-
"He gets the delegates. She gets the voters."
And you pulled this conclusion out of what orifice, exactly? Obama is ahead by close to 800,000 votes, even with West Virginia counted. He'll likely win Oregon, and do well enough in Kentucky to easily be over the top in delegates, with a popular vote lead of 700-800,000 while going into SD and Montana, also likely Obama states.
And don't start up on Florida or Michigan-- Obama didn't even campaign there b/c he was following rules, and he wasn't even on the Michigan ballot! Jesse Jackson won Michigan in the 1980's, with its heavy African-American and student population, and Obama would do the same. He took his name off the Michigan ballot to follow the rules. If you change the rules later on, it means you can change any kind of rule-- hey, I could claim that I should be president, since I have majority support in some bar in Kansas, and based on the new rules, only that bar has qualified voters to choose the President. I could make up even more rules later on.
So Obama has won the popular vote, period, along with pledged delegates and the states.
Posted at May 18, 2008 3:31 PM in response to Obama To Spend Tuesday Night In Key Swing State, Away From The Day's Primaries
-
Rezko, Rezko, Rezko. Funny how Clinton supporters constantly try to kick this tired horse when Hillary Clinton has much worse and far more numerous fundraising scandals-- Marc and Denise Rich, Charlie Trie, Norman Hsu and quite a few others.
The full list:
Note also, that Hillary has a damaging and very public trial coming up in October, with Peter Paul, a former fundraiser, as plaintiff. This will obviously be disastrous for Hillary's political career, but damaging for the Party in general as well. The longer that Hillary stays in this race, the more damaging the Paul trial will become.
Posted at March 20, 2008 3:46 PM in response to Obama Camp Blasts Hillary On NAFTA
-
CT Hussein voter, the media won't continue feasting on Wright because, in the media business, people have a limited attention span and get very bored with old stories quickly. The longer news shows spend on the Wright affair, the more that the viewing and reading public will tune out in boredom and watch something else.
People really don't care, and after Obama's speech in particular, the long-term "fading in the mirror" effect might actually wind up being a positive for Obama, since "The Speech" will be grabbing more attention than the original issue to begin with.
On the news stations where I am, especially the mainstream news and newspapers, Wright is already out of the headlines.
What's in?
Hillary's Peter Paul trial and, of course, the Hillary Clinton First Lady papers-- with her support of NAFTA and the health care debacle featuring prominently. If anything, the timing of the Wright affair was probably ideal for Obama-- with the vast majority of primaries behind him, bu well before any of the further primaries, more than enough time to put the story to rest permanently. That's exactly what we're seeing, pushed in part by the Obama camp itself.
Posted at March 20, 2008 3:36 PM in response to Poll: McCain Now Leading Obama Among Independents
-
Nice strawmen attacks, lyzurgyk. Obama as an Afrocentric candidate?
Funny, seems that Obama has been minimizing race as an issue throughout this campaign, and when he finally did confront race, he did so in an eloquent fashion that categorically rejected the Afrocentrism of his minister.
None of us believes everything that people around us say, especially an independent thinker such as Obama. It's truly idiotic to attribute the thoughts of associates to people themselves-- if this were the case, all of us would be tarred with the brush of questionable statements. Including you, lyzurgyk, who've said a stupid thing here in your own words.
If there'd been any doubt about Obama's views, he dispelled them with the speech. While also saying important things about bridging our painful divide today throughout the nation.
Obama, after all, is half-White and half-Black himself-- hardly an Afrocentric person. He's been able to identify with both sides and to bridge them, and now that the Wright issue is deservedly dying down, he's focusing on real issues of importance.
Posted at March 20, 2008 3:31 PM in response to Poll: McCain Now Leading Obama Among Independents
-
You're in fantasyland, fogu2. The superdelegates aren't going to do something totally suicidal for the Democratic Party. Considering the tremendous investment of time, energy and money that the Obama supporters have put it in-- and more important, of heart and soul-- they would reject Hillary in droves if any kind of electoral result alterations, and especially backroom dealing, were to give Hillary the nomination. This has been borne out in a variety of surveys.
What I find fascinating is how even now, at Obama's low point, he's still the best candidate. He beats Hillary handily but still tops McCain. News cycles change rapidly, and already the news stations are moving on, assisted by Obama's extraordinary addresses that made lemons out of lemonade.
Now, the big stories are basically things like Hillary Clinton's court date against Peter F. Paul in October, and especially the release of the Clinton First Lady Records, which show her support of NAFTA and the catastrophic failure of her health care plan in an ugly way. While Hillary will probably still win PA due to the demographics, Obama will still win many votes and delegates there. He's shown support in the past and, as the news cycles change, he'll build his support base even further in the state. And he'll take some of the states down the road. So we'll wind up where we currently are-- Obama with a big lead, while Hillary continues her damaging negative campaigning.
Posted at March 20, 2008 3:25 PM in response to Poll: McCain Now Leading Obama Among Independents
-
TennesseeGirl: Obama, yes, would beat McCain. Hillary definitely would not. I've helped on projects that do internal polling, and Hillary's numbers are absolutely dismal against McCain.
The most important number are the negatives, and for Hillary, they've been stuck around 50% and recently, in fact, have gone well above it.
It's essentially impossible to overcome such unfavorables-- they've done studies of this thing, and the unfavorables of a candidate, especially when so persistent, have the highest predictability of any factor.
What bothers me is that much of the growth in HRC's negatives has been coming about among Democrats.
Well over half of Obama supporters would be quite bitter if Hillary were to be handed the nomination despite Obama's big lead in pledged delegates, and a very large fraction would be utterly furious about it. They're angry with the prior race-baiting and dumb stunts like shutting down the Nevada caucuses early to push out Obama backers, or that apparent vote-rigging with Obama getting zero votes in Harlem (or this apparent report about Hillary and Rendell staffers getting busted trying to rig voting machines in Pennsylvania). This isn't just anti-Obama, it's anti-democracy, and it's anathema to a functioning party. This has been borne out by my own experience-- most Democrats I know aren't Netroots types, but they would not support Hillary at all, not after all the bad blood that's been fostered.
African-American voters would just stay home-- many would even vote McCain. Quite a few Black leaders are even urging this if Hillary were to get the nomination since, at this point, it could only occur through BS maneuvering. Gen-Y voters just don't have the kinds of party affiliations of prior generations-- they'll vote for a candidate that they like, but they'll sit out an election involving a candidate that they're not so excited about. Picking Hillary instead of Obama would kill our Party.
This isn't what bothers me most, actually. Obama will still be getting the nomination, he's too far ahead and, while Pennsylvania is likely a Hillary state due to the demographics, Obama will still pick up many votes and delegates, and he'll win many of the upcoming states.
But the longer Hillary drags this futile process out, the more damaging it will be for the Democrats, and the more resources that will be wasted.
Furthermore, Hillary has some nasty scandals of her own on the way, the most damaging being the Peter F. Paul trial against her, which will be starting up in October. That really bothers me b/c it's a ticking time-bomb for the Democratic Party in general-- a media smorgasbord of ugly topics and nasty disclosures that would bring the worst parts of the Clinton past to public view, and damage the Party in general.
When you couple this with the still-lingering damage from other Hillary fundraising scandals like Norman Hsu, not to mention the recent release of Hillary's First Lady papers-- there's a lot of damage for the Party there. Those papers BTW, show that Hillary very much was a supporter of NAFTA, and they also bring attention to the state of affairs leading to the health care debacle in 1994. These things will permanently damage Hillary, but especially if she continues to stay in the race like this and draw media attention, these things will exact severe damage on the party in general, as well.
Posted at March 20, 2008 3:12 PM in response to Poll: McCain Now Leading Obama Among Independents
-
As someone with long-term Pennsylvania ties here (and an ex-Biden supporter to boot), I have to say-- Ed Rendell seriously needs to be more careful about being so pro-Hillary here.
There was a report recently of some Hillary Clinton supporters getting busted for trying to tamper with voting systems in Philadelphia, to try to alter the vote numbers in Hillary's favor. Whether that accusation is true or not (and I don't have any idea one way or the other), it's gained a lot of credibility due to Rendell's ridiculous partiality toward Hillary. EVEN THE SLIGHTEST TINGE of election irregularities or vote-tampering, especially in a racially-divided (and often polarized) state such as Pennsylvania, would lead to horrors in the state after the primaries, and the utter destruction of Rendell's political career (not to mention the Democratic Party in general).
While I haven't been an Obama supporter, the truth is that his lead is way too high to overtake. His pledged delegate lead isn't "narrow"-- it's 160-170 delegates, and since the Democrats award delegates proportionally, that's a big lead. He also leads by almost 1,000,000 popular votes and double Hillary's states. The reality is, it's too big a lead to overtake.
If the Democrats want any chance of winning in November, they need to stop this nonsense and just get behind their nominee. Obama is too far ahead, and the superdelegates would ravage and destroy the Democratic Party if they were to overturn Obama's clear lead in pledged delegates. Especially considering the often divisive nature of this campaign-- the Democratic Coalition, forged by FDR all the way back in the early 1930's, would collapse for good, and never come back together if the popular support for Obama were to be ignored.
Let's just end this charade and support Obama. I liked Hillary before, but she's shown tremendous immaturity and even delusion by continuing with this futile campaign of hers, and thus helping McCain. Although, the way she's praised McCain in the past (and insulted Obama), maybe she's been trying to do this.
Posted at March 18, 2008 9:00 PM in response to Top Hillary Supporter Ed Rendell Hit Up George Soros For Money To Fund New Michigan Primary
-
Hank, there is no "trend" there at all, ominous or otherwise, for either candidate.
FYI Barack Obama won by blowout margins in Wisconsin, Virginia and Delaware, and also took Missouri and Connecticut.
These are all very White states, all primaries (two of them closed primaries), and Obama won every single one of them, carrying a large percentage or even outright majority of the White vote in each.
White voters in State A don't necessarily vote like White voters in State B. Don't get carried away with misleading "trends" when a moment's analysis shows them to have no backing.
Posted at March 12, 2008 12:30 AM in response to Obama Wins Mississippi, Networks Say
-
Observer2, I've been suspecting what you're suggesting for a while, that Hillary would actually want Obama to lose in the GE against McCain, thinking that she could get the nomination in 2012.
First of all, wouldn't happen-- Hillary would have inspired such palpable rage among the Democrats, that they would never support her. Furthermore, if Hillary were to continue like this, it would become clear to Democrats that any loss by Obama would have been caused specifically by Hillary's tactics, increasing the anger at Hillary to even higher decibel levels. If anything, it would open the path to Obama in 2012.
Second, this is the end of the road for Hillary and her camp knows it. There's going to be a nasty lawsuit against Clinton hitting the airwaves by October. Also, those Clinton tax returns are going to be released immediately (by law), and all those shady dealings with Kazakhstan are going to be exposed. IOW, it's going to be ugly and horrible for Hillary.
She wants Obama to lose against McCain for no other reason than juvenile, petulant pique-- she is frustrated and embittered that Obama snatched away something that she thought should be her coronation, and she could never forgive Obama. Thus, merely out of pique, she would want McCain to win.
Plus, I strongly suspect that the Democratic elders *and* the rank and file would set out to destroy Hillary Clinton's political career for good, if she were to mess up the Democrat's best chance for victory in a generation, by trying to swipe the Dem nomination from Obama by fiat and continuing on in a futile primary race against Obama rather than bowing out gracefully, even when it's obvious that she can never overtake Obama's numbers.
This could take many forms-- further lawsuits against Hillary after November 2008, primary challenges, public denunciations, shaming, ostracism. It's become quite obvious that Hillary is toxic and ruinous for the Democratic Party with the narcissism that overwhelm both her and Bill Clinton, and the party would do best by ridding itself of her.
Remember, the party elders are thinking about the party's long-term viability here, and the Clintons have already done tremendous damage to that. Black voters have already been severely alienated, permanently in many cases, and young voters, college-educated and otherwise have been flocking to Obama. If Hillary uses machine politics to overturn popular support, then the core of people that the Democratic Party needs to survive long-term, will be enraged.
Black voters will never return to us. Educated voters will be turned off and made cynical for good. Young voters will no longer back us. These are the people who have been giving the Democratic Party the deepest support, and they won't come back to us.
(I even know quite a few examples of embittered young, especially professional voters who are so embittered, so cynical about the USA's broken system, that they are emigrating from the USA to countries like France, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, China or South Korea if they know the language.)
IOW, the party elders know that they would have to excise the Clintons permanently from the Democratic Party if Hillary were to cause Obama to lose against McCain, which is precisely what she's trying to do, again out of nothing more than pique. We should all join in that effort.
Posted at March 5, 2008 6:52 PM in response to About Those Texas Caucus "Results" ...
-
Hillary racking up gains in double digits, rabbitsmorgasbord????? Hey, pass that pipe, cuz I wanna have a nice drag on whatever delusion-inducing dope you're smoking.
Hillary hasn't had double digit gains anywhere, and on a day when even Bill Clinton was saying that she would have to win by 25% margins or so in Texas and Ohio-- she didn't even come remotely close.
NOT EVEN CLOSE-- the day as a whole was basically a draw.
Contrast this with OBAMA WINNING 11 CONSECUTIVE STATES BY UTTERLY BLOWOUT MARGINS, something that Hillary has been utterly unable to do.
Dude, buddy-- IT'S OVER! Obama has won the pledged delegates, the popular vote and the states. Hillary cannot overtake him. It's done. Fini.
I've not been an Obama backer, but since the GOP contest has been officially decided, the Democrats need to rally around a candidate-- specifically, the candidate who is leading in the pledged delegate count, as Bill Richardson wisely suggested.
That candidate is Obama.
If the Dems want to have any chance against McCain in November, then the Hillary people need to stop engaging in this delusional charade about thinking that the superdelegates would or even could overturn the pledged delegate count. This would be utter political suicide for the Democratic Party, it would enrage African-Americans to such an extreme level that they would never return to us, and it would cause lasting damage from which the Democratic Party would never recover.
The superdelegates aren't stupid. They're going to support whichever candidate has won the pledged delegates tallied from the states across the nation. That candidate is Obama. It's time to rally behind him.
Posted at March 5, 2008 6:41 PM in response to About Those Texas Caucus "Results" ...
