Things Look Good for Clinton

by johnnygunn, Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:51:28 PM EST

First the good news for Hillary - -

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106606/Gallup -Daily-Clinton-46-Obama-45.aspx

In the Gallup national tracking poll -
Clinton has gained six points while Obama has lost six -
Both statistically significant.  Just before next Tuesday.
And since the Gallup daily poll is a three-day average -
Clinton's numbers are likely to rise even further.

Now the good news for Obama - -

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

It seems that the Obama campaign is facing the very scenario that they wanted to avoid by putting out all the calls for Clinton to drop out.  The Obama campaign knew that its best states and the caucus advantages were behind them.  They knew that a big Pennsylvania defeat would look bad - especially linked with Ohio and Texas.  They knew that Florida and Michigan would most likely result in two more losses.

Yet they forgot one thing.
"It ain't over til it's over."




Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Gallup Poll, Pennsylvania Primary (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 124 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 2)

One thing worth pointing out is that Clinton does as well as Obama in a matchup vs. McCain, despite Obama supporters telling us how polarizing and unelectable Clinton is.
Both Democrats lead McCain by 1%.
by kingsbridge77 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:53:22 PM EST

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

Because nobody is talking about any of Hillary's skeletons because they don't want her out of the race yet. What, did you think that they were focusing on Obama because they wanted Hillary?! Hell no, the news networks will keep focusing on Obama unless it looks like Hillary might win. If that happens, expect to find out what they've been holding back.

Seriously. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Republicans have salivated at the chance to go up against Hillary. If they were really scared, Rush would never have told his listeners to vote for her. We would be hearing lots and lots of stuff about Norman Hsu. We would be seeing ridiculous statements like her story about hunting alongside comments (which I'm sure exist, I'm just too lazy to look for) criticizing gun rights. Obama brought up TWO THINGS during that debate that totally took the wind out of her statements on two of her major attacks on Obama. There's more, I'm certain of it.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:07:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Of the Republicans I have talked to, they only feared Edwards in a national election. Saying that none of Hillary's skeletons have been brought out is insane!!

Where have you been?


by RDemocrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:45:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

No one's claiming Clinton's baggage hasn't been examined. The claim is that the news media is purposefully not talking about it.

It is in the MSM's financial interest to keep this race going as long as possible. With Clinton hanging on by the slightest of slight chances, of course the media fire is going to be aimed at Obama.


by BeekerDynasty on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:14:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 1)

The media fire HAS NEVER been pointed at Obama. He has gotten a mostly free pass.


by RDemocrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:39:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

It's no different than Wright, Ayers, Rezko or any of Obama's other issues. People talked about Wright many times last year and even early this year. But nobody actually brought it into the public eye and made it an issue until March. In much the same way, a lot of Hillary's skeletons have been left untouched because bringing them to the attention of the public doesn't make much sense. In fact, if Hillary doesn't win the nomination, they'll continue to save them in case Obama loses and she runs in 2012.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:25:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She does BETTER than Obama - check-it-out (none / 0)

"With Obama as the nominee, the electoral college at the moment is Obama 260 to McCain 254 with 24 ties. With Hillary Clinton as the nominee, it is Clinton 289 to McCain 239 with 10 ties. Thus for the moment, her argument that she is more electable is true."

http://www.electoral-vote.com/


by Molee on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:33:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 2)

We playing fill in the blanks here? OK, I'm game.

Let's start with an insurmountable 140 delegate lead.
Moving on we find a 700,000 lead in the popular vote.
Let's go a little further, with a 15 point lead in the polls in North Carolina.
Want more? OK, how about a 5 point lead in Indiana.
Had enough? No? How's the endorsements of EVERY major newspaper in Pennsylvania.
There's more, but I'm getting tired of typing.


by vermontprog on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:55:10 PM EST

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Cherry-picking favorable polls is never a good sign.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:58:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

I gave you mojo for making my point.  That's exactly what this diary does.


by The Distillery on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

Exactly, I mean, both sides can claim polls to say whatever they want. This seems lost on a lot of people here.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

But the Rasmussen Poll -
(never one to be pro-Hillary)
Shows a similar drop - just not as pronounced.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/daily_democratic_president ial_primary_tracking_polling_history

On April 8, Obama was up eleven points.
Now he's up two.


by johnnygunn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:17:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

True enough, but I was responding to the lack of more than one poll in the diary. As a trend, Hillary seems to be evening things up again -- it could be a blip + the fact she usually does better on weekends, or it could be genuine movement. Only time will tell ...


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:36:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Inability to roll with the punches, anger issues (2.00 / 1)

The last few days have been pretty illuminating as to how Obama performs under stress.

the debate the other night was the first debate where Obama got asked difficult questions.

Up till now, Clinton has gotten all the hard ones.

So, when Obama faces the first and only real questioning of this campaign to date, he gets all worked up.

His campaign then tries to imply that this is some kind of vendetta the press has against HIM!

Then, we had this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/ main500251.shtml?id=4025010n

At 40 seconds into the video...

well, SEE FOR YOURSELF..


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.
by architek on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:57:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Inability to roll with the punches, anger issu (none / 0)

It was 2 fingers buddy.  It's been refuted on the front page.  But I can understand why you're so excited; it would have been a great distraction from real issues.


4 years of McCain = 4 more years of Bush.
by ashriver on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not the first tough questioning (none / 0)

"the debate the other night was the first debate where Obama got asked difficult questions."

Not true at all.  Obama was asked in an earlier debate about his supposed connections with Louis Farrakhan and the moderator essentially implied that he could be a manchurian Nation of Islam candidate.


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

Lots of people have been saying she does better on weekends, but the weekend has yet to be polled. If anything she does better at the end of the work weeks, but there is nothing to really indicate that would, in general, be the case.

However something significant did happen in the early part of this week, that being a debate, which just about everybody said she won handily. So it makes sense to think that we are now beginning to see the fruits of that win.


The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson
by pollbuster on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 3)

He is really going all out in Pennsylvania.

Throwing the crapper at her at every stop.

I think his advisers suggested its time to go negative.

From him basically caalling her a liar at every stop , to releasing two negative ads to run until tuesday , to calling press conferences and reviving the Bosnia issue out of the blue.

It just seems like they woke up panicking , maybe that charlatan Zogby was right in the poll he released showing undecideds breaking for her.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:56:20 PM EST

BS (none / 0)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have You Thought - - (2.00 / 3)

About changing your handle?


by johnnygunn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:12:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no (none / 0)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:18:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (1.40 / 5)

His "attack" ads are a response to her attack ads.

No, his advisors never advise him to go negative.  He has to respond to her negative attacks.

And as far as calling her a liar, don't you think it's time someone told the truth to her supporters?


by The Distillery on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:05:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Yes, because Saint Obama never has told a mistruth. TR'ed for your comment, btw.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:12:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

TR'd for calling Clinton a liar?  How many times has Obama been called a liar on mydd?  TRs should be reserved for insulting people on mydd; not for insulting the candidates.  


4 years of McCain = 4 more years of Bush.
by ashriver on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:06:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

If it walks like a duck, and talk likes a duck, well........


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:07:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's wrong with calling her a liar... (1.00 / 2)

...when she is one?


by horizonr on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:28:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Think Y'all? (2.00 / 1)

Is this troll-ratable?


by johnnygunn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:31:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Think Y'all? (2.00 / 1)

Hmm.  It's a tricky one.  I can't say she's not a liar.   That would imply she's never lied and I don't know a human being on earth who has never lied.

As liars go she's certainly no worse than any other politician, including Mr. Obama.

On the other hand, the poster is following a typical and often used Obama attack against Clinton.  His people have been calling her a liar, as in "compulsive" liar since the beginning of this primary.  Another nasty, negative attack strategy on the part of Obama's campaign.

So I'm torn on the troll rating question.


by bellarose on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:58:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think the opposite (none / 0)

If the Obama campaign thought they were going to lose >15%, I doubt Obama would be campaigning that hard right now in Pennsylvania.  Instead he would be spending more time in Indiana and North Carolina which are two states that he could win.  This way it would look like he wasn't trying that hard and was expecting a big loss.

I think Obama is going all out for Pennsylvania including new ads, an amazing train campaign, a blow out >35,000 Philadelphia showing, etc.

I suspect that it must be in the single digits and the Obama campaign think that they can squeak this one out.

I doubt that Obama will win since Hillary has the governor and 100 mayors supporting her, but I think it will end up being single digits which Obama can then claim a moral victory after bittergate and a lackluster debate performance.


by puma on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:45:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just got done door to door Bucks Cty, PA (2.00 / 1)

canvasing. Man is that Hillary country or what?!   You should see Patrick Murphy's (BO superdelegate, as of today... hopefully he will switch after the landslide) - PA House member - his office street is WALLPAPERED with Clinton signs, literally.

Everyone there that we canvased was hot on Clinton.  


by Molee on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:49:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Going negative late in a race is always a bad sign for those candidates that have to do it. It usually means that their own polling is showing a significant defeat.

If this is the case, then look for Hillary to get a 10 to 20 point win, which will change the dynamics of this race.

As you then can look for Hillary to get a big bounce in North Carolina and Indiana. This would undoubtedly bring an infusion of money into her campaign,and new life, and as they say, all bets would be off.


The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson
by pollbuster on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:29:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's only hope is to win the popular vote (2.00 / 2)

It really doesn't matter what a tracking poll shows.  What matters is that Hillary has to win BIG in Pennsylvania and that means 20%.


by puma on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:56:29 PM EST

Re: Hillary's only hope is to win the popular vote (2.00 / 2)

With her internals, per Chris Matthews, showing her +17 in the state and her strength with undecideds on the day of the election, I don't see that being too big of a problem. Where are you going to move the goalposts next--she has to win by 30?


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:57:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Worry - (2.00 / 2)

Be Happy!

Clinton will win by the mid-teens, at least.
And if she wins by 15%, the media will be all over the story.

"Hillary Lands a Knockout Punch"
"Obama on the Ropes"
"Can Obama Hold Off Hillary?"

The voters of North Carolina and Indiana will be getting two weeks of this meme.


by johnnygunn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:04:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Worry - (none / 0)

Be fair, 15% or so is what she's needed to rightfully claim victory. It always has been the benchmark.

I do think it's kinda silly that so many Clinton supporters have switched from trying to say that winning by 5-10% is a big deal to taking predictions of that same margin as a preposterous insult.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Worry - (2.00 / 1)

How about:

"Obama Chokes"

It seems everytime the guy has a situation in which the pressure's on -- like in the last debate -- the man just chokes.

He's had how many opportunities to put Hillary away, and has never been able to deliver?

Kinda like the Chicago Cubs, I guess.


by frankly0 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:08:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Worry - (none / 0)

That's a terrible thing to say about the Cubbies.


by johnnygunn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:11:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Worry - (none / 0)

It's even worse to say it about someone who will have far more pressure in the White House than he's ever had on the campaign trail. When his military advisors tell him there will be incoming nuclear bombs within the hour and he MUST make a decision, will he say "present?"


by miriam on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:38:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I doubt that seriously...LOL! (none / 0)

Based upon the reception Obama has been getting on his train trip, his Philadelphia rally, and Hillary's reception where she could only fill half a gym at a highschool according to the NYT article that is coming out tomorrow, I think this thing will end up being single digits in the 5-10% range.


by puma on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's only hope is to win the popular vote (none / 0)

Link?


by mady on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:54:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's only hope is to win the popular vote (none / 0)

About the half filled gymnasium???

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/pol itics/20campaign.html?ref=politics


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:20:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why was Hillary's campaign stop poorly attended? (none / 0)

A half-filled gym?

Quite a contrast to >35,000 that showed up in Philadelphia for Obama last night plus the thousands that are showing up at his train stops.

Hopefully Hillary is doing better at other campaign events.


by puma on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:32:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's only hope is to win the popular vote (2.00 / 3)

I love how Obama supporters keep quoting "20%" -- their own invented number -- for what she has to win by. It's really funny.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:58:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's only hope is to win the popular vote (2.00 / 2)

Yea, and if she does win by 20, they'll start saying "Well, you know, it's a moral victory, she should have won by 40 with the lead she started with"


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:05:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's only hope is to win the popular vote (2.00 / 2)

"Actually, she should have won by 60. I mean, look at the demographics!"


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:13:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's only hope is to win the popular vote (none / 0)

Twenty percent!  HA!!  What's next, thirty percent?  Fifty?  Ridiculous.

A win is a win.


by bellarose on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:59:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 1)

I wouldn't hang my hat on a mostly-meaningless daily tracking poll to say things are looking good for her.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:59:40 PM EST

OBAMA WON TEXAS (1.00 / 2)

Sorry, I had to shout.  It seems like you haven't heard.


by The Distillery on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:03:04 PM EST

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (2.00 / 4)

Kind of throws a kink in the whole Obama's "will of the people" campaign if he won a state without winning the majority of voters, eh?

Hillary Clinton won the Texas Democratic Primary.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:09:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (2.00 / 4)

Let's be accurate. Obama won the Texas caucus but lost the primary.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:13:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OBAMA WON TEXAS (1.50 / 2)

No. Obama won Texas -- period.
by horizonr on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:30:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (2.00 / 2)

Speaking of mistruths - -
Why don't you call the Texas Sec. of State's office on Monday?
by johnnygunn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:32:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (2.00 / 2)

Obama won more primary votes than Hillary in Texas? Please give detailed directions to your alternate-universe Texas.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:34:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

OK, using the same formula, then Obama DID NOT win Missouri.  They tied.


I'd rather have a bottle in front of me . . . than a frontal lobotomy
by Benjamin3 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

But won the most delegates. Which, since the Texas primary ELECTION was a two step process, means he won Texas by the only benchmark that matters.


by BeekerDynasty on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:34:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

He also won the caucus by a greater margin than she won the primary.  Meaning more total votes.

Which makes sense because her margin of victory in the primary was so tiny, and probably provided by dittocrats who wouldn't bother to stay around for the caucus.


by Mostly on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:40:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (2.00 / 1)

WOW!  Now you're seriously attempting to tell a bunch of political junkies Obama won Texas?

You're over the edge.

The only thing Texas proved is that the caucus system ain't democratic.  If nothing else good comes of all this, I do hope caucuses are scraped before the next go 'round.


by bellarose on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

You win a state by winning its delegates.  That's the DNC's system.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:12:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

It doesn't matter what title you wish to assign yourself.

Texas assigns its delegates via both the primaries and caucus systems. Obama's total delegate win was larger, ergo he won Texas.

Choosing to ignore the caucuses because they didn't favor your candidate, doesn't change that.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:20:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (2.00 / 1)

A big Al Gore sigh for you.

The Texas Primary and Caucus illustrated that the latter system is not Democratic.  


by bellarose on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:43:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

Not democratic in the sense that it rewards passion and activism?

Don't you think it comes across a tad hypocritical when candidates start whining about caucuses only after they start losing them?


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:38:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (2.00 / 1)

You can't argue that he 'won' Texas based on the argument that his margin in the caucus was larger than her margin the primary because I'm pretty sure most everyone who voted in the caucus also voted in the primary. The two universes are mostly overlapping.

It's a false duality you're trying to create.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:28:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

There's a grey area you concede with being "pretty" sure that "most" primary voters also voted in the caucuses.

I suspect that difference could be explained by Limbaugh's simpering drones that obeyed their master's voice when it came to throwing the primary, but couldn't be bothered with the hassle of sticking around for a caucus.

The only duality is in partisan perceptions.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:42:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

There's no gray area here, per Wiki, the universes are the same:

"Participation was open to anyone who voted in the Primary, whether they voted early, as an absentee, or on the day of the Primary."

So in fact, I can now say definitively that Clinton did win Texas. Thanks for making me look it up, though. And by the way blaming the voters is never a good defense as for why your candidate lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Democ ratic_primary,_2008#Caucuses


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:56:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

You can recite your mantra on who "lost" until the cows come home. The only important number that came out of Texas is the number of delegates won.

Your point on accessibility to the caucuses is a red herring. My point was that even given your premise, that some primary voters clearly bailed on Hillary. If you have a compelling explanation other than denial, I have yet to hear it.

There's a difference between those trying to throw a vote, and legitimate democratic primary voters. Admittedly that's my speculation, but lacking that better explanation that hasn't been forthcoming from you, it stands.

Ignoring the evidence isn't a particularly good defense either.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:18:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

Um, you're the one ignoring the facts, but since you seem to be one of those people who doesn't let facts get in their way, I'll just reiterate the following:

To participate in a caucus you must have participated in a primary.

So the primary number is the definitive number of who got more votes in Texas, therefore who won the state. If you want to argue Obama received more delegates, that's fine, but he didn't 'win' Texas. Case closed.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:48:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

Your gratuitous slights notwithstanding, the case will be closed when you can show evidence that - contrary to DNC rules - the caucuses in TX are irrelevant to deciding the winner, as your fantasies continue to dictate.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:50:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

So again, you're talking delegates, I'm talking actual people counted which shows exactly who more people voted for. Hence, the winner.

Like I said, you want to argue Obama won more delegates, be my guest. I'm arguing Clinton won more votes and hence won the state. They're not incompatible arguments, you see? Stop trying to grasp at straws. Jeez!


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:54:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

We really should have quit on this argument a long time ago, considering that we don't see eye to eye on a very basic definition.

You claim "winning the state" to be based on the primary vote. I don't dispute that she won the primary vote in TX, nor do I deny her right to claim that psychological victory. I do dispute your premise that your definition is the norm for defining who "won".

My point is that the Texas Democratic party has a different rule for apportioning delegates, that do factor in the caucuses. I think a more inclusive definition for "winning the state" should be the winner of the most delegates once the primary and the caucus votes have been factored in.

Let's leave it at that.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:02:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

Let's leave it at she won more votes -- primary votes, since caucus participants must have voted in the primary to attend.

My only point this whole thing was that you seemed to be unable to acknowledge the simple indisputable fact that more people in Texas voted for Clinton.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (2.00 / 1)

Sorry, but in a democracy, the only bench mark that matters is who had the most votes, except in the bizzaro world of George Bush. In Texas, Hillary had the most votes, end of story, and stop whinning about it.


The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson
by pollbuster on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

Have you heard of the electoral college? Apparently you forgot to include our republic in your "bizzaro world" comment. Because based on your logic, that's the world you and I inhabit. Had the popular vote been all that mattered, Al would be our president today.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:23:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OBAMA WON TEXAS (none / 0)

I was saying let's be accurate. You want to argue Obama won the caucus, fine. I'm not arguing that, if you'll read my comments. But at least acknowledge that Clinton won the the primary.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:26:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 4)

Obama lost Texas -

Office of the Secretary of State
2008 Democratic Party Primary Election
Election Night Returns

Hillary Clinton        1,459,814    50.89%
Barack Obama       1,358,785     47.36%

And if he does the same in the remaining PRIMARIES as he did in the Texas primary -
He is toast.


by johnnygunn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:11:07 PM EST

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

Let's see - if he does the same in the remaining primaries as he did in the Texas primary (4 point loss), he will win the nomination with quite a healthy delegate margin, given his long string of 20-30 point margins in early states.  

But of course, he will actually win some of these primaries, creating an even larger delegate margin.


by Onward Virginia Democrats on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:53:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Obama Loses Every Remaining Primary - (none / 0)

The supers will flee faster than rats from a sinking ship.


by johnnygunn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:59:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Obama Loses Every Remaining Primary - (none / 0)

Hillary is that ship, my friend.  Her campaign has been listing to starboard since 2/5.  I daresay the vessel has reached it's vanishing angle.

Other observers say all but the figurehead at the prow is submerged.  The Skipper has made some grevious tactical and navigational errors.  Not the least of which was hiring Davy Jones, errr, Mark Penn as Executive Officer.

Indeed, the rats have been seeking safe passage aboard the U.S.S. Obama for some time now.
 


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:21:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

Right now he is running 26% against Clinton in Ky.


by RDemocrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:58:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

26%??
Golly Moses!
by johnnygunn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:00:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

Here is the link. She is leading him here in every region.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=7970b4f8-b612-4f2e-8dde-3f865c 3d7ac5


by RDemocrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

It's been over since Wisconsin.


by DeskHack on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:11:24 PM EST

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 2)

Yeah?

Then why is Mr. Obama dumping all that moolah in Penna??


by johnnygunn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:14:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 1)

That's right.  Mr.Obama just wasted some more money today by sending me a couple of brochures in the mail.  If it was over in Wisconson why would he even bother?  


by Scotch on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:58:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

Because anything less than a 10% win in Pennsylvania won't be enough to justify continuing the campaign at all.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:17:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

I still think that is a better investment than giving Mark Penn 5 cents for every dollar donated to the Clinton campaign...


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:23:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

At least money given to Mark Penn went back into the economy.  Obama's just went in the trash, unopened.


by Scotch on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:33:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

No, i am sure it paid some ones salary : )


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:40:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

I got an expensive, glossy Obama brochures AFTER my state's caucus, too.

Obviously, Obama doesn't have any Wyoming people doing these brochures since he had a panorama of the Tetons. Sure the Tetons are beautiful, but mentioning Jackson outside of the valley is "fightin' words" in much of Wyoming.


by johnnygunn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:36:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

Because he HAS it....


Obama supporter who is damn glad Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!!
by hootie4170 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:22:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

You guys have to start defining when this will be over for you, because it gets awfully confusing to us Obama folks. I want to know when to think you actually have a point. So which is it?

Popular Delegate Count
Popular Vote
Superdelegate Support
National Polls
State Polls

Please let me know which of these margins are important. And if you don't want to count caucuses as part of the vote that matters, please explain why you feel the people of those states should be ignored, but the people of Michigan and Florida. More specifically, why it is okay to not count the 45% or so who didn't vote for HIllary.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:18:22 PM EST

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

Bah. That last part was unintelligible. I mean why the people of FL and MI matter more than, say, Colorado. Bearing in mind that there is a PRETTY good chance that McCain will take FL from either candidate.

And why the 45% of people who did not vote for Hillary should be ignored.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:20:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 1)

You guys have to start defining when this will be over for you, because it gets awfully confusing to us Clinton folks. I want to know when to think you actually have a point. So which is it?

Sufficient Delegates to Clinch
Popular Vote
Lack of Superdelegates
National Polls
State Polls

Please let me know which of these margins are important. And if you don't want to count the latter primary states and have Clinton quit now - why should these states not have a voice??  Not to mention Florida and Michigan.


by johnnygunn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:23:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

I wasn't joking or being snarky, I really would like to see the answer t that question.

As for what I think, I think that the following are of the utmost importance:

Popular delegate count
Popular vote

Because that is all that we can measure. Superdelegates can change the outcome, but only at great expense.

I'd be willing to concede FL as is if you guys concede Michigan to 50-50. Both with delegates halved as originally listed in the rule book. If Hillary wins the popular vote by scoring enormous victories in remaining primaries, that's cool. But winning it only when counting Michigan (where Obama supporters would be completely unrepresented) is unacceptable. I'm not someone saying the primary needs to be ended, I just think it would be better if all parties could agree to get behind a candidate as soon as possible.

Look, Edwards was the only candidate I would donate money to (and did). He was the only one I would have campaigned for (and did). If I volunteer for anyone, it will likely be MoveOn. I want the Democrats to win. I supported Obama at first because I thought his campaign and overall stance was closer to Edwards, I support him now because he is, by most counts and projections of future states, the winner.

We can play this out, and there is a small chance that Hillary will win. If that's what is necessary to convince you of the legitimacy of the victory, that's fine. If it will convince you to vote for the winner of the nomination, that's fine too, and that's what is necessary.

BUT... I am not sure it behooves us to follow the will of anyone who says they won't vote for Obama as the nominee. Why, exactly, should we care about someone who plans to abandon us anyway?


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:01:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

"I'd be willing to concede FL as is if you guys concede Michigan to 50-50. Both with delegates halved as originally listed in the rule book. If Hillary wins the popular vote by scoring enormous victories in remaining primaries, that's cool."

No deal.


by bellarose on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:08:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

Then you are arguing for something extraordinary. Because the rule book calls for states that move their primaries up to be penalized. Nobody is going to allow that action to go unpenalized, and they knew this already.

And if you're talking about the 50-50 split, then I'd suggest 55-45. And if you disagree with that, then I can only say that not only does that position completely contradict any argument about counting the will of the people, it also demonstrates that when the will of the people favors Obama, you're all in favor of ignoring it.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:15:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

Clinton will quit if she does poorly in the next three primaries.

Obama will be in a heap of trouble if he does poorly - delegate count or no delegate count.  

The fact is - that Obama has to have superdelegates to get over the hump, too. And if he closes out the primary season with a bushel of losses, the supers won't come on board.  I don't think they will necessarily go over to Clinton - esp. if she doesn't have the popular vote. It is a recipe for a brokered convention.  If Obama loses out and Clinton doesn't have the popular vote, then the Dems may have to go in search of an outside candidate. It would be the only way to hold the party together.


by johnnygunn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

If Obama does that poorly, wouldn't Clinton really HAVE the popular vote? By definition? I mean, a situation you're talking about would mean she'd have to win by much wider margins than predicted and he'd have to win by much more narrow margins.

So again, my question is, what benchmark are you watching? If Obama wins the popular vote and performs as expected or better, will that be enough to say he won the popular vote, or do you say he would have to win the PA primary?


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:11:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

They need to preserve the ambiguity, because "victory" will mean a lead in any of those categories, at least according to them.


by rfahey22 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:37:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 1)

It'll be over when Clinton gets her 2025 delegates.


by Scotch on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:55:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

This will not happen in your lifetime.  Sorry to say.


by Cycloptichorn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:04:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

Well then if that is your answer, It will never be over.


by Scotch on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:31:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

Sort of torpedoes the early argument that people are for Hillary Clinton because "they need a President".

No, they need a symbol.


by Mostly on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:45:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Don't quite get your point, but no, I am waiting for a president who is up to the job.  She is the only one I see that meets that qualification, so I'll wait for all of eternity if that is what it takes.


by Scotch on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:15:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

I don't see particular competence in HRC. She messed up big time on health care when she had a chance and she has done an awful job with this campaign. Her Senate record is spotty, including her vote on war for which she didn't go adequate preparation and study. She is one hell of a debater though and quite good at guilt by association.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:08:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

But that doesn't differentiate between the types of delegates. Should the awarded delegate count be honored by superdelegates? Should they overturn that count? Should we stop counting states we think we won't win?

Earlier in the campaign, I saw Clinton supporters say pledged delegates should not matter and that superdelegates should vote based on the popular vote. Now I see people saying that it should be based on polling numbers.

And some careless souls say that it should be decided by superdelegates, decided completely independently of the actual results. And I don't understand why those people feel that is a winning strategy. Because Clinton is a centrist, just like McCain, the vote will be close. If Obama supporters feel that she has stolen a nomination he won rightfully, she will have serious problems with the voters least likely to support McCain. And that will be the end of it. As said many times, people have already made up their minds about her. She has no ground that she can lose.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:15:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 1)

When the popular vote is counted, and it includes Florida and Michigan.  


by bellarose on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:06:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

So are you in favor of counting the Uncommitted votes in Michigan for Obama? Or are you willing to ignore votes for people who did not want them to go to Clinton?

Without giving Obama any of those votes, the result is even worse for democracy than the voters that accidentally voted for Buchanan instead of Gore.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:19:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

You left out big state votes, and the number of electoral votes in the states Hillary has won, when compared to Obama's states.

You also conveniently haven't counted Florida and Michigan in your popular vote total. And please, don't go thru your whole story about Florida and Michigan if you choose to respond, because we all are very familiar with all your whinning points on this issue.


The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson
by pollbuster on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:45:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Beer for Tuesday Night, Y'all (2.00 / 2)


by johnnygunn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:45:02 PM EST

Re: A Beer for Tuesday Night, Y'all (none / 0)

Ah.. Pabst.  Perfect chaser for Makers Mark, straight up.  Amirite?


by bobbank on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:16:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Beer for Tuesday Night, Y'all (none / 0)

The champagne of beers.


by johnnygunn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:38:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

followed by shots of Crown Royal (2.00 / 1)

.... that's my gal... I'm coutin' on one mean, hard earned double-digit hangover!


by Molee on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:07:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)


No margin matters until St.Obama garner 2024 delegates, is that hard for you to understand?
by abudho on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:48:01 PM EST

Check out Obama's train campaign!!! (none / 0)

Wow what a FANTASTIC idea!!!

It is amazing!  Even Tweety showed up at one of the stops.


by puma on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:10:55 PM EST

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (none / 0)

Your second picture / graphic doesn't seem to be loading for me.  I just get blank space.


by bobbank on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:14:55 PM EST

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 2)

That was the joke.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:15:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Things Look Good for Clinton (2.00 / 2)

Sorry - I've been plugged into blogs all day and it went completely over my head.


by bobbank on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:17:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]