There are currently 25 users and 242 guests online.
Obama should drop out
Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2008/03/05 - 5:28pm.
Haha. Just kidding. Did I get your attention? Anyway, here's a fun delegate math fact (assuming my math is correct):
If you believe RCP's current pledged delegate counts, neither candidate can mathematically get to 2025 to win the nomination even if they win every single delegate in every single remaining primary.
If you believe RCP's current "pledged superdelegate" counts, Clinton would have to win 92% of the delegates up for grabs in the remaining primaries, and Obama would have to win 75%. Neither scenario sounds likely.
So, one way or another superdelegates will decide the nomination. And it may not be until Denver, unless one of the campaigns blinks first. Which also doesn't sound likely.
(All of this could change If the DNC ever gets around to addressing the FL/MI fiasco, but not by much.)
P.S. Contrary to the News Sentinel's front page headline today ("Republicans decided, Democrats divided") and lame right-wing talking points about the big rift in the Democratic party, what this primary is showing is that Democrats can field two strong candidates who can energize the party and put up record turnout numbers nationwide.
Meanwhile, the best candidates the GOP can come up with are Mitt, Rudy, Fred, Chucklebee, and their eventual nominee... McCain? Either Democratic candidate and most of the also-rans could hick his or any of the rest of that crew's butts.
So maybe we could call a timeout and all get together behind that for just a moment?
Submitted by Sean_B (not verified) on Wed, 2008/03/05 - 7:42pm.
Maybe by then Gore will decide to step in!
Yep, after millions of dollars and thousands of man hours of hard work on behalf of Obama and Clinton, we then hand the election to an old white guy...that'll go over real well.
"Yep, after millions of dollars and thousands of man hours of hard work on behalf of Obama and Clinton,"
Sorry, I feel it is all for naught anyway! I like Obama, I wish he could win, I just don't think he has a chance. Clinton on the other hand I didn't like her stance on the war before and I don't like her stance now. I just don't see us gaining anything with her as president.
"we then hand the election to an old white guy"
Sorry again, the republicans know how to win elections, You can't get any worse than Bush but yet he won twice. We Democrats needs to somehow learn how to stop the media from running our selection process for our candidates.
Submitted by Sean_B (not verified) on Wed, 2008/03/05 - 8:50pm.
Besides the fact that she's never run against a strong Republican, she has higher negatives than any of the candidates left running (actually, she had higher negatives than any of the candidates ever in the race), and she has raised less money than Obama this election cycle...why do you think she is the stronger candidate?
We're going to split hairs over a 0.2% margin? Whatever.
____________________________
With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.1
We're going to split hairs over a 0.2% margin? Whatever.
Let's see. She started raising money several months before he did. $20 million of her money raised can only be used for the general election (i.e., she hit up her big money donors for double the allowed contribution); his total includes less than $2 million of general election funds. Then, too, if you believe the rumor mill, he out-raised her in February by as much as 3-2 ($50 million to her $35 million).
But even discounting that, I really don't think that you should disparage the fact that he has received some donation, be it for $5 or $500, from more than one million individual donors. That just says something really amazing, if not about him, then about what people believe about the importance of this election cycle.
Submitted by Andy Axel on Thu, 2008/03/06 - 12:36am.
Excuse me? Who exactly is disparaging here?
I was pointing out that the margins are pretty close, so much so that you could call the difference a statistical push. Both candidates are doing pretty well in this regard. To me, it's splitting hairs to imply that someone has done so much of a better job of raising money when the margin of difference is sub 1%.
If you want to attribute "disparaging" to that, I'd say that you're projecting a motivation that I don't have. But Obama advocates are getting pretty adept at that by now.
If I want to disparage something, I'll point out that about a third of a billion dollars has gone towards simply selecting a candidate for 2008. That's the fucking obscenity, if you ask me.
____________________________
With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.
If I want to disparage something, I'll point out that about a third of a billion dollars has gone towards simply selecting a candidate for 2008. That's the fucking obscenity, if you ask me.
Too true.
But by disparaging, I meant focusing on the difference in total dollars raised instead of on the total number of donors. You say that there is a negligible difference in their total dollars. OK. But I say there is not a negligible difference in the number of people who have chosen to to support each of their campaigns with their hard-earned money. And that simple fact says something very significant to me.
Yep Russ, either one is doomed in November with that kind of paltry fundraising. (Compare to McCain's guesstimated $12 million in February. But he won't say for sure until March 20.)
Submitted by Bbeanster on Thu, 2008/03/06 - 6:23pm.
I would not call Hillary a laughingstock, but she was just as much a carpetbagger as Keyes. New York seems rather friendly to that sort of thing.
Yup, Bobby was a carpetbagger too.
Uh, I thought it was pretty obvious that I was referring to RFK, an opportunistic SOB who let Gene McCarthy do the heavy lifting and then cut his throat. And, hes, he was indeed a carpetbagger. New Yorkers don't seem to be bothered by them.
Submitted by Sean_B (not verified) on Thu, 2008/03/06 - 10:47am.
Andy,
First, I didn't say that Obama has beaten a strong Republican before; but I'm not backing the candidate who claims to be tested against the Republicans. Perhaps you can argue Bill has, but Hillary, despite her protestations, has yet to run against a credible GOP challenger in a National or Statewide election. In Illinois, the Republicans couldn't even find someone willing to run against a State Senator...that does say at least something.
You can find excuses for why Hillary has high negatives, but that doesn't change the fact that she does.
As for raising money, he's had a much more grassroots driven campaign financing apparatus, and a good chunk of that total you refer to was transfered in from Hillary's Senate campaign. He has raised more than .2% this primary season...but I won't bore you with details.
The only reason I have seen given for why Hillary is more electable than Obama is because of some anecdotal conversations with Republican women. I've talked to Republicans who are more likely to vote Dem if Obama is the nominee...it all depends on where you live and who you talk to; but statistically, based on opinion polls, Obama shows to be stronger against McCain.
I have nothing more than conversation to base this on. I know a few Republican females who said that they would vote for Clinton. I have yet to hear a male Republican say they would vote for Obama. So even if Obama were to win the Democratic Primary, Hillary may have a better chance of winning the presidential election. Although, as I stated before I don't see either having much of a shot at the White House.
Submitted by Yellow Dog on Wed, 2008/03/05 - 10:12pm.
I know that we should take polls with a grain of salt, but this new ABC poll shows both Clinton and Obama beating McCain, Clinton by 6 points and Obama by 12 points.
This is particularly interesting:
"Against McCain, Obama wins 80 percent of new direction voters; Clinton, 65 percent. Voters more focused on experience instead go to McCain, by 2-1 over Clinton and by 3-1 over Obama."
That means that Clinton's "experience" advantage all but disappears in a match-up with McCain (albeit Obama fares much worse). But Clinton's experience is the very thing that works against her, I think. As an experienced politician, she has been in the public eye too long, and negative opinions against her have sedimented (as we can see from reading this blog).
On another thread, the point was made that older voters are trending toward Clinton. But I think these "new direction" voters in the ABC poll are significant. Without bringing in new voters or crossovers wanting a new direction, we're locked in the blue state strategy that has narrowly lost us the last two elections.
MJ
Factchecker, It seems it would totally depend on voter turn-out. If the turn-out were heavy Democrat, Obama might have a shot. But even at that, It bothers me to say this, but I have heard even some Democrats say they wouldn't vote for him because of race. Race and gender equality is still definitely an issue in this country. We are about to find out how much come election time. I certainly don't see Obama pulling votes from the Rush Limp-mouthed Republicans. Personally I think Obama is what this country needs now. But I don't know if Obama can survive through the media Swift Boat campaign that will be thrust on him when the process is kicked up a notch for the actual election.
Right now the conservative media is feeding the democratic baby. But as soon as the true election begins, they will be tearing the candy right out of the baby's grips, wrapper and all.
Are we going to hear yes we can..or show us your tax returns?
Agent of change or slick Chicago pol?
Outstanding point. Obama should try harder to keep above it. He ought to say that none of the candidates is perfect, and that America is not looking for a perfect President or we never would have elected George W. Bush. And he ought to say that a vote for him is a vote for the team of people he will assemble who CAN discern the truth from intelligence reports and CAN set coherent goals and CAN prevent fraud and abuse, and that a vote for him is a vote for us, the America that can.
Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 2008/03/06 - 10:33pm.
I surely respect your opinions and evidence you see (however anecdotal--just like mine is, though to the contrary), JaHu. I already ranted my peace for now in the other thread and also pretty much agree with the subsequent posts (Sean, Rachel, and rocket).
Submitted by talidapali on Fri, 2008/03/07 - 12:41am.
and weeks of the primary campaigns, I was sitting on the fence, but leaning towards Hillary.
I am now thoroughly disgusted with her tactics and those of her staff, which she has direct authority over. They keep comparing Obama to Ken Starr???? And now Hillary has practically endorsed John McCain for President?!?!?! Preferring him in the White House over Obama should Obama get the nomination???? What kind of bizarro world did I wake up to today?
Hillary and Bill can go soak their heads in a bucket for all I care. Or take a long walk off the shortest pier they can find.
Obama '08! Yes. We. Can.
_________________________________________________ "You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White" "I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
Submitted by bobaubin on Fri, 2008/03/07 - 2:00am.
McCain? Either Democratic candidate and most of the also-rans could hick his or any of the rest of that crew's butts.
So maybe we could call a timeout and all get together behind that for just a moment?
If only Hillary felt the same way.
CBS News:
Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. “I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” Clinton was referring to Obama’s anti-war speech he delivered in Chicago before entering the United States Senate.
Last time I checked Hillary Clinton WAS a Democrat right? She didn't join the Lieberman Party right? I'm starting to wonder about that.
~ Bob Aubin
------------------
"When we've been told we're not ready or that we shouldn't try or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can." ~ Barack Obama
Submitted by Factchecker on Fri, 2008/03/07 - 12:24pm.
I'm already starting to wonder whether I'll need to eat some of my words. If I have to vote for Hillary in November while holding my nose because she got there by a scorched earth campaign, then I'm sure many other Obama supporters would stay home or jump to McCain.
She tested going negative a few weeks back and it lost ground for her. She even got booed in the last debate and then corrected her course, which seemed to improve her standing. Now, though, her campaign seems to think going negative is working for her. I hope they're not catching Nader's disease.
Maybe by then Gore will decide to step in!
Adrift in the Sea of Humility
Hey, I liked your opening remark ok.
Yep, after millions of dollars and thousands of man hours of hard work on behalf of Obama and Clinton, we then hand the election to an old white guy...that'll go over real well.
"Yep, after millions of dollars and thousands of man hours of hard work on behalf of Obama and Clinton,"
Sorry, I feel it is all for naught anyway! I like Obama, I wish he could win, I just don't think he has a chance. Clinton on the other hand I didn't like her stance on the war before and I don't like her stance now. I just don't see us gaining anything with her as president.
"we then hand the election to an old white guy"
Sorry again, the republicans know how to win elections, You can't get any worse than Bush but yet he won twice. We Democrats needs to somehow learn how to stop the media from running our selection process for our candidates.
Adrift in the Sea of Humility
Besides the fact that she's never run against a strong Republican, she has higher negatives than any of the candidates left running (actually, she had higher negatives than any of the candidates ever in the race), and she has raised less money than Obama this election cycle...why do you think she is the stronger candidate?
And Alan Keyes was what, credible? No, he was a carpetbagging laughingstock.
Remind me. Who are the "strong Republicans" that Obama has singlehandedly defeated?
You'd look a prat yourself if you had a sixteen year campaign run against you in the media. Yet she's still here, and winning state primaries. Hm...
Total raised: Link...
Obama: $138,231,595
Clinton: $134,536,488
We're going to split hairs over a 0.2% margin? Whatever.
____________________________
With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.1
Let's see. She started raising money several months before he did. $20 million of her money raised can only be used for the general election (i.e., she hit up her big money donors for double the allowed contribution); his total includes less than $2 million of general election funds. Then, too, if you believe the rumor mill, he out-raised her in February by as much as 3-2 ($50 million to her $35 million).
But even discounting that, I really don't think that you should disparage the fact that he has received some donation, be it for $5 or $500, from more than one million individual donors. That just says something really amazing, if not about him, then about what people believe about the importance of this election cycle.
Excuse me? Who exactly is disparaging here?
I was pointing out that the margins are pretty close, so much so that you could call the difference a statistical push. Both candidates are doing pretty well in this regard. To me, it's splitting hairs to imply that someone has done so much of a better job of raising money when the margin of difference is sub 1%.
If you want to attribute "disparaging" to that, I'd say that you're projecting a motivation that I don't have. But Obama advocates are getting pretty adept at that by now.
If I want to disparage something, I'll point out that about a third of a billion dollars has gone towards simply selecting a candidate for 2008. That's the fucking obscenity, if you ask me.
____________________________
With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.
Too true.
But by disparaging, I meant focusing on the difference in total dollars raised instead of on the total number of donors. You say that there is a negligible difference in their total dollars. OK. But I say there is not a negligible difference in the number of people who have chosen to to support each of their campaigns with their hard-earned money. And that simple fact says something very significant to me.
The important thing to me is that Hillary & Obama are raising a hell of a lot more money than McCain.
The most important thing to me about primary days is that the Democratic turnout has been HUGE.
That all bodes well for November, whoever the nominee ends up being.
And Obama raised a hell of a lot more than Hillary in February. $55 million to $36 million.
Yep Russ, either one is doomed in November with that kind of paltry fundraising. (Compare to McCain's guesstimated $12 million in February. But he won't say for sure until March 20.)
sad times, sad times.
I would not call Hillary a laughingstock, but she was just as much a carpetbagger as Keyes. New York seems rather friendly to that sort of thing.
I would not call Hillary a laughingstock, but she was just as much a carpetbagger as Keyes. New York seems rather friendly to that sort of thing.
Yup, Bobby was a carpetbagger too.
Uh, I thought it was pretty obvious that I was referring to RFK, an opportunistic SOB who let Gene McCarthy do the heavy lifting and then cut his throat. And, hes, he was indeed a carpetbagger. New Yorkers don't seem to be bothered by them.
I was just agreeing with you. Bobby was a carpetbagger.
"Jack was nimble..Jack was quick
But Bobby simply makes me sick"
Thats what alot of people thought about RFK.
RFK was indeed an opportunistic & I would add ruthless SOB.
McCarthy had the courage to run when RFK dallied.
The scores of kids that would of gone big time for RFK in '67..had signed up for McCarthy's flower power campaign.
March 12th McCarthy & his kids
stunned the world with 42% in NH.
For the Kennedy's the coin of the realm is power.
They felt it slipping away.
March 16th RFK got in.
After King was shot.
RFK's campaign became a crusade.
RFK is the last candidate that the wool hats in Georgia & blacks in Watts & Latinos working the farms could unite behind.
I am still moved by old film of RFK in Cal.
It makes me sad every time I hear that voice say
"It's on to Chicago & let's win there."
Andy,
First, I didn't say that Obama has beaten a strong Republican before; but I'm not backing the candidate who claims to be tested against the Republicans. Perhaps you can argue Bill has, but Hillary, despite her protestations, has yet to run against a credible GOP challenger in a National or Statewide election. In Illinois, the Republicans couldn't even find someone willing to run against a State Senator...that does say at least something.
You can find excuses for why Hillary has high negatives, but that doesn't change the fact that she does.
As for raising money, he's had a much more grassroots driven campaign financing apparatus, and a good chunk of that total you refer to was transfered in from Hillary's Senate campaign. He has raised more than .2% this primary season...but I won't bore you with details.
The only reason I have seen given for why Hillary is more electable than Obama is because of some anecdotal conversations with Republican women. I've talked to Republicans who are more likely to vote Dem if Obama is the nominee...it all depends on where you live and who you talk to; but statistically, based on opinion polls, Obama shows to be stronger against McCain.
Could that change? Sure, but so far it hasn't.
I have nothing more than conversation to base this on. I know a few Republican females who said that they would vote for Clinton. I have yet to hear a male Republican say they would vote for Obama. So even if Obama were to win the Democratic Primary, Hillary may have a better chance of winning the presidential election. Although, as I stated before I don't see either having much of a shot at the White House.
Adrift in the Sea of Humility
I know that we should take polls with a grain of salt, but this new ABC poll shows both Clinton and Obama beating McCain, Clinton by 6 points and Obama by 12 points.
This is particularly interesting:
"Against McCain, Obama wins 80 percent of new direction voters; Clinton, 65 percent. Voters more focused on experience instead go to McCain, by 2-1 over Clinton and by 3-1 over Obama."
That means that Clinton's "experience" advantage all but disappears in a match-up with McCain (albeit Obama fares much worse). But Clinton's experience is the very thing that works against her, I think. As an experienced politician, she has been in the public eye too long, and negative opinions against her have sedimented (as we can see from reading this blog).
On another thread, the point was made that older voters are trending toward Clinton. But I think these "new direction" voters in the ABC poll are significant. Without bringing in new voters or crossovers wanting a new direction, we're locked in the blue state strategy that has narrowly lost us the last two elections.
MJ
Why don't you think Obama has a chance, JaHu?
Factchecker, It seems it would totally depend on voter turn-out. If the turn-out were heavy Democrat, Obama might have a shot. But even at that, It bothers me to say this, but I have heard even some Democrats say they wouldn't vote for him because of race. Race and gender equality is still definitely an issue in this country. We are about to find out how much come election time. I certainly don't see Obama pulling votes from the Rush Limp-mouthed Republicans. Personally I think Obama is what this country needs now. But I don't know if Obama can survive through the media Swift Boat campaign that will be thrust on him when the process is kicked up a notch for the actual election.
Right now the conservative media is feeding the democratic baby. But as soon as the true election begins, they will be tearing the candy right out of the baby's grips, wrapper and all.
Adrift in the Sea of Humility
Thats not in the cards,R.
Obama got spun from being the agent of change
to slick Chicago pol..killed him in Tx,RI & Ohio.
But he acts like he wants to throw down with Clinton.
Are we going to hear yes we can..or show us your tax returns?
Agent of change or slick Chicago pol?
Clinton had a great night
But,like R said,its a delegate race & looks like she lost the TX delegate caucus.
There are rumblings that Clinton will challenge the
Tx caucus.
The Clinton's rep as the greatest Democratic organization of our time has taken on water
They righted the ship in Ohio,Tx & RI.
But challenging the Tx caucus puts em back in the soup.Why weren't you guys ready to compete in the caucus groundwar?
Plus it highlights the rap on Clinton that if she cant get one way..she will get it another.
Fla/Mich is really starting to boil..one thing for sure..
if not fixed by the convention..a floor fight will fix it.
We move on to Sat in Wyoming(12 delegates) & Tues in Miss(33 delegates)
Then Pa April 22
Folks we have us a brawl for the Democratic nomination!!
Are we going to hear yes we can..or show us your tax returns?
Agent of change or slick Chicago pol?
Outstanding point. Obama should try harder to keep above it. He ought to say that none of the candidates is perfect, and that America is not looking for a perfect President or we never would have elected George W. Bush. And he ought to say that a vote for him is a vote for the team of people he will assemble who CAN discern the truth from intelligence reports and CAN set coherent goals and CAN prevent fraud and abuse, and that a vote for him is a vote for us, the America that can.
I surely respect your opinions and evidence you see (however anecdotal--just like mine is, though to the contrary), JaHu. I already ranted my peace for now in the other thread and also pretty much agree with the subsequent posts (Sean, Rachel, and rocket).
and weeks of the primary campaigns, I was sitting on the fence, but leaning towards Hillary.
I am now thoroughly disgusted with her tactics and those of her staff, which she has direct authority over. They keep comparing Obama to Ken Starr???? And now Hillary has practically endorsed John McCain for President?!?!?! Preferring him in the White House over Obama should Obama get the nomination???? What kind of bizarro world did I wake up to today?
Hillary and Bill can go soak their heads in a bucket for all I care. Or take a long walk off the shortest pier they can find.
Obama '08! Yes. We. Can.
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
If only Hillary felt the same way.
CBS News:
Last time I checked Hillary Clinton WAS a Democrat right? She didn't join the Lieberman Party right? I'm starting to wonder about that.
~ Bob Aubin
------------------
"When we've been told we're not ready or that we shouldn't try or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can." ~ Barack Obama
reports that a caucus will be held
I'm already starting to wonder whether I'll need to eat some of my words. If I have to vote for Hillary in November while holding my nose because she got there by a scorched earth campaign, then I'm sure many other Obama supporters would stay home or jump to McCain.
She tested going negative a few weeks back and it lost ground for her. She even got booed in the last debate and then corrected her course, which seemed to improve her standing. Now, though, her campaign seems to think going negative is working for her. I hope they're not catching Nader's disease.
This is so funny - after the Wright statements were exposed - Obama is dead meat.
McCain will carry the rational Dems - the independents - the GOP!
And Obama get the ultra-libbers and the blacks!
Another landslide over the braindead libs!
Gee, I can't imagine why a black preacher would say mean things about race.
Thanks for being the right-wing dick of the day.
Post new comment