NationStates Jolt Archive

Forgive my failure to multiquote.

She has more Superdelegates on her 'list,' which is what he's saying. If you only count super delegates she has the lead, in other words.

Obama now has enough of a lead in pledged delegates that his over all total is greater, but Clinton does have a superdelegate lead.

That we know of at the moment at least. I'll concede that point.

That we know of at the moment at least. I'll concede that point.

Almost every super-delegate I've heard quoted is pretty much saying, "Yeah, I'm just waiting for the popular vote and that's what I'm going with." They're not stupid.

Both your links pertain to your second point, the first one didn't show what you said it would, or I'm looking in the wrong place...


This sure says a lot about what things are going to be like going into November-
http://www.pollingreport.com/images/GALenthused.GIF
Damn. Democratic turn out could hand this to the Democrats no matter who gets the nomination. Unless of course the already huge turn out is ignored by the super delegates.

And the Republicans have a long time to re-invigorate their base. We see in Cat-Tribe's thread where McCain is already pandering to them...

1. TCT's link is old and McCain was stupid for doing it.

check the links again. The one from RCP requires you to find the states on the left hand side to see the results for the upcoming states. I didn't link directly to it so you could do it yourself for multiple states. The second link from polling report has a graph on the bottom right. If you click on the graph it gives you the raw numbers as well.

1. TCT's link is old and McCain was stupid for doing it.
"Some months ago" isn't long enough ago to try and pull the 'why you bringing up old shit' defense, especially when it was on the campaign trail. You're right, it was stupid. And he totally said it.

check the links again. The one from RCP requires you to find the states on the left hand side to see the results for the upcoming states. I didn't link directly to it so you could do it yourself for multiple states. The second link from polling report has a graph on the bottom right. If you click on the graph it gives you the raw numbers as well.

RCPs polls are linked all over the place here. Texas' was out of date last night when I checked it. They don't appear to be polling vigerously states whose primaries aren't near, which makes sense because the real change happens within a week of the primary (see how hard Wisconsin jacked in the last week.)

"Some months ago" isn't long enough ago to try and pull the 'why you bringing up old shit' defense, especially when it was on the campaign trail. You're right, it was stupid. And he totally said it.


RCPs polls are linked all over the place here. Texas' was out of date last night when I checked it. They don't appear to be polling vigerously states whose primaries aren't near, which makes sense because the real change happens within a week of the primary (see how hard Wisconsin jacked in the last week.)

Can y'all link to TCT for what you're talking about?

Can y'all link to TCT for what you're talking about?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=549628

"Some months ago" isn't long enough ago to try and pull the 'why you bringing up old shit' defense, especially when it was on the campaign trail. You're right, it was stupid. And he totally said it.


RCPs polls are linked all over the place here. Texas' was out of date last night when I checked it. They don't appear to be polling vigerously states whose primaries aren't near, which makes sense because the real change happens within a week of the primary (see how hard Wisconsin jacked in the last week.)

Oh maybe you misunderstood me. He definitely said it and he's definitely a jackass for doing so.

I already said the Texas poll was shite due to its age and small sampling size. I also said it sucked because it included Gore. Someone asked for data and I supplied it. It's the best info available that I found in a short amount of time. It's hard to find many of the state polls online without paying for a subscription. My prediction is Wisconsin goes for Obama and Texas may as well. Either way it will be a close vote. This is just my opinion of course.

Let's also take note that Bill's campaign manager from 1992 endorsed Obama. WOOT for his Hillary hatred!

Oh maybe you misunderstood me. He definitely said it and he's definitely a jackass for doing so.
I got ya on that, I'm just sayin' that 'a few months ago' isn't 'out of date' especially since it was on the campaign trail.

I already said the Texas poll was shite due to its age and small sampling size. I also said it sucked because it included Gore. Someone asked for data and I supplied it. It's the best info available that I found in a short amount of time. It's hard to find many of the state polls online without paying for a subscription. My prediction is Wisconsin goes for Obama and Texas may as well. Either way it will be a close vote. This is just my opinion of course.
We've been linking RCP pretty vigorously in this thread. Also the ugly looking USAElectionpolls (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/texas.html) website with its out of date Texas poll with Clinton leading (but Obama closing, as he's prone to doing). That website also has Obama leading Clinton by 11% in Wisconsin (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/wisconsin.html).

Isn't everyone taking poor Hawaii for granted? I can't seem to find a poll on Hawaii with my simple Google searches.

Let's also take note that Bill's campaign manager from 1992 endorsed Obama. WOOT for his Hillary hatred!
Expect the endorsement game to get heated as we head on.

Now, in the Doing CanuckHeaven's Job For Him Again catagory, there is finally something to mildly validate one of his tangential points. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html) Gonna feel silly if he gets this in while I'm typing it, but I'm going to go with pattern and assume he hasn't.

EDIT the V: Okay, I screwed up this a ton, so I'm revising the whole deal. If someone quotes me while I'm at it you can see how badly I fucked up, if not take my word for it, it was mess. I mean, this is my fifth fucking edit...

Real Clear Politics has tracked general election races for Obama and Clinton against McCain. The states include Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Missouri.
Florida: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 44, Clinton 42, Und 9 McCain +2
Florida: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 41, Obama 39, Und 12 McCain +2
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 44, Clinton 43, Und 8 McCain +1
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 42, Obama 40, Und 10 McCain +2
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 40, Clinton 46, Und 9 Clinton +6
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 41, Obama 42, Und 11 Obama +1
Missouri: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 43, Clinton 42, Und 15 McCain +1
Missouri: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 42, Obama 40 McCain +2
Colorado: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 39, Obama 46, Undecided 15 Obama +7
Colorado: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 49, Clinton 35, Undecided 16 McCain +14
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 36, Obama 49 Obama +13
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 41, Clinton 43, Und 16 Clinton +2


So, what have we learned (other than I suck at internetz)? Well, neither Clinton nor Obama 'have' Florida right now. Both trail by 2% points, Obama's poll has more 'undecideds,' which seems to be fairly consistant throughout. Not that there are 3% more undecided votes but the gap between the candidates is the same.

Ohio is roughly the same story.

As is Missouri.

Pennsylvania is a different tale, with Clinton in a commanding lead over McCain and Obama with a thin one. The barest of sheens for CH's premise.

But then there is Colorado, where McCain appears to be stomping all over Clinton but losing to Obama.

The nail gets hammered in New Hampshire where Obama slams McCain by +13 to Clinton's +2.

So, three states where Clinton is losing by by roughly the same margin as Obama to McCain, one where she wins by more than he would, one she would lose that Obama would win and one that Obama would walk away with while Clinton would squeak.

So, there it is, evidence regarding CH's premise. And once again it isn't nearly as conclusive as he would hope and in some cases completely contrary.

And, of course, I suck at internetz.

More EDITs, because you can never have enough (and more EDITS)-
Clinton seems to be losing to McCain over all in Feb. 11 polls (except one) while Obama still leads-
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen (Thu) McCain 48, Clinton 41, Und 11 McCain +7
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen (Thu) McCain 42, Obama 46, Und 12 Obama +4
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton USA Today/Gallup McCain 49, Clinton 48, Und 3 McCain +1
General Election: McCain vs. Obama USA Today/Gallup McCain 46, Obama 50, Und 4 Obama +4
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton AP-Ipsos McCain 45, Clinton 46, Und 7 Clinton +1
General Election: McCain vs. Obama AP-Ipsos McCain 42, Obama 48, Und 8 Obama +6

So many edits...I should have just made a new post (like this one)...not that it it matters, all involved with this thread are probably off at their jobs/outside world activities...man, I need work...

So many edits...I should have just made a new post (like this one)...not that it it matters, all involved with this thread are probably off at their jobs/outside world activities...man, I need work...

I'm involved and I'm still here :D

So many edits...I should have just made a new post (like this one)...not that it it matters, all involved with this thread are probably off at their jobs/outside world activities...man, I need work...

I'm here, but I think the racism in some of the other threads is giving me the flu. And I'm about to get on a plane, so it's gonna suck. Stupid racists.

I'm here, but I think the racism in some of the other threads is giving me the flu. And I'm about to get on a plane, so it's gonna suck. Stupid racists.

Yeah, the racist thing does the same to me. I burned out early on in my NSG life because back in the day (let me get my old timer cane to shake) we used to have the Stormfronter/Nazi of the Week club. After dashing against those rocks for about a year I don't bother anymore.

I guess there's only really one person who could 'respond' to all of that and how likely is that to happen in any substantial manner at this point?

I'm involved and I'm still here :D
What I can't understand is why you are so involved in this thread. Is it cheering for Obama like you claim, or does it have to do with your hatred of anything Clinton. Hmmmmm I do believe that you want Obama to beat Hillary and once that is over, you will switch hats and go back to your old Republican attitude. Somehow, I do believe that the latter is the case.

What I can't understand is why you are so involved in this thread. Is it cheering for Obama like you claim, or does it have to do with your hatred of anything Clinton. Hmmmmm I do believe that you want Obama to beat Hillary and once that is over, you will switch hats and go back to your old Republican attitude. Somehow, I do believe that the latter is the case.

So? What difference does it make?

But then there is Colorado, where McCain appears to be stomping all over Clinton but losing to McCain.
That could be a problem for McCain :D

fucking christof, why is so much of the anti-clinton side openly sexist?

:rolleyes:

That could be a problem for McCain :D

Oh for the love of Jeff...that's just perfect. You know how many times and ways I fucked up things in that post? Ah well...what's one more, eh?

What I can't understand is why you are so involved in this thread. Is it cheering for Obama like you claim, or does it have to do with your hatred of anything Clinton. Hmmmmm I do believe that you want Obama to beat Hillary and once that is over, you will switch hats and go back to your old Republican attitude. Somehow, I do believe that the latter is the case.

No doubt we'll have to wait another day before you make a response to substantive posts, which will amount to a wave of the hand and another batch of unsupported claims?

Or have you become so bankrupt that you're going to go with the Corny Conspiracy Theory track instead?

(Psst. I think he meant "losing to Obama.")
Yes, but he may have hit on a deeper truth, serendipitously... Somewhere (was it on this board? I can't be bothered to check) I noted that McCain is starting to remind me of how Bob Dole used to get all cranky when he hadn't gotten enough sleep lately: McCain may indeed be the most serious threat to McCain.

That could be a problem for McCain :D

Indeed. He can't afford to lose to himself.

(Psst. I think he meant "losing to Obama.")

Yes, but he may have hit on a deeper truth, serendipitously... Somewhere (was it on this board? I can't be bothered to check) I noted that McCain is starting to remind me of how Bob Dole used to get all cranky when he hadn't gotten enough sleep lately: McCain may indeed be the most serious threat to McCain.
<.< >.> Y-yyyess...that was it. It was subtle commentary. That's right. I was commenting on the nature of McCain's campaign, not making yet another in a long string of mistakes in posting...and you were the only one clever enough to find it. Because you and I, we're the smart ones...and we're not riding anymore, we're driving!!!

http://www.sfangels.com/images/Ren-%20space%20madness.jpg

No doubt we'll have to wait another day before you make a response to substantive posts, which will amount to a wave of the hand and another batch of unsupported claims?

Or have you become so bankrupt that you're going to go with the Corny Conspiracy Theory track instead?
Actually, I am getting rather bored with the Obamalites who despite their rhetoric are inflicting so much damage on their party. The biggest problem is that they can't even see it. I envisage a severely damaged and divisive party that won't have what it takes to put a Democrat in the White House.

Actually, I am getting rather bored with the Obamalites who despite their rhetoric are inflicting so much damage on their party. The biggest problem is that they can't even see it. I envisage a severely damaged and divisive party that won't have what it takes to put a Democrat in the White House.
So now daring to run a campaign against Clinton is damaging the Democratic Party? Please tell me you didn't post that with a straight face.

So now daring to run a campaign against Clinton is damaging the Democratic Party? Please tell me you didn't post that with a straight face.
And like I said "they don't even see it".

It appears that Clinton is not going down without a fight.

Clinton Plays Tough with Obama (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=6444592&ch=4226716&src=news)

And like I said "they don't even see it".
So, it's the usual nonsense from you then? At least in that you have been consistent.

It appears that Clinton is not going down without a fight.

Clinton Plays Tough with Obama (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=6444592&ch=4226716&src=news)

I love that you followed that bit with Clinton attacking. Now I'm confident you can't have a straight face while posting.

And like I said "they don't even see it".

It appears that Clinton is not going down without a fight.

Clinton Plays Tough with Obama (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=6444592&ch=4226716&src=news)

So you're so into the notion of getting her to race (no, not win, RACE) against McCain that you're willing to forgo everything that makes you different from Bush, specifically by making the SAME claim against "division" that Bush does whenever one dares question him?

I ask you this especially when you consider that Obama fares better against McCain: What the hell makes you different from the Republicans right now, CH?

What I can't understand is why you are so involved in this thread. Is it cheering for Obama like you claim, or does it have to do with your hatred of anything Clinton. Hmmmmm I do believe that you want Obama to beat Hillary and once that is over, you will switch hats and go back to your old Republican attitude. Somehow, I do believe that the latter is the case.

Either that or I like what Obama is saying and will more than likely vote for him over McCain! Did that thought cross your mind?

No doubt we'll have to wait another day before you make a response to substantive posts, which will amount to a wave of the hand and another batch of unsupported claims?

Or have you become so bankrupt that you're going to go with the Corny Conspiracy Theory track instead?

The Conspiracy Track. He does not think I can debate intelligently though I offered to bring him down here to debate one on one! He declined.

.

Clinton Plays Tough with Obama (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=6444592&ch=4226716&src=news)

Huh. At least one of those attacks appears to be misleading (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/youve_got_mailers.html)

It says Obama "voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill that gives huge tax breaks to oil companies," another distortion. By the time Congress passed the 2005 energy bill, it raised taxes on the oil industry more than it decreased them and also contained billions for alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy-efficient buildings and vehicles.
...
The mailer further charges that Obama "voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill that gives huge tax breaks to oil companies." Obama did vote for the 2005 energy bill to which Clinton refers. But as we've said more than once before, her claim that the legislation resulted in large tax breaks for the oil industry is misleading.

In fact, the bill President Bush signed into law in 2005 actually raised taxes on the oil industry overall. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that the Energy Policy Act "included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry. In addition, [the act] provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years."

Many subsidies were proposed during debate, but they didn't make it into the final bill, which contained a total of $14.3 billion in tax breaks, most of which didn't go to the oil industry. Instead, they benefited electric utilities and nuclear power, as well as alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy-efficient buildings and vehicles.

Clinton has been consistent, however, in her opposition to the tax breaks the bill contained. She voted for the bill that originally passed the Senate, but spoke out against and opposed the final conference bill, objecting to tax provisions it included as well as the deletion of provisions to reduce oil consumption and increase the use of electricity from renewable sources. Obama voted for both bills and lauded provisions regarding ethanol, which is produced in his state of Illinois.

His senate campaign had a nuclear energy concern as donor. He has since rejected donation of that kind. I don't agree with him here, either on nuclear energy or corn-based ethanol. The difference is that Obama is someone you can disagree with. I'm not going to agree with Obama on all things. I certainly don't agree with Clinton on everything, and I do agree with her on a lot of things. But the things I don't agree with her are big ones, and one of them is the way she handles the discourse. That is what is divisive and that is what I'm tired of. And that is what makes your comment so comical.

Actually, I am getting rather bored with the Obamalites who despite their rhetoric are inflicting so much damage on their party. The biggest problem is that they can't even see it. I envisage a severely damaged and divisive party that won't have what it takes to put a Democrat in the White House.

:headbang:

Either that or I like what Obama is saying and will more than likely vote for him over McCain! Did that thought cross your mind?
Stick an Obama 08 line in your siggy and then I just might begin to believe that your intentions are somewhat honourable.

In the meantime, how is the McCain tat coming along? :D

So you're so into the notion of getting her to race (no, not win, RACE) against McCain that you're willing to forgo everything that makes you different from Bush, specifically by making the SAME claim against "division" that Bush does whenever one dares question him?
You lost me there my friend. Please be more specific.

I ask you this especially when you consider that Obama fares better against McCain:
The polls both republican and Democrat have been really whacked out the past few months. I don't think you can pay too much attention to them.

What the hell makes you different from the Republicans right now, CH?
I want a Democrat to win the White House? :D

Stick an Obama 08 line in your siggy and then I just might begin to believe that your intentions are somewhat honourable.

In the meantime, how is the McCain tat coming along? :D
So, just so we're straight, now that your claim about Obama and swing states has proven to not be the case as Clinton is not managing to do any better against McCain than Obama in all but one of the measured swing states and in some cases Obama is leading McCain where Clinton trails you're dropping it like you never believed such a thing and instead Obama running against Clinton is doing damage to the Democratic Party even though it is Clinton going on the 'attack' and trying to change the rules mid-stream despite of her earlier support for said rules-and of course Corny is here so it's all a clever ploy to beat Clinton (even though, again, Obama is polling better against McCain) so he can endorse McCain.

I just want to keep track of your mental gymnastics. It's like watching a side show.

You lost me there my friend. Please be more specific.


The polls both republican and Democrat have been really whacked out the past few months. I don't think you can pay too much attention to them.


I want a Democrat to win the White House? :D

You want Clinton to face off against McCain (and likely lose) so bad that you're acting like BUSH does and trying to silence dissent by claiming that it shows disunity or some crap.

You want Clinton to face off against McCain (and likely lose) so bad that you're acting like BUSH does and trying to silence dissent by claiming that it shows disunity or some crap.
I just truly believe that Hillary has the strength and experience to be a better President then Obama at this time. The hateful Hillary bashing does nothing to demonstrate that his followers do indeed believe in inclusiveness, and it weakens and already weak Dem party.

I just truly believe that Hillary has the strength and experience to be a better President then Obama at this time. The hateful Hillary bashing does nothing to demonstrate that his followers do indeed believe in inclusiveness, and it weakens and already weak Dem party.

The same party that's been showing up in twice the numbers as the Republican Party? This Democratic Party-
http://www.pollingreport.com/images/GALenthused.GIF

Here's an interesting statistical look at everything through super tuesday:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/9/13227/22519/239/453361

I want a Democrat to win the White House? :D

Then why are you supporting Hillary?

I just truly believe that Hillary has the strength and experience to be a better President then Obama at this time. The hateful Hillary bashing does nothing to demonstrate that his followers do indeed believe in inclusiveness, and it weakens and already weak Dem party.

Even IF she did, she'd have to get through McCain first. And that you use this shoddy Bush-like rhetoric to try and shut us up is pretty ironic considering you should be AGAINST Bush. As for "hateful Hillary bashing", please, look at what SHE is doing against Obama before making any remarks.

Stick an Obama 08 line in your siggy and then I just might begin to believe that your intentions are somewhat honourable.

I will. Give me a minute

I will. Give me a minute
Congratulations. Now leave it there until after the November General Election, if Obama is the Democratic nominee. :D

Congratulations. Now leave it there until after the November General Election, if Obama is the Democratic nominee. :D

To be honest, I want to hold Corny to this too.

Also, Canuck, I've a question for you: if Obama does win the nomination, will you support him?

To be honest, I want to hold Corny to this too.

Also, Canuck, I've a question for you: if Obama does win the nomination, will you support him?

Well, he's a Canuck, ultimately his support or lack there of doesn't really matter.

Well, he's a Canuck, ultimately his support or lack there of doesn't really matter.

Well if that's the case why the bloody hell does he care so much?

Well if that's the case why the bloody hell does he care so much?

As I understand it, as our neighbor he is concerned about the direction of our country because we can't help but have an affect on his. He seems to want a Democratic presidency and has gotten it into his head that the only way that can come about is through Clinton, and no matter how much that illusion begins to shatter he clings to it like a deflated raft. At least that's how he's described it in the past. Who knows what his story is now.

As I understand it, as our neighbor he is concerned about the direction of our country because we can't help but have an affect on his. He seems to want a Democratic presidency and has gotten it into his head that the only way that can come about is through Clinton, and no matter how much that illusion begins to shatter he clings to it like a deflated raft. At least that's how he's described it in the past. Who knows what his story is now.

It's plausible. Clinton still has pockets of strong support in odd places, which has made things fun. She's got Ohio by 15-20, which is almost shocking considering how VA went.

As I understand it, as our neighbor he is concerned about the direction of our country because we can't help but have an affect on his. He seems to want a Democratic presidency and has gotten it into his head that the only way that can come about is through Clinton, and no matter how much that illusion begins to shatter he clings to it like a deflated raft. At least that's how he's described it in the past. Who knows what his story is now.

Interesting.

Only thing is, despite his name I always got the impression CanuckHeaven was actually an American. It confuses.

Oi! Canuck! Are you actually Canadian, or are you an American?

It's plausible. Clinton still has pockets of strong support in odd places, which has made things fun. She's got Ohio by 15-20, which is almost shocking considering how VA went.

Not really. That's been the pattern so far. Before the state gets close to its primary and Obama starts campaigning Clinton will have a commanding lead, but as the state gets close to its primary Obama mobilizes his support and the gap closes. Last week Wisconsin was polling with a fair margin in Clinton's favor and now it's leaned to Obama's.

Plus, if you look a few pages back you'll see (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13450890&postcount=758) a breakdown of the race where not only is Obama polling better against McCain nationally than Clinton, but he's fairing better even or better overall in battleground states.

Really, it's going to be a hot fight. Clinton is campaigning heavy in Texas and Ohio and, I've said this before, she's a good campaigner. She might retain the lead there and make up her loses, making it a political fight going into the convention. If she manages to get within 100 pledged delegates she can compel party insiders to side with her. Doing that without majority pledged delegate support will make it difficult to re-unite the party because the motivated base that has been turning out in record numbers could be alienated as their votes are discarded more or less.

Doing that without majority pledged delegate support will make it difficult to re-unite the party because the motivated base that has been turning out in record numbers could be alienated as their votes are discarded more or less.

Can't say I'd shed a tear for Democrat disunity, but I do agree. The idea of superdelegates tipping the balance doesn't sit too well with me even if I like the result. I'm looking forward to seeing how the polls look two weeks from now regardless.

Can't say I'd shed a tear for Democrat disunity, but I do agree. The idea of superdelegates tipping the balance doesn't sit too well with me even if I like the result. I'm looking forward to seeing how the polls look two weeks from now regardless.

Wait, why would you like the results?

Can't say I'd shed a tear for Democrat disunity, but I do agree. The idea of superdelegates tipping the balance doesn't sit too well with me even if I like the result. I'm looking forward to seeing how the polls look two weeks from now regardless.

I'm going to guess she'll at least take one of the two states that she's decided this month matter if not both. If she can't she's truly done and I doubt at that point even the super delegates can save her. A lot of that will hinge on whether she can stop the bleeding in Wisconsin and Hawaii. She finally decided to campaign in Wisconsin, Chelsea has been dispatched to Hawaii where everyone has assumed that it will go to the 'native son,' I can't even find polls for that state. That seems silly to me, and a bit presumptuous of the Hawaiian voters. I think putting this in Obama's pocket is pre-mature and it would be a good 'moral' victory for Clinton. I'm not saying it will go that way, I'm saying making an assumption about that state seems off. Bill will do Wisconsin this weekend. We haven't seen much of Bill after "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina" so it'll be interesting to see which Bill turns up.

Wait, why would you like the results?

Well, being a Republican (sorta, mostly) the conventional wisdom tells me that a McCain/Clinton race would be an easier proposition. McCain/Obama is doable, but allocating campaign resources would be trickier, as the winning demographic combo is still a bit of an unknown.

Well, being a Republican (sorta, mostly) the conventional wisdom tells me that a McCain/Clinton race would be an easier proposition. McCain/Obama is doable, but allocating campaign resources would be trickier, as the winning demographic combo is still a bit of an unknown.
Ah.

Well, with any luck we will see Obama as the nominee for the Democrats, thus ensuring their victory. I would hate to see the Republicans still in control of the White House come January 20th, 2009. I'm not too happy about the Democrats having control over it, but we don't have much of a choice at the moment.

That seems silly to me, and a bit presumptuous of the Hawaiian voters. I think putting this in Obama's pocket is pre-mature and it would be a good 'moral' victory for Clinton. I'm not saying it will go that way, I'm saying making an assumption about that state seems off. Bill will do Wisconsin this weekend. We haven't seen much of Bill after "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina" so it'll be interesting to see which Bill turns up.

Yeah, I've noticed the same lack of Bill recently, and a total lack of TX and HI polling data from the sources I trust. Or Vermont, come to think of it (also scheduled for the 4th). But that could just be laziness on my part. The phrase "buyers remorse" is the one constant I've noticed among articles with an optimistic bent regarding Hillary. There's an awful lot riding on that, without much to back it up so far.

Well, with any luck we will see Obama as the nominee for the Democrats, thus ensuring their victory.

You're sure of that one, eh? :D

Really though, you should probably wait until, say, the campaigning begins, to make your conclusion, don't you think?

Yeah, I've noticed the same lack of Bill recently, and a total lack of TX and HI polling data from the sources I trust. Or Vermont, come to think of it (also scheduled for the 4th). But that could just be laziness on my part. The phrase "buyers remorse" is the one constant I've noticed among articles with an optimistic bent regarding Hillary. There's an awful lot riding on that, without much to back it up so far.
I heard the 'buyers remorse' thing after the weekend sweep, then the Potomac sweep happened. To paraphrase Inigio Mantoyo, I don't think that means what they think it means...

You're sure of that one, eh? :D

Really though, you should probably wait until, say, the campaigning begins, to make your conclusion, don't you think?
Look at the facts at hand. The democratic turnout at the primaries is double to even triple in some cases the Republican turnout. Obama has massive crossover appeal. John McCain has fallen from a respectable politician to a sycophant of Bush's who has to make concessions to far right religious groups just to get the nomination which will cost him votes in the actual election.

It's true that it's not a sure victory, but I think we can make a reasonable prediction at this time.

Look at the facts at hand. The democratic turnout at the primaries is double to even triple in some cases the Republican turnout. Obama has massive crossover appeal. John McCain has fallen from a respectable politician to a sycophant of Bush's who has to make concessions to far right religious groups just to get the nomination which will cost him votes in the actual election.

It's true that it's not a sure victory, but I think we can make a reasonable prediction at this time.

The thing is that Dukakis was like 16% ahead by the time of the convention, then took a ride in a tank and lost bad to H.W., so while it looks good now, you have to account for the campaign. In 2004 it seemed like we could have run my roommate's cat for president and win, and we know what happened there. To use a racing metaphor that no one will get, we're not even through all the mandatory pit stops, there's a whole lot of race to be run.

I heard the 'buyers remorse' thing after the weekend sweep, then the Potomac sweep happened. To paraphrase Inigio Mantoyo, I don't think that means what they think it means...

Yeah, I honestly have no clue whether the buyer's remorse thing was credible or just spin intended to guarantee the "horse race" the media needs to make that extra dollar. I suppose I ought to be more trusting of the networks' motives, but there does seem to be an aftertaste of making the news when there isn't enough to report.

Yeah, I honestly have no clue whether the buyer's remorse thing was credible or just spin intended to guarantee the "horse race" the media needs to make that extra dollar. I suppose I ought to be more trusting of the networks' motives, but there does seem to be an aftertaste of making the news when there isn't enough to report.

To be fair to them (but yeah, they are loving this) the large turn outs have made polling and tracking this election a lot more difficult than normally because 'likely voters' is now a group they're not accustom to asking. While they haven't been completely off base they have had a hard time predicting a lot of what's happened. While you'd think this would be a negative for them I would argue that it has been a positive, you're almost tuning in to see if they will be wrong.

The thing is that Dukakis was like 16% ahead by the time of the convention, then took a ride in a tank and lost bad to H.W., so while it looks good now, you have to account for the campaign. In 2004 it seemed like we could have run my roommate's cat for president and win, and we know what happened there. To use a racing metaphor that no one will get, we're not even through all the mandatory pit stops, there's a whole lot of race to be run.

True. Hence why I said it's a reasonable prediction, and it is, so long as you take this into account. From what we can see at the moment it looks like it would go that way.

For all our sakes, however, I hope Obama doesn't repeat Dukakis's experience.

True. Hence why I said it's a reasonable prediction, and it is, so long as you take this into account. From what we can see at the moment it looks like it would go that way.

For all our sakes, however, I hope Obama doesn't repeat Dukakis's experience.

Well certainly, stay away from tanks.

To be fair to them (but yeah, they are loving this) the large turn outs have made polling and tracking this election a lot more difficult than normally because 'likely voters' is now a group they're not accustom to asking. While they haven't been completely off base they have had a hard time predicting a lot of what's happened. While you'd think this would be a negative for them I would argue that it has been a positive, you're almost tuning in to see if they will be wrong.

It's pretty crazy not knowing what to expect. My 'big three' are SurveyUSA, Rasmussen and Quinnipiac, and they've served me well for a very long time. But they've each whiffed more than a few times in the last couple weeks. It's very strange, I must say.

Well certainly, stay away from tanks.

Well of course. That's just good advice no matter who you are.

Actually, I am getting rather bored with the Obamalites who despite their rhetoric are inflicting so much damage on their party. The biggest problem is that they can't even see it. I envisage a severely damaged and divisive party that won't have what it takes to put a Democrat in the White House.

And like I said "they don't even see it".

It appears that Clinton is not going down without a fight.

Clinton Plays Tough with Obama

Wait....so "Obamalites" are making Clinton go on the attack and utilize divisive politics?

That's quite a conspiracy theory you've got there.

I just truly believe that Hillary has the strength and experience to be a better President then Obama at this time. The hateful Hillary bashing does nothing to demonstrate that his followers do indeed believe in inclusiveness, and it weakens and already weak Dem party.

Ah, so now any opposition to Clinton is "hateful Hillary bashing."

Next you'll be telling us we're either with you or against you and that we're unpatriotic if we don't think we should be in Iraq for "as long as it takes" (whatever that means).

Ah, so now any opposition to Clinton is "hateful Hillary bashing."
That is not what I said and I do believe that you are smart enough to know exactly what I mean.

Next you'll be telling us we're either with you or against you and that we're unpatriotic if we don't think we should be in Iraq for "as long as it takes" (whatever that means).
Naw...that is clearly the Bush/Republican Doctrine, and I think you know how I feel about him/them and it.

That is not what I said and I do believe that you are smart enough to know exactly what I mean.

Naw...that is clearly the Bush/Republican Doctrine, and I think you know how I feel about him/them and it.

Based on your comments in this thread, it would appear that the way you feel about it is "They shouldn't use it, but I certainly should."

One reason that Barack Obama is beating Hillary Clinton for their party's 2008 presidential nomination is that John Edwards pulled out of the race on January 30th, six days before the primaries and caucuses in 22 states, making a three-way race (Clinton vs. Obama vs. Edwards) a strictly one-on-one affair (Clinton vs. Obama only). At least two states-Missouri and Connecticut-were narrowly won by Barack (51-47 percent in Connecticut and 49-48 percent in Missouri). It is also possible that Edwards pulling out of the race helped Obama win Delaware (which he won 53-42 percent) and Alabama (he won 56-42 percent). If Edwards had competed in the states with primaries, he would have won 10 to 20 percent of the vote per state. If that were the case, Hillary might have won Missouri 48 percent to Obama's 34 percent and Edwards getting 18 percent in the Missouri primary. The Connecticett primary would have seen Ms. Clinton beat Obama 47-36 percent with Edwards win 17 percent in Connecticut. In Delaware, Hillary might have beaten Barack 43-38 percent with Edwards getting 19 percent of the vote. In Alabama, Hillary might have have narrowly edged out Obama 42-41 percent with Edwards getting 17 percent in Alabama.
Instead of winning nine out of 13 states on Super Tuesday, Hillary, instead of Obama, would have won 13 out of 22 states.

On saturday, February 9th, Clinton would have beaten Obama 56 to 44 percent in Louisiana, 53 to 47 percent in the Nebraska causcuaes, and 52 to 48 percent in the Washington State caucuses.

On Sunday February 10th, Hillary would have beaten Obama 60 to 40 percent in the Maine Causes.

On Tuesday February 12th, Hillary would have won Maryland with 57 percent to Barack's 43 percent and Virginia 55-45 percent, though Senator Obama would have won Wasington D.C. 56-44 percent.

Then Ms. Clinton would have finished off Obama in the Wisconsin Primary.

Of course, this is NOT NOT NOT real, but alternate history.

One more thing: Edwards would have dropped out right after Super Tuseday.

One more thing: Edwards would have dropped out right after Super Tuseday.

Are we certain that Edwards votes take votes from Obama and not Clinton? Or a little bit of both?

Wait....so "Obamalites" are making Clinton go on the attack and utilize divisive politics?

That's quite a conspiracy theory you've got there.
Most of the "conspiracy theories" here at NSG seem to be directed towards Hillary. A lot of posters seem to be more intent on tearing Hillary down rather than building their candidate up.

Most of the "conspiracy theories" here at NSG seem to be directed towards Hillary.

Like what?

A lot of posters seem to be more intent on tearing Hillary down rather than building their candidate up.

Attacking policy != attacking a person.

You can't just look at a single candidate. You have to compare them. Naturally, you will find things that you don't like.

But you seem to want to pretend that this equates to tearing the party apart. How the hell have you dealt with primaries in the past?

Most of the "conspiracy theories" here at NSG seem to be directed towards Hillary. A lot of posters seem to be more intent on tearing Hillary down rather than building their candidate up.

You mean like you're doing now. You seem very focused on how the party is dividing rather than just promoting your candidate. Most of us are talking about Obama's lead and his message.

You cannot however discuss the election without pointing out some things that either one of them are doing wrong.

Hillary is making moves that will be impossible to recover from in the general election. She's basically said a HUGE portion of voters simply don't count. That's a terrible game to play if you end up in the general election and you cannot intelligently discuss the election without mentioning it. That's not bashing. That's just discussion.

Most of the "conspiracy theories" here at NSG seem to be directed towards Hillary. A lot of posters seem to be more intent on tearing Hillary down rather than building their candidate up.

Wow, you have become a little Bushy for Clinton.

It's a full set-

Lofty claims that run contrary to the obvious. ("Mission Accomplished"/failure to establish a lead after banking on pulling ahead during Super Tuesday, 'Clinton wins!')
Refusing to back up claims, instead attacking the messenger. ("That dude's married to a CIA agent, Why talk about global climate change when we can talk about a guy who made a movie instead as if that refutes the points"/pretty much any post made to Corny while ignoring researched posts by others)
Ignoring evidence (goes with above)
All criticism is hate. ("Bush bashers just can't help but bash bush"/Clinton bashers just can't help but bash Clinton)
Why you bringin' up old shit? (no acknowledgment of the record)
Opposition is tyranny. ("If you're not with us, you're against us"/Running a campaign against Clinton is destroying the Democratic Party!)
No direct address (The Fox News play, "Some people say..."/'A lot of posters seem...')
When all else fails, FEAR!!! (Gays are going to get married!!!/You'll lose to the Republicans!!!)

Congratulations. The abyss has stared into you. Good job.

Like what?



Attacking policy != attacking a person.

You can't just look at a single candidate. You have to compare them. Naturally, you will find things that you don't like.

But you seem to want to pretend that this equates to tearing the party apart. How the hell have you dealt with primaries in the past?

Well, without a spirited primary season, his candidate would be winning, so I can see why he's complaining. It's in the party's interest for their to be a true party where candidates run against each other with all the vigor they can muster. Despite his ludicrous claims, generally democrats have already said they will rally behind whoever wins. Once again the evidence disputes his claims.

Well, without a spirited primary season, his candidate would be winning, so I can see why he's complaining. It's in the party's interest for their to be a true party where candidates run against each other with all the vigor they can muster. Despite his ludicrous claims, generally democrats have already said they will rally behind whoever wins. Once again the evidence disputes his claims.

Fuck I wish I could find that poll, I just can't think of the search terms. I'd almost just put it in my signature so every time he spouts that nonsense I could just point down to it.

This (http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/30742) is a little lacking in citation, but addresses a lot of it.

If we look at the two parties, the Democrats appear far more unified than Republicans.
...
Democratic Party unity is being driven from the outside, a common dissatisfaction with the status quo, with the party uniformly defined by liberalism.

The Democratic nomination contest is about personalities, not issues. Regardless of which candidate gets nominated, Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, 85 percent of Democrats say they will be satisfied.
...
The problem is, no one Republican candidate has been able to appeal with equal strength to the major party concerns of national security, traditional values and free-market economics.

Given that 86 percent of Republicans say that "defending the U.S. against terrorism" is their No. 1 concern, perhaps it is not surprising that Sen. John McCain has emerged as the front-runner.

But, although national security is the top concern of Republicans and remains at the top of concerns for all Americans, social and economic concerns are also strong.
I can't find the article I was reading yesterday about resurgent murmurs of religious conservatives mounting a third party candidate, but the Republicans have problems of their own and a spirited Democratic primary is hardly the death knell that CH wants us to believe it to be. Especially since up until recently the candidates have been very genial...who changed that...hm?

Here's (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb13/0,4670,EvangelicalsThirdParty,00.html) an article on what I was talking about. Some (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/us/politics/11repubs.html?_r=1&sq=mccain&st=cse&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=5&adxnnlx=1203101022-R42pb/okdaBHeFKA6KBf4g) more (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-right7feb07,0,4368275.story?page=2) problems for McCain from within. Despite CH's 'concerns,' the Republicans have their own troubles right now, enough to not worry about a spirited primary campaign.

For the Republicans, Romney did come out and endorse McCain but yea. The Republicans have troubles of their own.

So, just so we're straight, now that your claim about Obama and swing states has proven to not be the case as Clinton is not managing to do any better against McCain than Obama in all but one of the measured swing states and in some cases Obama is leading McCain where Clinton trails you're dropping it like you never believed such a thing and instead Obama running against Clinton is doing damage to the Democratic Party even though it is Clinton going on the 'attack' and trying to change the rules mid-stream despite of her earlier support for said rules-and of course Corny is here so it's all a clever ploy to beat Clinton (even though, again, Obama is polling better against McCain) so he can endorse McCain.

I just want to keep track of your mental gymnastics. It's like watching a side show.
The "side show" is your own creation. Again I remind you of my initial premise:

Obama won mostly the Red States, and let's face facts, those Red states that Obama won are very unlikely to vote Democrat in the general election

The 2nd part of my premise was:

I believe that in a general election, Clinton could very well win Florida. I don't believe that Obama would.

And 2nd premise I threw out there was:

If you would notice, I said the Red States won by Obama are very likely to stay Red.

I think Hillary could easily win the Red States of Florida, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Nevada. I am only going by the States that have voted thus far.

So, your counter claim is wrong. The only way that my premise can prove to be true or false would be after a general election where Obama was the Democratic nominee.

For your clarification, I never stated "Obama running against Clinton is doing damage to the Democratic Party".

And the Corny thing, well that has always been a bit of a side show in any debate here at NSG. :p

The "side show" is your own creation. Again I remind you of my initial premise:



The 2nd part of my premise was:



And 2nd premise I threw out there was:


So, your counter claim is wrong. The only way that my premise can prove to be true or false would be after a general election where Obama was the Democratic nominee.

For your clarification, I never stated "Obama running against Clinton is doing damage to the Democratic Party".

And the Corny thing, well that has always been a bit of a side show in any debate here at NSG. :p
We've addressed and sourced our addresses against your premise. Go find it and address that. Pretend like you know how to do this. We've shown that the whole 'red state' thing is no more true for Obama than it is Clinton and that in fact Obama is winning more swing states than Clinton. The sky is not pink.

You can start here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13450890&postcount=758)

re:Florida
Florida: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 44, Clinton 42, Und 9 McCain +2 Florida: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 41, Obama 39, Und 12 McCain +2
This is without Obama campaigning in Florida. This is without Obama pushing to have their delegates seated. This is regardless of the fact that Clinton 'won' the state. They are losing by the same margin, the only difference being that with Obama there are more undecideds.

Not to mention that Clinton is hanging her hat on trying to win a very red state.

EDIT: And again, the kids are alright (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/30/opinion/pollpositions/main3769985.shtml)-
It turns out that voters have handled the sniping and the charges among Democratic candidates pretty well - maybe even better than the candidates. This campaign is still exciting voters. And despite media coverage of a racial undercurrent - and the racial vote divide -- in last Saturday’s South Carolina Democratic primary, more than three in four voters there -- 77 percent - still said they would be satisfied if Hillary Clinton won their party’s nomination, while only a few percent more -- 83 percent -- said they would be satisfied if Barack Obama won.

Of course in the 80s long and divisive campaigns have hurt that-
Of course, this general Democratic voter acceptance of both Clinton and Obama may not last. There have been hard-fought primaries before when many more of one candidate’s supporters find the other candidate unacceptable. Some of the most memorable of those were Democratic primaries. In 1984, just after Gary Hart’s defeat of former Vice President Walter Mondale in the New Hampshire primary, he (briefly) became the Democratic front-runner. Thirty-eight percent in a national CBS News Poll favored Hart, with Mondale the choice of 31 percent. Before that primary, Mondale had led Hart 57 percent to 7 percent. A few weeks after that, in the Illinois primary, barely half of Hart and Mondale voters were saying that they would vote for the other candidate in a race against Ronald Reagan.

In 1980, Ted Kennedy challenged President Jimmy Carter for the nomination. Their battle continued until the Democratic convention -- one of the longest nominating battles in recent years. Nationally, Carter consistently led Kennedy by about two to one. But those feelings were strongly held. In the New York primary that year, fewer than half the supporters of Kennedy and Carter said the other was acceptable as the party’s nominee in November. In a March national poll, when Carter led Kennedy by nearly two to one, half of all Democrats had unfavorable views of Kennedy, and a third had unfavorable views of Carter.
but-
In both years, the negative aspects of the campaigns carried over into the fall, as the Democratic nominee lost the election, and by wide margins. That makes what happened in South Carolina on Saturday all the more unusual and positive for the Democratic Party. Although black and white voters disagreed on which candidates to support, they agreed in principle that both front-runners would be acceptable to them.
So you'd have to be weary of a candidate that starts divisive 'attack' type campaigning and tactics like advocating changing the rules mid-stream* and pushing for party insiders to over-ride the popular vote. Who could that be?

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/POLITICS/02/14/clinton.obama/art.clinton.ohio.ap.jpg
Yeah...

*(an increasingly shaky ploy-to insist that Michigan and Florida's votes count to get the delegate count close enough for her to compel super-delegates to over ride the popular vote...nope, no divisiveness there...)