts for him to crack.

Clinton's were all about NAFTA

Turnout is going to be high in NOVA as always, but I won't be surprised if the key difference maker this year isn't NOVA, but the 3rd District.  The Northern districts broadly favor Obama because of they're higher income, higher education level areas (C-ville, as a home to UVA, is another focus of his for the same reason).  But while the gender breakdown of NOVA will ultimately deide those districts, CD3 is going to be more about racial identity than any other district in the Commonwealth.  It's drawn funny in the map above because it uses the waterways to tie together as many of the black precincts in Hampton Roads and the Richmond area as possible (it's gerrymandered to hame the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 7th districts whiter and friendlier to Republicans).  Obama polls far enough ahead among African Americans in Southern states that he WILL find a +2 delegate margin out of CD3.  With both Tim Kaine's endorsement and Bobby Scott's, might he even manage a 5-1 split in these precincts (+4)?  I discounted a margin that wide earlier today, but after seeing the crosstabs for the survey USA poll, I'm not as skeptical.  Obama's strongest region is the Southeastern part of the state, and he leads about Virginian African American voters by a nearly 9-to-1 margin.  Both Tim Kaine and Bobby Scott have endorsed Obama, and if Scott can help actively turn out voters in his district, this part of the state will be the real difference maker.

Of course, NOVA turnout will be critical in its own way: the majority of primary voters has always come out of Fairfax, Arlington and Alexandria, and dominant pro-Obama turnout will help make sure the at-large segement of the delegation favors Obama, too.  SO GET TO WORK! :)

Sigh.  But yeah.  CD3.  It's the difference between a small delegate margin for Obama and a substantial margin.

according to the vague demographic boundaries we've drawn around each candidate. You've got the wealthy, well-educated punditry in Northern Virginia and a fairly substantial African-American population in the rest of the state (20% of the total.) Good news for Obama, since he's surely going to dominate in DC and Maryland.

what I have read is that Hillary runs well in NoVa because a majority of Democratic voters up there are women, which has been her strongest demographic group.

As for the size of Virginia's African American population, I'll just point out that the three other states where Obama dominated the primary vote -- S.C., Ala. and Ga. -- the AA population was close to 50% of the total.

But virginia is tough to figure for many reasons, among them the fact that in NoVa the population tends to be better attuned to national issues than elsewhere, for obvious reasons. So, the demographic groups in Virginia might perform quite differently than the demographic groups elsewhere -- identity politics may be less important for a large portion of the electorate. I don't know if that's the case, but there is a reason to believe it might be.

I'll say this. I was in Downtown Charlottesville yesterday afternoon, and I saw people carrying Obama signs, and I saw a full page ad on the back cover of the Hook, a popular weekly in the area, for Obama. But I didn't see anything for Clinton.

C-ville, you would think, would naturally be Obama country, but to me, it really spoke to the ability of each campaign to quickly mobilize at the grass roots level.

Aznew... The black population was around %50 in the primary in those states.  In the general population of each state blacks make up 29% in South Carolina, about 30% in Georgia, and 26% in Alabama.  When it comes to representation in the Democratic Party, blacks are typically close to double their general population numbers.

Yeah, see uva08's comment below. I meant 20% of the total, not primary voters. I don't know what % of Virginia Democrats Party identify as African-American, but if uva08 is right, it should be around 40%.

I thought your reference meant that African Americans would make up 20% of the Democratic electorate outside of NoVa.

Obama has proved he can win and draw votes in states without large African American populations, but not outside the South.

But as I said, NoVa is quite unique.

I think aznew is saying Obama does well with whites outside of the South but he struggles with those in the south.  

have been struggling to win states in the South for a long time.  Does anyone think that Hillary Clinton would pick up any southern states, or for that matter any states outside the ones Kerry won in 2004?  In contrast, I believe Obama would make several southern and border states, including Virginia, competitive in November.

Arkansas and Tenn., to name two southern states.

And given the Hispanic vote, I think Clinton helps, and Obama possibly hurts, in N.M. and Ariz.

An Obama nomination also puts Calif. in play. Maybe Obama ends up winning it, but do the Democrats really want to be playing defense against McCain in California?

You really think Obama would put Cali in play? We're talking about John McCain. While he may have some support among Latino voters, we're also talking about a man who is basically running on his support of the Bush agenda. I doubt that all those female Dems who supported Clinton in Cali (and NY) will dislike Obama enough to throw up their hands and allow four more years of GWB. Same goes for NY.

No, I think Florida is the big question mark in 2008. (Just like in 2004 and 2000.) HRC will probably take the Kerry 19. But she'll lose the Midwest, I promise you. If she wins the big pie, it'll be because of Florida. I could see Obama losing Florida, but I think he has a better chance of winning Ohio and Missouri and possibly Virginia and, God help me, maybe even Georgia.

In California, the issue would be the Hispanic vote. Latinos are not a reliable Democratic block, as George W. Bush proved in 2000. I'm not saying the state is lost, but I am saying it is no longer a gimme.  

California Latinos will absolutely be behind the Democratic nominee.

Not a chance they will be going for McCain even with the McCain-Kennedy bill, but largely BECAUSE of that bill.

Having a Colombian partner, I am well tuned into what latinos think of John McCain.

They DO NOT trust ANYONE with an (R) after their name right now, and they want a bigger Democratic majority in Congress because they know that's the only way fair and balanced comprehensive immigration reform will happen.

I don't think most voters vote as strategically as bloggers.  The fact that they're breaking for a white woman as opposed to a black man right now in spite of issue overlap related to black and latino urban minority interests ought to demonstrate that.  But I do agree they're going for feel anti-R in a nebulous sort of way (the way lots of independents do right now).  If they break about evenly between Rs and Ds, that's still fine.

Obama has a tougher time with the Latino population than Hillary Clinton, and it is tougher to tar John McCain with the extreme positions of the Republican Party on immigration. In fact, the hatred of the core conservatives of McCain on this very issue benefits him quite a bit.

I think for Hillary to win Virginia would be about the same odds as the Giants winning the Super Bowl.  I certainly wouldn't want to bet on it. McCain would have to make some major screwups on video.  A certain portion of the republican party has been programmed to foam at the mouth at hearing the very word, Clinton.

I've had some coffee, now.

The rest of the states you mention were all caucuses -- quite different.

As for Conn., well, my point was that Obama has done well in states without large African American populations outside the South, but not in the South.

Here, read this TNR article, which I found after my post, but which says exactly what I was trying to say:

http://tnr.com/politics/story....

I'm not predicting a Clinton win here. I'm not much good at predictions, anyway. I am saying, however, that this polling doesn't seem right, given everything that we know and how the candidates have done up to this point.

On the other hand, political races are not static -- they change. And there clearly is a sizeable mushy middle among democrats not strongly committed to either candidate, but happy about both. So far, the break of this group has been fairly predictable along demographic lines, and if that happens in virginia, then it will be a very close election.

I don't know if it will. If Virginia behaves like virtually every other Southern state has, then Hillary stands a much better chance of winning than this poll suggests. If, however, this poll turns out to be correct, then it means one of two things: (1) The race has shifted considerably and the scenario sketched by Lowell for Obama's path to victory is more likely; or (2) NoVa is demographically unique and it renders Virginia quite different from the other Southern states we have seen so far.

Because it's mostly white now after literally hundreds of thousands of black voters were unable to relocate back to LA.

It is also a primary.  We'll see what happens there on Saturday.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mostly white," but African Americans make up approx. 32% of Louisiana's population.

I don't know what that means for the Democratic Party demographic, but it means a pretty high African American percentage. For comparison purposes, South Carolina's overall African American population is 29%. Georgia's is 30%.

In Tennessee, a state Clinton easily won, it is 17%. Arkansas is 16%.

So far in the South, the percentage of African American voters has proved to be a fairly reliable predictor. Based on other results, I would expect Obama to pretty easily beat Clinton in Louisiana.

Virginia's African American population is about 20%.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I want to emphasize that I think Obama offers a lot more than simply being a black candidate, as he has proved by his electoral success outside the South.  

since Hurricane Katrina, much of Louisiana's black population has been displaced.  I haven't seen any polls, but I'm betting that Louisiana will be pretty close.

from the U.S. Census Bureau.

in 2000 Census LA was 32.5% black, and in 2006 Census bureau, after the state had lost over 4% of its total population due to Katrina, the state was still 31.7% black.   Will not make a real difference in the voting as far as I can tell.   What will true is that there is some shift of the black population from within the state, with a chunk of people from New Orleans having relocated to Baton Rouge and its environs.

I actually don't care too much about comment ratings, but I would be curious to know why you think this comment is unproductive? I have backed it up sufficiently with facts, and your only response have been to name two states (Iowa and Delaware) won by Obama outside the South, which as uva08 notes, actually helps to prove my point.

I understand why one might not agree with the conclusion I draw from the facts, but unproductive?  

He won Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, and Missouri.  Clinton, on the other hand, has won two: Arkansas and Tennessee.  Did race play a factor here?  Likely.

But Obama has won lots of states outside the South.  Hell, he's won more outside the South than it.  Deleware, Conneticut, Minnesota, Kansas, Idaho, Alaska, Iowa, North Dakota.  To try to portray Obama as the "Southern Candidate" is dishonest.

I said nothing of the kind.

I said he has only won in Southern States with a sizable African American population (I didn't include Missouri but I suppose we can argue whether it is the South or the Mid-West).

But I said outside of the South, race has been less of a factor and Obama has done well in states without significant African American populations.

My argument was directed toward understanding what might happen in Virginia.

Yes, to portray Obama as a Southern Candidate would be wrong. I did not do that.

Charlottesville and Albemarle are serious Obama country. Everywhere you look here it's Obama, Obama, Obama. I've not seen a SINGLE Clinton yard sign and nary a bumper sticker.

I think the 5th District could very well go for Obama. Aside from C-ville and Albemarle, Democratic voters in Southside are very pragmatical after having faced many very tough fights, usually losing, for the last 10 years or so. I've spent a fair bit of time down there working for 5th District Congressional candidates in 2002 and 2004 and my sense is that they'll vote for the candidate who seems most likely to be able to beat McCain. Poll after poll shows that is Obama. Plus these voters have been listening to the local majority of their Republican neighbors bitching about Hillary Clinton for around 15 years now. They know that she rallies the GOP base and could unify the opposition in a way that Obama does not.

Also, there are rather a lot of black voters in the Southern part of the state. Not a majority overall, but they are well-organized through church networks and are a force to be reckoned with in a Democratic primary.

As I said, signs of Obama everywhere here in C'ville, and he'll do well in the City and County.

As for Southside, there are plenty of Democrats down there - (remember, Virgil was a Democrat most of his political career), and they ARE your grandfather's democrats.

That said, Jack, I haven't spent much time down there, so you obviously have some personal insight I don't about where the folks there might go.

When Virgil was winning as a Democrat, the 5th District was actually drawn differently. Part of the deal that he worked out as part of the party switch involved redrawing his district to make it safe for a Dixiecrat.

It's not just Virgil Goode who wins in the Southern part of the 5th. Bush won as well. Twice. When we have people like Mark Warner and Jim Webb on the ballot, they do better than someone like John Kerry but it's still not quite a majority. And you see the same thing on a local level. Republicans tend to dominate House of Delegates seats in that area as well as County and town level elected positions.

The 5th District is a tough nut for Democrats to crack in the general election for a lot of reasons. But that same fact has made those Democrats down there into very pragmatical types. They just want to win already and they will vote in primaries for the candidate who they can get at least a few of their Republican neighbors to swing a vote. I can't even tell you how many times I have had Southside Democrats pleading with me not to saddle them with arch-liberal District nominees or meaningless party resolutions against the Iraq War and what-have-you that make it impossible for them to get conservatives to hop the fence.

Our biggest obstacle in winning for Obama in that part of the state is guys like Carl Eggleston Sr., who have major influence over large networks of black voters but demand large bribes in order to do anything. In Eggleston's case, it really was corruption when he was demanding these huge payoffs from District level nominees WHILE HE WAS THE ELECTED PARTY CHAIR OF THE DISTRICT.

Obama's campaign has taken a principled stand against this sort of thing and will not pay out 'walking around money' to guys like Eggleston.  Which is good in an ethical sense, but it places a big question mark over whether the typically dependable black vote in those areas will fully mobilize for Obama.    

By and large in Md the blue collar are either black or republicans. In DC there are no blue collar--too expensive. I consider this to be the Clintons base-high school graduates. People don't say it much but this race is as much about class as anything. I think the Chesapeake primary lacks a solid blue collar base but I may be wrong about VA.

which has it Obama 52, Clinton 37, so there is a consistency in the results.

n/t

Right here:

The poll of 501 likely voters in next week's Virginia primary was conducted February 7 and was weighted for age, race, gender, and political affiliation. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4%.

The results:
Obama: 52%
Clinton: 37%
Other: 1%
Undecided: 10%

In the survey Obama led among African-American voters, while Clinton and Obama were evenly splitting the white vote in the survey.

and I had to take attendance for my home room.   Glad you found it

I note both measure Clinton's support at 37%.  I suspect that SUSA pushed leaners a bit harder which accounts for the difference in Obama's numbers

in Virginia?

Whats the possibility we will see Republicans voting in the Dem primary for Hillary because they feel she is more beatable???

http://www.raisingkaine.com/sh...

Also, I'd point out that a lot more independents will now vote in the Democratic primary -- for Barack Obama!

Republicans that since they have a candidate they should go vote against Billary (for Obama); to stop her from getting on the ticket and if she does get the nomination they have the chance to vote against her twice. gained at least one vote and they like the thought of voting against her twice

although diff betwee SUSA and Inside Advantage, both of which have Clinton at 37%, seems to be that SUSA pushed people to a preference.  Whether that means uncommitted will break that heavily to Obama is debatable

So let's take Inside Advantage, and assume worst case scenario of the 4% MOE -  with a full swing that would make Clinton 41% and Obama 48%, still a 7% lead overall.  And with BOTH Clintons working the state who knows?  

My own gut reaction is that Obama is safely in double digits in VA, and what the CLintons are trying to do is prevent it from becoming the kind of route where the extra delegates get picked up with CDs.

voters.

For now I will vote for Edwards, unless I hear something that makes me sure that Obama or Clinton will adopt him into their administration.

I am volunteering all weekend and on Tuesday in Baltimore but after reading the news I started to worry about VA and thought maybe some of our efforts would go further if we drove to Arlington

But it looks like you have things under control.

I am a nervous wreck but who would have thought that our votes would count! So exciting.

but things are looking cautiously optimistic. The thing to do now is to push for as big an Obama victory in Virginia as possible on Tuesday.  Go Obama!

I'll be at the Obama HQ tomorrow and Sunday! Hope to see some of you guys out there!

I know it's asking for a miracle, but now that mittmentum has come to a dead stop maybe the Huckster can pull the upset of upsets and take down McCain.  If you add up the conservative poll numbers they equal to McCain.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the hard core conservative vote with only Huck still in it - will they accept McCain or vote their beliefs or just walk away?  We'll see tomorrow and Tuesday.

Not surprised Obama has such a big edge, his organization (at least here in Northern Virginia) seems light years ahead of Clinton's. Obama's people are everywhere, yet you never see Clinton people at Arlington Democratic events -- and her national campaign is based here!

Seems amazing that only 3% are undecided at this point, don't you think? Shows how tuned in Dems are this year. Or dare I say, fired up, ready to go?

We have to hit a Grand Slam for Obama.  We have to hit it over the wall, over the stands, and into the parking lot.

Let's take most of Virginia's delegates for Obama!

Virginia is being built up as this big, decisive state for Hillary Clinton by the national media. Supposedly her best opportunity to grab a large chunk of delegates before March.

So what would their reaction be if Obama buries her here? If we can deliver upwards of 60% (assuming that Obama wins the other 8 states this month as he is supposedly on track to) I think the media might start writing Hillary Clinton's obituary. I'm not saying she'd actually drop out, but she'd take on the stench of the loser.

A blow-out here for Obama would hit Clinton's campaign hard in the gut. This primary potentially means a hell of a lot for the race overall.  

endorses Barack Obama!

Thanks for passing that along.

and I don't know how the impact of that day's results have played in Washington State.  I would suspect that the endorsement by Gregoire will have at most marginal impact, given that both senators, Cantwell and Murray, are supporting HRC.    

By what number, however, I don't know.

... that involves the Democratic candidates is from polling that apparently was done on Super Tuesday.  It wasn't a primary poll of Obama vs. Clinton, but head-to-head match-ups vs. the GOP candidates.

But, nonetheless, it makes clear the propensities of Washington State voters:

Obama 58% McCain 38%

http://www.surveyusa.com/clien...

Clinton 46%  McCain 46%

http://www.surveyusa.com/clien...

Better for Obama.

Maria Cantwell and Norman Dicks.   Don't think that will swing the caucuses for her, but at this point I don't think it is a question of her expecting to win, but to minimize the dimension of the losses

I notice she is now consistently badmouthing caucuses.  

Are now available: http://www.wtvr.com/global/sto...  

According to SurveyUSA, it's Obama 52%, Clinton 33% in Maryland.  Let's rack up big margins for Obama in the Potomac primaries on Tuesday!

he started becoming the establishment candidate. Before he started receiving alot a money recently, before he started getting all that star power (Oprah, Kennedys, female governors, etc) and becoming a rock star to the youth.

I was (and now strongly) supporting Hillary. Before, I still liked Hillary, but I could have been persuaded to vote for Obama. I was impressed by his early supporters (like Governor Kaine), his stand against the war, his great oratory and his underdog status. I was a Dean supporter in 2004 and that was my attraction to him.  I contributed to Obama's campaign and went to several of his fundraisers.

Now I feel that Hillary is the underdog. She lacks money and starpower. (That also got me to contribute to Edwards.)I do not like that people can take potshots at her gender (I have heard the b word many times) and not get touched.

I am educated but from a blue collar family. Candidates that have appealed to me are Hillary, John Edwards, Mark Warner and Jim Webb (whom I campaigned for). Obama at times acts too elite and I have heard that complaint from my blue collar relatives.

Also the youth vote. Yes, I'm glad to see young people involved, but folks, we are voting for the next leader of the free world, not American Idol. The Obama girl did not even vote. I hope youth are not voting for superficial reasons like likeability versus experience. I supported John Kennedy and Bill Clinton, but I felt they had more experience than Obama. Same with Howard Dean.  One person who lacked experience but had likeabilty was George W. Bush.

MJW

Hillary Clinton is the classic establishment candidate.  We've seen this many times in our political history; sometimes the insurgent wins, sometimes the establishment hunkers down and beats back the grassroots rabble.  This time, it's neck and neck, but right now it looks like the insurgent forces have the momentum and will win -- unless the establishment figures out a way to stop them.  The question, by the way, is not so much whether the establishment will strike back, but how it will do so.  For instance, there is this possibility, and it's not a pretty one.  As Donna Brazile says, "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this."  That's just one reasons why it's so important for Barack Obama to wrap things up in the next few weeks, so it never comes to the Brazile scenario.