<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Feb 12 2008, 05:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 12 2008, 05:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And what if Obama wins his states by even bigger margins? The campaign has closed in on Hillary every day, I bet she'll win those states but by smaller margins.</div> Obama's going to need to beat Hillary, not pull into the convention at a dead heat. This is unfortunately how the nomination process is designed in the Democratic party. I hope you're right about the smaller margins, but if you want that to happen then we all better open up our wallets and start making calls for Obama's national phone bank. Obama may have the national momentum, Hillary has all of the momentum where it actually matters. </div> I don't buy it that the Super delegates that haven't pledged will vote for her later on. That's where I disagree with you, they want to win the election and Obama is much more respectable now than in December 2007.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 12 2008, 05:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Feb 12 2008, 05:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 12 2008, 05:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And what if Obama wins his states by even bigger margins? The campaign has closed in on Hillary every day, I bet she'll win those states but by smaller margins.</div> Obama's going to need to beat Hillary, not pull into the convention at a dead heat. This is unfortunately how the nomination process is designed in the Democratic party. I hope you're right about the smaller margins, but if you want that to happen then we all better open up our wallets and start making calls for Obama's national phone bank. Obama may have the national momentum, Hillary has all of the momentum where it actually matters. </div> I don't buy it that the Super delegates that haven't pledged will vote for her later on. That's where I disagree with you, they want to win the election and Obama is much more respectable now than in December 2007. </div> Superdelegates will be looking to two things when deciding how to vote in a race that ends within 100 delegates: chances of winning the presidency and help down ticket. Obama appears to be better for help down ticket in the Senate races. Of the roughly 10 seats coming open, most of them are in red states where he has faired well. But, if he can't turn around his lack of traction in Ohio and Pennsylvania, it's going to be a tough race to the white house. Not an impossible one. But a tough one. He would have to pull a number of Western states as well as Virginia. I think if there is no clear leader at the time the candidates go to the convention (meaning that Obama has continued to struggle among labor), we'll probably end up with the candidate more likely to deliver a victory -- which would be Hillary.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Feb 12 2008, 06:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 12 2008, 05:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Feb 12 2008, 05:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 12 2008, 05:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And what if Obama wins his states by even bigger margins? The campaign has closed in on Hillary every day, I bet she'll win those states but by smaller margins.</div> Obama's going to need to beat Hillary, not pull into the convention at a dead heat. This is unfortunately how the nomination process is designed in the Democratic party. I hope you're right about the smaller margins, but if you want that to happen then we all better open up our wallets and start making calls for Obama's national phone bank. Obama may have the national momentum, Hillary has all of the momentum where it actually matters. </div> I don't buy it that the Super delegates that haven't pledged will vote for her later on. That's where I disagree with you, they want to win the election and Obama is much more respectable now than in December 2007. </div> Superdelegates will be looking to two things when deciding how to vote in a race that ends within 100 delegates: chances of winning the presidency and help down ticket. Obama appears to be better for help down ticket in the Senate races. Of the roughly 10 seats coming open, most of them are in red states where he has faired well. But, if he can't turn around his lack of traction in Ohio and Pennsylvania, it's going to be a tough race to the white house. Not an impossible one. But a tough one. He would have to pull a number of Western states as well as Virginia. I think if there is no clear leader at the time the candidates go to the convention (meaning that Obama has continued to struggle among labor), we'll probably end up with the candidate more likely to deliver a victory -- which would be Hillary. </div> The major news channels have Obama with a slight lead against McCain, and Hillary deadlocked with McCain. Hillary is not more electable according to many polls I've seen.
When it comes to the superdelegates, something to consider is that Bill Clinton did a lot of favors as president and he's going to call on his friends for favors in return. However, it would look pretty bad if Obama wins 40 states, has way more popular votes, has more regular delegates, and somehow doesn't get the nomination. I try. I really try. I don't find much "democratic" about the Democratic Party.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 12 2008, 08:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>However, it would look pretty bad if Obama wins 40 states, has way more popular votes, has more regular delegates, and somehow doesn't get the nomination.</div> I don't think Bill Clinton looks as pristine as he used to, and I doubt the Super delegates would let Obama lose if he won more states, delegates, and the popular vote. Sometimes I don't understand why some people speak as if everything is doomed. Hillary is slowly losing her grip.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 12 2008, 08:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When it comes to the superdelegates, something to consider is that Bill Clinton did a lot of favors as president and he's going to call on his friends for favors in return. However, it would look pretty bad if Obama wins 40 states, has way more popular votes, has more regular delegates, and somehow doesn't get the nomination. I try. I really try. I don't find much "democratic" about the Democratic Party.</div> I agree and don't want my comments to be overstated. I think Obama has to come in with at least a roughly 150 delegate lead -- which isn't all that large. I think, where I begin to worry, is if they come in virtually tied. Huevon, I'm definitely not saying everything is doomed, but I think you have to be realistic. It's going to be difficult, if not impossible to win this race, without Obama making further inroads.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Feb 12 2008, 08:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 12 2008, 08:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When it comes to the superdelegates, something to consider is that Bill Clinton did a lot of favors as president and he's going to call on his friends for favors in return. However, it would look pretty bad if Obama wins 40 states, has way more popular votes, has more regular delegates, and somehow doesn't get the nomination. I try. I really try. I don't find much "democratic" about the Democratic Party.</div> I agree and don't want my comments to be overstated. I think Obama has to come in with at least a roughly 150 delegate lead -- which isn't all that large. I think, where I begin to worry, is if they come in virtually tied. Huevon, I'm definitely not saying everything is doomed, but I think you have to be realistic. It's going to be difficult, if not impossible to win this race, without Obama making further inroads. </div> I think you're seriously disregarding how much Hillary is decaying as time goes by. What is said now means nothing, Obama hasn't even had time yet to campaign as heavily as he wants in the March 4th states. The War of attrition goes to Obama, I'm crowning him now. Too late.
After tonight, Obama now leads in Pledge delegates by 109-125 (Around 1080 to 970). It is now certain that Hillary will only get as close as 20-30 delegates, in an extremely good scenario for her. She's screwed. She won't get that close, probably not even if she counts Florida. And there is no way the Democratic party accounts for Michigan without Obama on the ballot. I'm stoked, Obama had another nice speech as well.
I don't pay much attention to politics but I've been a tentative conservative/republican in the past because of I prefer their economic position (less government, lower taxes) vs that of the Democratic party (more government, higher taxes). I don't see that distinction any more. Bush may have lowered taxes, but the national debt and budget deficits have shot up during his administration. Both parties want to use more money: Republicans for national defense and the military, Democrats for social programs. Given that choice, I'll opt for a Democrat.
More good news in the polls too: Obama up 4 in WI and 9 in NC. Both polls are Survey USA. I'm a little surprised Hillary is looking ahead to TX -- she's going to need to win states like WI if she is going to carry this. Also, Brown University has RI only +8 (though I don't know if the poll can be trusted.) If that's the case, it's clearly fair game three weeks from now. Ohio and TX are the stickers -- let's see how Obama closes.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rwj @ Feb 13 2008, 12:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't pay much attention to politics but I've been a tentative conservative/republican in the past because of I prefer their economic position (less government, lower taxes) vs that of the Democratic party (more government, higher taxes). I don't see that distinction any more. Bush may have lowered taxes, but the national debt and budget deficits have shot up during his administration. Both parties want to use more money: Republicans for national defense and the military, Democrats for social programs. Given that choice, I'll opt for a Democrat.</div> That's my basic background as well, and I agree in general that that lowering taxes while still dramatically increasing spending is just raising taxes via the backdoor. I'm still undecided at this point. McCain's got shitty creditials as a "conservative" to a lot of conservatives, and he's more willing to regulate things than I would be, but I think when it comes to fiscal responsibility he's been rock solid. That's one reason he's been willing to say taxes should go back up, because spending hasn't gone back down. The best situation would be lower taxes and lower spending, but I think what he's generally saying is that if we can't muscle spending lower we shouldn't be lowering taxes too. I agree. The things he really ticks off conservatives on, on the other hand, are things I find relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, or actually agree with McCain on. I also trust his judgement in conducting foreign policy by orders of magnitude more than anyone else in any of the parties. And those two things are probably the most important things I think a president an bring to the table. So on the whole, I think he's very good on the important issues. Obama... I don't know about Obama one way or the other yet. As SST pointed out, he's not the walking economic disaster Hillary is (mandated health care, mortgages freezes... yikes), and while his track record is light and he toes many of the standard Democratic lines on the economy (punitive tax rates, iffy on trade), he seems significantly milder in his toeing than Hillary. And I take heart from the fact that his principle economic advisors (Austin Goolsbee, David Cutler and Jeff Liebman) are all very highly regarded guys who appear to be on the right side of things economically.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Feb 13 2008, 11:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama... I don't know about Obama one way or the other yet. As SST pointed out, he's not the walking economic disaster Hillary is (mandated health care, mortgages freezes... yikes), and while his track record is light and he toes many of the standard Democratic lines on the economy (punitive tax rates, iffy on trade), he seems significantly milder in his toeing than Hillary. And I take heart from the fact that his principle economic advisors (Austin Goolsbee, David Cutler and Jeff Liebman) are all very highly regarded guys who appear to be on the right side of things economically.</div> In defense of Hillary and all Democrats every where, I kind of look at the way they speak about the economy as pandering necessitated by their political base. The Democrats talk class warfare, the Republicans talk sanctity of marriage amendments. It's the ugly side of politics. And I don't believe, either party is sincere in their appeals. (Actually, to give this crop of Republicans some serious cred, I haven't heard the "gay issue" raised once this election season?)
MSNBC has been saying since yesterday that Hillary is basically so far behind she has to run the table and win with 60% of the vote in the remaining primaries. She's basically toast. She's now out there trying to bait Obama into a debate where her strategy would be to somehow really sock it to him so it looks like he's a bum. Obama doesn't have to take any debates unless the press drives opinion in that direction, and I'm not sure we'll see that. McCain and Obama are already trading barbs in their speeches. The presumptive nominees. Hillary's campaign people are deserting like rats on a sinking ship (fair metaphor). Her ability to raise funds is apparently drying up as well. An e-mail from her top campaign manager today was leaked and it basically said they were giving up on the black vote and all the upcoming primaries through March 4. They need states like PA and TX and OH to be huge wins or they're definitely through. I'm ready to predict Obama is the next president and that he's going to win a HUGE victory over McCain with many republicans crossing over to vote for him. I don't think he's going to have one of the biggest victories in history, but it could be up there in terms of popular vote. I don't see him being dominant in the south, for example.
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how big Obama does. Rasmussen has been doing head to heads in specific states, they're quite interesting so far. Missouri: Bush 53 Kerry 46 McCain 43 Clinton 42 McCain 42 Obama 40 Colorado: Bush 52 Kerry 47 McCain 49 Clinton 35 Obama 46 McCain 39 New Hampshire: Kerry 50 Bush 49 Clinton 43 McCain 41 Obama 49 McCain 36
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 13 2008, 08:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm ready to predict Obama is the next president and that he's going to win a HUGE victory over McCain with many republicans crossing over to vote for him. I don't think he's going to have one of the biggest victories in history, but it could be up there in terms of popular vote. I don't see him being dominant in the south, for example.</div> It's a long way till November. I don't see Obama as a sure thing over McCain at all. 1. It's a classic youth vs. experience thing, and there's something to be said for experience and sobriety of judgement. If I'm McCain, I'll play on: Sound judgement on Iraq. No one likes the war and everyone likes the idea of bringing troops home, but the reality is that most folks also don't like to lose and understand that leaving a fucked up mess behind would be a problem down the road. Obama's run on opposition to the war and the promise to bring people home asap. I believe him when he says he wouldn't have taken us there in the first place and that's probably the right move, but that's not saying I believe him when he says he'll pull out in short order. I believe he'll recognize that leaving a fucked up mess is a bad thing. Obama will have a hard time with this in the general election the same way Kerry did last time. The reality is he's going to have to either lie or change his position, and voters tend to notice both of these things. McCain, on the other hand, can pretty credibly say that although he supported the war, he thought it would have been waged competently. But beyond that, he was ahead of the game on the surge, which has largely worked. So he can make a pretty compelling point that, even though maybe we shouldn't have been there in the first place we can't pick up sticks and leave now. If you walk out in the middle of a fight you generally get hit in the back of the head. Not taking the job might have been the best course of action, but quitting in the middle isn't either. So McCain has a bit of an edge there. On immigration, McCain is weak himself, but people are going to forget that when it's pointed out that Obama was up for giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses. That's going to be a really tough sell to Middle America on a matter of principle. Obama's response will be to point out McCain effectively wanted amnesty, which is going to be a tough sell for him. I think this will come out based on who makes the most compelling case of having a "vision" to clean up the system and who's best at talking up the historical benefits of immigration while limiting it, but I'd give the slight edge to McCain because I think amnesty is going to seem palatable to lots of folks compared to tolerating continued lawbreaking. My sense is the Republican base is fairly united in one direction on this while the Democratic base is fairly split. That's a major issue for Obama and an opportunity for McCain. On the economy, I suspect a fair amount of it comes down to a vision of fiscal policy. Both of these guys are fairly sound here, but I tend to think McCain will emphasize balancing the budget through reduced spending and taxes only if necessary. He's got a strong record against earmarks that can help him here. Obama doesn't have quite the record against pork as McCain, although he's not especially week (contra Hillary, who spoke practically lovingly of earmarks... talk about out of touch). But point is, McCain's got a consistent message and record to be selling to folks "I've been wanting to cut spending for a long time. Look at all this wasteful spending! If we do that, we don't have to raise taxes!" Obama's democratic base might not like earmarks, but they tend to want spending on various programs in general, and are willing to pay for it with more taxes (especially on other people!). So even though he's been good on earmarks, his fundamental position is going to have to be something like "let's reduce spending a bit and raise taxes on the 49% of you who don't vote for me". That's gonna be a tougher sell, I think. Not to say it can't be done, but campaigning on a tax increase platform sounds tougher than campaigning on a cut wasteful spending platform. ------------------------- So you put all those things together and I think McCain can make a very solid case that he's the right guy. Obama certainly can too, but my point here was just to call attention to what I think in the best hand McCain can play. Of course we'll probably get some "Obama is an evil, half-Black, crypto-Muslim" stuff from the fringes, but it's my sincere belief and fervent hope that McCain goes out of his way to call that the pile of dogshit it is. Likewise, I hope the word from the other fringe doesn't largely become "we can't have a crazy and especially old man" running the country.
I'm looking at the primaries, where 500,000 vote on the Democrat side and 100,000 vote on the republican side. If McCain were 8 years younger, I could see him getting traction enough among crossover democrats and independents. He's not, he's an old white man, and he's looking like a very old white man. The experience vs. youth argument didn't work well for Hillary. McCain would be a fool to try that route again. That leaves negative attacks and policy discussion as the only things left to McCain; he's got no chance on the "change" argument. The former is likely to backfire, as I think we've seen all the dirt on him that's to be dug up by the Clinton campaign. The latter is a loser for McCain, as his voting record on policies has infuriated his own base. Obama will have his base nailed down, and he's going to get crossover votes. Barring some huge disaster on Obama's part, he shouldn't lose.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 14 2008, 10:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm looking at the primaries, where 500,000 vote on the Democrat side and 100,000 vote on the republican side. If McCain were 8 years younger, I could see him getting traction enough among crossover democrats and independents. He's not, he's an old white man, and he's looking like a very old white man. The experience vs. youth argument didn't work well for Hillary. McCain would be a fool to try that route again. That leaves negative attacks and policy discussion as the only things left to McCain; he's got no chance on the "change" argument. The former is likely to backfire, as I think we've seen all the dirt on him that's to be dug up by the Clinton campaign. The latter is a loser for McCain, as his voting record on policies has infuriated his own base. Obama will have his base nailed down, and he's going to get crossover votes. Barring some huge disaster on Obama's part, he shouldn't lose.</div> First off I'd like to preface by saying I know dick about politics and am just speaking out of assumptions and common sense here. But I tend to agree with MikDC here. If you get Obama and McCain as the two presidential candidates thne you've got two moderates which will make it a big wild card race. Hilary played the experience card but the fact is shes just a very polarizing candidate; a lot of people fervently support her but A LOT of people really, really hate her. People seem to be shying away from heavily partisan politics now and with the economy in limbo they're looking for someone who will help that issue. Hillary is extremely liberal, has no personality, seems dull and bitter, and (for me at least) she seems pathetic for her political strategies against Obama over the last few months. Not to mention frrm a purely racist/sexist but realistic view (IMO), white men would rather vote for a black man than a white woman, especially so when considering the politics of each candidate. When comparing Obama to Hilary, Obama clearly wins and its easy to see why. Politically hes much more realistic, not as extreme. Hes got some personality, seems like a good leader, etc. But against McCain he loses a lot of the advantages he had over Hilary. McCain is another moderate, which may hurt him in getting republican votes but it could steal a lot of independent votes away too. McCain wants to save money on taxes, hes renowned for his foreign policy ideas, hes not as widely despised as Hilary. Oh and hes a white male which, historically, puts the odds on his side. IMO with two moderates and a record number of registered independents in the U.S. it'll be a close race.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Mamba @ Feb 14 2008, 11:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>McCain killed any chance of me voting for him when he said he'd stay in Iraq another 100 years...</div> Yeah, that's a huge money pit. Of course, I'm not sure just cutting and running is the best idea either... As far as Obama's electability goes, I can see conservative groups pounding pretty hard against his liberal voting record and his admitted cocaine use. I think those attacks if used would sway many people, even if they dislike McCain. I do think Obama will win, but I think it will be close.
