Aside from this all, I'm going to bring back the "She's ruining and splitting the party issue." Please, intelligent people, hear me out. Why is there a pattern of her winning our Democratic strongholds, where there are closed primaries and no Republicans and Independents are allowed to vote. Obama wins all these open caucuses where anyone can vote. I can't stress this enough, that winning a caucus against Hillary doesn't mean he's going to be McCain there. Not only that, but if she's winning all these strong Dem states, how is she breaking up the party? No... A few of Obama's friends in Congress and the House, who are very outspoken, are up in flames about her still being in the race, and the general perception by an Obama supporter is that the party is falling apart. If the party were falling apart like many of you say it is, making Clinton call it quits is no way to solve it. That would anger the almost 50% of Dems who actually voted for her. If she stays the course, and loses, then we can say she lost and lost fairly, and move on with our lives. Anyone with a brain of their own will rally together for the Dems in November's election, regardless of what I said earlier about Jersey or Florida or Michigan folding. I think the unfair thing and the worst way to solve this situation is to pressure her to step down, a bigger scandal within the history of current Democratic party could not be commited.

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco Okay, imagine a basketball game where the first winner to get to 11 wins. Team 1 has been doing well but Team 2 has come back, with their main man injured and a rookie substitute in his place. There's 2 minutes left in the game and they're down 7-6. Nobody will ever call it quits in a scenario like this, especially if it's not deemed impossible, which it isn't.

You Clinton people are really getting annoying with the sports analogies. There is no comparison, whatsoever, to the primaries. First of all, Obama is guaranteed a certain percentage of "points" for every group of "points" that she gets. 2nd, this race is so much farther apart than 7-6 in a game where an average of 2 points given for each basket that it's not even funny. It's more like being down 125-140 in the All Star game with 2 minutes left, no time outs, all your players on their last fouls before being ejected and a 35 second shot clock.

I will present a challenge to Hillary and all of her supporters. You've been presented with a plethora of logical mathematical data showing that you can not win this nomination without the superdelegates usurping the will of the people who voted. If you disagree, please provide concrete numbers as evidence of your path to victory. Do not include outrageous hypotheticals like Florida or Michigan counting at this point. It's not going to happen. They can't count the former elections because of fairness. I've heard tons of anecdotes from both Obama and Clinton supporters who didn't vote at all because they were told it wouldn't count and others where people swapped parties to vote Republican so it could count in some way. How can you say that the votes should stand if that happened as much as it did?

quote:

Okay, so in your opinion (which is valid and I can't disprove it), Clinton won because of a large amount of people who voted blindly because of race. Okay, so take the states that Obama won 90% of the Black vote, and only winning by maybe 5-10% at best and say that he won those because of a large amount of people who voted blindly because of race. Include in that big jambalaya the Black superdelegates who are voting for him, not because they necessarily want to, but because they feel pressured (and scared) to, and we have one big circus of a race-driven campaign.

1 in 7 voters in the PA primary admitted that race mattered to them. ADMITTED it. 75% of these people voted for Clinton. I'm not denying that Obama gets a lot of black votes because he's black, but in no state is the black population so proportionately high that it matters tremendously when it comes to delegate counts, especially considering the delegates available in states where the "I'm only voting for him because he looks like me" vote matters. PA had 156 (I think) delegates available. That's a hell of a lot sway for the "I won't vote for the black/"Muslim" guy (oh, there's a lot of these Hussein Obama people in PA, btw). I wanted to pull my hair out when politics got brought up when I was home for Christmas because of some of things that people were saying.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco See, that's where you're wrong. Every Obama supporter likes to put two and two together, although, it's not always so easy. Think about it. 10,000 to 80,000 people are showing up to the caucuses in these red/battleground states of maybe a few million people. You shouldn't assume a 60/40 win by Obama in a red-state means he's gunna beat McCain in November. It doesn't even mean he has a credible shot. Obama supporters have been using this "two and two makes four" math which doesn't really apply. We won't win these red states, it's not happening.

Just adding on to these comments I made^^^ plus in response to the states you mentioned that Obama could take in November:


- Iowa: a total of 8% of the population voted in the caucus
- S. Carolina: a total of 11% of the population voted in the primary
- Nebraska: less than 2% of the state's population voted in the caucus
- Maryland: less than 15% of the state's population voted in the primary (this state went Dem last time)
- Wisconsin: about 24% of the state's population voted (this state went Dem last time)





I could go on and on about these numbers but I think you get the point. I'd rather bank on a candidate who can reinforce her strength in the Dem strongholds, than bank on a candidate to take these states like Nebraska, Iowa, or S. Carolina (and more) in November, it simply won't happen!!! A 10-15% gap in a state like Nebraska whose Dem voter turnout was less than my 20x10 block neighborhood doesn't mean "OMG, he's gunna take this state in November!" It's wishful thinking and that's a horrible strategy to run with.

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

Oh, BTW, in case you haven't heard Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon, the ambassador to Chile during Bill's presidency and Hillary fundraiser ($500K) and supporter for THIS campaign just defected to Obama today because someone sat her down and explained the inevitable mathematical conclusions.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy That's a hell of a lot sway for the "I won't vote for the black/"Muslim" guy (oh, there's a lot of these Hussein Obama people in PA, btw). I wanted to pull my hair out when politics got brought up when I was home for Christmas because of some of things that people were saying.

You're speaking like PA is its own isolated universe. There's talk, and a lot of it, like that over here. My own grandpa, who's an immigrant and has many Black friends AND several Muslim friends even said he doesn't like Obama because he's a Muslim. I see that as ignorancee as much as you do, and this conversation is happening everywhere; yes, even in New Jersey and New York. You can't play the race card because Obama lost there, simply because you're "from there". There's so much to consider, like the massive amounts of spending he has dwarfed her on, or the obvious bandwagon for the past few months by the mass media FOR Obama and against Hillary. I'm not part of the "Hillary people"... I was a strong Obama supporter and worked for his campaign and fundraisers, I've simply opened my eyes a bit more and didn't get so googly eyed with pics like his Christ-like cover on Rolling Stone. The pop-icon he has become and the ignorance of so many of his "supporters" around me, coupled with his iconsistency and lack of taking a stand on issues, forced me to look elsewhere for my candidate, so I'm not some Clinton talking-head, I've done my research too.

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Oh, BTW, in case you haven't heard Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon, the ambassador to Chile during Bill's presidency and Hillary fundraiser ($500K) and supporter for THIS campaign just defected to Obama today because someone sat her down and explained the inevitable mathematical conclusions.

Typical Obama rationality, to think an endorsement means anything. Kennedy and his niece rallied around Obama, and he lost in Massachusetts. Where is Oprah now? Where are the Kennedy's now? All he has is Bill Richardson by his side going everywhere and on every show, like a bulldog. This is a campaign, not a popularity match over endorsers; she's got her fair share too, for the record.

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco You're lumping in all the delegates together. People who really don't know all the info or whatever make outlandish statements like "Hillary can't win unless a strong superdelegate result pushes her ahead." I don't know what fuzzy math you're accusing me of, but the same goes for Obama.

As I posted this in another thread:



There's nothing outlandish about it. As it stands now, she has to capture around 71% in each of the states coming up. And considering she's never come close to that in the past, the likelihood and statistical probability are pretty darn low. And with each state she doesn't go over 71%, her percentage needed climbs while Obama's declines. Sorry, but that's how it breaks down for her.

quote:

Without superdelegates, neither of them can clinch the nomination, no other way to see it. I hate the idea of SDs as much as the next guy, but she has every shot at winning it as much as he does,

Give me a viable reason why the supers would turn on the frontrunner now in bulk. And please don't say it would be secondary to his "gaffs", i.e. media whoring of his past associations (to which they do quite splendidly on every frontrunner, even on Hillary when she was ahead). Please tell me why the supers, in their divine wisdom, would want to do differently from what the American public has thus far, decided who should be the candidate.

And then give me a count of how many undecided supers have gone towards Hillary versus Obama over the past 2 or so months, and tell me why that trend would somehow miraculously reverse itself drastically toward Hillary's favor. I sure hope you're not going to tell me because she won Pennsylvania, a state to which she was heavily favored by some 20% over a month ago and won by 9.4% instead.

quote:

especially if he keeps his recent amazing PR breakthroughs up, he's really fucking up, guys.

I'm curious as to how Obama is "fucking up" by his associations of people, especially those to which Hillary's own fucking husband had pardoned from the same group. Oh that's right, of course she had no idea about them. How silly of me to think a woman of her intelligence was, ummm, not paying attention to things like that while her husband was President.......

quote:

See, that's where you're wrong. Every Obama supporter likes to put two and two together, although, it's not always so easy. Think about it. 10,000 to 80,000 people are showing up to the caucuses in these red/battleground states of maybe a few million people. You shouldn't assume a 60/40 win by Obama in a red-state means he's gunna beat McCain in November. It doesn't even mean he has a credible shot. Obama supporters have been using this "two and two makes four" math which doesn't really apply. We won't win these red states, it's not happening.

There's a bit of a narrow scope of view that I believe you're falling for here. It's not just a matter of trying to be competitive in those states that very well may swing towards McCain in the end. There's a bit more at stake with a 50-state strategy that Obama is employing, and it has quite a bit more payoff versus the Clinton triangulation strategy.

For example, take Arizona:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ential_election

Clearly McCain will likely win his home state, so it would seem that it matters little that Obama polls better there, right? Well this helps out the two House Democratic freshman running for re-election campaigns this year there, Rep. Mitchell (AZ-05), and Rep. Giffords (AZ-08). If Obama can have a decent showing there, not only will the chances of these two freshmen Representatives winning their re-elections be enhanced, but the Republicans will have to devote more time and money in clearly a Red state.

Now contrast that to the record of the Clintons in the White House and how well the Democrats fared in Congress with their wonderful triangulation (strangulation) strategy. How well did we do back then? And what on earth makes you think Hillary and her advisors (McCauliffe for fuck's sake?!?!) would try anything differently?

Furthermore, take a look at this article on what Obama DID gain from Pennsylvania:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ho..._pennsylva.html

More specifically:

quote:

Central Pennsylvania is the most Republican part of the state. We have found again and again in this primary season that, outside of the South, white Democrats in heavily Republican areas tend to prefer Obama more than other areas. It is unclear what has caused this trend, but the observations in central Pennsylvania are consistent with it. Finally, we should note the irony of central Pennsylvania's support of Obama. These are the locations where you can find many of the "small towns" about which Obama was speaking in San Francisco - and yet they seemed to be tilted in his favor. In a certain sense, small town Pennsylvanians preferred Obama more than the rest of the state!

So it's not just the white Dems, but Independents and cross-over Republicans. Strange that. And all this time I thought Hillary would have control of something like that in a state that clearly favored her over Obama.....

quote:

It's the big states with millions of people in them that Hillary is winning. Not only that, but it's the Democratic states that Hillary is winning. If Hillary were to drop out, it will make many people wonder if states like Jersey, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (among many others) will cave into McCain, it's a huge possibility.

It sure is, because, ummm, you said so?

Funny you didn't mention California:

McCain (R) 43 (38)
Obama (D) 50 (53)

McCain (R) 42 (39)
Clinton (D) 47 (46)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ential_election

Huh, so wait a gosh darn minute, Batman. You mean to tell me that in a state like California, a state that Hillary clearly won over Obama, that he's faring better than she is against McCain?

Gosh, how strange. Apparently, it would seem that, that, that, Obama might actually WIN THOSE BIG STRONGHOLD DEMOCRATIC STATES AFTERALL?!?!?!?!

Holy mindfuck Batman!

Try not to jump right the hell over Lebez's point like that again. Please tell us why Obama would seemingly have no chance in winning those big Democratic stronghold states just because another, uhh, Democrat beat him in the primary?

quote:

But the talking-heads and Obama-bots don't want to face that reality.

Yes, that reality to which clearly demonstrates that Obama has a better chance against McCain so far.

That reality that demonstrates that Obama has won more contests than Hillary.

That reality that not only has Obama won the caucuses which are clearly favored towards the hardcore supporters (wow, what a horrible thing to think about), but just so happened to have won a few primaries over Hillary as well.

That reality that Obama has raised more money than Hillary. Christ, Obama can fart loudly in his sleep for donations more than Hillary's camp.

That reality that Hillary is in debt.

That reality that Obama has more delegates than Hillary.

That reality that Obama has more of the popular vote than Hillary.

That reality that Hillary is running out of states to catch Obama in any realistic manner.

That reality that the likelihood of Hillary winning 71% of the vote in each of the remaining states is, well, a slap against reality.

But we're supposed to believe YOUR reality instead? The reality that despite all these things that clearly favor Obama as the candidate, the supers are going to somehow overturn the will of the primary electorate, spur a civil war in the Democratic party, just for Hillary to win the nomination?

Jesus, what the fuck are you smoking, and can you please keep it away from the rest of us?

quote:

I think we need to keep the states we had with Kerry and Gore and add one or two and we have the presidency.

Yeah, those worked rather swimmingly for us, didn't it? But let's not think about those things I mentioned above, and just hope and pray that Florida and Ohio will seemingly jump right in our laps.

quote:

You're delusional if you think Obama has a shot against McCain in 98% of the red states he won against Hillary in (with 5,000-person caucuses).

No one thinks he'll win in Republican stronghold states. That was never the point. And as stated above, there's more to the strategy than that - it's drying up the money-well in states that run Red for Republicans, which was a big reason why we pulled off so many big wins in Congress in 2006. Plus Obama seems to have quite a propensity of raking in cash, so being competitive with the Republicans is much more likely now.

This is very much a finance game as it is a political strategy game, and the two are very much intermingled now. Plus it puts those purple states even more into play for Obama. So it's nothing but a straw man argument to state that Obama and his "Obamabots" believe we'll win the dark red states like Texas, Arizona, etc.

quote:

As far as bringing up polls, any intelligent adult knows how flawed polls are, no matter who's in front or behind. One week, Hillary's polling better against McCain, another week Obama. Let's not bring 1000-person polls into this.

Yes, let's just go by sweeping, unsupported assertions instead. That's always much better.

And much more fun too, I suppose.

The problem for you, however, is that the polls have consistently demonstrated for quite some time now that Obama is more competitive than McCain in a number of states in question. For example:

North Carolina:
McCain (R) 47 (51)
Obama (D) 47 (42)

McCain (R) 51 (50)
Clinton (D) 40 (34)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ential_election

Minnesota:
McCain (R) 43 (47)
Obama (D) 49 (46)

McCain (R) 46 (46)
Clinton (D) 47 (49)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Pol...f7-30b20a879406

Washington:
McCain (R) 40 (47)
Obama (D) 53 (48)

McCain (R) 45 (47)
Clinton (D) 48 (47)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Pol...06-28376dc9abc3

Wisconsin:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Pol...e1-8182ae0c601b

Iowa:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Pol...1a-67cdc334c76a

Nevada:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ential_election

Oregon:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Pol...c7-95d7dc9d1648

The daily tracking poll at Rasmussen has Obama continually polling better versus McCain:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...l_tracking_poll

And Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

So outside of unsupported assertions on your behalf, what else can you come up with?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco Typical Obama rationality, to think an endorsement means anything. Kennedy and his niece rallied around Obama, and he lost in Massachusetts. Where is Oprah now? Where are the Kennedy's now? All he has is Bill Richardson by his side going everywhere and on every show, like a bulldog. This is a campaign, not a popularity match over endorsers; she's got her fair share too, for the record.

Right before I walk out the door for the night - THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE OUT CAMPAIGNING BECAUSE THE MATH SAYS THAT THE ELECTION ESSENTIALLY OVER.

Hillary's just hanging around like Huckabee was, trying to garner support for 2012 when they think they might have a chance to run again.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

This is worth asking:

quote:

If Barack is such a bad candidate, and he is so unelectable, and it is such a bad idea to have him as the Democratic nominee, why can’t Hillary beat him? Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don’t insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months. Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday? Why to those questions and a hundred more like them. If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why? http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2.../040/170/502238

And then please tell me how Clinton plans on winning the nomination and seemingly reversing an obvious trend in all these measures.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So outside of unsupported assertions on your behalf, what else can you come up with?

I can come up with that there's no need for cursing or hostility or smartassedness in your reply, Batman. No need to imply that I'm smoking something because I have the view I do, and not yours. It's a waste of my Friday night to further argue with someone that sees absolutely nothing beyond polls and views that are copied and pasted on HIS favorite sites that are rooting for HIS candidate... Every week there are different numbers. Oh jeez, Batman, look!!!! This week, Hillary can beat McCain with a larger margin than Obama can (which is the truth for this week's poll numbers LOL)... C'mon, you seem smarter than that to give importance to the day's poll numbers.

And for the record, you prove my point, everytime you guys link a Daily Kos article, you're linking yet another guy out there with a view like yours, who isn't necessarily more intelligent or qualified than you; it has no bearing to my views and is just another opinion from an opinionated opinion-writer. Let me link you to pro-Hillary blogs and see how you guys react. We all give credibility and enjoy reading articles that agree with us, so a Daily Kos link is no different than you linking someone's opinion on here you agreed with.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Right before I walk out the door for the night - THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE OUT CAMPAIGNING BECAUSE THE MATH SAYS THAT THE ELECTION ESSENTIALLY OVER.

Then why is he struggling to raise money in these days, while Hillary gets $10 million overnight? Why did he outspend her 4-1 in Pennsylvania? He's in a rut, dude, and people are voting for her and continuing to support her for the simple reality that, it's not over. Obama's 2% lead over Hillary in popular votes is testament that there's many people that agree.

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco Then why is he struggling to raise money in these days, while Hillary gets $10 million overnight? Why did he outspend her 4-1 in Pennsylvania? He's in a rut, dude, and people are voting for her and continuing to support her for the simple reality that, it's not over.

seriously stop...... she is ruining the party, riding that same song and dance that we will have to hear when its Mac and Obama.....
she is wasting resources and does not care about "us".....

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX seriously stop...... she is ruining the party, riding that same song and dance that we will have to hear when its Mac and Obama..... she is wasting resources and does not care about "us".....

And at least 47% of the Democratic Party disagrees with you, so touche'!

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com