DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[kapkomet]

Winning SC is a "publicity momentum" boost for Obama. THat paired with a good debate COULD give Obama a slight boost to at least keep it real close.

Two words for all you Obama supporters.

 

PIPE.DREAM.

 

Thanks for playing Obama, but it's over.

 

[mr_genius]

what is it with you and the jews?

 

 

[Balta1701]

That's basically what I'm suggesting. Hillary Clinton needs to do a Mel Gibson impression to lose it from here on out. Simply having people say Obama won a narrow victory in a debate, or one or two random things turned nasty amongst staffers isn't going to do it.

 

The demographic reality appears to be that women make up a much larger portion of the Democratic electorate than men, and that group is carrying the day.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's basically what I'm suggesting. Hillary Clinton needs to do a Mel Gibson impression to lose it from here on out. Simply having people say Obama won a narrow victory in a debate, or one or two random things turned nasty amongst staffers isn't going to do it.

 

The demographic reality appears to be that women make up a much larger portion of the Democratic electorate than men, and that group is carrying the day.

Well, let's see how a few more weeks of this argumentative style effects that. It hasn't been like this yet, until recently. It might work against her. Or for her. Hard to tell.

 

[Balta1701]

Well, let's see how a few more weeks of this argumentative style effects that. It hasn't been like this yet, until recently. It might work against her. Or for her. Hard to tell.

Even if it works against her...it's not working 10% in the polling data against her in California.

[NorthSideSox72]

Even if it works against her...it's not working 10% in the polling data against her in California.

It doesn't have to.

 

This is what I don't get with everyone's view on this - people seem to be ignoring Edwards' presence in the election. For EITHER Clinton or Obama, all they have to do to be alive in Denver is make sure the other doesn't get 50%. And as long as Edwards is still pulling his 15% (which he has been, other than the NV caucus), then its pretty likely that neither will make that 50% level. Therefore, this race is nowhere near over. All these little things - debates, single state wins... have effect of course. But there is soooo much left to go. And frankly, I don't think the Dem establishment is behind Clinton anyway, for lots of reasons (her high negs and vulnerability in a national election for one).

 

Now, if Edwards drops out before Denver and backs Clinton, then I agree - its over.

 

[Balta1701]

It doesn't have to.

 

This is what I don't get with everyone's view on this - people seem to be ignoring Edwards' presence in the election. For EITHER Clinton or Obama, all they have to do to be alive in Denver is make sure the other doesn't get 50%. And as long as Edwards is still pulling his 15% (which he has been, other than the NV caucus), then its pretty likely that neither will make that 50% level. Therefore, this race is nowhere near over. All these little things - debates, single state wins... have effect of course. But there is soooo much left to go. And frankly, I don't think the Dem establishment is behind Clinton anyway, for lots of reasons (her high negs and vulnerability in a national election for one).

 

Now, if Edwards drops out before Denver and backs Clinton, then I agree - its over.

I just for the life of me can't imagine that there's any way an establishment candidate at 40-45% in delegates would lose at a convention where 1/5 of the delegates are superdelegates. The fact is, if Clinton wins the plurality of the votes on Super Tuesday and the remaining primaries, enough superdelegates will hop over to her side to push her to 50+1. And if not, then states like Nevada where the delegates aren't written in stone yet will fill in the blanks. If there's a clear leader in delegates after super tuesday, they'll win on the first ballot at the convention if it even gets close to that far.

Edited January 23, 2008 by Balta1701

[NorthSideSox72]

I just for the life of me can't imagine that there's any way an establishment candidate at 40-45% in delegates would lose at a convention where 1/5 of the delegates are superdelegates. The fact is, if Clinton wins the plurality of the votes on Super Tuesday and the remaining primaries, enough superdelegates will hop over to her side to push her to 50+1. And if not, then states like Nevada where the delegates aren't written in stone yet will fill in the blanks. If there's a clear leader in delegates after super tuesday, they'll win on the first ballot at the convention if it even gets close to that far.

You keep making that same leap - that Clinton = Superdelegates. Except, look around - since Iowa, more and more establishment folks are distancing themselves from Hillary. I'm not saying that Obama is is going to get most of them either - I'm saying there is nothing at all automatic about them going to Clinton.

 

[Balta1701]

You keep making that same leap - that Clinton = Superdelegates. Except, look around - since Iowa, more and more establishment folks are distancing themselves from Hillary. I'm not saying that Obama is is going to get most of them either - I'm saying there is nothing at all automatic about them going to Clinton.

And my point is...most of them are uncommitted for a reason at this point, because they don't want to get caught backing the one who loses. But once the votes are in, you will see a landslide of them towards whichever one wins that Tuesday and the succeeding days. If there's a clear winner on that day, even with just a plurality, there will be a landslide, especially for Hillary as the establishment person. And the states like Iowa and Nevada who haven't yet fully committed will commit for the person in the lead after that day to fill in the gaps. If Hillary pulls out a solid win in CA, then it's over unless BO sweeps pretty much every other state other than NY.

[NorthSideSox72]

And my point is...most of them are uncommitted for a reason at this point, because they don't want to get caught backing the one who loses. But once the votes are in, you will see a landslide of them towards whichever one wins that Tuesday and the succeeding days. If there's a clear winner on that day, even with just a plurality, there will be a landslide, especially for Hillary as the establishment person. And the states like Iowa and Nevada who haven't yet fully committed will commit for the person in the lead after that day to fill in the gaps. If Hillary pulls out a solid win in CA, then it's over unless BO sweeps pretty much every other state other than NY.

If after Super Tuesday its pretty close, then there will not be any landslide of supers. That only happens if there is a far and away clear leader.

 

[Balta1701]

If after Super Tuesday its pretty close, then there will not be any landslide of supers. That only happens if there is a far and away clear leader.

Hillary winning California by 10 points, or winning a solid majority of states that day, then that's all it will take.

[Rex Kickass]

It doesn't have to.

 

This is what I don't get with everyone's view on this - people seem to be ignoring Edwards' presence in the election. For EITHER Clinton or Obama, all they have to do to be alive in Denver is make sure the other doesn't get 50%. And as long as Edwards is still pulling his 15% (which he has been, other than the NV caucus), then its pretty likely that neither will make that 50% level. Therefore, this race is nowhere near over. All these little things - debates, single state wins... have effect of course. But there is soooo much left to go. And frankly, I don't think the Dem establishment is behind Clinton anyway, for lots of reasons (her high negs and vulnerability in a national election for one).

 

Now, if Edwards drops out before Denver and backs Clinton, then I agree - its over.

 

Hillary Clinton IS the Dem establishment. If you want to say that Bill Clinton is out of the party mainstream, you're out of your gourd. The truth is that Howard Dean is representative of the next generation of the party, and Obama is pretty clearly that wing's candidate. Firm believers in the 50 state strategy, and he may paint himself as a moderate, he's only doing so by being inclusive and not parsing words when it comes to policy.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Chicago Tribune Calls Out The Clintons:

Clintons are lying about Obama's remarks

[NorthSideSox72]

Hillary Clinton IS the Dem establishment. If you want to say that Bill Clinton is out of the party mainstream, you're out of your gourd. The truth is that Howard Dean is representative of the next generation of the party, and Obama is pretty clearly that wing's candidate. Firm believers in the 50 state strategy, and he may paint himself as a moderate, he's only doing so by being inclusive and not parsing words when it comes to policy.

Bill Clinton was, and to a certain extent is, that establishment's biggest pillar. But that doesn't change the fact that plenty of "establishment" folks are not endorsing Hillary (either because they endorsed Obama, or are waiting it out). That says volumes to me. The Clintons are becoming dinosaurs. That is why I said that Hillary Clinton is not the same as establishment. She's old guard no doubt - but she isn't the cross-spectrum favorite in the party.

 

[kapkomet]

Bill Clinton was, and to a certain extent is, that establishment's biggest pillar. But that doesn't change the fact that plenty of "establishment" folks are not endorsing Hillary (either because they endorsed Obama, or are waiting it out). That says volumes to me. The Clintons are becoming dinosaurs. That is why I said that Hillary Clinton is not the same as establishment. She's old guard no doubt - but she isn't the cross-spectrum favorite in the party.

To paraphrase Rex, you're out of your gourd. Where do you think Hillary is getting the majority of her support from now? Hint: it's not the "new" Democrats.

[southsider2k5]

Chicago Tribune Calls Out The Clintons:

Clintons are lying about Obama's remarks

 

That was an excellent write up. I hate to see Obama get ate up by the Clinton Machine, but you can see it coming a mile away.

[Texsox]

Speaking of the Clinton machine . . .

 

 

Dear Jim,(we're tight)

 

 

I support Barack Obama because he doesn't seek to perfect the politics of Swiftboating -- he seeks to end it.

 

This is personal for me, and for a whole lot of Americans who lived through the 2004 election.

 

As a veteran, it disgusts me that the Swift Boats we loved while we were in uniform on the Mekong Delta have been rendered, in Karl Rove's twisted politics, an ugly verb meaning to lie about someone's character just to win an election. But as someone who cares about winning this election and changing the country I love, I know it's not enough to complain about a past we can't change when our challenge is to win the future -- which is why we must stop the Swiftboating, stop the push-polling, stop the front groups, and stop the email chain smears.

 

The truth matters, but how you fight the lies matters even more. We must be determined never again to lose any election to a lie.

 

This year, the attacks are already starting. Some of you may have heard about the disgusting lies about Barack Obama that are being circulated by email. These attacks smear Barack's Christian faith and deep patriotism, and they distort his record of more than two decades of public service. They are nothing short of "Swiftboat" style anonymous attacks.

 

These are the same tactics the right has used again and again, and as we've learned, these attacks, no matter how bogus, can spread and take root if they go unchecked.

 

But not this time -- we're fighting back.

 

And when I say "we," I mean that literally. I know Barack is committed to fighting every smear every time. He'll fight hard and stand up for the truth. But he can't do it alone.

 

We need you to email the truth to your address books. Print it out and post it at work. Talk to your neighbors. Call your local radio station. Write a letter to the editor. If lies can be spread virally, let's prove to the cynics that the truth can be every bit as persuasive as it is powerful.

 

The Obama campaign has created a place where you can find the truth you'll need to push back on these smears and a way to spread the truth to all of your address book.

 

Take action here:

 

http://my.barackobama.com/factcheckaction

 

So when your inbox fills up with trash and the emails of smear and fear, find the facts, and help defeat the lies.

 

Barack Obama is committed to bringing our country together to meet the challenges we face, but he knows that power gives up nothing without a struggle -- and to win the chance to change America, we must first defeat the hateful tactics that have been used to tear us apart for too long.

 

With your help, we can turn the page on an era of small, divisive politics -- but only if next time you hear these attacks on Barack, you take action immediately:

 

http://my.barackobama.com/factcheckaction

 

The fight is just heating up -- we won't let them steal this election with lies and distortions.

 

Thank you,

 

John Kerry

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I got a rock...

 

(Well, that and I got a much more useful poll of the prize, California:)

Funny thing about that poll by Field... it used 377 LV - a smaller number than most other state polls we see, and in a much larger state. Tough to make 377 people statistically representative with a state as gigantic in population and geography as CA.

 

On the other hand, a poll with 897 LV was conducted during the same period, showing Clinton's lead to be only 5 points.

 

[southsider2k5]

Funny thing about that poll by Field... it used 377 LV - a smaller number than most other state polls we see, and in a much larger state. Tough to make 377 people statistically representative with a state as gigantic in population and geography as CA.

 

On the other hand, a poll with 897 LV was conducted during the same period, showing Clinton's lead to be only 5 points.

 

That is less than one pollee for every 100,000 people. Geesh. I wonder what the chi squared is for that?

[HuskyCaucasian]

Guess who's up to the same ol' $h1t again??

Clinton goes after Obama's Republican comments in radio ad

"This ad straightforwardly uses Sen. Obama’s own words in his own voice saying the Republican Party was the party of ideas for the past 10-15 years," Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said. "We can understand why the Obama campaign would be frustrated with that. The bottom line is that Sen. Clinton is running for president in order to replace those ideas with new ones like jumpstarting our economy, creating jobs and protecting people’s homes."

[NorthSideSox72]

Guess who's up to the same ol' $h1t again??

Clinton goes after Obama's Republican comments in radio ad

This is the Clintons using one of the GOP's favorite marketing plays. Its right out of their handbook. Its the same reason you hear BushCo use the word "freedom" so often. Psychologists call it projection - putting your own weaknesses onto someone else.

 

[BigSqwert]

Guess who's up to the same ol' $h1t again??

Clinton goes after Obama's Republican comments in radio ad

I'm so tired of their Rovian tactics.

[HuskyCaucasian]

This is the Clintons using one of the GOP's favorite marketing plays. Its right out of their handbook. Its the same reason you hear BushCo use the word "freedom" so often. Psychologists call it projection - putting your own weaknesses onto someone else.

That's what I have been saying. She likes to project her weaknesses on Obama. She attack HIS record, when HERS is far worse. She attacks him, then claims "oh, he's frustrated and wants a fight". No, YOU are frustrated because he is a pest to your belief you deserve the White House. So YOU are starting a fight.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's what I have been saying. She likes to project her weaknesses on Obama. She attack HIS record, when HERS is far worse. She attacks him, then claims "oh, he's frustrated and wants a fight". No, YOU are frustrated because he is a pest to your belief you deserve the White House. So YOU are starting a fight.

She has been fighting because she had such huge leads before the primaries and caucuses started, and she lost that lead pretty much entirely. She was watching her candidacy walk slowly away from her. She then reacted, starting the week before NH, becoming an entirely different candidate. And that worked for her in NH and NV - we'll see if it keeps working though.

[Heads22]

We had it right here. Listen to Iowa more.