<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>WASHINGTON - The Democratic nomination is now Barack Obama's to lose. After nine consecutive defeats ?€” including a heartbreaker in tailor-made Wisconsin on Tuesday ?€” Hillary Rodham Clinton can't win the nomination unless Obama makes a major mistake or her allies reveal something damaging about the Illinois senator's background. Don't count her out quite yet, but Wisconsin revealed deep and destructive fractures in the Clinton coalition. It's panic-button time. That explains why Clinton's aides accused Obama of plagiarism for delivering a speech that included words that had first been uttered by Deval Patrick, the Massachusetts governor and a friend of Obama. The charge bordered on the hypocritical ?€” Clinton herself has borrowed Obama's lines ?€” and by itself was unlikely to have an impact on the race. Clinton claimed Tuesday that reporters, not her campaign, pushed the plagiarism story line. That is not true. The Clinton camp hopes to produce other instances of rhetorical theft and show a pattern of bad behavior. The danger for Obama is anything that undercuts his image as a candidate who rises above politics. Something like this might work to Clinton's advantage: Obama is backtracking on a pledge to abide by spending caps in the general election, and his explanation is bogus. Obama is undeniably raw. Less than four years removed from the Illinois Legislature, he stands at the brink of the Democratic nomination and will soon go one-on-one in debates with a tough and savvy former first lady. The odds of a misstep are low but not impossible for these reasons: Clinton will grow increasingly negative; Obama faces more scrutiny as the new front-runner; his performance in multi-candidates debates was uneven; and the charmed Illinois senator has never faced political crises. Should Obama stumble in the next two weeks, does he know how to recover? Clinton certainly knows how to bounce back. She helped her husband, Bill, recover from near-death experiences during his White House run and rebounded herself after a thumping in Iowa. But her rival has won the most states, earned the most pledged delegates and has all the momentum. Clinton needs to win Ohio and Texas on March 4 ?€” then Pennsylvania in April ?€” to narrow Obama's lead among pledged delegates. Only then could she argue with a straight face that a majority of the nearly 800 free-roaming "superdelegates" should back her over Obama. "Both Senator Obama and I would make history," the former first lady told supporters Tuesday night. "But only one of us is ready on Day One to be commander in chief, ready to manage our economy and ready to defeat the Republicans. Only one of us has spent 35 years being a doer, a fighter and a champion for those who need a voice." Only one of them can win, and it doesn't look good for her. "The chances of Obama doing something that's going to cause a major problem are about as low as her doing something that will turn it around," said Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, who is not tied to either campaign. "When you start pressing to come back, it's usually the person who's behind who makes the mistake." Ignore the Clinton advisers who argue that Wisconsin was just a bump on the road en route to the tell-all March 4 primaries. Listen instead to the message sent by her ragged coalition: <u>Obama led among whites (widely among white men), moderates and those earning less than $50,000, all bastions of Clinton's past strength. Obama and Clinton split the vote among women, erasing her one-time advantage.</u> Demographically, Wisconsin was a warm-up for Ohio: nearly 90 percent of Tuesday's voters were white; about 40 percent earn less than $50,000 annually; nearly 60 percent have no college degree; and half are over 50 years old ?€” all demographics that have tended to favor Clinton. In a sign of desperation, the Clinton camp floated the idea of poaching delegates that Obama earned via elections. While allowable under Democratic National Committee rules, the tactic would likely divide Democrats along racial lines and set the party back decades. It would be the ultimate act of selfishness and foolishness. Even Clinton must realize there is little she can do to win the nomination. She can only help Obama lose it.</div> Race is Obama's to Lose All rude, sarcastic remarks aside, I think it's time for Hillary to bow down. The people of this nation do not want her leading our country. The best thing she can do for herself, and even more so for the Democratic party, would be to bow out of the race before she starts looking like a power-hungry politician. Her lead in Texas has been cut to a dead tie, her lead in Ohio has been cut by more than half, down to about 8, and it's too early to even tell about Pennsylvania as it's so far away. Many experts are stating that even if she sweeps these major three, that she'll still be behind in the delegate count because of how close it'll be and it'll come down to the convention and the super-delegates, which have been turning towards Obama. If Hillary is really concerned about America's future and the Democratic party, step out of the race and give your full support to Senator Obama, so the Dems can start gearing towards a campaign against McCain.
She's not going to bow out, at least until March 4, so get used to that idea The bad news is that Obama's long speech last night was a lot less centrist than he's sounded so far, and people are more receptive to McCain's message (at this point) than Obama's. I'm still expecting Obama to win the general election handily. It's stunning how the turnout in the Democratic primaries and caucuses has been 3:1 or even 5:1 what the republican turnout has been. Granted, I expect people to fall into their partisan party lines behind their candidates once they are both the two left standing, and the general election turnout is going to be significantly larger than for the primaries.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 20 2008, 09:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>She's not going to bow out, at least until March 4, so get used to that idea The bad news is that Obama's long speech last night was a lot less centrist than he's sounded so far, and people are more receptive to McCain's message (at this point) than Obama's. I'm still expecting Obama to win the general election handily. It's stunning how the turnout in the Democratic primaries and caucuses has been 3:1 or even 5:1 what the republican turnout has been. Granted, I expect people to fall into their partisan party lines behind their candidates once they are both the two left standing, and the general election turnout is going to be significantly larger than for the primaries.</div> Obama is going to moonwalk then cartwheel his way into office. The Election was already decided these last ten primaries-caucuses, when Obama won by unforeseen margins.
She's down by about 80 delegates. If she wins those big three, she won't be down in the delegate count. I expect Florida to be seated, I don't know about Michigan. If she loses one of the three, she's basically fucked. If Obama wins the nomination, McCain will be president. He will be torn to pieces. "Swiftboating into oblivion" is something I read in an op-ed. And this is coming from a democrat who will never vote republican.
How do you figure? Every analyst has said that Hillary, even if she wins all 3 will still be down in pledged delegates, unless she completely blows Obama out of the water. She is also losing the support of the super-delegates. And in the polls being taken, Obama has the clear advantage over McCain.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Mamba @ Feb 23 2008, 01:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How do you figure? Every analyst has said that Hillary, even if she wins all 3 will still be down in pledged delegates, unless she completely blows Obama out of the water. She is also losing the support of the super-delegates. And in the polls being taken, Obama has the clear advantage over McCain.</div> Exactly, those are unfounded conclusions. In every Clinton/McCain poll, they are deadlocked. Obama is by far the most popular democrat right now, and if they were to seat the Florida delegates, it would be only if another primary was held before the June 7 deadline. Even then she can't make up enough ground because Texas delegates will slightly lean towards Obama. Adisodes obviously favors Clinton, which is the only reason I can come up with for the wild claims he made. McCain will be torn to pieces for his position on Iraq. This is reflected in the Obama/McCain polls.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 23 2008, 02:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Mamba @ Feb 23 2008, 01:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How do you figure? Every analyst has said that Hillary, even if she wins all 3 will still be down in pledged delegates, unless she completely blows Obama out of the water. She is also losing the support of the super-delegates. And in the polls being taken, Obama has the clear advantage over McCain.</div> Exactly, those are unfounded conclusions. In every Clinton/McCain poll, they are deadlocked. Obama is by far the most popular democrat right now, and if they were to seat the Florida delegates, it would be only if another primary was held before the June 7 deadline. Even then she can't make up enough ground because Texas delegates will slightly lean towards Obama. Adisodes obviously favors Clinton, which is the only reason I can come up with for the wild claims he made. McCain will be torn to pieces for his position on Iraq. This is reflected in the Obama/McCain polls. </div> I've heard analysts say she was dead before New Hampshire. And I've heard analysts who support my claim, and others who don't. Look at the numbers yourself though. The "big 3" are worth a total of 492 delegates. If she wins 55% overall, that would be a 50 delegate difference. When you factor in Puerto Rico (which will go to her), that's 63 delegates given out winner-take-all. This is dead tied. I support both Clinton and Obama, so I don't think you can mark my claims "wild". Whoever the democrat is, I will support. I'm being a realist here. McCain will not be torn to pieces. Republicans come out in droves when voting. Democrats really don't care. This is why Bush is president right now. There are 72 million registered democrats and only 50 million registered republicans. There's a reason why we lose elections we should win. Obama is making record money, and to an extent, so is Hillary. But those republican 527s certainly have more.
Puerto Rico is worth 55 pledged delegates with 8 super delegates. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (adisodes @ Feb 24 2008, 12:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I've heard analysts say she was dead before New Hampshire. And I've heard analysts who support my claim, and others who don't. Look at the numbers yourself though. The "big 3" are worth a total of 492 delegates. If she wins 55% overall, that would be a 50 delegate difference. When you factor in Puerto Rico (which will go to her), that's 63 delegates given out winner-take-all. This is dead tied.</div> And she will lose the delegate race in Texas, your plans are messed up in that case. Obama will still have about a 120 delegate lead if Clinton wins Ohio and Pennsylvania by 55%. The Super Delegates are jumping on his band wagon, Clinton's fucked. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I support both Clinton and Obama, so I don't think you can mark my claims "wild". Whoever the democrat is, I will support. I'm being a realist here.</div> How will Obama be torn to pieces? He's not John Kerry, he's not going to get called out for being a pussy in the Vietnam war. And generally when the economy is in rags, America asks for a regime change, which is what happened to Bush I. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>McCain will not be torn to pieces. Republicans come out in droves when voting. Democrats really don't care. This is why Bush is president right now. There are 72 million registered democrats and only 50 million registered republicans. There's a reason why we lose elections we should win.</div> He just got caught lying in his NY Times rebuttal statements. He will be shredded on his Iraq stance. Also, back when Bush won in 2004, the war wasn't nearly as unpopular as it is now. Kerry is not nearly as popular as Obama either. I'm the one being a realist. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Obama is making record money, and to an extent, so is Hillary. But those republican 527s certainly have more.</div> Doesn't McCain-Feingold hurt his Republican Campaign?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 24 2008, 12:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (adisodes @ Feb 24 2008, 12:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I've heard analysts say she was dead before New Hampshire. And I've heard analysts who support my claim, and others who don't. Look at the numbers yourself though. The "big 3" are worth a total of 492 delegates. If she wins 55% overall, that would be a 50 delegate difference. When you factor in Puerto Rico (which will go to her), that's 63 delegates given out winner-take-all. This is dead tied.</div> And she will lose the delegate race in Texas, your plans are messed up in that case. Obama will still have about a 120 delegate lead if Clinton wins Ohio and Pennsylvania by 55%. The Super Delegates are jumping on his band wagon, Clinton's fucked. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I support both Clinton and Obama, so I don't think you can mark my claims "wild". Whoever the democrat is, I will support. I'm being a realist here.</div> How will Obama be torn to pieces? He's not John Kerry, he's not going to get called out for being a pussy in the Vietnam war. And generally when the economy is in rags, America asks for a regime change, which is what happened to Bush I. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>McCain will not be torn to pieces. Republicans come out in droves when voting. Democrats really don't care. This is why Bush is president right now. There are 72 million registered democrats and only 50 million registered republicans. There's a reason why we lose elections we should win.</div> He just got caught lying in his NY Times rebuttal statements. He will be torn to pieces on his Iraq stance. Also, back when Bush won in 2004, the war wasn't nearly as unpopular as it is now. Kerry is not nearly as popular as Obama either. I'm the one being a realist. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Obama is making record money, and to an extent, so is Hillary. But those republican 527s certainly have more.</div> Doesn't McCain Feingold hurt his Republican Campaign? </div> If she loses Texas, she is fucked. I already said that (atleast I think I did). If she loses one of the 3, she is fucked and it's basically over. Correct me if I'm wrong, but which superdelegate left her camp to join his? I think only 2 at this point. Atleast I've only heard of 2. Obama hasn't really accomplished anything. The republicans are going to make light of this. They will bash him on national security, seeing as he has no experience. They will get this in people's heads. Staying or going in Iraq won't matter. People will be paranoid about future attacks. These aren't pure democrats like me and you, because they will vote Dem. This isn't about pure republicans, because they will continue to vote republicans. It's about the moderates. Even some people who like Obama because of his speeches. People who don't look into the issues until the last week in October. I hope I'm wrong, believe me. I don't want to make this seem like we're arguing, I'm just letting out what I'm afraid of. It's true Kerry isn't as popular as Obama, but McCain is a lot more popular than Bush. The only reason Bush was reelected was because Kerry was such a shitty candidate. I think if Edwards ended up getting the nomination, he'd be president right now. I read a poll that said like 80% of Republican are okay with McCain getting the nomination. Republicans dislike McCain, but they will suck it up and vote for him instead of a potential Hillary or Barack White House. If you look at the states he won since Super Tuesday, a majority of conservatives voters are going with McCain instead of Huckabee. I'm getting off the computer so if you respond, I won't get back to you until tomorrow. Good night.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (adisodes @ Feb 24 2008, 01:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Staying or going in Iraq won't matter.</div> And this is where you really lost your argument. Iraq is one of the major topics in the campaigns. Iraq matters.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (adisodes @ Feb 24 2008, 01:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If she loses Texas, she is fucked. I already said that (atleast I think I did). If she loses one of the 3, she is fucked and it's basically over. Correct me if I'm wrong, but which superdelegate left her camp to join his? I think only 2 at this point. Atleast I've only heard of 2. Obama hasn't really accomplished anything. The republicans are going to make light of this. They will bash him on national security, seeing as he has no experience. They will get this in people's heads. Staying or going in Iraq won't matter. People will be paranoid about future attacks. These aren't pure democrats like me and you, because they will vote Dem. This isn't about pure republicans, because they will continue to vote republicans. It's about the moderates. Even some people who like Obama because of his speeches. People who don't look into the issues until the last week in October. I hope I'm wrong, believe me. I don't want to make this seem like we're arguing, I'm just letting out what I'm afraid of. It's true Kerry isn't as popular as Obama, but McCain is a lot more popular than Bush. The only reason Bush was reelected was because Kerry was such a shitty candidate. I think if Edwards ended up getting the nomination, he'd be president right now. I read a poll that said like 80% of Republican are okay with McCain getting the nomination. Republicans dislike McCain, but they will suck it up and vote for him instead of a potential Hillary or Barack White House. If you look at the states he won since Super Tuesday, a majority of conservatives voters are going with McCain instead of Huckabee. I'm getting off the computer so if you respond, I won't get back to you until tomorrow. Good night.</div> You make some valid points, I just feel they are overstated. Bush was also not as unpopular now in 2004, kind of nullifying your point about McCain. McCain may be a moderate republican, but on the most important issues, the majority of this nation disagrees with him. And he's not an Economic guru either so I am not threatened. And just to clarify, almost everyone has Obama winning the delegate race in Texas. In fact, I recall he could be down by up to 5% in the popular vote there and still net more delegates because of the delegate-rich counties supporting him.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L @ Feb 24 2008, 01:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (adisodes @ Feb 24 2008, 01:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Staying or going in Iraq won't matter.</div> And this is where you really lost your argument. Iraq is one of the major topics in the campaigns. Iraq matters. </div> A majority of American wants to leave, this is true. But republicans aren't going to cross the aisle and vote for the democrat, regardless of who it is. McCain can easily use the theory that the surge is working, and how he was right. He can also bash Obama on his foreign policy credentials. I don't think republicans, and even some independants would want to take a chance on being "unsafe". These kind of questions haven't been raised about an Obama Presidency yet. If it was, he wouldn't even be the frontrunner right now. I'm not using this as a "well if it wasn't for this, Clinton would get the nom" argument. I was watching MSNBC a few weeks ago and it said that 81% of the coverage Obama gets in the media is positive. He isn't getting any negative press! If he gets the nomination, he will. Can he handle it? What is he going to do to differ the arguments McCain is going to throw at him? Some of the negative press is starting already! FOX News showed a montage of footage from his speeches where people in attendance fainted and Obama didn't seem to care. These small things matter because they will avalanche.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (adisodes @ Feb 24 2008, 01:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L @ Feb 24 2008, 01:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (adisodes @ Feb 24 2008, 01:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Staying or going in Iraq won't matter.</div> And this is where you really lost your argument. Iraq is one of the major topics in the campaigns. Iraq matters. </div> A majority of American wants to leave, this is true. But republicans aren't going to cross the aisle and vote for the democrat, regardless of who it is. McCain can easily use the theory that the surge is working, and how he was right. He can also bash Obama on his foreign policy credentials. I don't think republicans, and even some independants would want to take a chance on being "unsafe". These kind of questions haven't been raised about an Obama Presidency yet. If it was, he wouldn't even be the frontrunner right now. I'm not using this as a "well if it wasn't for this, Clinton would get the nom" argument. I was watching MSNBC a few weeks ago and it said that 81% of the coverage Obama gets in the media is positive. He isn't getting any negative press! If he gets the nomination, he will. Can he handle it? What is he going to do to differ the arguments McCain is going to throw at him? Some of the negative press is starting already! FOX News showed a montage of footage from his speeches where people in attendance fainted and Obama didn't seem to care. These small things matter because they will avalanche. </div> Republicans won't cross the aisle, but how many real Republicans are left after this Bush regime? Going up against an incumbent is difficult as well, you can't compare now to 2004. I saw some Fox news montages of that and Obama behaved just fine to me; in fact, he threw out water bottles to some people there. How do you explain away the polls anyway? McCain is an uphill battle since he reminds people of Bush.
There are more people who vote Republican than Democrat - if they go out and vote. The 2000, 2002, and 2004 show it, regardless of how people register. Problem for republicans is that the voters are voting in the Dem primaries by huge margins - 3:1 or even 5:1 in many. Is this an indication of the general election to come, or is it republicans voting for Obama (or Clinton) to try and influence who's going to be the "weaker" candidate come the general? It's obvious many republicans are disaffected by GW Bush's presidency - mostly because he's spent money like a drunken sailor and grown the govt. by a radical amount. He's not a conservative, so he doesn't appeal to conservatives (he's religious, which is NOT the same thing). It's not clear that McCain can energize the republican voters to go out and vote, though the thought of Clinton or Obama getting elected is strong incentive (moreso if Clinton is the nominee). It's also not clear that the press is going to hammer Obama or even accept advertising from 527's. The success of the surge in Iraq has driven Iraq-as-major-campaign-issue far down the list of peoples' priorities. In fact, it could work against the anti-war that energized Democrats in 2006: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...op_voting_issue Saturday, January 26, 2008 Advertisment Forty percent (40%) of voters now see the economy as the most important voting issue of Election 2008. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that nothing else comes close. Fourteen percent (14%) see health care as the top issue, 13% name the War in Iraq as the top priority, and 12% say the War on Terror is most important.
There's also this: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...l_tracking_poll The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that John McCain continues to hold a very modest lead against both potential Democratic challengers. In a general election match-up, McCain now leads Barack Obama 46% to 44% and Hillary Clinton 48% to 44%. McCain has led both Democrats on each night of individual tracking since the controversial New York Times article on McCain was released earlier this week
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 24 2008, 02:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There's also this: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...l_tracking_poll The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that John McCain continues to hold a very modest lead against both potential Democratic challengers. In a general election match-up, McCain now leads Barack Obama 46% to 44% and Hillary Clinton 48% to 44%. McCain has led both Democrats on each night of individual tracking since the controversial New York Times article on McCain was released earlier this week</div> And with the announcement by Ralph Nader today of his enterance into the Presidential race, McCain's advantage should increase.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 24 2008, 02:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There are more people who vote Republican than Democrat - if they go out and vote. The 2000, 2002, and 2004 show it, regardless of how people register. Problem for republicans is that the voters are voting in the Dem primaries by huge margins - 3:1 or even 5:1 in many. Is this an indication of the general election to come, or is it republicans voting for Obama (or Clinton) to try and influence who's going to be the "weaker" candidate come the general? It's obvious many republicans are disaffected by GW Bush's presidency - mostly because he's spent money like a drunken sailor and grown the govt. by a radical amount. He's not a conservative, so he doesn't appeal to conservatives (he's religious, which is NOT the same thing). It's not clear that McCain can energize the republican voters to go out and vote, though the thought of Clinton or Obama getting elected is strong incentive (moreso if Clinton is the nominee). It's also not clear that the press is going to hammer Obama or even accept advertising from 527's. The success of the surge in Iraq has driven Iraq-as-major-campaign-issue far down the list of peoples' priorities. In fact, it could work against the anti-war that energized Democrats in 2006: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...op_voting_issue Saturday, January 26, 2008 Advertisment Forty percent (40%) of voters now see the economy as the most important voting issue of Election 2008. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that nothing else comes close. Fourteen percent (14%) see health care as the top issue, 13% name the War in Iraq as the top priority, and 12% say the War on Terror is most important.</div> Exactly. If the economy is going to be the most important issue, Obama has his work cut out for him. Economists claim his stimulus package is impossible to manuever, and the republicans can just label him another spending liberal. Yes, Bush has pissed off republicans, but I don't think enough to make them vote for a liberal. What is Bush's approval rating? 35%? Around there? I don't know the number of democrats and republicans are constantly used in those polls, I would assume half and half. No rational democrat would approve of Bush's actions as president. So half the republicans are used in those polls, wouldn't he have a 70% approval among republicans? Now, of course I'm definitely wrong with these numbers but you get the jist.
I believe it will be much easier for the Democrats to rally and encourage people to vote for them once the nominee is set. These polls are also confusing because I hear such and such have an advantage, and then Denny gives me these other polls. I think the primaries are the biggest indicator of how much people want democrats to win. I don't see how the Economy being the most important issue favors McCain. Health Care is also a concern and that bodes well for Obama.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats with a 284 to 229 lead in the Electoral College. If leaners? are not included, the Democrats lead 238 to 189. Since yesterday, North Carolina has shifted from Safe Republican to Likely Republican while Wisconsin has shifted from Likely Democrat to Leans Democrat. New polling has been released today for Wisconsin and New Mexico. The Balance of Power Calculator determines projections by aggregating a variety of information from many sources including polls, the Rasmussen Markets, analyst assessments and more (see summary of recent state general election polling).</div> http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...l_tracking_poll Democrats still lead the election Denny.
