NationStates Jolt Archive

Just since everyone is *so* eager to resume discussion about the Democrat primaries... ;)

I gotta say, that despite Hilldog's commanding early poll leads in OH, PA and TX, I was thoroughly sold on an Obama upset in the latter after hearing Boy Genius break down the state a few days back on FNC. Sure enough, a poll released today supports Karl's math, http://americanresearchgroup.com/ , with Obama up 6 points in the possibly decisive state of Texas. Of course, two *other* current polls show Hillary maintaining a nice cushion, to quote Slate.com:

Three new polls have come out of Texas, yet we have two different Democratic "front-runners" going into Texas' March 4 primary. A Texas Credit Union League survey has Hillary Clinton ahead of Barack Obama by eight percentage points, and a Rasmussen poll has her up by 16 percent. Rasmussen says 32 percent of respondents could still change their minds, and that the economy is by far the No. 1 issue for Texas voters.

On the flip side, an ARG poll has Obama up by six percentage points, but doesn't provide us with any cross tabs to evaluate where the bulk of his support comes from. There aren't enough recent polls to judge whether this is an outlier, but it diverges from the conventional wisdom that Clinton currently is stronger in Texas.


So who do your favorite pollsters/blogs side with: Obama and Boy Genius, or Hilldog and the more "established" polls? :p

I've done my daily blog reading, but I'm feeling none the wiser on this question, so I put it to anyone who's not totally burned out on the topic. ;)

Hillary's probably up, but I doubt she will be after Obama's campaigning really starts kicking in.

So who do your favorite pollsters/blogs side with: Obama and Boy Genius, or Hilldog and the more "established" polls? :p

I've done my daily blog reading, but I'm feeling none the wiser on this question, so I put it to anyone who's not totally burned out on the topic. ;)
I'm not sure the polls can be trusted this year. They have been wrong in a spectacular fashion. It's got to be frustrating for the candidates to pay all this money for polls and then see the election deviate from the poll by double digit percentages.

Where's the 'I can't call it, you crazy Yanks keep changing your minds' option?

yeah. the polls have sucked this year.

besides, its out of our hands (unless we live in one of the states that havent voted yet) so i think its better to just settle in for the ride.

Where's the 'I can't call it, you crazy Yanks keep changing your minds' option?

Our Scottish pal has it right this time.

Where's the 'I can't call it, you crazy Yanks keep changing your minds' option?

Now I wonder why that was left off....:p

Well our system in Texas is set up so that everyone gets to vote twice.

The Democratic Primary establishes 2/3rds of our delegates while the Precinct Conventions (held 15 minutes after the polls close) determine the remaining 1/3rd.

So who knows.

I went to two events today. The event for Hillary Clinton had around 1500 people and the event for Barack Obama have about 100 people.

*shrug* Doesn't mean much since the Obama Rally didn't have Bill Clinton speaking at it, but meh .... we'll see what happens if Obama comes here.

Now I wonder why that was left off....:p
It's said with the warmest regards. :)

Our Scottish pal has it right this time.
I don't think anyone has a chance of calling either the nominations or the actual presidential race right up until the finish line. It's such a close set of races.

Individual speeches and actions of the candidate the day before each primary seem to be swinging voters at the last moment.

I have no idea who 'boy genius' is. Frankly, keeping up with all these 'clever' names for political figures is taxing.

I keep saying this and I still think it's true-the Clintons are good campaigners and focused campaigning will no doubt yield results. The polls in California got close but Clinton still did much better here than Obama. I think she'll do well in Ohio and Texas. I don't know if she'll do well enough to stop the bleeding, but she'll do well. If she gets tanked again in Wisconsin and Hawaii next week she'll have a much harder job to do, if she can keep it close it will likely remain that way all the way to the convention. The fact that she is campaigning in Wisconsin now I think indicates that she understands that.

Obama is a good closer and the polls won't reflect that until the primaries get near.

Karl Rove is the Machiavelli of the 20th and 21st century. You dont mess with that guy.


My moneys on what he said.

Karl Rove is the Machiavelli of the 20th and 21st century. You dont mess with that guy.


My moneys on what he said.

I think that's only when he's calling the shots and manipulating the pieces...

It will be close, probably Hillary by a couple percent (while she loses a bunch more states by 20 points or more). Texas isn't one of the red states that either candidate has much shot of picking off in November, though, so it doesn't matter all that much. Ohio and/or Pennsylvania is where Hillary has a decent shot at her first big-margin win since Arkansas, not that I think that will do it for her anyway.

It will be close, probably Hillary by a couple percent (while she loses a bunch more states by 20 points or more). Texas isn't one of the red states that either candidate has much shot of picking off in November, though, so it doesn't matter all that much. Ohio and/or Pennsylvania is where Hillary has a decent shot at her first big-margin win since Arkansas, not that I think that will do it for her anyway.

Free Soviets has been doing a running tally (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13447065&postcount=693) in the mega thread on this, it's pretty impressive.

states Obama won with 60% or more of the vote:
Alaska (75%)
DC (75%)*
Colorado (67%)
Georgia (67%)*
Idaho (79%)
Illinois (65%)*
Kansas (74%)
Maryland (60%)*
Minnesota (67%)
Nebraska (68%)
North Dakota (61%)
Virginia (64%)*
Washington (68%)
The Virgin Islands (90%)*
and we should probably spot him Maine (59.47%) too.

states Clinton won with 60% or more of the vote:
Arkansas (70%)*

* primary rather than caucus

I expect a close split for Texas.

It will be close, probably Hillary by a couple percent (while she loses a bunch more states by 20 points or more). Texas isn't one of the red states that either candidate has much shot of picking off in November, though, so it doesn't matter all that much. Ohio and/or Pennsylvania is where Hillary has a decent shot at her first big-margin win since Arkansas, not that I think that will do it for her anyway.

Those of us supporting the Clinton campaign here in Ohio currently feel confident that we can deal a loss to Barack Obama in March as well.

Those of us supporting the Clinton campaign here in Ohio currently feel confident that we can deal a loss to Barack Obama in March as well.

It's not going to be enough to beat Obama at this point, she has to beat him by a large margin, the kind he's been getting. It will matter 'more' to do that in states with a large number of delegates and bring her closer. Then she can press for Michigan and Florida delegates to get her close in the delegate count to compel the superdelegates to override popular vote and place her as the nominee. After 1968 and 1984, I don't know that they're likely to do that. Maybe. I'm new to a lot of this part of the process and I'm learning a lot as I go. It's pretty interesting.

Those of us supporting the Clinton campaign here in Ohio currently feel confident that we can deal a loss to Barack Obama in March as well.



Im sure you do:rolleyes:

Im sure you do:rolleyes:

That's mild compared to what the campaign is saying (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)-
“At or about, certainly shortly after, the seventh of June, Hillary’s going to nail down this nomination. She’s going to have a majority of the delegates,” Harold Ickes said, thanks to a combination of pledged delegates awarded through primary and caucus votes, and superdelegates – Democratic elected officials and party leaders who are free to choose any candidate they wish. Ickes is himself a superdelegate.

Of course, the opposition campaign is going to say 'Nuh-uh!'-

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe immediately responded to Ickes, saying in a statement the Clinton campaign was “attempting to have superdelegates overturn the will of the Democratic voters, or change the rules they agreed to at the 11th hour in order to seat non-existent delegates from Florida and Michigan.

“The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result of elections, not these say-or-do-anything-to-win tactics that could undermine Democrats’ ability to win the general election,” said Plouffe.

Let me re-quote an important part before we go back ti Ickes...

“The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result of elections...

Does this sound like a comment from someone who thinks the campaign is over? It does to Ickes-
Ickes – a Democratic National Committee member and Bill Clinton’s former White House deputy chief of staff — told reporters that neither of the Democratic White House hopefuls is close to winning the nomination, and that Obama was trying to prematurely call the primary season to a close.

“I understand Sen. Obama wants to rush to judgment on this deal and cut this thing down. You know, he’d like to be nominated right now. But there are a lot of delegates yet to be selected,” he said, pointing out that 18 states and territories have yet to vote this primary season.

Wait, didn't you just say that you had this thing wrapped up?

“At or about, certainly shortly after, the seventh of June, Hillary’s going to nail down this nomination."

So, that isn't a rush to judgment, but this-

“The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result of elections..."
is?

But suddenly this doesn't seem surprising-
Ickes voted last year to penalize Michigan and Florida — who moved their primary votes up in violation of party instructions — to seat their delegation at the party’s nominating convention this summer. On Saturday, he said both states’ delegations should be seated, and the results of those contests should stand. Hillary Clinton won the primaries in Florida and in Michigan, where she was the only major Democratic candidate to appear on the ballot.
Yeah...fantastic.

Those of us supporting the Clinton campaign here in Ohio currently feel confident that we can deal a loss to Barack Obama in March as well.

Even though two major unions have endorsed Barack Obama? The unions who are in the sector that Hillary has had support on?

Even though two major unions have endorsed Barack Obama? The unions who are in the sector that Hillary has had support on?

I don't know if you really want to compare 'number of union endorsements,' I don't know for a fact, but I suspect that there are a lot more in the Clinton camp. The unions that have endorsed Obama certainly undermine what has been a reliable base for Clinton, but that doesn't mean that it's sealed the deal, really.

I don't know if you really want to compare 'number of union endorsements,' I don't know for a fact, but I suspect that there are a lot more in the Clinton camp. The unions that have endorsed Obama certainly undermine what has been a reliable base for Clinton, but that doesn't mean that it's sealed the deal, really.

Oh I know that but the fact its the Union Names themselves that I was refering to

Where's the 'I can't call it, you crazy Yanks keep changing your minds' option?

lolz

As an Obama supporter, I actually think it's a good thing if Clinton keeps trying futilely to hang on, because it will motivate the Obama camp to keep campaigning like crazy and will generate a lot of positive energy for Barack while McCain remains sidelined and out of the media spotlight.

It's still awhile away. Obama will start to catch up and eventually overtake her.

I have no idea who 'boy genius' is. Frankly, keeping up with all these 'clever' names for political figures is taxing.


Ah, but he knows who *you* are - what you read, what you buy, where you work, etc... that's what makes him Boy Genius. :p

Point taken about the names, though - it's too easy to lapse into pop culture-isms online sometimes.

I think Clinton might be able to capitalize on the art of lowered expectations. It's sort of like when Ferrari returned to GT at Le Mans against the Corvettes-it was win-win for the Vettes, if Ferrari won, well, duh, they're fucking Ferrari, but if Corvette won then they looked extra badass (btw, Corvette won)

Against Obama this Tuesday we already have the expectation that she won't do well. Now all she has to do is not get blown out and it will come out like a victory which she can ride into Texas and Ohio. It's almost kind of genius, losing will be winning, up down, cats dogs.

Even if Obama manages a blow out it'll be 'expected.' She can only win or draw. Nutty.

It's still awhile away. Obama will start to catch up and eventually overtake her.

He's already winning.

He's already winning.

I think he meant in Texas and Ohio, where Clinton leads in polls by some wide margins, depending on which poll. But Obama doesn't hit his stride until the closing days, it seems...

The only problem with Obama (I think he is a good guy) is that when he gets into office he will get a briefing from the president and he will learn a great many things that will make it very hard to keep his campaign promises. Pulling troops out of Iraq would be a terrible mistake. Iraq would be a weak country, very susceptible to corruption from a neighbor. If there were to be a power play made by someone like Iran our good friends in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be stuck between a rock and a hard place And if the new nation were to make a move to take the oil fields in Saudi Arabia then we (the US) would also be in a hard place. I might be reading into this a little to far but... But if Hillary Clinton gets into presidency then I will jump the fence to Mexico