kapkomet Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 QUOTE(AngelasDaddy0427 @ Mar 2, 2008 -> 10:17 AM) Apparently it's all over the net. Obama really did contact the Canadians and the CTV story was completely true... This is the nail in the coffin for Obama. He was a huge underdog before that this make it impossible. Even I'm not that damn drastic. For the first time since Super Tuesday, Hillary is in real trouble. I'm as a big of a consipracy theorist as they come regarding Clinton, but even I realize it's an uphill battle for her now. Where are you getting your dreams from? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Something I recently found: http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/4104/12...06557sg8zc3.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 QUOTE(AngelasDaddy0427 @ Mar 2, 2008 -> 10:17 AM) Apparently it's all over the net. Obama really did contact the Canadians and the CTV story was completely true... This is the nail in the coffin for Obama. He was a huge underdog before that this make it impossible. I think you need to give up your comedy routine. It's getting a bit stale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 QUOTE(AngelasDaddy0427 @ Mar 2, 2008 -> 10:17 AM) Apparently it's all over the net. Obama really did contact the Canadians and the CTV story was completely true... This is the nail in the coffin for Obama. He was a huge underdog before that this make it impossible. Your posts remind me of someone. Who was that Iraqi, Saddam's guy who would go on the TV during the invasion and tell everyone that Iraq was winning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 2, 2008 -> 08:38 PM) Your posts remind me of someone. Who was that Iraqi, Saddam's guy who would go on the TV during the invasion and tell everyone that Iraq was winning... Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Getting tons of calls from the Obama campaign. Tons. I'm sick of the damn phone ringing. Well... if I get off work early enough, I'll probably go to the caucus, more then anything just to watch. But that means I'll have to vote... oh the pain... I'm voting for Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Let the Texas Rigging Begin... http://trailblazers.beloblog.com/archives/...s-strategy.html In training materials being handed out by the Clinton campaign, it is clear that they want to control those caucus sessions. The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles." It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serves as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness. "The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 2, 2008 -> 10:05 PM) Getting tons of calls from the Obama campaign. Tons. I'm sick of the damn phone ringing. Unless you tell them who you are voting for they will keep calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 FIRST READ (MSNBC): “As far as I know”? Speaking of CBS, we imagine a qualifier Clinton gave on 60 Minutes last night is going to generate plenty of discussion today. In response to a bizarre question by Steve Kroft -- “You don’t believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim,” following a discussion about that photo of Obama in Somali garb -- Clinton gave a bizarre answer: “Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.” Kroft followed: “You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…” Clinton interjected: “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.” As far as she knows? For a lawyer who has demanded precise language (example: the Farrakhan discussion at last week’s debate), Clinton’s dangling qualifier was a very odd statement. No doubt if she had that question to do over again, she would have said things clearer because this is how conspiracy theories start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 So what about that whole Obama NAFTA flap? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_...dZDMKPltAGs0NUE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 3, 2008 -> 11:40 AM) So what about that whole Obama NAFTA flap? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_...dZDMKPltAGs0NUE Well if anything this sure makes Obama more Presidential... He is able to lie straight faced to the American people, and then blame other people for what was said, with a dash of cover-up. Hillary should be proud, this could have been a play right out of Bill's playbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 3, 2008 -> 11:47 AM) Well if anything this sure makes Obama more Presidential... He is able to lie straight faced to the American people, and then blame other people for what was said, with a dash of cover-up. but, but, but.....he's for change! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo's Drinker Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 What are the latest poll figures in Texas and Ohio?? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 QUOTE(Jimbo's Drinker @ Mar 3, 2008 -> 12:35 PM) What are the latest poll figures in Texas and Ohio?? ? Both are within the margin of error. And I have already heard personally that there's some bait and switch going on, especially with the caucus part down here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 3, 2008 -> 12:47 PM) Well if anything this sure makes Obama more Presidential... He is able to lie straight faced to the American people, and then blame other people for what was said, with a dash of cover-up. Hillary should be proud, this could have been a play right out of Bill's playbook. Unless Goolsbee isn't on the payroll. In which case, this is a controversy about what a volunteer said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 3, 2008 -> 12:45 PM) Unless Goolsbee isn't on the payroll. In which case, this is a controversy about what a volunteer said. Goolsbee is Obama's chief economics advisor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 Latest non-Zogby, non-ARG and non-Fox polls that have at least 500 respondants for TX and OH (per request)... TEXAS... Rasmussen (3/02, 710 LV) Obama: 48% Clinton: 47% Survey USA (3/01-3/02, 840 LV) Obama: 49% Clinton: 48% WFAA/Belo (2/28-3/1, 730 LV) Obama: 46% Clinton: 46% M-D Star Telegram (2/27-29, 625 LV) Obama: 46% Clinton: 45% So basically, Texas is really, really, really close. Obama might have a very slight lead, but its statistically insignificant. OHIO... Rasmussen (3/2, 858 LV) Clinton: 50% Obama: 44% Survey USA (3/1-2, 873 LV) Clinton: 54% Obama: 44% Quinnipiac (2/27-3/2, 799 LV) Clinton: 47% Obama: 43% Plain Dealer (2/27-29, 625 LV) Clinton: 47% Obama: 43% So Ohio, Clinton has a lead somewhere in the 4 to 6 point range (then there is the S USA outlier), so I'd say that's pretty narrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Now, as I said before, if Clinton wins both tomorrow, then all bets are off, again. And while I'm not quite the conspirist that AngelsDaddy is, when Clinton clean sweeps this thing tomorrow, it might be Obama that loses 11 in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 3, 2008 -> 02:29 PM) Now, as I said before, if Clinton wins both tomorrow, then all bets are off, again. And while I'm not quite the conspirist that AngelsDaddy is, when Clinton clean sweeps this thing tomorrow, it might be Obama that loses 11 in a row. If Clinton wins both, she can stay in. But it doesn't exactly make her the frontrunner. Obama will win VT big, and RI will be close. Then there is Mississippi, where Obama is bound to do quite well, and then there is a month-long gap. That's a war of attrition. And Obama was far more cash to win that war with. Clinton needs to win both to stay alive. She'd have to win both BIG to be the frontrunner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 3, 2008 -> 02:29 PM) ... it might be Obama that loses 11 in a row. Up next: Caucus in Wyoming (Obama owns caucuses) and the Mississippi primary (Do i need to explain that one?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 3, 2008 -> 02:32 PM) She'd have to win both BIG to be the frontrunner. Actually if she won both big that would pretty much make it a tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 3, 2008 -> 02:33 PM) Actually if she won both big that would pretty much make it a tie. A tie with momentum in her corner - that would make her the presumptive frontrunner. I doubt either one wins anything BIG tomorrow anyway. They will be close races. In fact, what the heck, I'll start a Texas/Ohio thread and put my picks in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 3, 2008 -> 02:32 PM) Up next: Caucus in Wyoming (Obama owns caucuses) and the Mississippi primary (Do i need to explain that one?) Yeah, the more I look at it, the next 4 states... WY (3/8) MS (3/11) PA (4/22) Guam (5/3) All look pretty darn good for Obama. PA will be a dogfight, but he should dominate the other states. Then after that on 5/6 are NC and IN - Obama should take NC (barring an Edwards endorsement of Clinton), and Clinton will take IN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 All I know is that Obama might of had a slight chance before he had his campaign contact Canada. Now that it's a proven fact he'll be lucky if he only loses both by 20 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 QUOTE(AngelasDaddy0427 @ Mar 3, 2008 -> 03:12 PM) All I know is that Obama might of had a slight chance before he had his campaign contact Canada. Now that it's a proven fact he'll be lucky if he only loses both by 20 points. Are you serious? I figured you'd predict the following for all 4 contests tomorrow: Clinton 99% Uncommited 1% Obama 0% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts