Reddy Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 guys, it's the Clintons, they're not going to lose. they don't like doing it so they'll do what it takes - end of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Dont call this over just yet. There is still a LOT to go. SC will go Obama. Then Super Tuesday is going to be fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 02:01 PM) Dont call this over just yet. There is still a LOT to go. SC will go Obama. Then Super Tuesday is going to be fun It's over. Obama needed 2 wins to be able to have a shot at closing the polling gap on Super Tuesday. Between the fact that NY is larger than IL and the fact that Hillary is winning in CA, Super Tuesday will wind up going solidly to her. This was 95% over when those few thousand voters in New Hampshire picked her. Today just sealed it. I hope Bloomberg runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 04:02 PM) I hope Bloomberg runs. I am so curious about him. I'd love to see what his stance is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 10:02 PM) It's over. Obama needed 2 wins to be able to have a shot at closing the polling gap on Super Tuesday. Between the fact that NY is larger than IL and the fact that Hillary is winning in CA, Super Tuesday will wind up going solidly to her. This was 95% over when those few thousand voters in New Hampshire picked her. Today just sealed it. I hope Bloomberg runs. I said when I saw the "comeback" in NH that the race was done. And this just solidifies it. Hillarity is our next president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 04:18 PM) I said when I saw the "comeback" in NH that the race was done. And this just solidifies it. Hillarity is our next president. And I just became a Canadian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) And I just became a Canadian. If I stayed here during the abject disaster that was the Bush years, which may well have totally ruined the future of this country, I'll tough it out for a few more years of Clinton. Look at the bright side. A person throwing darts at a dartboard as a decision making tool could do a better job of running the country than GW. It is, I'm fairly certain, theoretically impossible for her to be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 04:27 PM) If I stayed here during the abject disaster that was the Bush years, which may well have totally ruined the future of this country, I'll tough it out for a few more years of Clinton. Look at the bright side. A person throwing darts at a dartboard as a decision making tool could do a better job of running the country than GW. It is, I'm fairly certain, theoretically impossible for her to be worse. Oh i agree. If it came down to Clinton vs any of the republicans, I'd still probably vote for her. I really don't like her personality, but her and Barack and Edwards really are fairly similar in policy as best as I know. Plus, with her in the white house and Barack working the congress, I see POTENTIAL for a lot of change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 02:30 PM) Oh i agree. If it came down to Clinton vs any of the republicans, I'd still probably vote for her. I really don't like her personality, but her and Barack and Edwards really are fairly similar in policy as best as I know. Plus, with her in the white house and Barack working the congress, I see POTENTIAL for a lot of change. There's nothing in the Congress going to change at all, IMO. Putting Clinton in the White House would probably just harden the Republicans in the Senate. If we think they're filibustering now, could you imagine how it would be when they get a budget from Hillary? You think the Dems there are ineffective now...eesh. Of course, with all Bush's new powers being handed over to Clinton (See Republicans, THIS IS WHAT WE WARNED YOU ABOUT)...some of the filibustering ones might just disappear...but we'll worry about that when it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Screw it. Jeb should just marry Chelsea and we can end this oligarchy once and for all. Bring on the monarchy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 Its.Not.Over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:20 PM) Its.Not.Over. Yes. It is. Barring a major, major slipup by Hillary. Edited January 19, 2008 by Balta1701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:22 PM) Yes. It is. Barring a major, major slipup by Hillary. Why? I keep hearing about this lead that Obama supposedly had to have going into Super Tuesday. Well, I don't see that as logical at all. National polls and polls in the major states, where Clinton's lead was in the 20's, are now single digits if they are a lead at all. Plus Obama will likely take SC by more than the 1 delegate that Clinton has made up in NV, which means going into Super Tuesday, Obama has more of the earned delegates than she does. And Superdelegates having been endorsing Obama recently. But the biggest thing to keep in mind is, Obama doesn't have to make it through Super Tuesday with a lead in delegates. He just needs to keep Clinton below 50%. If Clinton goes to Denver with less than 50% of the delegates, then I think its just a contest for Edwards' votes. And despite his lousy showing in NV, remember that was a caucus. He's going to keep plowing forward, get his 15% here and there, and push this thing to a brokered convention. Its definitely not over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:27 PM) Why? I keep hearing about this lead that Obama supposedly had to have going into Super Tuesday. Well, I don't see that as logical at all. National polls and polls in the major states, where Clinton's lead was in the 20's, are now single digits if they are a lead at all. Plus Obama will likely take SC by more than the 1 delegate that Clinton has made up in NV, which means going into Super Tuesday, Obama has more of the earned delegates than she does. And Superdelegates having been endorsing Obama recently. But the biggest thing to keep in mind is, Obama doesn't have to make it through Super Tuesday with a lead in delegates. He just needs to keep Clinton below 50%. If Clinton goes to Denver with less than 50% of the delegates, then I think its just a contest for Edwards' votes. And despite his lousy showing in NV, remember that was a caucus. He's going to keep plowing forward, get his 15% here and there, and push this thing to a brokered convention. Its definitely not over. Hillary also currently has a SUBSTANTIAL lead in super delegates, and although most of them are currently uncommitted, the rest are going to go for her as she starts picking off states, as they won't want to deal with a brokered convention. It's over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Interesting point just brought up by the Obama campaign.... Obama got more delegates in NV. AND, SC has almost twice as many delegates as NV. So, an Obama win there actually puts him farther ahead of Clinton. It's all about the delegates. I think it's far from over. Yes Hillary has some momentum, bu tit is far from over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:31 PM) Interesting point just brought up by the Obama campaign.... Obama got more delegates in NV. No he didn't. The Clintons got 13, he got 12. His point is he has more delegates after Nevada, because N.H. was a tie, Michigan had none, and he had a lead from Iowa. But of course...that ignores Hillary's substantial and certain to grow lead in the Superdelegates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:31 PM) Interesting point just brought up by the Obama campaign.... Obama got more delegates in NV. AND, SC has almost twice as many delegates as NV. So, an Obama win there actually puts him farther ahead of Clinton. It's all about the delegates. I think it's far from over. Yes Hillary has some momentum, bu tit is far from over. I tend to agree. There are a ton of Superdelegates still on the table, and I see no reason why they'd be afraid of a brokered convention. In fact, they probably think Edwards is more likely to go Obama, so, they may be counting on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:27 PM) Why? I keep hearing about this lead that Obama supposedly had to have going into Super Tuesday. Well, I don't see that as logical at all. National polls and polls in the major states, where Clinton's lead was in the 20's, are now single digits if they are a lead at all. Plus Obama will likely take SC by more than the 1 delegate that Clinton has made up in NV, which means going into Super Tuesday, Obama has more of the earned delegates than she does. And Superdelegates having been endorsing Obama recently. But the biggest thing to keep in mind is, Obama doesn't have to make it through Super Tuesday with a lead in delegates. He just needs to keep Clinton below 50%. If Clinton goes to Denver with less than 50% of the delegates, then I think its just a contest for Edwards' votes. And despite his lousy showing in NV, remember that was a caucus. He's going to keep plowing forward, get his 15% here and there, and push this thing to a brokered convention. Its definitely not over. I 100% agree. It's not about state by state victories. It's about delegates. Looks like Obama will have move going into Super Tuesday and might still be VERY close coming out of it if not in the lead. Remember, people have short memories. A victory in SC puts that in people's minds on Feb 5th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:32 PM) No he didn't. The Clintons got 13, he got 12. His point is he has more delegates after Nevada, because N.H. was a tie, Michigan had none, and he had a lead from Iowa. But of course...that ignores Hillary's substantial and certain to grow lead in the Superdelegates. no no. He flat out said they got more in NV. I dont knwo where he got that from. But those were his exact words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:33 PM) I 100% agree. It's not about state by state victories. It's about delegates. Looks like Obama will have move going into Super Tuesday and might still be VERY close coming out of it if not in the lead. Remember, people have short memories. A victory in SC puts that in people's minds on Feb 5th. Clinton's still going to win Florida in that gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:32 PM) No he didn't. The Clintons got 13, he got 12. His point is he has more delegates after Nevada, because N.H. was a tie, Michigan had none, and he had a lead from Iowa. But of course...that ignores Hillary's substantial and certain to grow lead in the Superdelegates. Where are you getting that? Clinton had a chunk of them up front before Iowa, but since then, I see nothing but superdelegates going to Obama. At least, that's what is being reported. So where do you get this idea about them certainly going to Clinton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:34 PM) Clinton's still going to win Florida in that gap. Which has zero delegates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 03:34 PM) no no. He flat out said they got more in NV. I dont knwo where he got that from. But those were his exact words. Then he's wrong. It's 13/12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:35 PM) Then he's wrong. It's 13/12. You know what? I bet he picked up a few supers in NV, probably the ones that were favoring Richardson (NV had a couple aligned with Richardson previously, I remember seeing it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 05:34 PM) Clinton's still going to win Florida in that gap. the press will ignore FL like the ignored Michigan. FL is SO huge for the republicans they wont even notice the democratic side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts