DRUDGE: Hillary May Now Be Using Own Funds To Finance Campaign

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I wonder what Obama will do if he loses the race?

go back to being a senator, and probably run again in '12 or '16 (I doubt he'd run against a sitting democratic president in the '12 primary unless there was significant dislike of the POTUS).

if Clinton loses, she'll probably join Kennedy in the senate lifer club.

why is it so unclear re: who is actually in front at the moment? different sources seem to say different things about who has the most delegates.

Some states are winner take all so it's easy to award delegates.

Other states (Like California) award delegates for winning in specific districts. In a lot of those districts the vote was very close. They are verifying the counts so they can award the delegates.

All Dem caucuses and primaries are proportional by congressional district. Some have it proportional by statewide vote for some of their delegates and proportional by congressional district for the rest.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I wonder what Obama will do if he loses the race?

go back to being a senator, and probably run again in '12 or '16 (I doubt he'd run against a sitting democratic president in the '12 primary unless there was significant dislike of the POTUS).

if Clinton loses, she'll probably join Kennedy in the senate lifer club.

why is it so unclear re: who is actually in front at the moment? different sources seem to say different things about who has the most delegates.

In terms of elected delegates, Obama is in front by 20-30.
In terms of total delegates(elected + super), Clinton is in front by 70-80.

Also, you know theres depseration amongst the Clinton Camp when they came out today and said they were not the establishment candidate, Obama was. Their spin is reaching asinine levels.

 

[PokerGuy]

Things have a way of changing in a hurry in these primary races... all it takes is for one candidate to say something dumb, or for something to come out in the press about a candidate etc.

That said, it looks to me like HRC's campaign has lost the enthusiasm and steam. Obama is surging and is getting more and more endorsements. He's also getting better and better at painting HRC as "more of the same" while painting himself as a change agent. That impression seems to stick better now with voters than "the experience factor".

I'd say it's a 55-45 in favor of OB right now, but that could change in a hurry.

 

[Pabster]

Someone in this thread earlier made a good point.

The Clintons never expected Super Tuesday to be competitive, or even real meaningful. She was to be coronated Queen.

It was a gross miscalculation which may be fatal.

 

[Pabster]

Clinton Will Go For Broke

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Once again, the loudest advocate for the "candidate of change" trumpets another candidate's apparent lack of money as a sign of weakness, something Obama would very likely not want to see be a limiting factor or the determinative sign of viability of a person's campaign. For all your Obama rah-rah, I get the feeling he would disagree with just about everything you post.

It is a sign of weakness. If Obama were in the same boat, the Clinton trolls would be all over it.

Thank you for admitting the Obama people are no better than the Clinton people.

It's almost amusing how both campaigns are spinning themselves as simultaneously the frontrunner and the underdog. Obama has more money, more momentum, more states and pledged delegates. Clinton has more name recognition and more delegates if you include the supers.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Wow...

Karl Rove on Fox just said that he thinks Hillary will be the eventual nominee. He laid out his case state by state (abbreviated) and noted that most of Obama's success has come through the caucuses where Hillary has done well in the primary states.

Of course he then said that McCain would do better to run against Hillary than Obama so maybe he's just fluffing her up... Who knows. But it was interesting to hear someone not leave Hill for dead after tuesday.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Keep on trolling!

Don't like the news, troll? Tough shit.

Once again, the loudest advocate for the "candidate of change" trumpets another candidate's apparent lack of money as a sign of weakness, something Obama would very likely not want to see be a limiting factor or the determinative sign of viability of a person's campaign. For all your Obama rah-rah, I get the feeling he would disagree with just about everything you post.

The American people think otherwise. If the money stops rolling, the polls will falter.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Well, here we go...

http://www.breitbart.com/artic...ULNS701&show_article=1

Obama raised a ton of cash ($7.2 Million) after Tuesday but Hill was right behind him at $6.4 Million. Her donors haven't abandoned her yet. The machine (re: Chinese Dishwasher) is strong.

Clinton's national finance co-chairman Alan Patricof said Tuesday that fundraisers were targeting many thousands of potential high donors nationally who had not yet given the maximum donation of $2,300 to spend in the primary season.

Like I said, you always have to be careful before you predict the demise of a candidate. (Except Ron Paul... that is always safe) Hill has the cash and while the short term match ups favor Obama, the long term game favors her at the moment.

Of course, she was supposed to deliver the knock-out blow on tuesday... so who knows.

 

[Pabster]

Story here.

I think a campaign audit is in order.

$500,000 for "parking" expenses? Uh-huh.