• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Barack Obama Going For A Knockout

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Story here.

Frankly, I don't think he needs to spend so much. She's already out. All we're waiting for are the landslide victories from Obama Tuesday and her concession speech.
 

rockyct

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2001
6,656
32
91
He's got the cash, why hold on to it? Hillary didn't take him seriously until it was too late. He's not going to make the same mistake.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
For one thing, he's got the financial advantage and he might as well use it. For another, if he can knock her out now it'll save money over the long haul - no need to carry on til April 22 or even June.

There's already some murmuring that he can't close "the deal". He needs to nip that now to keep super delegates from getting nervous about him etc.

Fern
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
4
81
It makes sense... The demo party needs one canidate and needs to start getting there stuff together for the McCain show down... Needs to regroup and start the battle plans... no more wasting time...

This can be the end... and honestly they should be worrying about McCain...
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,619
228
106
If Obama doesn't win both Texas and Ohio after spending all this cash, with all those endorsements getting on board from the unions, the newspapers, etc, then that means he hasn't sealed the deal with Democratic voters. Go ahead and be confident, I would be if I was an Obama supporter but let's wait until Tuesday when voters actually vote.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,331
789
126
Originally posted by: chowderhead
If Obama doesn't win both Texas and Ohio after spending all this cash, with all those endorsements getting on board from the unions, the newspapers, etc, then that means he hasn't sealed the deal with Democratic voters. Go ahead and be confident, I would be if I was an Obama supporter but let's wait until Tuesday when voters actually vote.
I love how Clinton supporters are like this. Delusional.

Obama was 15-20% back in OH and TX two and a half weeks ago. These are states Clinton needs to win big in, not Obama. Obama has it wrapped up. It Clinton that thinks the Democratic Party will committ suicide and nominate someone who doesnt have the most elected delegates. Her own campaign said best case scenario for them is they can get to within 30 elected delegates. That was based off projections of Texas and Ohio going strongly for her. Best case scenario is 70 back now.

After Tuesday, Obama will still lead the overall delegate race, the elected delegate race, the number of states won, and the popular vote. She needs to win TX and Ohio 60/40 in terms of delegate. If she doesnt she needs to win all the remaining states 70/30. The math just isn't there for her.

Her response has evolved over time. It started out was, I had more delegates, then it was I have more of the popular vote. Now its I have more of the "big states." Desperation set in after Super Tuesday I. The writing was on the wall back then.

My bet is Obama nets 20 delegates out of TX while Clinton eeks out a popular vote win. Then Clinton nets 20 out of Ohio. Meaning the night is a wash. I then predict Clinton vows to fight on to PA. The ensuing 7 weeks she attacks Obama, loses PA, and marginalizes herself in the democratic party ruining any future chances at any dem leadership position, let alone PotUS.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,619
228
106
Obama or Clinton will need superdelegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. Why have superdelegates if they are "compelled" to follow what the elected delegates say? And how would one determine how they should vote: by congressional district winner, by state winner, by popular vote, by Democratic popular vote, etc? If the vote count/delegate count is close enough, both Clinton and Obama can go make their case. If Clinton can win Ohio and Texas and then Pennsylvania later on, she can make the case for her getting the nomination as can Obama.

 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,331
789
126
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama or Clinton will need superdelegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. Why have superdelegates if they are "compelled" to follow what the elected delegates say? And how would one determine how they should vote: by congressional district winner, by state winner, by popular vote, by Democratic popular vote, etc? If the vote count/delegate count is close enough, both Clinton and Obama can go make their case. If Clinton can win Ohio and Texas and then Pennsylvania later on, she can make the case for her getting the nomination as can Obama.
Sure and alienate numerous voting bloc's in the Democratic party. Nominating a candidate with less elected delegates means a sound thumping in November, and a fractured democratic party for years to come.

Clinton will probably win TX's popular vote, but she'll come away with less delegates. Best she can hope for is a delegate tie in TX. Though its looking extremely likely Obama will net 15-20.

Right now polls show both states being toss ups. Going into Tuesday, Obama could very well lose both TX and Ohio in terms of popular vote, but actually have a net gain of delegates. IE: He could net 20 out of TX, and say she only nets 19 out of Ohio. Thats +1 to Obama.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama or Clinton will need superdelegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. Why have superdelegates if they are "compelled" to follow what the elected delegates say? And how would one determine how they should vote: by congressional district winner, by state winner, by popular vote, by Democratic popular vote, etc? If the vote count/delegate count is close enough, both Clinton and Obama can go make their case. If Clinton can win Ohio and Texas and then Pennsylvania later on, she can make the case for her getting the nomination as can Obama.
I don't believe it will come down to Super Delegates.

But if it does, let's look at the current trend...Obama has picked up 36, she has lost 6, since Super Tuesday. She now holds a slim 46 delegate advantage amongst declared Super Delegates.

My honest prediction is that Tuesday will be the end of the Clinton bid for President.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,331
789
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama or Clinton will need superdelegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. Why have superdelegates if they are "compelled" to follow what the elected delegates say? And how would one determine how they should vote: by congressional district winner, by state winner, by popular vote, by Democratic popular vote, etc? If the vote count/delegate count is close enough, both Clinton and Obama can go make their case. If Clinton can win Ohio and Texas and then Pennsylvania later on, she can make the case for her getting the nomination as can Obama.
I don't believe it will come down to Super Delegates.

But if it does, let's look at the current trend...Obama has picked up 36, she has lost 6, since Super Tuesday. She now holds a slim 46 delegate advantage amongst declared Super Delegates.

My honest prediction is that Tuesday will be the end of the Clinton bid for President.
She has a bigger ego than her husband. Im sure bill would like for her to throw in the towel Tuesday, but I dont know if anyone can talk her into doing it.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,619
228
106
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama or Clinton will need superdelegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. Why have superdelegates if they are "compelled" to follow what the elected delegates say? And how would one determine how they should vote: by congressional district winner, by state winner, by popular vote, by Democratic popular vote, etc? If the vote count/delegate count is close enough, both Clinton and Obama can go make their case. If Clinton can win Ohio and Texas and then Pennsylvania later on, she can make the case for her getting the nomination as can Obama.
I don't believe it will come down to Super Delegates.

But if it does, let's look at the current trend...Obama has picked up 36, she has lost 6, since Super Tuesday. She now holds a slim 46 delegate advantage amongst declared Super Delegates.

My honest prediction is that Tuesday will be the end of the Clinton bid for President.
that's fine. If superdelegates break to Obama, he will win the nomination. I am just saying they are part of the process and their vote counts the same as an elected delegate.



 

ranmaniac

Golden Member
May 14, 2001
1,939
0
76
I got a call from the Obama campaign today, although I already cast my ballot in early voting from the previous week.

 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,619
228
106
Texas and early voting

Already, an estimated 600,000 Texans have cast ballots in 254 counties in the early voting period, which ended Friday; Clinton campaign organizer Matt Clemons says an estimated 30 percent of them were Latino, nearly 60 percent were women, and two-thirds were age 50 or older, all good signs for Clinton.

I don't know if Clinton can win Texas especially with a hybrid primary-caucus system and cross-over voting but that looks like a decent sign for Clinton.

 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,331
789
126
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Texas and early voting

Already, an estimated 600,000 Texans have cast ballots in 254 counties in the early voting period, which ended Friday; Clinton campaign organizer Matt Clemons says an estimated 30 percent of them were Latino, nearly 60 percent were women, and two-thirds were age 50 or older, all good signs for Clinton.

I don't know if Clinton can win Texas especially with a hybrid primary-caucus system and cross-over voting but that looks like a decent sign for Clinton.
Uh? Those numbers are WAY OFF.

As of close of early voting, the total number of early voters in the democratic primary in the largest 14 counties was close to 700,000. Misinformation by the Clinton camp.

Furthermore, geographically targeted polling shows:

DFW, Obama 58 to Clinton 35
Houston, Obama 51 to Clinton 41
Valley/Rio Grande Clinton 58 Obama 29
San Antonio Obama 55 Clinton 34 <------- This is an indicator of an Obama win on Tues.
Austin Obama 67 Clinton 36
Rest of State Clinton 57 Obama 34

Obama is cleaning Clinton's clock in Houston, DFW, San Antonio, and Austin. San Antonio is a real suprise because 75% of SA's population is Latino.

Every projected delegate break down of Texas I have seen has shown Obama netting delegates out of TX.
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama or Clinton will need superdelegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. Why have superdelegates if they are "compelled" to follow what the elected delegates say? And how would one determine how they should vote: by congressional district winner, by state winner, by popular vote, by Democratic popular vote, etc? If the vote count/delegate count is close enough, both Clinton and Obama can go make their case. If Clinton can win Ohio and Texas and then Pennsylvania later on, she can make the case for her getting the nomination as can Obama.
Why have regular delegates, if the superdelegates are free to decide the candidate any way they want? That's the question people with your line of argument always fail to answer. We could have just skipped all these primaries and let the superdelegates decide from the beginning with the same result. That $300+ million spent so far could have been put to far better use.

Now i'll answer your question about why should there even be superdelegates. There shouldn't be. The whole concept of superdelegates was a mistake. It was an over reaction to a bad candidate who got destroyed. At the very least superdelegates should only reverse the will of the people for the reason which they were originally created. That is, if voters pick someone who is clearly unelectable in the general election. We don't have a case like that here, as clearly both Clinton and Obama have a legitimate shot to win.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,619
228
106
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama or Clinton will need superdelegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. Why have superdelegates if they are "compelled" to follow what the elected delegates say? And how would one determine how they should vote: by congressional district winner, by state winner, by popular vote, by Democratic popular vote, etc? If the vote count/delegate count is close enough, both Clinton and Obama can go make their case. If Clinton can win Ohio and Texas and then Pennsylvania later on, she can make the case for her getting the nomination as can Obama.
Why have regular delegates, if the superdelegates are free to decide the candidate any way they want? That's the question people with your line of argument always fail to answer. We could have just skipped all these primaries and let the superdelegates decide from the beginning with the same result. That $300+ million spent so far could have been put to far better use.

Now i'll answer your question about why should there even be superdelegates. There shouldn't be. The whole concept of superdelegates was a mistake. It was an over reaction to a bad candidate who got destroyed. At the very least superdelegates should only reverse the will of the people for the reason which they were originally created. That is, if voters pick someone who is clearly unelectable in the general election. We don't have a case like that here, as clearly both Clinton and Obama have a legitimate shot to win.
the superdelegates don't decide the nomination by themselves in a room somewhere. The superdelegates and the elected delegates together select the nominee. The superdelegates are elected officials and party activists and make up a small fraction of the total vote relative to the number of elected delegates. It's just that the contest is close enough that the superdelegates might make the difference. It's not a matter of overturning some decision because if neither can get to the majority number, there is no decision.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,619
228
106
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Texas and early voting

Already, an estimated 600,000 Texans have cast ballots in 254 counties in the early voting period, which ended Friday; Clinton campaign organizer Matt Clemons says an estimated 30 percent of them were Latino, nearly 60 percent were women, and two-thirds were age 50 or older, all good signs for Clinton.

I don't know if Clinton can win Texas especially with a hybrid primary-caucus system and cross-over voting but that looks like a decent sign for Clinton.
Uh? Those numbers are WAY OFF.

As of close of early voting, the total number of early voters in the democratic primary in the largest 14 counties was close to 700,000. Misinformation by the Clinton camp.

Furthermore, geographically targeted polling shows:

DFW, Obama 58 to Clinton 35
Houston, Obama 51 to Clinton 41
Valley/Rio Grande Clinton 58 Obama 29
San Antonio Obama 55 Clinton 34 <------- This is an indicator of an Obama win on Tues.
Austin Obama 67 Clinton 36
Rest of State Clinton 57 Obama 34

Obama is cleaning Clinton's clock in Houston, DFW, San Antonio, and Austin. San Antonio is a real suprise because 75% of SA's population is Latino.
I don't understand those numbers. If you say those are exit polls of early voters, that means 7-13% of the people are refusing to say who they voted for or voted for others/Edwards? Exit polling can also be wrong.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,331
789
126
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Texas and early voting

Already, an estimated 600,000 Texans have cast ballots in 254 counties in the early voting period, which ended Friday; Clinton campaign organizer Matt Clemons says an estimated 30 percent of them were Latino, nearly 60 percent were women, and two-thirds were age 50 or older, all good signs for Clinton.

I don't know if Clinton can win Texas especially with a hybrid primary-caucus system and cross-over voting but that looks like a decent sign for Clinton.
Uh? Those numbers are WAY OFF.

As of close of early voting, the total number of early voters in the democratic primary in the largest 14 counties was close to 700,000. Misinformation by the Clinton camp.

Furthermore, geographically targeted polling shows:

DFW, Obama 58 to Clinton 35
Houston, Obama 51 to Clinton 41
Valley/Rio Grande Clinton 58 Obama 29
San Antonio Obama 55 Clinton 34 <------- This is an indicator of an Obama win on Tues.
Austin Obama 67 Clinton 36
Rest of State Clinton 57 Obama 34

Obama is cleaning Clinton's clock in Houston, DFW, San Antonio, and Austin. San Antonio is a real suprise because 75% of SA's population is Latino.
I don't understand those numbers. If you say those are exit polls of early voters, that means 7-13% of the people are refusing to say who they voted for or voted for others/Edwards? Exit polling can also be wrong.
No they arent exit polling. They are telephone polls targeted to specific areas.
No comment on your numbers being wrong?

Close to 700,000 dems have voted in the 14 largest counties. Most of which are extremely favorable to Obama. Id like to know where the Clinton staffer pulled 30% were latino and 60% were women. It was probably from his ass.


 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama or Clinton will need superdelegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. Why have superdelegates if they are "compelled" to follow what the elected delegates say? And how would one determine how they should vote: by congressional district winner, by state winner, by popular vote, by Democratic popular vote, etc? If the vote count/delegate count is close enough, both Clinton and Obama can go make their case. If Clinton can win Ohio and Texas and then Pennsylvania later on, she can make the case for her getting the nomination as can Obama.
Why have regular delegates, if the superdelegates are free to decide the candidate any way they want? That's the question people with your line of argument always fail to answer. We could have just skipped all these primaries and let the superdelegates decide from the beginning with the same result. That $300+ million spent so far could have been put to far better use.

Now i'll answer your question about why should there even be superdelegates. There shouldn't be. The whole concept of superdelegates was a mistake. It was an over reaction to a bad candidate who got destroyed. At the very least superdelegates should only reverse the will of the people for the reason which they were originally created. That is, if voters pick someone who is clearly unelectable in the general election. We don't have a case like that here, as clearly both Clinton and Obama have a legitimate shot to win.
the superdelegates don't decide the nomination by themselves in a room somewhere. The superdelegates and the elected delegates together select the nominee. The superdelegates are elected officials and party activists and make up a small fraction of the total vote relative to the number of elected delegates. It's just that the contest is close enough that the superdelegates might make the difference. It's not a matter of overturning some decision because if neither can get to the majority number, there is no decision.
There are about 3200 pledged delegates and 800 superdelegates. That is not even close to a "small fraction." In a proportional voting system like the Democrats have, the only way to get the 2024 delegates needed to win without superdelegates is for one candidate to completely dominate voting or all the other candidates to drop out prior to the convention. Any time the vote is close, the superdelegates are the deciders. In a close vote, it doesn't matter who the voters preferred, the supers could absolutely swing it either way.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,619
228
106
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama or Clinton will need superdelegates to win the nomination. The superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. Why have superdelegates if they are "compelled" to follow what the elected delegates say? And how would one determine how they should vote: by congressional district winner, by state winner, by popular vote, by Democratic popular vote, etc? If the vote count/delegate count is close enough, both Clinton and Obama can go make their case. If Clinton can win Ohio and Texas and then Pennsylvania later on, she can make the case for her getting the nomination as can Obama.
Why have regular delegates, if the superdelegates are free to decide the candidate any way they want? That's the question people with your line of argument always fail to answer. We could have just skipped all these primaries and let the superdelegates decide from the beginning with the same result. That $300+ million spent so far could have been put to far better use.

Now i'll answer your question about why should there even be superdelegates. There shouldn't be. The whole concept of superdelegates was a mistake. It was an over reaction to a bad candidate who got destroyed. At the very least superdelegates should only reverse the will of the people for the reason which they were originally created. That is, if voters pick someone who is clearly unelectable in the general election. We don't have a case like that here, as clearly both Clinton and Obama have a legitimate shot to win.
the superdelegates don't decide the nomination by themselves in a room somewhere. The superdelegates and the elected delegates together select the nominee. The superdelegates are elected officials and party activists and make up a small fraction of the total vote relative to the number of elected delegates. It's just that the contest is close enough that the superdelegates might make the difference. It's not a matter of overturning some decision because if neither can get to the majority number, there is no decision.
There are about 3200 pledged delegates and 800 superdelegates. That is not even close to a "small fraction." In a proportional voting system like the Democrats have, the only way to get the 2024 delegates needed to win without superdelegates is for one candidate to completely dominate voting or all the other candidates to drop out prior to the convention. Any time the vote is close, the superdelegates are the deciders. In a close vote, it doesn't matter who the voters preferred, the supers could absolutely swing it either way.
From your count, 80% is elected/pledged delegates, 20% is superdelegates. Seems ok to me since more House Rep./Senators/Governors = more super delegates. You make it sound like superdelegates are somehow all getting together in a room somewhere deciding this nomination. They are independent people with different interests and agendas who will vote for whoever they want. They along with the pledge delegates decide the nomination.

 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,023
5,106
126
Obama is just another empty suit sold to the populace by the media because it makes for a better story. Bush was it in 2000, now it's Obama's turn, because it's just so exciting.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,331
789
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama is just another empty suit sold to the populace by the media because it makes for a better story. Bush was it in 2000, now it's Obama's turn, because it's just so exciting.
So you are saying Obama = the next GWB. I've heard some whoppers in my life, but wow. That is by far the dumbest thing ever to come out of your mouth.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,023
5,106
126
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama is just another empty suit sold to the populace by the media because it makes for a better story. Bush was it in 2000, now it's Obama's turn, because it's just so exciting.
So you are saying Obama = the next GWB. I've heard some whoppers in my life, but wow. That is by far the dumbest thing ever to come out of your mouth.
He is the Democrat version of GWB. That's why I will not be voting for him. I don't want Democratic party permanently damaged by an incompetent empty suit the way GOP is being damaged by GWB now. I'd rather have McCain as placeholder for 4 years.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,331
789
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama is just another empty suit sold to the populace by the media because it makes for a better story. Bush was it in 2000, now it's Obama's turn, because it's just so exciting.
So you are saying Obama = the next GWB. I've heard some whoppers in my life, but wow. That is by far the dumbest thing ever to come out of your mouth.
He is the Democrat version of GWB. That's why I will not be voting for him. I don't want Democratic party permanently damaged by an incompetent empty suit the way GOP is being damaged by GWB now. I'd rather have McCain as placeholder for 4 years.
Another empty suit? How so?

You are aware GWB did ALOT as Governor of Texas. He has been totally different as PotUS.

As for Obama. How is he an empty suit? He has far more experiance at the elected level and at the community level. He has run a far more comptent campaign. Clinton and Obama are 99% the same on the issues. Obama uplifts people, Clinton demeans them. Clinton uses divisive divide and conquer tactics. She uses these tactics in the primary, she sure as hell would use them as President, which means she'd get jacksh!t done.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,023
5,106
126
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama is just another empty suit sold to the populace by the media because it makes for a better story. Bush was it in 2000, now it's Obama's turn, because it's just so exciting.
So you are saying Obama = the next GWB. I've heard some whoppers in my life, but wow. That is by far the dumbest thing ever to come out of your mouth.
He is the Democrat version of GWB. That's why I will not be voting for him. I don't want Democratic party permanently damaged by an incompetent empty suit the way GOP is being damaged by GWB now. I'd rather have McCain as placeholder for 4 years.
Another empty suit? How so?

You are aware GWB did ALOT as Governor of Texas. He has been totally different as PotUS.

As for Obama. How is he an empty suit? He has far more experiance at the elected level and at the community level. He has run a far more comptent campaign. Clinton and Obama are 99% the same on the issues. Obama uplifts people, Clinton demeans them. Clinton uses divisive divide and conquer tactics. She uses these tactics in the primary, she sure as hell would use them as President, which means she'd get jacksh!t done.
Clinton is not a manufactured media phenomenon that Obama is. You can like her or dislike her, that's fine, but you know who she is. Obama is just a shell that people project whatever it is they want to believe about him on.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY