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

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104...r-Tuesdays-Voting.aspx

Don't look now but Hillary has retaken the Gallup National tracking poll over Obama 48-44. And these results are for the 3 days BEFORE Tuesday's primary results. Of course National polls are notoriously iffy, so it doesn't mean all that much, but everyone keeps pointing out a poll that has Obama beating McCain in the general election by 4 points while Clinton "merely" ties him.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,011
795
126
Uncanny how the candidate who takes Ohio normally becomes the next president. ;)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,733
3,557
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104...r-Tuesdays-Voting.aspx

Don't look now but Hillary has retaken the Gallup National tracking poll over Obama 48-44. And these results are for the 3 days BEFORE Tuesday's primary results. Of course National polls are notoriously iffy, so it doesn't mean all that much, but everyone keeps pointing out a poll that has Obama beating McCain in the general election by 4 points while Clinton "merely" ties him.
Obama is less qualified than Clinton. He gave a speech in 2002. Only experience matters and Clinton, like Obama has none. Vote for McCain like Hillery would. I am.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,011
795
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: sirjonk
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104...r-Tuesdays-Voting.aspx

Don't look now but Hillary has retaken the Gallup National tracking poll over Obama 48-44. And these results are for the 3 days BEFORE Tuesday's primary results. Of course National polls are notoriously iffy, so it doesn't mean all that much, but everyone keeps pointing out a poll that has Obama beating McCain in the general election by 4 points while Clinton "merely" ties him.
Obama is less qualified than Clinton. He gave a speech in 2002. Only experience matters and Clinton, like Obama has none. Vote for McCain like Hillery would. I am.
I can see the problem with that and express it in one word - Republican

 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: sirjonk
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104...r-Tuesdays-Voting.aspx

Don't look now but Hillary has retaken the Gallup National tracking poll over Obama 48-44. And these results are for the 3 days BEFORE Tuesday's primary results. Of course National polls are notoriously iffy, so it doesn't mean all that much, but everyone keeps pointing out a poll that has Obama beating McCain in the general election by 4 points while Clinton "merely" ties him.
Obama is less qualified than Clinton. He gave a speech in 2002. Only experience matters and Clinton, like Obama has none. Vote for McCain like Hillery would. I am.
does it really burn you up that much that she said that?

you've referenced it in like a dozen posts now.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,943
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.
So your argument is that democrats should overturn the process they've made for choosing a candidate because the one trailing has more experience? If that's the case, why do we even bother voting in the first place?

You can jazz it up however you want, but the reality is that Obama has the delegate lead and, if he goes into the DNC with the lead (likely) and is not the nominee at the end, that will be one of most undemocratic injustices I can possibly imagine.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
23,003
770
126
"Why is the media saying Clinton had a "comeback"? "

Because the media is f***cking retarded. I can't believe Clinton's little "SNL" spiel worked. It wasn't so much for the voters, but to chastise the media for going 'soft' on Obama.

:roll:

 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: Phokus
"Why is the media saying Clinton had a "comeback"? "

Because the media is f***cking retarded. I can't believe Clinton's little "SNL" spiel worked. It wasn't so much for the voters, but to chastise the media for going 'soft' on Obama.

:roll:
yeah, why the hell would you want the media to actually take a serious look into the background of a candidate before nominating him to run president?
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,195
0
0
When Obama was winning all those states in February, the word from the Clinton camp was "No problem, we'll catch up by winning in Texas and Ohio."

Well, she did win Texas and Ohio. But she didn't win them big enough to catch up.

When it's the 4th quarter, and you're down by 10 points, making a couple of first downs isn't catching up. Clinton certainly did better than she WAS doing, but she netted 4 delegates on the night she needed to really close some of the gap.

I don't have a problem with the Clinton camp being happy they won, but it simply didn't change the situation. In fact, it's now worse, because the biggest and best chance for Clinton to close the gap has now passed.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,564
1
0
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Uncanny how the candidate who takes Ohio normally becomes the next president. ;)
I thought Missouri has the best history for selecting the next President, not Ohio?
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,564
1
0
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.
Very ironic.
I don't see you crying foul at the idea of Super Delegates.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: Lothar
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.
Very ironic.
I don't see you crying foul at the idea of Super Delegates.
it's almost as funny as the fact that you don't hear many calls for the SD's to stfu and vote how their states voted anymore ;)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,733
3,557
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: sirjonk
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104...r-Tuesdays-Voting.aspx

Don't look now but Hillary has retaken the Gallup National tracking poll over Obama 48-44. And these results are for the 3 days BEFORE Tuesday's primary results. Of course National polls are notoriously iffy, so it doesn't mean all that much, but everyone keeps pointing out a poll that has Obama beating McCain in the general election by 4 points while Clinton "merely" ties him.
Obama is less qualified than Clinton. He gave a speech in 2002. Only experience matters and Clinton, like Obama has none. Vote for McCain like Hillery would. I am.
does it really burn you up that much that she said that?

you've referenced it in like a dozen posts now.
Yup, it does. She showed her real colors. Now to stay competitive Obama will also have to be a shit head.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Originally posted by: Lothar


Very ironic.
I don't see you crying foul at the idea of Super Delegates.
If the rest of the election was fair and actually representative of the actual general voting population, I would have no problem with throwing out the superdelegates. If that was the case, though, HC would be winning this thing right now.

 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
12,845
325
126
Originally posted by: M0RPH
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.
Yeah I'm getting kinda worried about the general election, with Obama wining majority of caucuses but only a couple Dem-only primaries. He's been picking delegates mostly by caucuses and open primaries, where independents and Reps (who are not likely show up coming November) Have people here actually participated a caucus? Do you know what it used to be, and what it's like this year?

http://www.democraticundergrou...ll&address=132x4896997

I think he has a misunderstanding in his last sentence, but you still get the idea.
 

wetech

Senior member
Jul 16, 2002
871
6
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What would you say if you were running ads to make money and needed eyes to see them?
"Up next on CNN... Live nude teens."

 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,542
260
126
I seem to recall people saying that Hillary's side expected to lose just about everything until this weeks elections, yet the Obamabots claimed it as some monumental momentum shift when he won those in between.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
So your argument is that democrats should overturn the process they've made for choosing a candidate because the one trailing has more experience? If that's the case, why do we even bother voting in the first place?
If enough voters agree on who should be the nominee, then the candidate will earn more than 2025 pledged delegates during the primary season, rendering the superdelegate vote irrelevant.

I didn't make the rules, but I'd bet even money we are going to see some serious tweaking of the superdelegate system before 20012 or 2016. I'd never heard of superdelegates before this year, but now that they are playing such a pivotal and visible role, it's clear most democratic voters are not thrilled with the system the party leaders have set up.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,195
0
0
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Lothar


Very ironic.
I don't see you crying foul at the idea of Super Delegates.
If the rest of the election was fair and actually representative of the actual general voting population, I would have no problem with throwing out the superdelegates. If that was the case, though, HC would be winning this thing right now.
And yet she's not winning the popular vote. So unless "fair and actually representative" means "favoring Hillary despite what the people choose", your belief doesn't hold up.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

And yet she's not winning the popular vote. So unless "fair and actually representative" means "favoring Hillary despite what the people choose", your belief doesn't hold up.
No, but she is much closer to catching him in the popular vote than in delegates. She actually has a fair chance to catch him in the popular vote if FL and MI voters get a voice somehow.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,195
0
0
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

And yet she's not winning the popular vote. So unless "fair and actually representative" means "favoring Hillary despite what the people choose", your belief doesn't hold up.
No, but she is much closer to catching him in the popular vote than in delegates. She actually has a fair chance to catch him in the popular vote if FL and MI voters get a voice somehow.
True about the popular vote being closer. But once again, why should the rules change for Hillary? Why should it not be about delegate count?

This issue with Florida and Michigan really bothers me, because I also want their votes counted but there is no way to do it which is fair to Obama. He played by the rules, and left his name off the ballot in Michigan. Now, the best we could hope for is a "re-do", but even then Hillary would have an advantage because she has been able to be their "advocate" all this time.

If they allow Florida and Michigan to vote again, I could live with it, because the minor injustice to Obama is outweighed by the need to represent these votes in the convention.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,542
260
126
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: Lothar


Very ironic.
I don't see you crying foul at the idea of Super Delegates.
If the rest of the election was fair and actually representative of the actual general voting population, I would have no problem with throwing out the superdelegates. If that was the case, though, HC would be winning this thing right now.
And yet she's not winning the popular vote. So unless "fair and actually representative" means "favoring Hillary despite what the people choose", your belief doesn't hold up.
1: She is winning the popular vote
2: Lets do it like the republicans and base is off the popular vote where winner takes all delegates. That would have Hillary ahead by almost 200 delegats before the supers.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: lupi

1: She is winning the popular vote
link?

Filling my own request: http://marcambinder.theatlanti...ats_have_voted_for.php

CBS News's popular vote tally has Obama leading, but NBC** and ABC have Clinton leading. As in -- more Democrats, independents and Republicans, in the estimation of at least two news networks, have voted for Clinton than have voted for Obama, to this point.

** NBC's tallies include Michigan. (but not ABC's?)
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
12,845
325
126
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

This issue with Florida and Michigan really bothers me, because I also want their votes counted but there is no way to do it which is fair to Obama. He played by the rules, and left his name off the ballot in Michigan. Now, the best we could hope for is a "re-do", but even then Hillary would have an advantage because she has been able to be their "advocate" all this time.

If they allow Florida and Michigan to vote again, I could live with it, because the minor injustice to Obama is outweighed by the need to represent these votes in the convention.
Agree 100%

One thing I want to add is, that FL/MI are such swing states that can either be blue or red by mear a few %. It's important to carry them through in some kind of measures unless Dems want to be backfired in general election.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,943
1
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
So your argument is that democrats should overturn the process they've made for choosing a candidate because the one trailing has more experience? If that's the case, why do we even bother voting in the first place?
If enough voters agree on who should be the nominee, then the candidate will earn more than 2025 pledged delegates during the primary season, rendering the superdelegate vote irrelevant.

I didn't make the rules, but I'd bet even money we are going to see some serious tweaking of the superdelegate system before 20012 or 2016. I'd never heard of superdelegates before this year, but now that they are playing such a pivotal and visible role, it's clear most democratic voters are not thrilled with the system the party leaders have set up.
I agree it's a bad system, but it is also THE system. Yes, neither candidate will have the necessary delegates to win the nomination outright. If the superdelegates, however, give the nomination to the candidate with fewer regular delegates I think that's a travesty.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY