Obama Doubles Clinton's March Fundraising

[Moonbeam]

To win the Democratic primaries you need to win the delegates and reach a certain number. Obama is closer to that number. Right now, Obama is the better candidate. It is just that simple. All the crap about coulda woulda shoulda don't mean shit. Obama has proved to this point to be more Presidential. The game is what it is, and he's playing the game and winning. Hillary arrogantly ignored the caucus states because she felt entitled to win and didn't organize. Not a good idea for somebody we want to trust with the nation. At three in the morning the call came in, Hillary you're going to lose the delegates. Oh no, she said, then we must change the rules.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Hafen
Hillariacs:

"We lost Iowa, we lost South Carolina, we lost Missorrah, we lost Virginia, we lost Wisconsin, we lost Texas, we're going to lose Indiana and North Carolina, and we're going to lose all the way to the White Hooooouuuuuse!!.....Byaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!"

as opposed to Obama's we won

IDAHO caucus, North Dakota caucus, Nebraska! caucus, Kansas caucus , Wyoming caucus, Utah! caucus, Alaska caucus, etc.

Obama and his millions of dollars also lost in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, etc and TIED in Missouri and will lose in PA, PR, KY, WV, and I believe in IN.

Factor in the Clinton brand/name recognition and it's easy to see why she won. Isn't that obvious to you?

see, when Clinton wins, it's all about low-information voters who only knuckle drag themselves to the voting booths and pick the first name they recognize. Obama's wins are because people know what he stands for and not for the empty platitudes of hope and change. :roll:

You're not too far off the mark. people think Clinton and they remember the 1990s. They hear Obama, and they're like WTF?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Hafen
Hillariacs:

"We lost Iowa, we lost South Carolina, we lost Missorrah, we lost Virginia, we lost Wisconsin, we lost Texas, we're going to lose Indiana and North Carolina, and we're going to lose all the way to the White Hooooouuuuuse!!.....Byaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!"

as opposed to Obama's we won

IDAHO caucus, North Dakota caucus, Nebraska! caucus, Kansas caucus , Wyoming caucus, Utah! caucus, Alaska caucus, etc.

Obama and his millions of dollars also lost in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, etc and TIED in Missouri and will lose in PA, PR, KY, WV, and I believe in IN.

Factor in the Clinton brand/name recognition and it's easy to see why she won. Isn't that obvious to you?

see, when Clinton wins, it's all about low-information voters who only knuckle drag themselves to the voting booths and pick the first name they recognize. Obama's wins are because people know what he stands for and not for the empty platitudes of hope and change. :roll:

You're changing the subject.

Michigan and Florida are two good examples. Without any campaigning there or money spent from either side, Hillary Clinton was able to win by 17% in FL and at least 15% in Michigan.

Obama's campaign has to spend more money because she's got at least a 15% head start (due to whatever reason).

 

[Mail5398]

Obama +717,086 in popoluar vote.

Suck it Clinton.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Hafen
Hillariacs:

"We lost Iowa, we lost South Carolina, we lost Missorrah, we lost Virginia, we lost Wisconsin, we lost Texas, we're going to lose Indiana and North Carolina, and we're going to lose all the way to the White Hooooouuuuuse!!.....Byaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!"

as opposed to Obama's we won

IDAHO caucus, North Dakota caucus, Nebraska! caucus, Kansas caucus , Wyoming caucus, Utah! caucus, Alaska caucus, etc.

Obama and his millions of dollars also lost in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, etc and TIED in Missouri and will lose in PA, PR, KY, WV, and I believe in IN.

clearly obama will lose such swing states as california, new york, and massechusetts, and hillary would be able to deliver texas and arkansas

hillary has won only a single swing state so far, obama has about 8. Those 8 states have roughly equal population to michigan, florida and ohio.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Hafen
Hillariacs:

"We lost Iowa, we lost South Carolina, we lost Missorrah, we lost Virginia, we lost Wisconsin, we lost Texas, we're going to lose Indiana and North Carolina, and we're going to lose all the way to the White Hooooouuuuuse!!.....Byaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!"

as opposed to Obama's we won

IDAHO caucus, North Dakota caucus, Nebraska! caucus, Kansas caucus , Wyoming caucus, Utah! caucus, Alaska caucus, etc.

Obama and his millions of dollars also lost in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, etc and TIED in Missouri and will lose in PA, PR, KY, WV, and I believe in IN.

clearly obama will lose such swing states as california, new york, and massechusetts, and hillary would be able to deliver texas and arkansas

hillary has won only a single swing state so far, obama has about 8. Those 8 states have roughly equal population to michigan, florida and ohio.

03/20/08
SUSA
McCain 47% Obama 47% in Massachusetts

Clinton can definitely carry Arkansas. Look at this recent polling and other older polls have shown similar results.
Clinton 51% to McCain 36%

Clinton has won Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, tied in Missouri (where she did a lot better in the rural and suburban areas key to winning the state)

I am not sure where you get 8 but I am assuming you are counting
IA, MN, WI, CO, VA (where Kerry lost by 8%) and NV (where the delegates have not been selected and Clinton got more votes).

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
This thread quickly devolved into a debate about the validity of caucuses, but few are discussing the fact that Obama DOUBLED Hillary's fundraising in March.

I thought the momentum of Hillary's huge wins on March 4th would have paved the way for a record fundraising month. Instead, it seems her donors see the writing on the walls, even if she can't.

Yep, he doubled her fundraising, will outspend her at least 2:1, he's a media darling, has more individual donors than anyone in history, has raised more than anyone else, he has more delegates and popular votes, is all but certain mathematically to be the nominee, and yet, he will still likely lose several more states including PA.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

03/20/08
SUSA
McCain 47% Obama 47% in Massachusetts

I'm fairly sure McCain's not counting on MA to carry him over the top

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: chowderhead

03/20/08
SUSA
McCain 47% Obama 47% in Massachusetts

I'm fairly sure McCain's not counting on MA to carry him over the top

are you sure, or are you HIV positive? (south park reference) http://blog.fidelis.org/?p=37