|
The thing is, winning in Texas and Ohio was never about reversing the delegate count. It was about reversing the popular perception that she was dead. In that sense, even the narrowest of margins works. Tomorrow's headlines will be HILLARY IS BACK or HILLARY WINS OHIO AND TEXAS! and then somewhere on page 53 "but Obama still has more delegates". The perception will help bring in funding and superdelegate support.
Obama may lead in delegates, but the truth is that even if he had won tonight, he would end up depending on the superdelegates as well. What do the superdelegates look at when casting their vote? Well, in part they look at the popular vote, because it would look like a betrayal for them to overturn popular opinion, so Obama has that going for him.
But at the same time, there are certain states that, with the best will in the world, Obama is unlikely to win in a general election. The states that really mater are the big swing states like Ohio, and I think Clinton will make a strong case that she has the right support to win a general election. It sounds undemocratic, it probably is, but her 50% + 1 principle is essentially right - who cares if you lose every single state as long as you win the swing states with the most electoral colleges?
But what I think Clinton is ignoring with that argument is that in a general election, Democratic states and voters will vote for Obama anyway. Obama may not carry every single swing state, but he might really make some major inroads into former Republican strongholds.
With all that said, I think the superdelegates will go with Obama because, all things being equal, it would be a PR disaster for them to look undemocratic. Still, never underestimate the Clintons...
|
On March 05 2008 15:16 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2008 14:57 The Storyteller wrote:On March 05 2008 14:42 dickhead wrote:
I find it funny how many of the Obama supporters on this forum immediately go into damage control when it is obvious Hillary has already won Ohio and RI and may as well win Texas.
Face it you guys, enjoy your fail and enjoy your brokered convention. I'm going to be at home, kicking back with some popcorn and soda, enjoying the show on TV this coming summer for the brawl at the Democratic convention. It's not damage control, the fact is that while Ohio is indeed a huge win for Hillary from a publicity standpoint, the fact is that neither side has got enough to knock the other out. We're just stating facts - she's slowed him down and damaged him some but he's still standing. And you could say the same for both sides. The real problem for Obama is, going forward, how will he deal with the negative attacks? If he finds a way to deal with them, attack Hillary and still look like Mr. Nice Guy, then he should be able to finish the season strong. But it's not easy to do that. At most I think he'll maintain his lead but still not be able to humiliate her enough to force her to drop out. That's why I think it really is going to end with a brokered convention where both sides try to cut a deal with the superdelegates. I wonder though, in a brokered convention, would there be pressure for hillary to be the presidential nominee, just because shes 50+ and this will be her last shot? And pressure on Obama to just be VP, wait it out, and run later?
I don't see Clinton's age as a problem. Look at the Republican guy.
In fairness to Obama, though, this may well be the last chance HE gets as well. The longer he stays in politics, the more dirt there is to dig up. He will never be able to present himself as the candidate for change as effectively as he is doing now. Being vice president will kill his present campaign message completely, unless he and Hillary really do work together to make changes.
|
shit, clinton just won the texas primary O_O
caucus is still out
|
The exit polls show how a majority of the people who decided in the last 2-3 days voted Hillary. Looks like those 3AM phone call commercials worked.
Hopefully Obama will expose it for the fearmongering it really is. After all, Hillary never specified herself exactly what kind of "3AM phone call" she ever took charge of while in the White House.
sigh..
|
Fuuuuck, now Im just pissed. If Hillary drags this out, Republicans win. Yes, we see that she won Ohio and squeaked by in Texas, but she needs to suspend her campaign soon if we're to put a Democrat in office.
|
Oddly, I thought the most annoying thing tonight was listening to Hillary's speech and mentioning Michigan and Florida as states she had "won" :s
On March 05 2008 15:37 Silverflame wrote:
Looks like those 3AM phone call commercials worked.
Supposedly that commercial was a stolen idea too =/ I forget where I saw it, but there was a very similar commercial from some election back in 1984 or something 
|
Yeah it's similar to the "red phone" commercial Walter Mondale used against Gary Hart in 1984. Interestingly enough, that democratic primary was very much an experience vs change campaign, where the superdelegates came in to help give Mondale, who was the experience, the victory. Mondale proceeded to lose every state but his home state of Minnesota in the general election.
|
On March 05 2008 15:19 The Storyteller wrote:The thing is, winning in Texas and Ohio was never about reversing the delegate count. It was about reversing the popular perception that she was dead. In that sense, even the narrowest of margins works. Tomorrow's headlines will be HILLARY IS BACK or HILLARY WINS OHIO AND TEXAS! and then somewhere on page 53 "but Obama still has more delegates". The perception will help bring in funding and superdelegate support. Obama may lead in delegates, but the truth is that even if he had won tonight, he would end up depending on the superdelegates as well. What do the superdelegates look at when casting their vote? Well, in part they look at the popular vote, because it would look like a betrayal for them to overturn popular opinion, so Obama has that going for him. But at the same time, there are certain states that, with the best will in the world, Obama is unlikely to win in a general election. The states that really mater are the big swing states like Ohio, and I think Clinton will make a strong case that she has the right support to win a general election. It sounds undemocratic, it probably is, but her 50% + 1 principle is essentially right - who cares if you lose every single state as long as you win the swing states with the most electoral colleges? But what I think Clinton is ignoring with that argument is that in a general election, Democratic states and voters will vote for Obama anyway. Obama may not carry every single swing state, but he might really make some major inroads into former Republican strongholds. With all that said, I think the superdelegates will go with Obama because, all things being equal, it would be a PR disaster for them to look undemocratic. Still, never underestimate the Clintons...
nice post.
funny, looking at the swing states here, a democrat needs to win 18 'swing' electoral college votes to clinch, and i don't see either obama or HRC doing that against mccain o_O
the swing states are Florida (27), Ohio (20), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), and New Mexico (5) - can you see 18 college votes out of those that would vote for either clinton or obama over mccain?
|
Before this I wasn't too sure who I wanted the Democratic nominee to be, but after tonight I felt a sigh of relief for Clinton to have won these big states, so I guess deep down inside I'm rooting for her. I also have some gut feeling telling me that she would make a better president than Obama, despite how good he appears to be. Maybe those ads worked on me, I dunno  I think that and the fact that I'd give Bill a blowjob anyday.
|
so far the march 4 results have reduced obama's delegate lead by 27.
he currently holds a 128 delegate lead
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
To me, this isn't really about Obama vs Clinton
I just don't want cynical politics to win again. No more 3 am. ads please.
|
On March 05 2008 16:16 a-game wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2008 15:19 The Storyteller wrote:The thing is, winning in Texas and Ohio was never about reversing the delegate count. It was about reversing the popular perception that she was dead. In that sense, even the narrowest of margins works. Tomorrow's headlines will be HILLARY IS BACK or HILLARY WINS OHIO AND TEXAS! and then somewhere on page 53 "but Obama still has more delegates". The perception will help bring in funding and superdelegate support. Obama may lead in delegates, but the truth is that even if he had won tonight, he would end up depending on the superdelegates as well. What do the superdelegates look at when casting their vote? Well, in part they look at the popular vote, because it would look like a betrayal for them to overturn popular opinion, so Obama has that going for him. But at the same time, there are certain states that, with the best will in the world, Obama is unlikely to win in a general election. The states that really mater are the big swing states like Ohio, and I think Clinton will make a strong case that she has the right support to win a general election. It sounds undemocratic, it probably is, but her 50% + 1 principle is essentially right - who cares if you lose every single state as long as you win the swing states with the most electoral colleges? But what I think Clinton is ignoring with that argument is that in a general election, Democratic states and voters will vote for Obama anyway. Obama may not carry every single swing state, but he might really make some major inroads into former Republican strongholds. With all that said, I think the superdelegates will go with Obama because, all things being equal, it would be a PR disaster for them to look undemocratic. Still, never underestimate the Clintons... nice post. funny, looking at the swing states here, a democrat needs to win 18 'swing' electoral college votes to clinch, and i don't see either obama or HRC doing that against mccain o_O the swing states are Florida (27), Ohio (20), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), and New Mexico (5) - can you see 18 college votes out of those that would vote for either clinton or obama over mccain?
Personally I can't, especially since I don't know enough about the demographics. But I think Clinton will use her win in Ohio and its high population of blue collar workers to say that she can carry Ohio in the general election and Obama can't. That doesn't sound right to me, though, because if it's the economy that's going to swing voters, those against NAFTA will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is.
|
hmm that might be where a democrat nominee could get the 18 swing college votes needed, if they can win ohio because mccain is pro-nafta. maybe they can win the general after all.
ps. updated the frontpage delegate count if anyones interested
|
Both Democrats will fight on the to the convention now. And there's weeks until the next big primary in Pennyslvania. I have no doubt we'll be seeing more and dirtier attack ads from Clinton, the question is will Obama go there.
|
On March 05 2008 16:16 a-game wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2008 15:19 The Storyteller wrote:The thing is, winning in Texas and Ohio was never about reversing the delegate count. It was about reversing the popular perception that she was dead. In that sense, even the narrowest of margins works. Tomorrow's headlines will be HILLARY IS BACK or HILLARY WINS OHIO AND TEXAS! and then somewhere on page 53 "but Obama still has more delegates". The perception will help bring in funding and superdelegate support. Obama may lead in delegates, but the truth is that even if he had won tonight, he would end up depending on the superdelegates as well. What do the superdelegates look at when casting their vote? Well, in part they look at the popular vote, because it would look like a betrayal for them to overturn popular opinion, so Obama has that going for him. But at the same time, there are certain states that, with the best will in the world, Obama is unlikely to win in a general election. The states that really mater are the big swing states like Ohio, and I think Clinton will make a strong case that she has the right support to win a general election. It sounds undemocratic, it probably is, but her 50% + 1 principle is essentially right - who cares if you lose every single state as long as you win the swing states with the most electoral colleges? But what I think Clinton is ignoring with that argument is that in a general election, Democratic states and voters will vote for Obama anyway. Obama may not carry every single swing state, but he might really make some major inroads into former Republican strongholds. With all that said, I think the superdelegates will go with Obama because, all things being equal, it would be a PR disaster for them to look undemocratic. Still, never underestimate the Clintons... nice post. funny, looking at the swing states here, a democrat needs to win 18 'swing' electoral college votes to clinch, and i don't see either obama or HRC doing that against mccain o_O the swing states are Florida (27), Ohio (20), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), and New Mexico (5) - can you see 18 college votes out of those that would vote for either clinton or obama over mccain?
Viginia's been turning blue recently, even though it hasn't voted Democrat since 1964. Obama's huge primary win and the rapidly growing Richmond area (which trends liberal) gives the Democrats a ton of hope.
Iowa McCain will have a hard time winning, given his opposition to ethanol. He did terrible there in the caucuses.
Nevada and New Mexcio both have large numbers of hispanics that are angry at the Republicans' recent anti-immigration crusade. Although McCain has the most moderate stance of the Republicans and does represent border state Arizona, the hispanics have been flocking to the Democrats in huge numbers.
Colorado is the site for the Democratic National Convention for a reason. It'll be a hotly contested swing state.
Missouri's a bellwether, as with like two exceptions whoever won Missouri won the election for nearly a century. Since the nation's trending democrat I figure Mo. will follow the same, not sure though.
And Florida and Ohio will be hotly contested as always.
So yeah, it's definitely possible for the dems to take the swing states, though circumstances can change and it's way too early to call. Plus, if Obama is the nominee, he can contest traditionally Republican states like Kansas and maybe even some states in the South that he probably can't win but can force McCain to spend resources on defense. The fact that the evangelical base is uncomfortable with McCain only helps, although if Hillary is the nominee that definitely won't be an issue.
|
On March 05 2008 17:42 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Both Democrats will fight on the to the convention now. And there's weeks until the next big primary in Pennyslvania. I have no doubt we'll be seeing more and dirtier attack ads from Clinton, the question is will Obama go there.
He'll probably have to go down that route. Its just a matter of who gets called out on fear-mongering first.
|
OH FFS. I'm going to be in a sour mood now for the rest of the day... I really though with all the momentum and extra funding Obama had he would have finished Clinton off yesterday. It just goes to show that the more cheap, dirty, underhand campaign tricks you do, the more retarded votes you get.
|
Huckabee is out, down to just my man Ron Paul and John McWar.
|
It is odd this is counted as momentum for Hillary... the way it's changing is unbelievable. After Obama's 11'th straight win, before the focus on Ohio and Texas came, Hillary was expected to get a reprieve since she had huge 20%+ leads.
I'm surprised they don't just star "wondering" whether Obama should drop out!
It should be viewed as Hillary hanging on by a thread.
Practically the same position as before...
Obama
1451
Clinton
1365
|
Hm, I thought the results so far were
Obama
1,537
Clinton
1,436
Where did you get your results from Servolisk?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
