• 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."

Why is the media saying Clinton had a "comeback"?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,387
140
116
Agreed; I'm looking at the delegate total (see sig) and it looks unchanged from yesterday with regards to Obama's lead.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,252
684
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Agreed; I'm looking at the delegate total (see sig) and it looks unchanged from yesterday with regards to Obama's lead.
She netted 10 out of Ohio. He netted 6 out of Vermont. She's looking to net 2-3 out of RI and less than 10 out of Texas. Shes looking to net less than 20 from yesterday.

Obama netted 25 from VA, 28 from Washington(state), etc. Its a win, but it really doesnt change anything.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Smart people who are not Obama fanboys (i.e. the commentators you speak of) realize something that you can't. While Clinton is losing by a very small margin in the delegate count and popular vote, she has shown quite clearly something which is much more important, that is her ability to win the more populace and important states, battleground states like Ohio, Michigan and Florida. Therefore intelligent, saavy political ananlysts realize that she is doing much better than delegate counts (skewed by non-representative caucas results) would indicate.
I could win michigan if i was the only person on the ballet. :roll:
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Originally posted by: Fern
^ From what I can tell, the CNN coverage is always more favorable to Hillary than the others. And this is completely discounting Fox (I don't watch them as much cuz I'm uninterested in McCain who they talk about too frequently IMO).
They don't call it Clinton News Network for nothing :laugh:

Blitzer was quite obviously overjoyed last night to announce Hillary had broken her 12-state losing streak. I think he could barely contain himself...


 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,921
3
0
This stuff about her winning big states and that somehow being important is bullshit.

I think everyone can agree that a Democrat-only primary favors Clinton, right?

Ok. So that means Clinton has an edge among Democrats while Obama wins the Republicans and Independents.

So you go to a state like Ohio and Clinton cleans up with the Democrats while Obama makes up ground with Republicans and Independents.

Against John McCain, what happens? Which voters are likely to stay loyal? Are the Republicans and Independents more likely to move to Clinton, or are the hardcore Democrats more likely to back Obama in the general? It seems Clinton wins the gimmie voters while Obama actually picks up votes that McCain would need to win.

Any state that has a closed primary is not at all indicative of the general election.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,921
3
0
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Clinton plans to try to keep the TX Caucus Delegates unseated.
Link? On what grounds? I admit it is unfair to her, but those are the rules that were in place beforehand and I don't see how she has an argument.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,991
0
0
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Smart people who are not Obama fanboys (i.e. the commentators you speak of) realize something that you can't. While Clinton is losing by a very small margin in the delegate count and popular vote, she has shown quite clearly something which is much more important, that is her ability to win the more populace and important states, battleground states like Ohio, Michigan and Florida. Therefore intelligent, saavy political ananlysts realize that she is doing much better than delegate counts (skewed by non-representative caucas results) would indicate.
She didn't win Michigan or Florida. No (D) won either of them so please stop saying and implying it.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Clinton plans to try to keep the TX Caucus Delegates unseated.
Link? On what grounds? I admit it is unfair to her, but those are the rules that were in place beforehand and I don't see how she has an argument.
In her defense, I think her poignant argument is "I lost, so please change the rules to make it so I won instead."

It's become a trend with her... :D

Originally posted by: Robor
She didn't win Michigan or Florida. No (D) won either of them so please stop saying and implying it.
Well, to be fair, she did list both of them as victories during her speech last night... :Q DOH!
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,252
684
126
Projections are coming in. Obama looks to net 4-7 Delegates out of Texas.

Clinton nets 10 in Ohio and net 4 in RI. That is 14.
Obama nets 3 in Vermont and 7 in TX. That is 10.

Clinton +4 for the night.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,252
684
126
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Clinton plans to try to keep the TX Caucus Delegates unseated.
Link? On what grounds? I admit it is unfair to her, but those are the rules that were in place beforehand and I don't see how she has an argument.
Its being reported on Fox and MSNBC.

They are making the same claims as they did in Nevada and other caucus states. Voter intemidation. They are also making the claim some "obama supporters" got Caucus Rules Packets "early." Basically Dem Party chairs werent prepared to handle the number of caucus goers so there were mobs and mobs of people, mostly for Obama. Clinton is spinning this as voter intemidation.

IMHO, shes contesting it because projections have Obama netting delegates out of TX thanks to the caucus.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Projections are coming in. Obama looks to net 4-7 Delegates out of Texas.

Clinton nets 10 in Ohio and net 4 in RI. That is 14.
Obama nets 3 in Vermont and 7 in TX. That is 10.

Clinton +4 for the night.
LOL! some "comeback"!

/thread
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,921
3
0
Sounds like a weak argument, will probably fall on deaf ears.

I heard a story once about a guy who tried to repel off of El Capitan in Yosemite. His gear failed and he ended up falling to his death, when they found him his hands had rope burn down to the bone. Sorry for the gruesome image but I'm reminded of this thinking of the Clinton campaign.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: loki8481
because she went from losing 11 states to winning 3?
Why is that surprising?

Originally posted by: Deeko
She lost a bunch of states, and then won a few, and therefore, it was a comeback.
That doesn't fit the definition of a comeback. She was never losing in the Texas and Ohio primaries in the first place and her victories there didn't put her ahead of Obama.
it's less surprising that Hillary won and moreso that Obama's 11-state momentum didn't seal the deal.
I think it has more to do with everytime the media says Hillary is out with a loss is rallys her base bitter older white women...

Clinton should have won Wisconsin, the demographics favored her much more than Obama. But Obama won her base, so she won. VA shouldnt have been the blowout it was. The problem is her base gets rallied everytime shes going to get knocked out. Obama will win Wyoming and Mississippi. She'll win PA, then Obama will go on to a string of victories, then she'll win PR. Hes going to be ~100 elected delegates.
generalizations are fun.

why do I start getting to talk about Obama voters as all being nancyboy ivory tower liberals who wouldn't know a blue collar worker if they hit them upside the head with a shovel and don't know the difference between a battlefield and the back of their mom's skirt? ;)
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Clinton plans to try to keep the TX Caucus Delegates unseated.
Link? On what grounds? I admit it is unfair to her, but those are the rules that were in place beforehand and I don't see how she has an argument.
Its being reported on Fox and MSNBC.

They are making the same claims as they did in Nevada and other caucus states. Voter intemidation. They are also making the claim some "obama supporters" got Caucus Rules Packets "early." Basically Dem Party chairs werent prepared to handle the number of caucus goers so there were mobs and mobs of people, mostly for Obama. Clinton is spinning this as voter intemidation.

IMHO, shes contesting it because projections have Obama netting delegates out of TX thanks to the caucus.
for what it's worth, I do remember hearing real people (which is to say, people off the street, not in the employ of either campaign) writing in to Fox News to talk about poll workers telling people that there was no second vote or that they didn't need to come back later that night.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,252
684
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Projections are coming in. Obama looks to net 4-7 Delegates out of Texas.

Clinton nets 10 in Ohio and net 4 in RI. That is 14.
Obama nets 3 in Vermont and 7 in TX. That is 10.

Clinton +4 for the night.
LOL! some "comeback"!

/thread
She looks to net 4-10 for the night. RI still has one to be allocated. Ohio still has 3 to be allocated. TX is still trying to determine if the primary was a 65-61 split or as 64-62 split. Some county totals are currently conflicting with the numbers the TX SoS is reporting. Either way, if she nets 4 or 2 from the Primary. Obama is still netting from the Caucus. Obama will net 5-7 from Texas.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,991
0
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
generalizations are fun.

why do I start getting to talk about Obama voters as all being nancyboy ivory tower liberals who wouldn't know a blue collar worker if they hit them upside the head with a shovel and don't know the difference between a battlefield and the back of their mom's skirt? ;)
Save that for another thread. Back on topic...

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Projections are coming in. Obama looks to net 4-7 Delegates out of Texas.

Clinton nets 10 in Ohio and net 4 in RI. That is 14.
Obama nets 3 in Vermont and 7 in TX. That is 10.

Clinton +4 for the night.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Projections are coming in. Obama looks to net 4-7 Delegates out of Texas.

Clinton nets 10 in Ohio and net 4 in RI. That is 14.
Obama nets 3 in Vermont and 7 in TX. That is 10.

Clinton +4 for the night.
Texas just shows how skewed the caucus system is in all of these states. You take the same group of potential voters, in the TX primary they vote for Clinton by 3%, while caucas results are showing Obama winning by 12%.

Sure, Obama has more zealous supporters who are willing to put up with the oddities of the caucus system. As you can see from Texas though, it is NOT representative of the gerneral populace of voters. It's a shame really that the election system in this country is so F*D up.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,252
684
126
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Projections are coming in. Obama looks to net 4-7 Delegates out of Texas.

Clinton nets 10 in Ohio and net 4 in RI. That is 14.
Obama nets 3 in Vermont and 7 in TX. That is 10.

Clinton +4 for the night.
Texas just shows how skewed the caucus system is in all of these states. You take the same group of potential voters, in the TX primary they vote for Clinton by 3%, while caucas results are showing Obama winning by 12%.

Sure, Obama has more zealous supporters who are willing to put up with the oddities of the caucus system. As you can see from Texas though, it is NOT representative of the gerneral populace of voters. It's a shame really that the election system in this country is so F*D up.
The same can be said for the Super Delegate system...
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: loki8481
for what it's worth, I do remember hearing real people (which is to say, people off the street, not in the employ of either campaign) writing in to Fox News to talk about poll workers telling people that there was no second vote or that they didn't need to come back later that night.
Is that wrong?

I heard one of the cable news networks describe the TX caucus like that. They said you could just drop by and complete a paper ballot and leave. No reason to hang around etc.

At the time, I thought "geez, the Dems are starting to use the repub-type caucus rules"

Otherwise, sounds like the Hillary side didn't organize well. From what I hear knowing the Dem (usually) complex is important. That's why organization is so important.

Fern
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,400
3,043
126
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Smart people who are not Obama fanboys (i.e. the commentators you speak of) realize something that you can't. While Clinton is losing by a very small margin in the delegate count and popular vote, she has shown quite clearly something which is much more important, that is her ability to win the more populace and important states, battleground states like Ohio, Michigan and Florida. Therefore intelligent, saavy political ananlysts realize that she is doing much better than delegate counts (skewed by non-representative caucas results) would indicate.
spreading your Hillary FUD!!! rofl
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
I caucused in Texas. Because of the lack of voting machines/sloww voters, voting went on until 9pm, so the hundreds of us had to wait out in the cold. A lot of people probably left, especially since they had their kids with them, and today the TAKS test took place. One little boy was complaining because he didn't think he'd get a good night's sleep.
All that just to write your name and candidate on a sheet of paper. I know it's going to help Obama but it really is a farce. The results for each precinct are transferred by delegate to some kind of senate meeting. If the delegates don't show up later this month, they don't count. It makes absolutely no sense. Do we not have an internet, or hell, A MAIL SYSTEM in this country?
 

dbk

Lifer
Apr 23, 2004
17,682
6
81
When did the Clinton camp adopt the slogan, "Yes, we will!"? HAHA
 

Firebot

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2005
1,478
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: M0RPH
while Clinton is losing by a very small margin in the delegate count and popular vote, she has shown quite clearly something which is much more important....
LOL!! pffft, whatever happens, don't let those pesky little voters get in your way... :Q
Agree, look at Bush!:D.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY