The 2008 Democratic and Republican Primaries

[hippie_hunter]

Two recent polls from Indiana show Clinton with an 8 point and 9 point lead. The latest North Carolina poll has Obama with a 12 point lead.

[The Senator]

I wonder if that lead will shrink now that the state's popular governor has endorsed Clinton instead of Obama?

[Marx]

I wonder if that lead will shrink now that the state's popular governor has endorsed Clinton instead of Obama?

I honestly believe it will Jman. He's a popular guy, it has to have some kind of effect. That being said, I definately do not believe that it will flip the state to Clinton, but I do believe that it will shrink the margin of victory. I think we are going to have another one of those "they won, but was it by enough" deals. Last I heard Obama led Clinton by 10 percent. I could see that easily shrinking to around 4 percent. There's still a week to go and between the endorsement and Wright running his mouth again, I strongly believe his lead will shrink.

[hippie_hunter]

SurveyUSA has Obama with a 5 point lead in North Carolina

[Marx]

SurveyUSA has Obama with a 5 point lead in North Carolina

This is just getting more and more interesting all the time Hippie!

[Marx]

Does anyone think that John and Elizabeth Edwards will finally come out to support a candidate before next Tuesday? The race is now in their backyards...what do you think?

[The Senator]

Does anyone think that John and Elizabeth Edwards will finally come out to support a candidate before next Tuesday? The race is now in their backyards...what do you think?

I am under the impression that neither will endorse a candidate before Tuesday. Edwards apparently wants a cabinet position in the next presidential administration, and I do not believe he is willing to sacrifice that by throwing his weight behind someone who might not be the nominee in four months.

[hippie_hunter]

Latest poll from Insider Advantage on North Carolina:

A survey of 571 registered likely voters in North Carolina’s May 6 Democratic primary shows Sen. Hillary Clinton having moved from a double digit deficit in an InsiderAdvantage poll taken in mid-April to a two point lead over Sen. Barack Obama in this telephone survey, conducted April 29. The survey was weighted for age, race, gender, and political affiliation. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8%

The results were:


Hillary Clinton: 44%
Barack Obama: 42%
Undecided: 14%

Prior to his appearance on FoxNews Network’s “Hannity & Colmes,” on which the poll was released, InsiderAdvantage’s Matt Towery noted: “The shift has come almost entirely from white voters age 45 and over. There was a small drift of African-Americans back towards Clinton, but not so significant as to establish any trend.

“I believe when all is said and done, Obama will likely carry North Carolina; or if he loses the race, it will be by just a few points.

“Our polling generally does not indicate the eventual compression of black voters that Obama usually enjoys just before Election Day. If that happens, my guess is that he will pull this out. However, this poll is clearly an indication of reaction to the latest statements by his former pastor; and it forces Sen. Obama to split resources between Indiana and North Carolina.

“If this white vote shift does not erode, given that North Carolina’s white Democratic voters are primarily in the Research Triangle, where education and personal finances are in the top tier for the nation, then I would say this suggests a major shift in all future primaries towards Clinton,” said Towery.

[The Senator]

Latest poll from Insider Advantage on North Carolina:

A survey of 571 registered likely voters in North Carolina’s May 6 Democratic primary shows Sen. Hillary Clinton having moved from a double digit deficit in an InsiderAdvantage poll taken in mid-April to a two point lead over Sen. Barack Obama in this telephone survey, conducted April 29. The survey was weighted for age, race, gender, and political affiliation. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8%

The results were:


Hillary Clinton: 44%
Barack Obama: 42%
Undecided: 14%

Prior to his appearance on FoxNews Network’s “Hannity & Colmes,” on which the poll was released, InsiderAdvantage’s Matt Towery noted: “The shift has come almost entirely from white voters age 45 and over. There was a small drift of African-Americans back towards Clinton, but not so significant as to establish any trend.

“I believe when all is said and done, Obama will likely carry North Carolina; or if he loses the race, it will be by just a few points.

“Our polling generally does not indicate the eventual compression of black voters that Obama usually enjoys just before Election Day. If that happens, my guess is that he will pull this out. However, this poll is clearly an indication of reaction to the latest statements by his former pastor; and it forces Sen. Obama to split resources between Indiana and North Carolina.

“If this white vote shift does not erode, given that North Carolina’s white Democratic voters are primarily in the Research Triangle, where education and personal finances are in the top tier for the nation, then I would say this suggests a major shift in all future primaries towards Clinton,” said Towery.

Do you have a link to the article where this was published (if it is an article)? This sounds very interesting.

[hippie_hunter]

http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_430_370.aspx

The poll numbers are also in RCP.

[Marx]

Do you have a link to the article where this was published (if it is an article)? This sounds very interesting.

Wow...that's really interesting. This could be bad for Obama if he somehow ends up losing NC.

[The Senator]

Wow...that's really interesting. This could be bad for Obama if he somehow ends up losing NC.

Most definitely. This will probably convince many super delegates who have been on the fence that he simply doesn't have what it takes. If he loses North Carolina, he may ultimately lose the nomination.

[hippie_hunter]

If Obama loses North Carolina that would probably signify that Clinton will likely win most of the remaining contests.

[The Senator]

If Obama loses North Carolina, that will make Clinton pretty much inevitable in Indiana. She will sweep West Virginia and Kentucky, the latter of which she has a 36-point lead on Obama. I'm not sure what will happen in caucus states such as Montana and Oregon, but if she wins North Carolina and Indiana, I would expect several Super Delegates from all the remaining states to come out in her favor.

Also, from what I've read, Edwards is leaning towards Clinton. If both Edwardses endorse Clinton by the end of the week, that will be a huge blow for Obama. That would mean that the state's top Super Delegates have endorsed Clinton (combined with Easley), and could very well make the state the turning point in the campaign.

This is going to be interesting to watch, for sure.

[Marx]

If Obama loses North Carolina, that will make Clinton pretty much inevitable in Indiana. She will sweep West Virginia and Kentucky, the latter of which she has a 36-point lead on Obama. I'm not sure what will happen in caucus states such as Montana and Oregon, but if she wins North Carolina and Indiana, I would expect several Super Delegates from all the remaining states to come out in her favor.

Also, from what I've read, Edwards is leaning towards Clinton. If both Edwardses endorse Clinton by the end of the week, that will be a huge blow for Obama. That would mean that the state's top Super Delegates have endorsed Clinton (combined with Easley), and could very well make the state the turning point in the campaign.

This is going to be interesting to watch, for sure.

I'm just shocked that this is even the conversation right now. A matter of days ago, Obama had NC lock, stock, and barrel.

[The Senator]

I'm just shocked that this is even the conversation right now. A matter of days ago, Obama had NC lock, stock, and barrel.

Easley's popularity, combined with Jeremiah Wright, have probably turned many rural southerners off of Obama. Also, I think it's interesting that many black voters are starting to reconsider Clinton.

[Marx]

Easley's popularity, combined with Jeremiah Wright, have probably turned many rural southerners off of Obama. Also, I think it's interesting that many black voters are starting to reconsider Clinton.

I would agree Jman. I think Easley's endorsement was enough to hurt Obama, but then add in the "fame-whore" Wright and it all adds up to trouble for the Obama camp. I find it VERY interesting that african-americans are reconsidering him. Maybe too many people jumped off the Clinton bandwagon too soon...

[hippie_hunter]

If Obama loses North Carolina, that will make Clinton pretty much inevitable in Indiana. She will sweep West Virginia and Kentucky, the latter of which she has a 36-point lead on Obama. I'm not sure what will happen in caucus states such as Montana and Oregon,
Actually Oregon and Montana are primary states.

but if she wins North Carolina and Indiana, I would expect several Super Delegates from all the remaining states to come out in her favor.
I think that if Clinton manages to win North Carolina, Obama's rising Super Delegate support is going to come to a sudden crash and we might be seeing some switching, especially since Indiana and North Carolina would close the gap consideribly on the popular vote. As a matter in fact if Clinton wins both Indiana and North Carolina I'd be willing to bet that Clinton would take the lead in the popular vote (not including Florida and Michigan in which Clinton already has the lead in that scenario) or Obama would have a lead so slim that it be as insignifigant as Gore's lead over Bush in the 2000 election.

[Marx]

I haven't heard any of these latest polls out in "tv-land." I guess everyone is still stuck on Rev. Wright.

[The Senator]

Actually Oregon and Montana are primary states.

Good to know. I've also read on the blogosphere that Sen. Wyden from Oregon may be learning towards Clinton, as is Gov. Brian Schweitzer from Montana. Those two are pretty influential in their home states.

[Matt]

If Clinton wins North Carolina, and that is a big if despite that one poll...but even if she keeps it competitive (within 5 points), then she has struck a huge blow to the Obama campaign and her argument to the super delegates suddenly becomes a lot more convincing.

An Edwards endorsement at this point, would almost definitely put her over the top, in my opinion...and ensure at the very least it stays competitive, but I'm not sure that Edwards will piss either of them off. I think he is playing both sides in order to get a position in the administration of whoever wins (He'd love the attorney general job).

[hippie_hunter]

Good to know. I've also read on the blogosphere that Sen. Wyden from Oregon may be learning towards Clinton, as is Gov. Brian Schweitzer from Montana. Those two are pretty influential in their home states.

Considering how poorly Obama is doing in rural areas that are primary states along with Clinton pretty much solidifying her lead among white voters, I wouldn't be surprised to see her win Montana and South Dakota.

[hippie_hunter]

Latest poll from Indiana:

Senator Hillary Clinton leads Senator Barack Obama by five percentage points in the Indiana Democratic Presidential Primary. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the state finds Clinton attracting 46% of the vote while Obama earns 41%. With just a week to go before Election Day, 13% remain undecided.

Eighty-two percent (82%) of Clinton voters say they are “certain” they will vote for her while 77% of Obama supporters say the same about their decision. Among supporters of each candidate, just 4% say there’s a good chance they will change their mind.

Clinton leads by nineteen percentage points among White voters. Obama leads 90% to 4% among African-Americans.

Obama leads among voters under 40 while Clinton has the edge among older voters. The former First Lady is especially strong among those over 65--she leads by a two-to-one margin among senior citizens.

The survey was conducted Tuesday night. That was after Obama’s denunciation of his former Pastor but before Hoosiers had a chance to see it in the morning newspapers.

Clinton is viewed favorably by 73% of Likely Indiana Primary Voters while Obama earns positive reviews from 70%. Those figures include 46% with a Very Favorable opinion of Clinton and 39% who think that highly of Obama.

Fifty percent (50%) of Clinton voters have a favorable opinion of Obama. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Obama voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton.

Prior to the release of this poll, Rasmussen Markets data showed that Clinton was heavily favored to win the Indiana Primary. These results are updated on a 24/7 basis by the actions of market participants (it costs nothing to participate). Current pricing suggests that Clinton has an 80.5% of winning in Indiana.

Nationally, following Jeremiah Wright’s media tour, Clinton has gained ground on Obama in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Obama continues to lead Clinton in the other state slated to vote on May 6--North Carolina.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of those surveyed were women, 49% men. Eighty-five percent (85%) were White and 12% African-American. Eight percent (8%) were under 30 and 52% over 50.

And because jman loves links so much:
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/indiana/indiana_democratic_primary

[hippie_hunter]

Latest North Carolina poll confirms that Obama's double-digit lead in North Carolina is now pretty much over:

Raleigh, N.C. — It is an exciting time for North Carolina voters. For the first time in decades, they have a say in the Democratic primary for president.

A WRAL news poll released Wednesday shows Barack Obama's double-digit lead over Hillary Clinton among Tar heel Democrats is eroding.

Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. surveyed 400 likely Democratic voters Monday and Tuesday. The results show Obama with a 7 point lead over Clinton, with 9 percent undecided. The poll has a margin of error of 5 percentage points.

“Right or wrong, it's the Wright phenomenon for Obama,” said David McLennan, a political science professor at Peace College.

McLennan said Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is dragging down the Illinois senator. Wright has made comments such as suggesting that the AIDS virus was invented by the government to destroy "people of color."

“It is a media-driven story. Wright is very controversial. He makes controversial statements. He gets people fired up, but it's not one of the top issues in the polls,” McLennan said.

When asked what issues matter most to North Carolinians, 51 percent said jobs and the economy; 14 percent said the Iraq war, and health care followed those.

As the candidates make their last-minute push toward Tuesday's primary, the question will be which one can carve into the other's core group of constituents.

Obama scores well with voters under age 35, while Clinton edges him out with voters over 50.

Where there is no competition is race. Eighty-seven percent of African Americans plan to vote for Obama, while 62 percent of whites said they will vote for Clinton. There has been very little evidence suggesting either candidate can cut into those numbers before Tuesday.

“I don't think it's about advertising. I don't think it's about personal appearances. I think it really, it's who's energized to come out on Election Day,” McLennan said.

Voters gave Clinton the edge in dealing with the economy, Obama with the war in Iraq.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/2818209/

[Matt]

But, I thought it was "impossible for Clinton to gain popularity" :o

[hippie_hunter]

If Obama loses North Carolina does that mean he'll have to drop out of the race?

[hippie_hunter]

Now that I think about it, Edwards should make his endorsement soon because outside of North Carolina, it'll be pretty irrelevant now (like Richardson's for Obama) that most of the contests are over

[The Senator]

If Obama loses North Carolina does that mean he'll have to drop out of the race?

Oh, he'll certainly have to. The supers are gonna start flockin to her. There aint no way he can win the nom. if he loses NC and IN. I guarantee he'll drop out, no way he can get 107 supers to back him if he loses. I wont be the only one sayin "Obama gtfo." :hehe:

[Matt]

But I think thats what Edwards and Richardson are intentionally doing. Making themselves irrelevant so they do not piss anyone off too badly and will be able to secure a position in either administration.

[Humpty Dumpty]

Does anyone think that John and Elizabeth Edwards will finally come out to support a candidate before next Tuesday? The race is now in their backyards...what do you think?
Even though John and Elizabeth Edwards aren’t endorsing anyone officially, it appears they favor Clinton if you take heed of comments they’ve made in interviews. The other day, Elizabeth said on television that Clinton’s healthcare plan makes more sense than Obama’s. I, myself, would have to agree. Obama’s plan would keep the purchase of health insurance voluntary while eliminating screening procedures to determine a patient’s eligibility for the insurance. What would end up happening in this case is that because people would only be buying insurance after they got sick, there would be no money being paid into the system to help people who can’t afford the insurance on their own and the premiums would skyrocket. This is why the Clinton plan has that oft-discussed “mandate.” For the record, though, I like neither plan because none offers single-payer healthcare.

[Matt]

On a side note, I'd like to point out how frickin sad I find it that Edwards got snubbed by the media. This man was clearly the best choice for the Democrats. A fairly moderate southern populist. He led McCain in every poll by the highest margin. He comes from a common background and actually had to work to get where he was in life. And yet, somehow, he wasn't sexy enough for the media. They went out of their way to kill his campaign, treating him like an insignificant, non-contender, despite the fact that he led in several polls in Iowa and likely would've won were it not for the caucus system.

Hell, could you imagine if Edwards won Iowa...suddenly, this becomes Clinton vs Edwards instead of Clinton vs Obama. After all, were it not for the caucus, Obama would've finished third in Iowa. Clinton likely still would've won New Hampshire, after which, Obama would've been forced to drop out. Edwards takes South Carolina, and suddenly, we are going into super tuesday with a whole different perspective. Edwards could've easily delievered the knock out punch on Super Tuesday adn he would be up over McCain by 15 points right now.

Siiigh...if only.

[Matt]

Even though John and Elizabeth Edwards aren’t endorsing anyone officially, it appears they favor Clinton if you take heed of comments they’ve made in interviews. The other day, Elizabeth said on television that Clinton’s healthcare plan makes more sense than Obama’s. I, myself, would have to agree. Obama’s plan would keep the purchase of health insurance voluntary while eliminating screening procedures to determine a patient’s eligibility for the insurance. What would end up happening in this case is that because people would only be buying insurance after they got sick, there would be no money being paid into the system to help people who can’t afford the insurance on their own and the premiums would skyrocket. This is why the Clinton plan has that oft-discussed “mandate.” For the record, though, I like neither plan because none offers single-payer healthcare.

Yeeeah...like many of Obama's plans, it is simply not practical. I doubt his plan would get through Congress as is.

[hippie_hunter]

On a side note, I'd like to point out how frickin sad I find it that Edwards got snubbed by the media. This man was clearly the best choice for the Democrats. A fairly moderate southern populist. He led McCain in every poll by the highest margin. He comes from a common background and actually had to work to get where he was in life. And yet, somehow, he wasn't sexy enough for the media. They went out of their way to kill his campaign, treating him like an insignificant, non-contender, despite the fact that he led in several polls in Iowa and likely would've won were it not for the caucus system.

Hell, could you imagine if Edwards won Iowa...suddenly, this becomes Clinton vs Edwards instead of Clinton vs Obama. After all, were it not for the caucus, Obama would've finished third in Iowa. Clinton likely still would've won New Hampshire, after which, Obama would've been forced to drop out. Edwards takes South Carolina, and suddenly, we are going into super tuesday with a whole different perspective. Edwards could've easily delievered the knock out punch on Super Tuesday adn he would be up over McCain by 15 points right now.

Siiigh...if only.

If it were Clinton vs. Edwards I think Clinton would have beaten him by now with Edwards carrying Iowa and the Southern states and Clinton getting the vast majority of superdelegates.

[Humpty Dumpty]

Yeeeah...like many of Obama's plans, it is simply not practical. I doubt his plan would get through Congress as is.
Aside from the issues, the most disturbing aspect of the Obama candidacy is how if you ask someone why they’re supporting Obama, the response you’re most likely to get is that “[they] like the ‘change’.” Very Orwellian.

[Matt]

If it were Clinton vs. Edwards I think Clinton would have beaten him by now with Edwards carrying Iowa and the Southern states and Clinton getting the vast majority of superdelegates.

I think we'd actually be looking at a situation very similiar to what we are now. Edwards win the majority of the southern states and takes a delegate lead, building up to super tuesday, then super tuesday, I think Edwards would've either scored Massachusettes or California and in effect ends Clinton's campaign. At the very least, even if Clinton won both Mass. and Cali, we'd still be looking at a similiar situation to Obama and Clinton, only Edwards likely could've taken Ohio, and if that didn't knock her out, PA. Edwards definitely resonates in the rust belt.

[Matt]

Aside from the issues, the most disturbing aspect of the Obama candidacy is how if you ask someone why they’re supporting Obama, the response you’re most likely to get is that “[they] like the ‘change’.” Very Orwellian.

Don't let them hear you say that, they'll play the "You're saying all Obama supporters are stupid!" card.

[SuBe]

Don't let them hear you say that, they'll play the "You're saying all Obama supporters are stupid!" card.
They are playing the "All McCain Supporters are Racist for Not Voting Obama Card" Already.

[The Senator]

Edwards led in North Carolina (duh), Oklahoma, Montana and Idaho before he dropped out. He was second in Texas, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia. Had he won Iowa and at least finished second in South Carolina, he probably could have won those states, not to mention a slew of others which fit his politics.

But we'll never know how that played out, and it appears Edwards may have to witness yet another Democratic presidential failure when he easily could have the most viable candidate.

[Humpty Dumpty]

Don't let them hear you say that, they'll play the "You're saying all Obama supporters are stupid!" card.
I said "most likely," not "always." :cwink:

I've actually gotten the "change" answer from a number of people to whom I've talked personally and have seen others give it as their rationale for supporting Obama on television interviews.

[Chris B]

Hillary closing the gap with Obama in the polls is typical. Ultimately, I think Obama is still going to have a double-digit victory in NC.

On a side note, Edwards endorsing Hillary would just strike me as odd. Considering how he always attacked her as being apart of the establishment and also tried to present himself as an agent of change. Seeing how fierce those attacks were sometime would just make an endorsement of her seem phony.

[Chris B]

On a side note, I'd like to point out how frickin sad I find it that Edwards got snubbed by the media. This man was clearly the best choice for the Democrats. A fairly moderate southern populist. He led McCain in every poll by the highest margin. He comes from a common background and actually had to work to get where he was in life. And yet, somehow, he wasn't sexy enough for the media. They went out of their way to kill his campaign, treating him like an insignificant, non-contender, despite the fact that he led in several polls in Iowa and likely would've won were it not for the caucus system.

Hell, could you imagine if Edwards won Iowa...suddenly, this becomes Clinton vs Edwards instead of Clinton vs Obama. After all, were it not for the caucus, Obama would've finished third in Iowa. Clinton likely still would've won New Hampshire, after which, Obama would've been forced to drop out. Edwards takes South Carolina, and suddenly, we are going into super tuesday with a whole different perspective. Edwards could've easily delievered the knock out punch on Super Tuesday adn he would be up over McCain by 15 points right now.

Siiigh...if only.

I pretty much feel the same way. You have to admit, given the media's bias against Edwards, had we won Iowa, I could easily have see them playing the "it doesn't mean much considering that he's been campaigning there for 4 years" card.

But I wonder if Edwards' decision to accept public financing back in the Fall hurt him in Iowa in terms of being seen as a viable candidate. If I recall, Obama used that against him in the final weeks. Maybe that is why Richardson and Kucinich had their supporters go to Obama instead?

[Matt]

Hillary closing the gap with Obama in the polls is typical. Ultimately, I think Obama is still going to have a double-digit victory in NC.

On a side note, Edwards endorsing Hillary would just strike me as odd. Considering how he always attacked her as being apart of the establishment and also tried to present himself as an agent of change. Seeing how fierce those attacks were sometime would just make an endorsement of her seem phony.

I dunno, the debates towards the end when it was just the three of them pretty much seemed like Clinton and Edwards tag teaming Obama. I think Edwards just attacked whoever the front runner was at the time to get himself in the headlines. When Obama pulled ahead of the pack, Edwards switched focus to him.

However, ol' Johnny Boy seems to have skipped town, so I doubt we will be getting an endorsement from him.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1055046.html

[Matt]

I pretty much feel the same way. You have to admit, given the media's bias against Edwards, had we won Iowa, I could easily have see them playing the "it doesn't mean much considering that he's been campaigning there for 4 years" card.

Yeah, you're right. They probably would've still went out of their way to end his campaign. It is amazing the way the media painted this as a two way race despite at least 4 of the candidates being more qualified and better suited to take on the Republican choice. The media determined this election more than any other in recent history and I think the reason why is pretty obvious. Black guy vs woman = ratings.


But I wonder if Edwards' decision to accept public financing back in the Fall hurt him in Iowa in terms of being seen as a viable candidate. If I recall, Obama used that against him in the final weeks. Maybe that is why Richardson and Kucinich had their supporters go to Obama instead?

Hmm, Perhaps, regarding Richardson and Kucinich, but I doubt it is the reason he lost Iowa. He lost Iowa for one reason, the caucus system is entirely undemocratic.

[Matt]

On a side note, Edwards' silence is kinda shocking. This is probably his best chance to actually effect the outcome of the election. He could completely overturn the assumption that Obama is the soon-to-be winner by backing Clinton and spending these last few days campaigning hard for her. Or, he can give Obama a much needed double digit lead by backing him.

I wonder if he is hanging onto the hope that he will be seen as a compromise candidate come August if this hasn't been settled.

[DACrowe]

Obviously Indiana is the wild card.

I have noticed that the gap is closing in North Carolina, especially after Gov. Mike Easley endorsed Clinton. I've seen both Obama and a Clinton (Bill) down here, but as much as they like to paint it as close, I just don't see the energy from the Clinton campaign. They really are preparing for a loss, but after the racist ad that the NC RP started playing this week (still living off the fumes of Jesse Helms politics), Wright and the crushing loss in Pennsylvania, Hillary is the one gaining ground, not Obama. Obama will do very well in Chapel Hill, Durham and Raleigh taking three counties that help make up the triangle with them (including where Bill appeared in Apex) and areas like Winston-Salem and Greensboro will go to Obama because of the diverse populations and economic disparity in them. Hillary's in roads will be in the western and more white blue collar areas of the state, as well as working class costal areas. Her problem is though that most of those parts of the state are conservative and why this state goes to a Republican every presidential election, so I do not know how they will help her. I also could see Hillary doing well in the Charolette/business area.

In the end though, Obama will win NC, just not the slam duck I and many others had predicted.

As for Indiana--it is a make or break state for both campaigns. What I mean is if Obama can win Indiana he will not have ended the election, but I think he will have successfully killed Clinton's momentum and the party will begin to rally around him afterwards and I imagine we'd continue to see more superdelegates going to the Obama campaign and more defections like today's. It would be the beginning of the end of Clinton's campaign. However, I do not think she will pull out. She is stubborn and feels entitled to this seat in the White House and will stick around until June, when her party will turn against her. BUT if she wins INdiana, then this race is becoming wide open, because it will be the third consecutive time that Obama failed to close Hillary Clinton out of the race. I think many superdelegates still want Hillary and are waiting in the wings to see if the race ends ambiguously (Obama has more delegates, but Hillary did much better at the end), so they can support the candidate of their choosing. If Obama can win Indiana, which is really too close to make any real prediction of right now, then they will feel obligated to rally around Hillary because she is not going to win all of the remaining primaries (and has already lost at least Oregon).

Just my two cents.

[DACrowe]

But I think thats what Edwards and Richardson are intentionally doing. Making themselves irrelevant so they do not piss anyone off too badly and will be able to secure a position in either administration.

I agree with you on Edwards. I think he wants to support Hillary, but wants to see what his state, NC, decides first. If NC goes for Obama (which it will) I think he'll keep his mouth shut and could end up in either cabinet as he is a popular politician. Richardson really burned his bridges with the Clintons though. He met with them countless times while running and apparently gave Bill Clinton his word at least three times he's going to throw his support behind Hillary after the primaries are over and it is on to the superdelegates. He then comes out after working in the Clinton administration, supporting them in private, and endorses Obama.

Richardson is no longer going to be viewed well by the Clintons.

[souvlaki]

If Obama can win Indiana, which is really too close to make any real prediction of right now, then they will feel obligated to rally around Hillary because she is not going to win all of the remaining primaries (and has already lost at least Oregon).


:huh:

[Matt]

Obviously Indiana is the wild card.

I have noticed that the gap is closing in North Carolina, especially after Gov. Mike Easley endorsed Clinton. I've seen both Obama and a Clinton (Bill) down here, but as much as they like to paint it as close, I just don't see the energy from the Clinton campaign. They really are preparing for a loss, but after the racist ad that the NC RP started playing this week (still living off the fumes of Jesse Helms politics), Wright and the crushing loss in Pennsylvania, Hillary is the one gaining ground, not Obama. Obama will do very well in Chapel Hill, Durham and Raleigh taking three counties that help make up the triangle with them (including where Bill appeared in Apex) and areas like Winston-Salem and Greensboro will go to Obama because of the diverse populations and economic disparity in them. Hillary's in roads will be in the western and more white blue collar areas of the state, as well as working class costal areas. Her problem is though that most of those parts of the state are conservative and why this state goes to a Republican every presidential election, so I do not know how they will help her. I also could see Hillary doing well in the Charolette/business area.

In the end though, Obama will win NC, just not the slam duck I and many others had predicted.

As for Indiana--it is a make or break state for both campaigns. What I mean is if Obama can win Indiana he will not have ended the election, but I think he will have successfully killed Clinton's momentum and the party will begin to rally around him afterwards and I imagine we'd continue to see more superdelegates going to the Obama campaign and more defections like today's. It would be the beginning of the end of Clinton's campaign. However, I do not think she will pull out. She is stubborn and feels entitled to this seat in the White House and will stick around until June, when her party will turn against her. BUT if she wins INdiana, then this race is becoming wide open, because it will be the third consecutive time that Obama failed to close Hillary Clinton out of the race. I think many superdelegates still want Hillary and are waiting in the wings to see if the race ends ambiguously (Obama has more delegates, but Hillary did much better at the end), so they can support the candidate of their choosing. If Obama can win Indiana, which is really too close to make any real prediction of right now, then they will feel obligated to rally around Hillary because she is not going to win all of the remaining primaries (and has already lost at least Oregon).

Just my two cents.

I fundamentally agree with everything you said, but if Clinton can keep it close in NC, Indiana may not matter as much as people think. It may turn a few super delegates, but Obama saying "Well, I won Indiana" won't mean as much if Clinton can say "Well I came back from a double digit lead in North Carolina." If Clinton can keep it competitive, and force a virtual delegate split by keeping it within 5 points, she has basically won NC.

That being said, I don't think it'll happen. People were talking about Obama keeping it competitive in PA and Ohio and look what happened. Obama wins NC by 7-10 points, would be my guess, which essentially makes everything you've said true.

[Matt]

I agree with you on Edwards. I think he wants to support Hillary, but wants to see what his state, NC, decides first. If NC goes for Obama (which it will) I think he'll keep his mouth shut and could end up in either cabinet as he is a popular politician. Richardson really burned his bridges with the Clintons though. He met with them countless times while running and apparently gave Bill Clinton his word at least three times he's going to throw his support behind Hillary after the primaries are over and it is on to the superdelegates. He then comes out after working in the Clinton administration, supporting them in private, and endorses Obama.

Richardson is no longer going to be viewed well by the Clintons.

Yeah, I agree. He didn't play it smoothly at all. He clearly was expecting Obama to finish Clinton off in Ohio and Texas or PA, so he put his money in the safe bet, however, all the while, he held out until the states where he would be influential were over so he could say to the Clintons, "Hey, I didn't really hurt you guys." He tried to play both sides, but was really transparent about it and it bit him in the ass.

[NordicPrince]

But I think thats what Edwards and Richardson are intentionally doing. Making themselves irrelevant so they do not piss anyone off too badly and will be able to secure a position in either administration.

The trend of the Superdelagates seems to indicate otherwise. The former DNC chairman, a staunch Clinton Supporter, has defected over to the Obama camp. The insiders sense a sinking ship, and no one wants to go down with a loser.

[hippie_hunter]

Research2000 has Obama with a 7 point lead in North Carolina.

[Matt]

The trend of the Superdelagates seems to indicate otherwise. The former DNC chairman, a staunch Clinton Supporter, has defected over to the Obama camp. The insiders sense a sinking ship, and no one wants to go down with a loser.

Seems to be going the other way now though. Hell, it seems like both give off the feeling of a sinking ship.

[hippie_hunter]

I think at this point, it's guaranteed Clinton will win Indiana.

INDIANAPOLIS -- A statewide poll indicates a dramatic shift of support from Sen. Barack Obama to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ahead of next week's Indiana Democratic presidential primary -- a shift that could be explained by a controversy over Obama's ex-pastor, the poll's conductor says.

The survey, conducted by Indianapolis-based TeleResearch Corp. and released exclusively to 6News, showed Clinton with a 10-point lead over Obama in Indiana -- 48 percent to 38 percent -- with 14 percent of respondents undecided. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent.

The telephone poll of 943 randomly selected likely Democratic primary voters, conducted from April 25 through April 29, showed Clinton's support getting stronger as the polling period advanced.

Each day, more respondents supported Clinton. By the last day of polling, Clinton had a 4 percent lead among men -- 45 percent to 41 percent -- representing a staggering 24-point swing in that demographic.

Over the four days in which the survey was conducted, a controversy involving the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor, swelled.

"In that window, he dominated all the political news in the presidential race," said Jeff Lewis, TeleResearch CEO. "In that period of time, Obama's lead among men went from a 20 point lead on Friday … to a 4 point lead for Sen. Clinton."

Among females, Clinton held a commanding lead of between 15 and 20 points.

"All the movement in the poll was on men, and this is a statewide survey," Lewis said. "So, it clearly indicated that men abandoned Obama as a result of the Rev. Wright."

Obama campaign spokesman Kevin Griffis didn't downplay the survey but said he believes the senator from Illinois has moved on from the Wright problems.

"I don't think there's any secret that the campaign has had a little bit of a rough patch the last couple of days. But at the same time, today we picked up an incredibly important superdelegate, someone who'd been supporting Sen. Clinton," Griffis said.

Griffis was referring to Joe Andrew, a former Democratic National Committee chairman who on Thursday switched his allegiance from Clinton to Obama.

The Clinton campaign, though pleased with the TeleResearch numbers, rejected the notion that the Wright controversy led to the shift. Rather, the campaign said it believes Clinton's focus on issues was a larger factor.

"Sen. Clinton was in several parts of the state. She was talking about jobs, talking about the economy, talking about some of the challenges that Hoosiers are facing. Gas prices, that's something she's been talking about the last few days," spokesman Jonathan Swain said. "So, what I think is that her message is really resonating."

TeleResearch's polling ahead of the last two Indiana gubernatorial elections proved to be an accurate predictor of those races' outcomes. In 2000, the firm's results matched the eventually winning margin of Frank O'Bannon, and its 2004 results came within 1 percentage point of Mitch Daniels' winning margin.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/16106143/detail.html

[Marx]

Even though John and Elizabeth Edwards aren’t endorsing anyone officially, it appears they favor Clinton if you take heed of comments they’ve made in interviews. The other day, Elizabeth said on television that Clinton’s healthcare plan makes more sense than Obama’s. I, myself, would have to agree. Obama’s plan would keep the purchase of health insurance voluntary while eliminating screening procedures to determine a patient’s eligibility for the insurance. What would end up happening in this case is that because people would only be buying insurance after they got sick, there would be no money being paid into the system to help people who can’t afford the insurance on their own and the premiums would skyrocket. This is why the Clinton plan has that oft-discussed “mandate.” For the record, though, I like neither plan because none offers single-payer healthcare.

I don't expect them to publicly endorse anyone. I do agree with you Humpy - it seems to be pretty clear that they favor Hillary.

[Matt]

On The Daily Show of all placed.

Stewart gave a great little monologue ("If I were to come up with a way to submarine your chances, it would start with taking a state that was...I dunno, crucial to the Republican win in 2004...and I would find a way to insult them. Then I would take a rust belt state...and do the same." :lmao:) Afterwards, Dean proceeded to guarantee that their delegates will be seated by the convention as soon as he finds a way that is fair to their voters and the voters of states who followed the rules.

[Matt]

And Stewart just asked him how the Democrats can be trusted to run the country when they can't even run their own election and not let the people decide who wins the election (as opposed to super delegates). Stewart is hammering his ass. He left Dean speechless with that. Dean had nothing but "Well its more democratic than Republicans" and when Stewart called him on that saying (at least their people elect their candidate instead of a few hundred "supers") all Dean had was "The 100 riches guys just pick the nominee."

Stewart is kicking this guy's ass.

[Matt]

Amazing that the most hardball interview I have seen in ages is on the Daily Show.

[The Senator]

I think after the Wright fiasco, it would be in the Democrats' best interest to seat Michigan and Florida.

As for Dean... meh. I like his strategies for turning the West blue, but other than that, I could care less if he was running this party.

[Matt]

I think after the Wright fiasco, it would be in the Democrats' best interest to seat Michigan and Florida.

As for Dean... meh. I like his strategies for turning the West blue, but other than that, I could care less if he was running this party.

He's a good fund raiser, which is essentially what the party head should be doing. The only thing is, he needs to quit attention whoring and keep his mouth shut more often than not. He just got torn a new one by Jon Stewart. Stewart literally embarrassed the hell out of the guy. He should've never been in such a position where he could be torn apart like that..

[Excel]

That is simply a straight up lie.

Unless Michigan revotes, theres no way they go. Literally, 100% no way. Obama wasnt on the ballot.

[The Senator]

That is simply a straight up lie.

Unless Michigan revotes, theres no way they go. Literally, 100% no way. Obama wasnt on the ballot.

Considering Dean leads the DNC, I'm sure he knows a lot more than you do about who he's going to seat at his party's convention.

[Matt]

That is simply a straight up lie.

Unless Michigan revotes, theres no way they go. Literally, 100% no way. Obama wasnt on the ballot.

At the end of the day, Dean can do it. The DNC is a private institution and he is their chairman who will ultimately make the call. He is the equivilant to their CEO. Neither candidate has to sign off for it. If he says "Hey, we're seating them!" he can. I don't think he would do anything so bold. I think he is just sitting around praying that this election is decided so then he can say "Hey, you guys can have your seats now." But even then, he will bump up the number of delegates needed by doing such. One candidate would have to get enough of a lead to negate that effect, and I'm not sure either can or will prior to August.

[hippie_hunter]

That is simply a straight up lie.

Unless Michigan revotes, theres no way they go. Literally, 100% no way. Obama wasnt on the ballot.

Frankly it's too late now for a revote. They had the chance for it but Obama ruined it. If Michigan gets seated, it's going to be in a way where Clinton gets the vast majority of delegates on account that most of Michigan's superdelegates and uncommitted delegates have sided with Clinton.

[Excel]

Considering Dean leads the DNC, I'm sure he knows a lot more than you do about who he's going to seat at his party's convention.

No, judging by the situation Dean was talking out of his to make the party not come off as undemocratic. Ill believe it when I see, it wont just pissoff the majority of the people who have voted itll piss a ton of people up in Mich.

He wont do that. Unless they revote, Michigan wont be counted. That would be the most absurd thing anybody had ever heard in an election.

[hippie_hunter]

Though to be fair, Dean has been saying for quite sometime that Michigan and Florida will get seated in some fashion.

[Excel]

Dean has a plan, but it aint what you guys think. Dean thinks one of the candidates will be out by July 1st, he's said they will and wants the spers to decide.

Id bet my money, he's just gonna wait till one drops out, and if its clinton hel lgive em to her and its obama he'll forget about em.

[Marx]

Dean has a plan, but it aint what you guys think. Dean thinks one of the candidates will be out by July 1st, he's said they will and wants the spers to decide.

Id bet my money, he's just gonna wait till one drops out, and if its clinton hel lgive em to her and its obama he'll forget about em.

I'm telling you right now Ex, and mark my words, if there is even the slightest chance that those delegates will be seated, I gurantee that Hillary Clinton WILL NOT drop out. If those delegates are seated, the nomination is hers.

[DACrowe]

I watched the interview. Dean went on expecting to get softball questions like most important (liberal) politicians do on that show. I think Stewart was holding back (watch him go after Crossfire or when Chris Matthews was on his show for him to be fully unleashed), but it is still a more earnest and less-BS pushed interview than I've seen on any news channel in a year it seems. But Dean just took it with a smile and said his pre-written jokes and PR and the press will ignore it tomorrow other than as a novelty story, but I think Stewart did a decent job and proves as a comedian he is a better journalist than some of the professionals who work for CNN, MSNBC and particularly Fox News.

Still, he handled Dean with kid gloves and let him out, which I do not mind as it is a FAKE news show, so I didn't mind the tap dancing. It was funny and Dean was choking on his words a bit, but if I recall he said they plan to have the NOMINEE seat Michigan and Florida at the convention after they have been nominated.

I don't think he meant or intended to say that their votes will count. Michigan's is especially troublesome for the Democrats (and in retrospect it appears foolish Obama rejected a revote in that state).

Oh well, it was fun, but simply because no one will take that interview seriously, for better or worse, don't expect much to come out of it than egotistical self-congratulatory TV pundits yacking it up with clips of it from the tail end of their show tomorrow.

[Excel]

Doubtful...Obama looks cross the 2,025 threshold with a loss in Puerto Rico, than I think itll be all over.

[Matt]

If he forgets about them, they will be pissed. That is his biggest problem, even if it is decided, seating those delegates ups the number of necessary delegates to win. It makes the majority bigger. And in an election this close, it could make a difference. That is the problem with that "plan."

And while Dean DOES have the power to seat Michigan and Florida, he does NOT have the power to force supers to vote, which could really hurt their political careers if they vote publicly instead of privately in August. He may have to seat them prior to August without a winner decided.

[Matt]

I watched the interview. Dean went on expecting to get softball questions like most important (liberal) politicians do on that show. I think Stewart was holding back (watch him go after Crossfire or when Chris Matthews was on his show for him to be fully unleashed), but it is still a more earnest and less-BS pushed interview than I've seen on any news channel in a year it seems. But Dean just took it with a smile and said his pre-written jokes and PR and the press will ignore it tomorrow other than as a novelty story, but I think Stewart did a decent job and proves as a comedian he is a better journalist than some of the professionals who work for CNN, MSNBC and particularly Fox News.

Still, he handled Dean with kid gloves and let him out, which I do not mind as it is a FAKE news show, so I didn't mind the tap dancing. It was funny and Dean was choking on his words a bit, but if I recall he said they plan to have the NOMINEE seat Michigan and Florida at the convention after they have been nominated.
I don't think he meant or intended to say that their votes will count. Michigan's is especially troublesome for the Democrats (and in retrospect it appears foolish Obama rejected a revote in that state).

Oh well, it was fun, but simply because no one will take that interview seriously, for better or worse, don't expect much to come out of it than egotistical self-congratulatory TV pundits yacking it up with clips of it from the tail end of their show tomorrow.

He said that was the ORIGINAL plan. He said that has fallen through.

But yeah, I too wish Stewart pushed him a little more on the undemocratic nature of the super delegate system as opposed to a winner-take-all system. Still, for a comedy, it was an impressive interview on Stewart's part.

[Matt]

Doubtful...Obama looks cross the 2,025 threshold with a loss in Puerto Rico, than I think itll be all over.

...sigh, here we go with your guess work again. That is only if a certain number of SDs decide to jump on the Obama ship, and you really have no empirical way of proving that will happen, so please, for the sake of your own credibility, quit saying it.

[The Senator]

No, judging by the situation Dean was talking out of his to make the party not come off as undemocratic. Ill believe it when I see, it wont just pissoff the majority of the people who have voted itll piss a ton of people up in Mich.

He wont do that. Unless they revote, Michigan wont be counted. That would be the most absurd thing anybody had ever heard in an election.

Excel, you really don't know anything about how politics work in this country. It doesn't matter how many people you think will be pissed off in the end. You know how many people are already pissed off because their votes didn't count? I actually worked for a Clinton Super Delegate from January through April, I received several calls daily from Clinton supporters in Michigan who were adamantly furious that their votes weren't going to count. Dean and the DNC have a difficult choice to make: Do they want to prove a point, or do they want to risk losing one of their "safe" states to John McCain?

Barack Obama has problems in Michigan. He doesn't lead there. Clinton beats McCain in most recent polls; Obama barely ties him, if that. At the end of the day, the party is going to look at what these polls tell them, as well as what the people are telling them. If they feel as if they cannot win in November without seating Clinton's delegates, they will seat them. And if they feel like Obama is going to lose the third straight presidential election for the Democrats in a row, the party is going to do whatever it takes to secure a victory, even if that means nominating Clinton. And since Clinton currently does better than McCain in national and state polls, I want to see your argument as to how this can't possibly happen.

People are having Obama fatigue. He can't handle his personal issues the way everyone thought he could. The Wright scandal didn't disappear overnight, and neither will his connections to Weather Underground, or his comments against rural voters. He has really screwed himself over again and again, and the super delegates, as well as the party's leaders, are going to take a good hard look at what all this will mean for them in the fall. Regardless of how pointless you or anyone else think Wright or Ayers is, voters don't find it pointless. They find it very important, as we've seen in Pennsylvania, and as we're probably going to see in Indiana and most of the remaining states. Voters decide these elections. And the people at the top of the party decide who will be the nominee.

You may find it undemocratic, but at the end of the day, the Democratic Party is a private entity which can choose its nominee however it damn well pleases. It's happened in the past, there's no reason why it can't happen now.

And before I end this post... you need to stop speaking in absolutes and guarantees. You have no stats to back up your arguments, all you have is your uncanny ability to spew your own numbers and present them as fact.

[Marx]

Excel, you really don't know anything about how politics work in this country. It doesn't matter how many people you think will be pissed off in the end. You know how many people are already pissed off because their votes didn't count? I actually worked for a Clinton Super Delegate from January through April, I received several calls daily from Clinton supporters in Michigan who were adamantly furious that their votes weren't going to count. Dean and the DNC have a difficult choice to make: Do they want to prove a point, or do they want to risk losing one of their "safe" states to John McCain?

Barack Obama has problems in Michigan. He doesn't lead there. Clinton beats McCain in most recent polls; Obama barely ties him, if that. At the end of the day, the party is going to look at what these polls tell them, as well as what the people are telling them. If they feel as if they cannot win in November without seating Clinton's delegates, they will seat them. And if they feel like Obama is going to lose the third straight presidential election for the Democrats in a row, the party is going to do whatever it takes to secure a victory, even if that means nominating Clinton. And since Clinton currently does better than McCain in national and state polls, I want to see your argument as to how this can't possibly happen.

People are having Obama fatigue. He can't handle his personal issues the way everyone thought he could. The Wright scandal didn't disappear overnight, and neither will his connections to Weather Underground, or his comments against rural voters. He has really screwed himself over again and again, and the super delegates, as well as the party's leaders, are going to take a good hard look at what all this will mean for them in the fall. Regardless of how pointless you or anyone else think Wright or Ayers is, voters don't find it pointless. They find it very important, as we've seen in Pennsylvania, and as we're probably going to see in Indiana and most of the remaining states. Voters decide these elections. And the people at the top of the party decide who will be the nominee.

You may find it undemocratic, but at the end of the day, the Democratic Party is a private entity which can choose its nominee however it damn well pleases. It's happened in the past, there's no reason why it can't happen now.

And before I end this post... you need to stop speaking in absolutes and guarantees. You have no stats to back up your arguments, all you have is your uncanny ability to spew your own numbers and present them as fact.

Well said Jman.

[hippie_hunter]

Doubtful...Obama looks cross the 2,025 threshold with a loss in Puerto Rico, than I think itll be all over.

If you pay attention to the news, neither candidate will cross the 2,025 threshold when the primaries are over. Clinton will not. Obama will not. Especially now that his victory in North Carolina will end up being less than 10%.

Not only that but if Florida and Michigan are seated the amount of delegates required to win will rise to 2,162.

[DACrowe]

Still I think Indiana is too close to call, but if you go by current polls this race will push on without any real momentum moving either way it seems to me next week.

[Matt]

If you pay attention to the news, neither candidate will cross the 2,025 threshold when the primaries are over. Clinton will not. Obama will not. Especially now that his victory in North Carolina will end up being less than 10%.

Not only that but if Florida and Michigan are seated the amount of delegates required to win will rise to 2,162.

We've already gone over it with him in another thread. He says it is "fact" that enough super delegates will jump into the Obama ship prior to Puerto Rico the PR puts him over the top.

[Excel]

...sigh, here we go with your guess work again. That is only if a certain number of SDs decide to jump on the Obama ship, and you really have no empirical way of proving that will happen, so please, for the sake of your own credibility, quit saying it.

I ant prove it, it aint happened yet. But the path is clearly showing their declaring rather than holding out till August-Obama added 5 supers today alone for christs sake and Hill added 3. Since last Wednesday, Obama has 12 and shes added 10. 22 in week. What do you think will happen after NC and Indiana in 2 weeks? You can think its fake but that 350 magic number is real wether you like it not.

Hes at 248 right now, if his supers total is over 350 by the end of the primaries, it looks likely althought not definite that Obama will be over the 2,025 total mark. That would require 1675 and pledged delegates, he is 185 away from that number with 507 of them remaining.

As of right now, that is reality. Hillarys battle gets worse and worse with every super that goes to him and not to her, and the fact that hes erasing her lead insuper delegates far faster than shes erased his lead in pledged isnt lost to the Clinton campaign or her financers. It could obviously change, but I find it highly unlikely Hillary will remain if Obama ever crosses 2,025 prior to July.

[Matt]

I ant prove it, it aint happened yet. But the path is clearly showing their declaring rather than holding out till August-Obama added 5 supers today alone for christs sake and Hill added 3. Since last Wednesday, Obama has 12 and shes added 10. 22 in week. What do you think will happen after NC and Indiana in 2 weeks? You can think its fake but that 350 magic number is real wether you like it not.

Hes at 248 right now, if his supers total is over 350 by the end of the primaries, it looks likely althought not definite that Obama will be over the 2,025 total mark.

As of right now, that is reality. Hillarys battle gets worse and worse with every super that goes to him and not to her, and the fact that hes erasing her lead insuper delegates far faster than shes erased his lead in pledged isnt lost to the Clinton campaign or her financers. It could obviously change, but I find it highly unlikely Hillary will remain if Obama ever crosses 2,025 prior to July.

There are no patterns with super delegates. These are very smart, very calculating individuals. They will make their choice only when they are CERTAIN they will ...sigh, never mind, salute.

[Excel]

Youve said that for the month and only the opposite has happened, their coming out more and more...you say I lack proof but how the hell can you possibly back that up?

[Marx]

I ant prove it, it aint happened yet. But the path is clearly showing their declaring rather than holding out till August-Obama added 5 supers today alone for christs sake and Hill added 3. Since last Wednesday, Obama has 12 and shes added 10. 22 in week. What do you think will happen after NC and Indiana in 2 weeks? You can think its fake but that 350 magic number is real wether you like it not.

Hes at 248 right now, if his supers total is over 350 by the end of the primaries, it looks likely althought not definite that Obama will be over the 2,025 total mark. That would require 1675 and pledged delegates, he is 185 away from that number with 507 of them remaining.

As of right now, that is reality. Hillarys battle gets worse and worse with every super that goes to him and not to her, and the fact that hes erasing her lead insuper delegates far faster than shes erased his lead in pledged isnt lost to the Clinton campaign or her financers. It could obviously change, but I find it highly unlikely Hillary will remain if Obama ever crosses 2,025 prior to July.

FACT IS Ex that Obama is losing more and more support with every passing day. (Whether you want to admit it or not.)

[The Senator]

Youve said that for the month and only the opposite has happened, their coming out more and more...you say I lack proof but how the hell can you possibly back that up?

What proof do you have? You won't have proof until this nomination is decided. Then we can all give you a round of applause for being such the psychic.

Assuming you're correct...

[The Senator]

Doubtful...Obama looks cross the 2,025 threshold with a loss in Puerto Rico, than I think itll be all over.

NEITHER CANDIDATE WILL HAVE THE 2025 DELEGATES NEEDED TO WIN THE NOMINATION.

And if Obama loses Indiana severely, and if Clinton comes within a few points of Obama in North Carolina, I doubt there will be a wave of super delegates flocking to him. Especially if they start having second thoughts, which I'm guessing many of them are.

[Excel]

What proof do you have? You won't have proof until this nomination is decided. Then we can all give you a round of applause for being such the psychic.

Assuming you're correct...

Numbers are proof, Jman.

The past week in supers:
Obama +12
Clinton: +10

Past 2 months
Obama: +141
Clinton: +34

Their coming out. Matt keeps rattling off how they will all wait but that FACTS are they are not. I can prove it because roughly 800 super delegates available, 513 have already declared and its going up every day.

Matt just ignores it and says stuff he cant prove but than gets mad at me for "guesswork" :rolleyes:

[Excel]

NEITHER CANDIDATE WILL HAVE THE 2025 DELEGATES NEEDED TO WIN THE NOMINATION.

And people get mad at me for talking as though what I think will happen is fact :rolleyes:

I just explained to you a very real situation in which Obama crosses 2,025. You didnt say it was wrong, you just said nobody will reach it. That very well may not be the case.

[Marx]

Numbers are proof, Jman.

The past week in supers:
Obama +12
Clinton: +10

Past 2 months
Obama: +141
Clinton: +34

Their coming out. Matt keeps rattling off how they will all wait but that FACTS are they are not. I can prove it because roughly 800 super delegates available, 513 have already declared and its going up every day.

Matt just ignores it and says stuff he cant prove but than gets mad at me for "guesswork" :rolleyes:

Matt isn't ignoring anything Ex.

[Matt]

Numbers are proof, Jman.

The past week in supers:
Obama +12
Clinton: +10

Past 2 months
Obama: +141
Clinton: +34

Their coming out. Matt keeps rattling off how they will all wait but that FACTS are they are not. I can prove it because roughly 800 super delegates available, 513 have already declared and its going up every day.

Matt just ignores it and says stuff he cant prove but than gets mad at me for "guesswork" :rolleyes:

It is not a matter of getting mad...

You can't predict "patterns" for a small number of individuals whose only real reason for acting will be their own self-serving purposes.

No matter what a few or more of them do, you cannot use that as a pattern in a case such as this. These are not demographics, these are not large groups of voters. They are a FEW, educated, self serving individuals. You may be right at the end of the day, but you cannot say things like "Obama will have 2025 after Puerto Rico," when you are working off of guess work.

[Marx]

And people get mad at me for talking as though what I think will happen is fact :rolleyes:

I just explained to you a very real situation in which Obama crosses 2,025. You didnt say it was wrong, you just said nobody will reach it. That very well may not be the case.

It is fact that no one will cross 2025. What you are going on and on about is not fact. There is quite a difference.

[The Senator]

Numbers are proof, Jman.

The past week in supers:
Obama +12
Clinton: +10

Past 2 months
Obama: +141
Clinton: +34

Their coming out. Matt keeps rattling off how they will all wait but that FACTS are they are not. I can prove it because roughly 800 super delegates available, 513 have already declared and its going up every day.

Matt just ignores it and says stuff he cant prove but than gets mad at me for "guesswork" :rolleyes:

Your numbers don't prove Obama is going to go over the top with Super Delegates. Look at those numbers-- they show a trend: Clinton is starting to regain support within the party. The only reason why she wasn't getting Super Delegates between February and April was because many Super Delegates thought she couldn't win. Once again, she was left for dead, then she resurrected her campaign by winning Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Not to mention, she's gaining vital super delegates such as Governor Mike Easley from North Carolina. If she wins Edwards' endorsement, that will pretty much halt a "wave" of super delegates from flocking to Obama. If she receives the endorsement of populist politicians such as Brian Schweitzer and Jon Tester from Montana, or Ron Wyden from Oregon, the super delegate contest is going to become far more competitive than you think.

Just because he won tons of super delegates in the past few months doesn't mean that they are going to all flock to him between now and the end of the primary season. That's a fact-- you can't guarantee the actions of an individual voter.

[Matt]

Still I think Indiana is too close to call, but if you go by current polls this race will push on without any real momentum moving either way it seems to me next week.

If Clinton gets within 5 points of Obama when all is said and done in NC, she will have a huge momentum boost.

[The Senator]

And people get mad at me for talking as though what I think will happen is fact :rolleyes:

I just explained to you a very real situation in which Obama crosses 2,025. You didnt say it was wrong, you just said nobody will reach it. That very well may not be the case.

Obama has to win upwards of 73% of the remaining contests to clinch the nomination. If he can't do that, he also has to receive considerable super delegate endorsements-- something which is unlikely to happen. My theory is more likely to happen than your theory that all the super delegates are going to flock to Obama if he wins North Carolina.

You can use CNN's delegate/ super delegate counter to figure this out on your own.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/

[Excel]

It is fact that no one will cross 2025. What you are going on and on about is not fact. There is quite a difference.

:dry:

No, it isn't. Tell me how this is not possible.

Obama has 1490 pledged delegates. There are 407 left. To reach the number 1675, Obama needs 185 of them. You and I both know its very possible he does indeed get 185 of them. In fact we both know its likely hell be closer to 1700 while we both know its unlikly hed drop below 1675.

2,025-1675=350.

350 is the amount of supers Obama needs than to cross 2,025. Right now, Obama has 248.

350-248-102.

Obama needs 102 uncommited supers to go to him. He added 5 today. He's adding 12 the past week. Pressure is growing every day for them to declare. I am not saying its definite, but theres a VERY real chance that come june 2nd, Obama has crosses 350 supers. You have nothing to back up saying otherwise. And if he does have 350 supers along with 1675 pledged delegates, that would make his total amount 2,025.

But lets realistic. Theres 407 pledged delegates left and he needs 185 to his 1675. Obama looks to take the biggest remaining state by 10% or so, be competitive in the 2nd biggest in Indiana. These 2 states alone should get about 90-100 pledged. If he takes NC's delegates 62-52 (a Obama win by 9-10%) and loses Indiana in delegates 38-34 (a Clinton win by 6%), thatd up his pledged total to 1586. Now he's 89 pledged away from 1675. He would need 89 pldged out of a remaining 221. Thats just 40%. Realistically, Obama looks headed for a 1685-1695 pledged delegate total, which woul require 330-340 supers.

The question isnt wether Obama will hit 1675, the question is wether the supers come out enough to get him 350. So far, they have been coming out.

Its not definite, but to rule someone getting 2,025 is more stubburn than I am :p

[Excel]

Obama has to win upwards of 73% of the remaining contests to clinch the nomination. If he can't do that, he also has to receive considerable super delegate endorsements-- something which is unlikely to happen. My theory is more likely to happen than your theory that all the super delegates are going to flock to Obama if he wins North Carolina.

You can use CNN's delegate/ super delegate counter to figure this out on your own.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/

You dont follow what I am talking about.

[Marx]

:dry:

No, it isn't. Tell me how this is not possible.

Obama has 1489 pledged delegates. There are 407 left. To reach the number 1675, Obama needs 185 of them. You and I both know its very possible he does indeed get 185 of them. In fact we both know its likely hell be closer to 1700 while we both know its unlikly hed drop below 1675.

2,025-1675=350.

350 is the amount of supers Obama needs than to cross 2,025. Right now, Obama has 248.

350-248-102.

Obama needs 102 uncommited supers to go to him. He added 5 today. He's adding 12 the past week. Pressure is growing every day for them to declare. I am not saying its definite, but theres a VERY real chance that come june 2nd, Obama has crosses 350 supers. You have nothing to back up saying otherwise. And if he does have 350 supers along with 1675 pledged delegates, that would make his total amount 2,025.

But lets realistic. Theres 407 pledged delegates left and he needs 185 to his 1675. Obama looks to take the biggest remaining state by 10% or so, be competitive in the 2nd biggest in Indiana. These 2 states alone should get about 90-100 pledged. If he takes NC's delegates 62-52 (a Obama win by 9-10%) and loses Indiana in delegates 38-34 (a Clinton win by 6%), thatd up his pledged total to 1586. Now he's 89 pledged away from 1675. He would need 89 pldged out of a remaining 221. Thats just 40%. Realistically, Obama looks headed for a 1685-1695 pledged delegate total, which woul require 330-340 supers.

The question isnt wether Obama will hit 1675, the question is wether the supers come out enough to get him 350. So far, they have been coming out.

Its not definite, but to rule someone getting 2,025 is more stubburn than I am :p

And you honestly believe that he is going to receive a "flood of supers" despite losing more and more support everyday? Losing more and more ground in states left to vote? Losing more and more support nationally against a republican candidate that his democratic RIVAL is now handily beating?

I just fail to see your logic.

[The Senator]

You dont follow what I am talking about.

Because what you're talking about is guess work based on numbers you either popped out of your head or heard on some talk show.

[Matt]

You dont follow what I am talking about.

Well ALL follow what you're talking about, but when it comes down to it, you have been saying this stuff for MONTHS and have been wrong each time!

"Super delegates will flock to Obama after Super Tuesday and ensure the win for him! She'll have to drop out!" "Super delegates will flock to him after Texas and force her to drop out!" Now you are saying they will flock after a state they have all known Obama will win for months, despite the fact that Clinton has cut down his double digit lead and could very well finish within 5 points of him in NC. You are being ridiculously stubborn.

[Excel]

And you honestly believe that he is going to receive a "flood of supers" despite losing more and more support everyday? Losing more and more ground in states left to vote? Losing more and more support nationally against a republican candidate that his democratic RIVAL is now handily beating?

I just fail to see your logic.

They're coming out more and more every day. After NC you'll see it again, Obama mania will be back. A win in Indiana means the race is over.

Because what you're talking about is guess work based on numbers you either popped out of your head or heard on some talk show.

The fact that you cant even acknowldge the possibility of that happening or that its realistic is :hehe:

Well ALL follow what you're talking about, but when it comes down to it, you have been saying this stuff for MONTHS and have been wrong each time!

Look whose talking.

"Super delegates will flock to Obama after Super Tuesday and ensure the win for him! She'll have to drop out!" "Super delegates will flock to him after Texas and force her to drop out!"

I never said the one and bold, and if he had won Texas popular vote, they would have, which I also included in my quote but you chose to not put in :rolleyes:


Now you are saying they will flock after a state they have all known Obama will win for months, despite the fact that Clinton has cut down his double digit lead and could very well finish within 5 points of him in NC. You are being ridiculously stubborn


Again, look whose talking. This is stupid. We disagree. Enough.

[Marx]

If Clinton gets within 5 points of Obama when all is said and done in NC, she will have a huge momentum boost.

Let's just imagine though...she has dramatically narrowed the margin...add to that an Edward's endorsement of her. Obama could potentially lose NC.

[Marx]

They're coming out more and more every day. After NC you'll see it again, Obama mania will be back. A win in Indiana means the race is over.

That's news to me.

[Excel]

Let's just imagine though...she has dramatically narrowed the margin...add to that an Edward's endorsement of her. Obama could potentially lose NC.

Realistically, nope. Every state has gone how it looked to early in this election, these 2 will be the same. Obama takes NC by 10%, Hill takes Indiy by 5-6%. Its getting so predictable.

[Matt]

They're coming out more and more every day. After NC you'll see it again, Obama mania will be back. A win in Indiana means the race is over.



The fact that you cant even acknowldge the possibility of that happening or that its realistic is :hehe:



Look whose talking.

"

I never said the one and bold, and if he had won Texas popular vote, they would have, which I also included in my quote but you chose to not put in :rolleyes:



Again, look whose talking. This is stupid. We disagree. Enough.

http://www.rootology.com/images/exploding_head.jpg

Once again, I have not made a single guarantee this election. Why? Because they come back to bite you in the ass. I mean, for godsakes Excel, even if one of these times you do get it right, you really can't tell Jman or Marx "I told you so," as you are pretty much just throwing crap at the wall over and over again and hoping it sticks.

[Marx]

Realistically, nope. Every state has gone how it looked to early in this election, these 2 will be the same. Obama takes NC by 10%, Hill takes Indiy by 5-6%. Its getting so predictable.

Obama is not going to win NC by double-digits. Not anymore.

[Matt]

Let's just imagine though...she has dramatically narrowed the margin...add to that an Edward's endorsement of her. Obama could potentially lose NC.

I doubt Edwards will endorse anyone. The timing of his trip to Disney World is just a bit too convenient. Edwards has gone into hiding to avoid getting involved in this mess. I'm starting to wonder though, if his reasoning isn't so much to stay in good standing in both camps, but more to keep himself viable as a compromise candidate if it comes down to August.

[hippie_hunter]

I ant prove it, it aint happened yet. But the path is clearly showing their declaring rather than holding out till August-Obama added 5 supers today alone for christs sake and Hill added 3. Since last Wednesday, Obama has 12 and shes added 10. 22 in week. What do you think will happen after NC and Indiana in 2 weeks? You can think its fake but that 350 magic number is real wether you like it not.

Hes at 248 right now, if his supers total is over 350 by the end of the primaries, it looks likely althought not definite that Obama will be over the 2,025 total mark. That would require 1675 and pledged delegates, he is 185 away from that number with 507 of them remaining.

As of right now, that is reality. Hillarys battle gets worse and worse with every super that goes to him and not to her, and the fact that hes erasing her lead insuper delegates far faster than shes erased his lead in pledged isnt lost to the Clinton campaign or her financers. It could obviously change, but I find it highly unlikely Hillary will remain if Obama ever crosses 2,025 prior to July.

And do you think that Super Delegates will flock to Obama if Clinton ends up winning Indiana by 5 - 10% and Obama ends up winning North Carolina in single digits, a state that he was expected to win by large double digits just a matter of days ago?

Do you think that Super Delegates will flock to Obama if they seat Florida and Michigan since they would solidify Clinton's claim to leading the popular vote. Not only that but seating Michigan and Florida with the current numbers would give Obama a lead of only 20 delegates.

This is using the current numbers:

Delegate Totals
Obama: 1,732
Clinton: 1,592

Florida Pledged Delegates
Clinton: 105
Obama: 67
Edwards: 13

Florida Superdelegates
Clinton: 8
Obama: 4
Undeclared: 14

Michigan Pledged Delegates
Clinton: 73
Uncommitted: 55

Michigan Superdelegates
Clinton: 7
Obama: 2
Undeclared: 19

Total
Obama: 1,805
Clinton: 1,785

Not only that but most of Michigan's undeclared superdelegates and uncommitted delegates are leaning towards Clinton and so are Florida's superdelegates.

Not only that but Edwards' 19 delegates are free to vote for who they want, but since Edwards suspended his campaign instead of formally withdrawing like the other candidates he still has sway over them. Who do you think they'll go to if Edwards endorses Clinton, which seems to be the most likely scenario now?

Plus we have to take into account that Clinton will win West Virginia, Puerto Rico, and Kentucky by large margins. Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana have demographics that favor Clinton (large rural populations).

If Michigan and Florida get seated, Clinton has the nomination sealed.

[Marx]

I doubt Edwards will endorse anyone. The timing of his trip to Disney World is just a bit too convenient. Edwards has gone into hiding to avoid getting involved in this mess. I'm starting to wonder though, if his reasoning isn't so much to stay in good standing in both camps, but more to keep himself viable as a compromise candidate if it comes down to August.

I doubt he will formally endorse too. I'm just posing a hypothetical. Although I do find the Disney trip interesting. :cwink:

[The Senator]

That's news to me.

Well, it's not news, considering Excel has spewed this nonsense before.

Whether or not it's true is another matter.

[Excel]

Matt youve been saying for months the supers will wait; you said the blacks wouldnt vote, than said the blacks would go for Clinton, you said the young people wouldnt vote and went onto say the young people were getting sick of voting when they did...you have made countless opinion statements as if they were fact. None of which are true. I aint saying I told you so; you just *****ing at me for doing the same damn thing :rolleyes:

Everyone here does, its the damn politics forum. EVERYONE makes opinionated statements and for some reason you find it fun to jump on mine. Cool :up:

[Marx]

Well, it's not news, considering Excel has spewed this nonsense before.

Whether or not it's true is another matter.

It isn't news to me that he's been saying it OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. What is news is that it's supposedly a fact.

It's clearly not fact.

[Excel]

That's news to me.

He added 5 today alone. They are all under pressure from within their own party to come; to think they will all just ignore it and wait till August makes no damn sense.

Well, it's not news, considering Excel has spewed this nonsense before.

Of course its nonsense, it means Hillarys "win by super delegates" isnt working :rolleyes:

If they start fleeing Obama for Hillary, Ill gladly admit. It just aint happening yet.

It's clearly not fact.

He's added 5 today alone. 12 this week. At the start of the week, there 300 remaining. 22 in total have come out this week, compared to 18 the week before, and 15 the week before that. And next week, itll keep going. After May 13th, itll get even bigger...

Is it really that hard, for real, to understand?

[Marx]

Matt youve been saying for months the supers will wait; you said the blacks wouldnt vote, than said the blacks would go for Clinton, you said the young people wouldnt vote and went onto say the young people were getting sick of voting when they did...you have made countless opinion statements as if they were fact. None of which are true. I aint saying I told you so; you just *****ing at me for doing the same damn thing :rolleyes:

Everyone here does, its the damn politics forum. EVERYONE makes opinionated statements and for some reason you find it fun to jump on mine. Cool :up:

Supers ARE going to wait.

African-Americans ORIGINALLY did vote overwhelmingly for Clinton.

Young voters typically do not vote in a GE.

Those are facts Ex.

[The Senator]

He added 5 today alone. They are all under pressure from within their own party to come; to think they will all just ignore it and wait till August makes no damn sense.

Cite your sources when making such claims.


Of course its nonsense, it means Hillarys "win by super delegates" isnt working :rolleyes:

If they start fleeing Obama for Hillary, Ill gladly admit. It just aint happening yet.

We'll see what happens.

But tell me, what happens if you're wrong?

[Excel]

Supers ARE going to wait.

African-Americans ORIGINALLY did vote overwhelmingly for Clinton.

Young voters typically do not vote in a GE.

Those are facts Ex.

Supers ARENT waiting.

Blacks are going HUGELY to Obama.

He said young voters wouldnt vote for Obama in democratic primary proccess, and now hes saying it about the GE.

Those are facts. There is NOTHING to back up an argment saying otherwise.

[Marx]

He added 5 today alone. They are all under pressure from within their own party to come; to think they will all just ignore it and wait till August makes no damn sense.



Of course its nonsense, it means Hillarys "win by super delegates" isnt working :rolleyes:

If they start fleeing Obama for Hillary, Ill gladly admit. It just aint happening yet.

Take off your Obama-blinders and look at the reality beyond your own tunnel vision. I implore you Ex, please.

FIVE IS HARDLY A FLOOD.

[Matt]

Matt youve been saying for months the supers will wait;

No, I've said if I were a super I would wait and explained my reasoning. Unlike you, I am not arrogant enough to assume I can possibly understand or say what another individual or group of individuals, who has been thus far silent, would do.


you said the blacks wouldnt vote, than said the blacks would go for Clinton,
you said the young people wouldnt vote and went onto say the young people were getting sick of voting when they did

No, I've said both demographics historically do not vote and would be suprised if they did. I did not say they would not. As for the black vote going for Clinton, I have never said anything so preposturous, I simply observed that the black community revered her husband during his time in office.


...you have made countless opinion statements as if they were fact. None of which are true. I aint saying I told you so; you just *****ing at me for doing the same damn thing :rolleyes:

You said you'll tell us all "I told you so," just yesterday. And just because I don't put "IMO" before every opinion statement I make, doesn't make it any less, my opinion. It goes without saying that opinion statements are...my opinion.


Everyone here does, its the damn politics forum. EVERYONE makes opinionated statements and for some reason you find it fun to jump on mine. Cool :up:

Not at all, the reason I jump on you is because you come in here and claim things ARE fact. Saying something like "Obama will get 2025 by Puerto Rico" is not a statement of opinion, not even close. You are stating it as fact. WILL means it is fact. You do not say "is likely" or "has potential to." You say "WILL." You're the only person in this forum who behaves that way.

[Excel]

Marx, you just dont follow me. 5 is a flood for one day. The past 2 days hes gone up by 9. Im keeping track weekly basis.

From Wednesday to wednesday, he added 12. He's already added 5 this week, well see how big the number gets over the next 6 days. The following week a win in NC, so the number wshould continue to grow.

Cite your sources when making such claims.

Its well known Dean publically said he wants them all out by July 4th, I dont need to cite it.

But tell me, what happens if you're wrong?

I'll say I was wrong? Hillary wins? Obama wins some other way?

[Excel]

Matt of the 800 supers, 517 have come out.They havent been silent at all thus far.

You said you'll tell us all "I told you so," just yesterday. And just because I don't put "IMO" before every opinion statement I make, doesn't make it any less, my opinion. It goes without saying that opinion statements are...my opinion.


:dry:

Than what is your point? You cant say my opinion is wrong because it hasnt happened yet.

[hippie_hunter]

Supers ARENT waiting.
Yeah they're getting superdelegates here and there, superdelegates are still waiting for the time being.

Blacks are going HUGELY to Obama.
The black vote isn't going to matter at all anymore once North Carolina is over.

He said young voters wouldnt vote for Obama in democratic primary proccess, and now hes saying it about the GE.
Even with Obama young voters are still relatively unimportant. Look at most of the races in which young voters are still the smallest demographic in age groups.

Those are facts. There is NOTHING to back up an argment saying otherwise.
Facts are that Obama's campaign has turned into a campaign that has relied far too much on urban, elitist, youth, and black voters and that is hurting him in more recent contests.

[The Senator]

Its well known Dean publically said he wants them all out by July 4th, I dont need to cite it.

No, you said that five super delegates flocked to Obama today. I haven't read this. Cite your sources when making such claims.


I'll say I was wrong? Hillary wins? Obama wins some other way?

I don't think you'll admit that you're wrong. I'm under the impression that you'll go on some tirade about how the DNC is undemocratic if Hillary gets the nomination, at the very least. You strike me as the kind of person who can't admit fault, considering you haven't admitted it before.

[Matt]

:dry:

Than what is your point? You cant say my opinion is wrong because it hasnt happened yet.

Oh, my, lord. When you say "I'll tell you I told you so in a few weeks," you are no longer stating it as opinion. You are stating it as a foregone conclusion, not fact.

[Marx]

Marx, you just dont follow me. 5 is a flood for one day. The past 2 days hes gone up by 9. Im keeping track weekly basis.

From Wednesday to wednesday, he added 12. He's already added 5 this week, well see how big the number gets over the next 6 days. The following week a win in NC, so the number wshould continue to grow.

I get what you're saying, I just disagree. But we'll see just how many he picks up with a possible win in NC that wasn't nearly as large as once predicted.


Its well known Dean publically said he wants them all out by July 4th, I dont need to cite it.

And the Supers are not going to risk political suicide by publicly supporting the wrong candidate. Dean can preach and preach and preach all he wants. If they refuse to commit until the convention, then guess what? They refuse to commit until the convention.

[Excel]

No, you said that five super delegates flocked to Obama today. I haven't read this. Cite your sources when making such claims.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Yesterday he had 243.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080502/ap_on_el_pr/democrats

Andrew was one of five superdelegates to swing behind Obama during the day, compared to four Clinton netted.

9 declared today. Their not waiting.

I don't think you'll admit that you're wrong. I'm under the impression that you'll go on some tirade about how the DNC is undemocratic if Hillary gets the nomination, at the very least. You strike me as the kind of person who can't admit fault, considering you haven't admitted it before.

While the bold is true, Ill openly admit wether what I said would hapen ended up hapening or not, if I was right or wrong.

[Excel]

And the Supers are not going to risk political suicide by publicly supporting the wrong candidate.

Which is why the NC win may be the biggie. There are many who wanted to come out after Ohio n Texas, they wanted to come out after Penn, they couldnt. We all know that. The fact is, political suicide ISNT going hillary clinton. What it is is going against the voters and pledged delegates. And many believe is a foregone conclusion Obama wins those 2 and an effort to end it early with what they believe is the same outcome, theyll come out.

At the same time, they dont wanna piss off Hillary espec. after 3 big wins. Hence why a loss in big state NC could just what these people have been waiting for: an excuse to go to Obama. Theres no defending your vote or political exposure because they just followed the popular vote

Dean can preach and preach and preach all he wants. If they refuse to commit until the convention, then guess what? They refuse to commit until the convention.

They ca nrefuse, but they arnet. Theres 290 out of 800 left to commit, 9 commited today and and theres still a month to go.

[Excel]

Obama is not going to win NC by double-digits. Not anymore.

I think he will, this is getting tooo predictable. It was obvious early in March Hillary would get a cali/ohio sized win in Penn, thats exaclytly what happened.

Voters arent changing their minds, theres very little undecided. Whoever leads early wins.

[hippie_hunter]

I think he will, this is getting tooo predictable. It was obvious early in March Hillary would get a cali/ohio sized win in Penn, thats exaclytly what happened.

Voters arent changing their minds, theres very little undecided. Whoever leads early wins.

1. There are still a lot of undecided voters and they're going to Clinton.

2. A lot people are changing their minds about Obama thanks to Wright. That's why Obama's lead in North Carolina is shrinking and Clinton's lead in Indiana is growing.

[Excel]

1. There are still a lot of undecided voters and they're going to Clinton.

2. A lot people are changing their minds about Obama thanks to Wright. That's why Obama's lead in North Carolina is shrinking and Clinton's lead in Indiana is growing.

Yeah, thats really what happened in Pennsylvania which he lost by 10% after being down in polls be an average of 17% 3 weeks before :rolleyes:

[hippie_hunter]

Yeah, thats really what happened in Pennsylvania which he lost by 10% after being down in polls be an average of 17% 3 weeks before :rolleyes:
And polls showed Clinton pretty much winning the margin during the time they voted.

Polls in North Carolina have show Obama's double digit lead completely eroded within a matter of days. Right now Obama's in the margin of winning by 5 - 10% when he had a solid double digit lead just days ago.

Not only that but yeah that's what happened in Pennsylvania, Wright hurt Obama (and in Indiana and North Carolina), and most undecideds went to Clinton.

[hippie_hunter]

I'm watching the Daily Show interview right now and damn, Dean's pathetic in this interview by trying to say that their system is more democratic, they have a chance of winning states that are solidly Republican, and distorting John McCain

[Excel]

Hey, tell me something, what was Hillary average Ohio lead on election day?

Ill tell you. It was 6%. What did she win by?

Polls show it tighter than it is; they did in Texas, they did in Ohio, and they did in Penn, and they show it in both of these. Polls have NC going to Obama by 7 and Indy to Hillaryby 3. Obana will win by 10% nd shell win by 6%.

[Marx]

And polls showed Clinton pretty much winning the margin during the time they voted.

Polls in North Carolina have show Obama's double digit lead completely eroded within a matter of days. Right now Obama's in the margin of winning by 5 - 10% when he had a solid double digit lead just days ago.

Not only that but yeah that's what happened in Pennsylvania, Wright hurt Obama (and in Indiana and North Carolina), and most undecideds went to Clinton.

Ex doesn't like to admit certain things.

[Excel]

Ex doesn't like to admit certain things.

Polls say different on the Wright matter :o

[hippie_hunter]

Polls say different on the Wright matter :o

Polls are saying that because they're attributing Wright to hurting Obama in North Carolina and Indiana. Pundits have even said that.

[Marx]

I'm watching the Daily Show interview right now and damn, Dean's pathetic in this interview by trying to say that their system is more democratic, they have a chance of winning states that are solidly Republican, and distorting John McCain

I just caught the interview myself. I am completely unimpressed with Dean. Stewart hammered him pretty good. He kinda let him off the hook towards the end, but I thought it was a pretty good interview nonetheless.

[Marx]

Polls are saying that because they're attributing Wright to hurting Obama in North Carolina and Indiana. Pundits have even said that.

I was just about to say that.

[Matt]

I just caught the interview myself. I am completely unimpressed with Dean. Stewart hammered him pretty good. He kinda let him off the hook towards the end, but I thought it was a pretty good interview nonetheless.

I wish he pushed him a bit harder on his "More democratic than the Republican version" comment. I mean, Dean was talking about the hundred richest citizens deciding the election, wtf? The entire super delegate system is the 800 most "important" Democrats deciding the election. The Republican system is nothing close to that. Stewart shouldn't have let him off. If the head of the Republican committee, Mike Duncan said that, Stewart wouldn't have let him off.

[Hypestyle]

northwest indiana will be a key arena for voters---

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1736477,00.html

[Marx]

I wish he pushed him a bit harder on his "More democratic than the Republican version" comment. I mean, Dean was talking about the hundred richest citizens deciding the election, wtf? The entire super delegate system is the 800 most "important" Democrats deciding the election. The Republican system is nothing close to that. Stewart shouldn't have let him off. If the head of the Republican committee, Mike Duncan said that, Stewart wouldn't have let him off.

Oh I completely agree Matt. Watching that interview just made me realize that I don't really care for Howard Dean. He just doesn't seem to "get it." You know?

[Gunsmoke99]

Hillary top advisor calls Indianans White N*ggers. Proof that the media is biased against Obama. If he would of said this, he would be dead by now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN_nQOHj__s

[Matt]

Oh I completely agree Matt. Watching that interview just made me realize that I don't really care for Howard Dean. He just doesn't seem to "get it." You know?

Yeah. Dean is ideal for the chair of DNC, as he is an amazing fund raiser, which is essentially the chair's job. The problem is, he never knows when to shut up. Dean shouldn't be publicity whoring right now...Dean should have never been in a position where he could've been shown up by the host of the Daily Show.

[Addendum]

The interview reinforced my cynicism regarding both political parties

[souvlaki]

Ex doesn't like to admit certain things.

Have you been paying attention to the polls at all in the last few months? Excel is right, this whole thing is so predictable. In states Obama is favored to win in, the polls get close the week before, people think it will be a nail biter, and Obama ends up winning my huge margins. In Hillary's favored states, the same. It has happened time and time again in this election. Dont pay attention to the polls the week before the election. North Carolina will probably not be close, same as how Pennsylvania was never going to be close.

[Marx]

Have you been paying attention to the polls at all in the last few months? Excel is right, this whole thing is so predictable. In states Obama is favored to win in, the polls get close the week before, people think it will be a nail biter, and Obama ends up winning my huge margins. In Hillary's favored states, the same. It has happened time and time again in this election. Dont pay attention to the polls the week before the election. North Carolina will probably not be close, same as how Pennsylvania was never going to be close.

I do pay attention to polls. And no, Ex is not right. While it is true that there have been no major upsets in this election thus far, that doesn't not mean that an upset (or break in predictability) isn't possible. I will concede that polls have not been reliable, but you cannot deny the fact that Obama is slowly losing support.

[souvlaki]

I do pay attention to polls. And no, Ex is not right. While it is true that there have been no major upsets in this election thus far, that doesn't not mean that an upset (or break in predictability) isn't possible. I will concede that polls have not been reliable, but you cannot deny the fact that Obama is slowly losing support.

But you are both relying on polls. Polls that have not been reliable this whole race. My point is this, the only constant in this whole race is that in states where Obama or Clinton held a large lead early on, those candidates ended up winning by a 10 point or larger margin. The only exceptions being Texas, and a few others (generally states where Clinton was favored to lead). Then there are the states like Indiana which are already close, and usually remain close up to election day. Can the Rev. Wright scandal change things? Of course. But for every poll showing that this is changing things, there are polls showing that it is not changing anyones' minds in the two states next week. Point being, if Excel is not right, you are not right either. But Excel has more evidence to back up his case then you do yours.

[Marx]

But you are both relying on polls. Polls that have not been reliable this whole race. My point is this, the only constant in this whole race is that in states where Obama or Clinton held a large lead early on, those candidates ended up winning by a 10 point or larger margin. The only exceptions being Texas, and a few others (generally states where Clinton was favored to lead). Then there are the states like Indiana which are already close, and usually remain close up to election day. Can the Rev. Wright scandal change things? Of course. But for every poll showing that this is changing things, there are polls showing that it is not changing anyones' minds in the two states next week. Point being, if Excel is not right, you are not right either. But Excel has more evidence to back up his case then you do yours.

I see your point Souv. But Ex has been relying on his own opinions and trying to pass them off as fact. I, along with many others in this forum, are relying on hard numbers. I completely agree that polls are not reliable. But my point is, Obama is losing support. The Rev. Wright scandal that just won't go away is hurting him, the fact that a popular NC governor endorsed Clinton, the Edwards' seem to favor Clinton...all of these things are catching up with Obama. There is no denying that.

[souvlaki]

I see your point Souv. But Ex has been relying on his own opinions and trying to pass them off as fact.

Obama is not going to win NC by double-digits. Not anymore.

^ ahem...

I, along with many others in this forum, are relying on hard numbers.

What hard numbers? Hard numbers proving the Rev. Wright scandal is having an effect on an election that hasn't happened yet? Hard numbers based on National Polls that change almost daily? Hard numbers based on Obama's performance in a state he was favored to lose in by 20% a week before? Your hard proof is polls that predict something that hasn't happened yet. The same thing you use as an argument you use against Excel, that he predicts stuff that hasn't happened yet. You have nothing to back up that Rev. Wright will make a difference in North Carolina. However, Excel has trends from this whole election cycle to back up his claim. His reasoning is not baseless, yours is based off your own personal opinion that people in North Carolina care so much about Rev. Wright that it will change a trend that has been continuing since January.

I completely agree that polls are not reliable. But my point is, Obama is losing support. The Rev. Wright scandal that just won't go away is hurting him, the fact that a popular NC governor endorsed Clinton, the Edwards' seem to favor Clinton...all of these things are catching up with Obama. There is no denying that.

Once again, you have nothing to back this up. Rev. Wright has only been a serious issue since Pennsylvania. You can point to Clinton's 10 point win as evidence that this had an effect, but, like I've already pointed out, he was expected to lose that state by double digits a couple weeks before. You are contradicting yourself by saying that polls are not reliable, but then following that up by saying that Rev. Wright is hurting Obama's campaign. What evidence of that do you have? POLLS. So once again, I will say, the only thing that has been predictable in this whole election is that Obama has tended to carry the states he was expected to win early on by double digits. So in that respect, Excel has more going for him in that respect than you do by saying Rev. Wright is going to make the race close. If you want to argue Indiana, fine, but don't act like you have anything other than polls to prove that Obama will not get double digit margins when I can point to several states that have proven otherwise. We don't know yet what effect Rev. Wright had on Obama's campaign yet, and to say that you know any more than Excel whether those polls about his effect is right, or you can see into the future, your argument has even less merit than Excel's.

[Marx]

^ ahem...



What hard numbers? Hard numbers proving the Rev. Wright scandal is having an effect on an election that hasn't happened yet? Hard numbers based on National Polls that change almost daily? Hard numbers based on Obama's performance in a state he was favored to lose in by 20% a week before? Your hard proof is polls that predict something that hasn't happened yet. The same thing you use as an argument you use against Excel, that he predicts stuff that hasn't happened yet. You have nothing to back up that Rev. Wright will make a difference in North Carolina. However, Excel has trends from this whole election cycle to back up his claim. His reasoning is not baseless, yours is based off your own personal opinion that people in North Carolina care so much about Rev. Wright that it will change a trend that has been continuing since January.



Once again, you have nothing to back this up. Rev. Wright has only been a serious issue since Pennsylvania. You can point to Clinton's 10 point win as evidence that this had an effect, but, like I've already pointed out, he was expected to lose that state by double digits a couple weeks before. You are contradicting yourself by saying that polls are not reliable, but then following that up by saying that Rev. Wright is hurting Obama's campaign. What evidence of that do you have? POLLS. So once again, I will say, the only thing that has been predictable in this whole election is that Obama has tended to carry the states he was expected to win early on by double digits. So in that respect, Excel has more going for him in that respect than you do by saying Rev. Wright is going to make the race close. If you want to argue Indiana, fine, but don't act like you have anything other than polls to prove that Obama will not get double digit margins when I can point to several states that have proven otherwise. We don't know yet what effect Rev. Wright had on Obama's campaign yet, and to say that you know any more than Excel whether those polls about his effect is right, or you can see into the future, your argument has even less merit than Excel's.

I don't have the energy to reopen this debate yet AGAIN. Someone else feel free to chime in.

[souvlaki]

And just for a more recent example:

February 12th

A new poll out today in Wisconsin shows that Obama has a 50 percent to 39 percent lead over Clinton, boosted by a 21-percentage-point edge among voters most concerned by the Iraq war.


February 18th

While Clinton, the Democratic senator from New York, is behind rival U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in polls leading up to Tuesday's Wisconsin primary, she could pull off an upset, some pundits say.
Obama leads Clinton in pre-primary polls by four or five percentage points, well within the margin of error.

Final Results:

Barack Obama 58%
Hillary Clinton 41%

There are several more examples of this.

[souvlaki]

I don't have the energy to reopen this debate yet AGAIN. Someone else feel free to chime in.

What is there to debate? You are basically saying your opinion has more merit than Excel's, but I have yet to see why. Remember the night before Pennsylvania when Excel claimed it was going to be super close, and you were basically saying he was being delusional? I agreed with you. Why? Because if anything has held true during this crazy election, it's that polls the week before a primary in states that were early favorites for certain candidates always show a closer race than it actually turns out to be.

[Marx]

What is there to debate? You are basically saying your opinion has more merit than Excel's, but I have yet to see why. Remember the night before Pennsylvania when Excel claimed it was going to be super close, and you were basically saying he was being delusional? I agreed with you. Why? Because if anything has held true during this crazy election, it's that polls the week before a primary in states that were early favorites for certain candidates always show a closer race than it actually turns out to be.

I'm not trying to say that my opinion has more merit than Ex's. I have now said, repeatedly, that polls aren't the most reliable. But you cannot honestly sit there and tell me that you believe Rev. Wright and Obama's arrogance toward the subject has had no effect on his campaign as of late.

[souvlaki]

I'm not trying to say that my opinion has more merit than Ex's. I have now said, repeatedly, that polls aren't the most reliable. But you cannot honestly sit there and tell me that you believe Rev. Wright and Obama's arrogance toward the subject has had no effect on his campaign as of late.

Your evidence for that is Pennsylvania, a state already favored for Clinton. Pennsylvania is not North Carolina. There is simply no proof that Rev. Wright will have an effect on a state already heavily favored for Obama. I guess what it comes down to is I just don't believe there are as many undecided voters as the press would like to make us believe. People in North Carolina know who they are voting for for the most part, same as how people in Pennsylvania knew who they were voting for. That's why so far the most reliable polls taken are the ones taken a few weeks before the election. I am personally of the belief that Rev. Wright has not had much of an effect on people already planning on voting for Obama, same as how I don't think Bosnia-gate had an effect on Clinton supporters. Most people planning on supporting Obama a couple weeks ago were happy enough with his response on the whole matter earlier in the week. There are polls showing Rev. Wright is having an effect on this election, but there are also polls showing that people in North Carolina and Indiana are not affected at all by Rev. Wright in the way they are voting. Which ones are right? Indiana is going to be close, but you looking for an upset in North Carolina is about as realistic as Obama supporters looking for an upset in Pennsylvania or Ohio.

[Marx]

Your evidence for that is Pennsylvania, a state already favored for Clinton. Pennsylvania is not North Carolina. There is simply no proof that Rev. Wright will have an effect on a state already heavily favored for Obama. I guess what it comes down to is I just don't believe there are as many undecided voters as the press would like to make us believe. People in North Carolina know who they are voting for for the most part, same as how people in Pennsylvania knew who they were voting for. That's why so far the most reliable polls taken are the ones taken a few weeks before the election. I am personally of the belief that Rev. Wright has not had much of an effect on people already planning on voting for Obama, same as how I don't think Bosnia-gate had an effect on Clinton supporters. Most people planning on supporting Obama a couple weeks ago were happy enough with his response on the whole matter earlier in the week. There are polls showing Rev. Wright is having an effect on this election, but there are also polls showing that people in North Carolina and Indiana are not affected at all by Rev. Wright in the way they are voting. Which ones are right? Indiana is going to be close, but you looking for an upset in North Carolina is about as realistic as Obama supporters looking for an upset in Pennsylvania or Ohio.

I've never said that I am looking for an upset in NC. Not one time, I just said that we can never rule out the possibility. Especially given the fact that a popular governor has endorsed Clinton in NC. I completely agree that the bases of each candidate's support are not usually swayed by controversy, but it will affect the undecided's. That being said, it is also known that alot of undecided's have usually gone to Clinton.

[souvlaki]

I've never said that I am looking for an upset in NC. Not one time, I just said that we can never rule out the possibility. Especially given the fact that a popular governor has endorsed Clinton in NC. I completely agree that the bases of each candidate's support are not usually swayed by controversy, but it will affect the undecided's. That being said, it is also known that alot of undecided's have usually gone to Clinton.

I'm too lazy to look through the actual numbers, but I find it hard to believe that in states favored for Obama, the same states where Obama ended up winning by large margins, the undecided voters went for Clinton. The most obvious examples I can think of are recent examples... Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, states heavily favored for Clinton. That statistic may even be true in states that were toss ups. But you cant tell me in a state like Wisconsin, where a week before polls were within single digits, that the undecided voters ended up going overwhelmingly with Clinton, and yet Obama still won by double digits. Once again, in states that are heavily favored for one candidate more than the other, I think there are far less undecided voters than the press would like us to believe.

[souvlaki]

Once again, Wisconsin:


Those that decided:

Just today 48 Clinton 51 Obama
In the last three days 44 Clinton 56 Obama
Sometime last week 32 Clinton 68 Obama

[Marx]

I'm too lazy to look through the actual numbers, but I find it hard to believe that in states favored for Obama, the same states where Obama ended up winning by large margins, the undecided voters went for Clinton. The most obvious examples I can think of are recent examples... Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, states heavily favored for Clinton. That statistic may even be true in states that were toss ups. But you cant tell me in a state like Wisconsin, where a week before polls were within single digits, that the undecided voters ended up going overwhelmingly with Clinton, and yet Obama still won by double digits. Once again, in states that are heavily favored for one candidate more than the other, I think there are far less undecided voters than the press would like us to believe.

I have a hard time believing the "large numbers" of undecided's too. But in a race that could potentially be close...the undecided's make all the difference.

[souvlaki]

I have a hard time believing the "large numbers" of undecided's too. But in a race that could potentially be close...the undecided's make all the difference.

Well, of course. But I think you are overestimating how many people are undecided in North Carolina. The one big thing Obama has done right to this point is getting his people out in droves to vote for him in states that are heavily favored for him. He is simply more organized at getting out his voters than Hillary, and the caucuses are proof of it. That is why Hillary usually can't budge his lead in states he is heavily favored in, and why states like Texas ended up being so close. At this point I see a 7% win for Obama a worst case scenario. That's assuming he drops the ball on getting out his voters for the first time this whole election, and goes completely against the trends in every state he has won to this point.

[Kelly]

Well the largest undecided percentages are in 2 groups....women and 65+ age group. Those 2 groups have gone for Clinton in almost all states.

[Marx]

Well, of course. But I think you are overestimating how many people are undecided in North Carolina. The one big thing Obama has done right to this point is getting his people out in droves to vote for him in states that are heavily favored for him. He is simply more organized at getting out his voters than Hillary, and the caucuses are proof of it. That is why Hillary usually can't budge his lead in states he is heavily favored in, and why states like Texas ended up being so close. At this point I see a 7% win for Obama a worst case scenario. That's assuming he drops the ball on getting out his voters for the first time this whole election, and goes completely against the trends in every state he has won to this point.

Caucuses should be eliminated. The fact that Obama has won the majority of them means nothing to me.

[Kelly]

It means he hits demographics that can stay up all night......*smiles*

[Marx]

It means he hits demographics that can stay up all night......*smiles*

:hehe::cwink:

[souvlaki]

Well the largest undecided percentages are in 2 groups....women and 65+ age group. Those 2 groups have gone for Clinton in almost all states.

I just don't buy that there are enough undecided voters to sway the election one way or another, or even make it close. Every state that was an overwhelming favorite for one candidate or another has shown time and time again that polls taken a week before have been completely bunk. North Carolina is nothing more than Pennsylvania in reverse. Clinton may bring it down to within 10% (which would actually be modestly impressive considering the 25% lead Obama had a month ago), but arguing that those numbers are going to get closer is like arguing Obama was going to get closer in Pennsylvania. TheMarx can argue what-ifs all he wants, but that doesn't change the fact that polls the week before a primary have been shown time and time again to be unreliable, and it seems as if that is the only basis for his argument that there is no way Obama can win with double digits.

[hippie_hunter]

Clinton winning North Carolina isn't going to happen, but it certainly is good news for her that she's eroded his once double digit lead.

[souvlaki]

Caucuses should be eliminated. The fact that Obama has won the majority of them means nothing to me.

I didn't ask for your opinions on caucuses. Your opinion on caucuses is irrelevent, and have about as much merit as me saying I dislike the idea of super delegates. It doesn't change the fact that he won those states, and he won those states because he got his supporters out in large numbers, same as he did in states that were not caucus states that he was heavily favored in early on, and same as he will probably do in North Carolina. That was my point. You have no way to conclusively state that Obama will not receive double digits because everything that has happened so far in this primary has proved you completely wrong.

[Malice]

I think, unless we get a picture of Obama shooting the Pope....

Obama will win, I think he has enough of a lead to basically mean he has it, it will be close, but I think its done

[SentinelMind]

Considering Dean leads the DNC, I'm sure he knows a lot more than you do about who he's going to seat at his party's convention.

Cold-blooded. :hehe:

[fifthfiend]

("If I were to come up with a way to submarine your chances, it would start with taking a state that was...I dunno, crucial to the Republican win in 2004...and I would find a way to insult them. Then I would take a rust belt state...and do the same." :lmao:)

Alternately, one could find a way to make every single black person in America stay home on election day.

[Kelly]

I just don't buy that there are enough undecided voters to sway the election one way or another, or even make it close. Every state that was an overwhelming favorite for one candidate or another has shown time and time again that polls taken a week before have been completely bunk. North Carolina is nothing more than Pennsylvania in reverse. Clinton may bring it down to within 10% (which would actually be modestly impressive considering the 25% lead Obama had a month ago), but arguing that those numbers are going to get closer is like arguing Obama was going to get closer in Pennsylvania. TheMarx can argue what-ifs all he wants, but that doesn't change the fact that polls the week before a primary have been shown time and time again to be unreliable, and it seems as if that is the only basis for his argument that there is no way Obama can win with double digits.

I think soul, that he is simply giving his opinion.........no harm in that. Chill alittle....:yay:

[Kelly]

Super Delegates don't care about Puerto Rico, they are watching...

The big states, Republican states, and the headlines.....

Puerto Rico only counts for the convention, they won't count in the Presidential Election.....therefore the SD's could care less....

[souvlaki]

I think soul, that he is simply giving his opinion.........no harm in that. Chill alittle....:yay:

No, I understand that. I just don't like that he's picking on Excel for giving a strong opinion, when he's doing the same. And personally, "Obama is not going to win by double digits. Not anymore." comes off to me more as a statement than an opinion. If you are going to rag on Excel for stating opinions as fact, it doesn't help your argument against said poster when you are doing the same. I was just pointing out that in actuality Excel has more of a basis for predicting that Obama will win with double digits than theMarx predicting it will be close, as every primary thus far where Obama has had an early lead has played out practically the exact same way... Clinton "catches up" the week before, but in the end the race never is as close as the polls make it out to be. There is nothing conclusive to indicate that North Carolina will be any different.

[The Senator]

Clinton winning North Carolina isn't going to happen, but it certainly is good news for her that she's eroded his once double digit lead.

Absolutely. As of now, she's also doing extremely well in white-as-white states like Kentucky and West Virginia. Add that to Indiana, maybe Montana and whichever Dakota is still left, and she may have an argument that Obama was an "insurgent" or "radical" force in this primary. If she exceeds Obama in the popular vote, she's got an even better argument under her belt. After all, his supporters have been complaining that the winner of the popular vote should win the primary... so I'm guessing she won't hesitate to use that to her advantage, if she's given the chance.

This will be very interesting to say the least.

[souvlaki]

Also, keep in mind I am not saying that Obama is guaranteed a double digit lead in North Carolina. But to completely dismiss the possibility that he will take it by double digits goes against the trends of every contest to this point that favored Obama.

[Matt]

Alternately, one could find a way to make every single black person in America stay home on election day.

:whatever: So we should vote the less deserving, less experienced, less qualified candidate because black people will get upset and not vote? Has our Democracy been transformed into give a small group what they want so they don't tantrum? And to be perfectly frank, the Democrats will not lose the black vote. Black voters who voted in the past will continue to vote. Do you know why? Because what is their alternative? A party who just doesn't give a damn about them and actively tries to screw them or a party who will take them for granted and give them a little? It is sad, but it is true. Who the Democrats should be worried about pissing off are the old timer, blue collar, "Reagan Democrats." The ones who have shown nothing but disdain for Obama. The ones who vote in the highest numbers. The ones who sit on the fence and can be very easily flipped to vote Republican.

[Marx]

edit

[Marx]

No, I understand that. I just don't like that he's picking on Excel for giving a strong opinion, when he's doing the same. And personally, "Obama is not going to win by double digits. Not anymore." comes off to me more as a statement than an opinion. If you are going to rag on Excel for stating opinions as fact, it doesn't help your argument against said poster when you are doing the same. I was just pointing out that in actuality Excel has more of a basis for predicting that Obama will win with double digits than theMarx predicting it will be close, as every primary thus far where Obama has had an early lead has played out practically the exact same way... Clinton "catches up" the week before, but in the end the race never is as close as the polls make it out to be. There is nothing conclusive to indicate that North Carolina will be any different.

Looks like I hit some kind of nerve. You seem all worked up Souv. I'm sure Ex appreciates your standing up for him. I'm not attacking him OR saying that my view is better than his. All I was saying is that he has said Obama will blow out Clinton in all of the last number of primaries and "force her to drop out." As one can plainly see, that hasn't been the case.

[Marx]

:whatever: So we should vote the less deserving, less experienced, less qualified candidate because black people will get upset and not vote? Has our Democracy been transformed into give a small group what they want so they don't tantrum? And to be perfectly frank, the Democrats will not lose the black vote. Black voters who voted in the past will continue to vote. Do you know why? Because what is their alternative? A party who just doesn't give a damn about them and actively tries to screw them or a party who will take them for granted and give them a little? It is sad, but it is true. Who the Democrats should be worried about pissing off are the old timer, blue collar, "Reagan Democrats." The ones who have shown nothing but disdain for Obama. The ones who vote in the highest numbers. The ones who sit on the fence and can be very easily flipped to vote Republican.

Once again, I completely agree Matt.

[The Senator]

:whatever: So we should vote the less deserving, less experienced, less qualified candidate because black people will get upset and not vote? Has our Democracy been transformed into give a small group what they want so they don't tantrum? And to be perfectly frank, the Democrats will not lose the black vote. Black voters who voted in the past will continue to vote. Do you know why? Because what is their alternative? A party who just doesn't give a damn about them and actively tries to screw them or a party who will take them for granted and give them a little? It is sad, but it is true. Who the Democrats should be worried about pissing off are the old timer, blue collar, "Reagan Democrats." The ones who have shown nothing but disdain for Obama. The ones who vote in the highest numbers. The ones who sit on the fence and can be very easily flipped to vote Republican.

If Clinton doesn't win a majority in the popular vote, I do believe that black voters will stay home on election day. However, she leads amongst many Reagan Democrats and blue-collar independent voters, so it won't entirely destroy her chances. But the African American vote is a vital voting bloc for us, and I assume that if Clinton isn't leading in the popular vote and the delegate count, Super Delegates will take the possible loss of the black vote this election into consideration and will ultimately choose Obama. Even if he doesn't win the election, African Americans won't be disenchanted come four years from now.

Though like I've said, if we do lose this election, our top choices for 2012 are candidates who have Republican and Reagan Democrat appeal, and that may ultimately be better for the party in the long run.

[souvlaki]

Looks like I hit some kind of nerve. You seem all worked up Souv. I'm sure Ex appreciates your standing up for him. I'm not attacking him OR saying that my view is better than his. All I was saying is that he has said Obama will blow out Clinton in all of the last number of primaries and "force her to drop out." As one can plainly see, that hasn't been the case.

That's all well and good, but what states have had primaries in the last month? Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. All states Clinton was favored to win by over 20% a little over a month and a half ago. Those states don't indicate that Obama's support is shrinking, all it proves is that Obama has not built upon his support in the last month in states he was already expected to lose. Nonetheless, using those states as examples why Excel is wrong about North Carolina is like me using the Potomac primaries as an example for why Obama could close the gap in Ohio. In fact, two weeks before that primary I probably did say as much. But Obama was never going to close the gap in a state like Ohio, no matter how much bad press Clinton received at that time. I'd wager the same will probably hold true in North Carolina with Clinton. I'm not knocking you specifically because I've noticed Matt, JMan, and Kel more or less completely dismiss Excel lately as well. I just hate that you are completely ignoring what Excel is saying just because you didn't agree with him about Pennsylvania, Texas, and Ohio. That doesn't change the fact that Excel's argument for why Obama will win with double digits has some basis in truth. Surely you can see that polls a week before a primary have so far been completely unreliable. This isn't a one time thing either. It's consistently happened in contest after contest this whole primary season. I honestly cant even remember the last primary where the final results were within the margin of error, that's how bad polls have been. And time and time again the favored candidate did better than expected. Why would that change now?

[hippie_hunter]

Absolutely. As of now, she's also doing extremely well in white-as-white states like Kentucky and West Virginia. Add that to Indiana, maybe Montana and whichever Dakota is still left, and she may have an argument that Obama was an "insurgent" or "radical" force in this primary. If she exceeds Obama in the popular vote, she's got an even better argument under her belt. After all, his supporters have been complaining that the winner of the popular vote should win the primary... so I'm guessing she won't hesitate to use that to her advantage, if she's given the chance.

This will be very interesting to say the least.

If Obama wins North Carolina in single digits I think she's very well poised to take the popular vote that excludes Michigan and Florida (she has it if you include them) on account she's well poised to take the remaining contests.

[Kelly]

No, I understand that. I just don't like that he's picking on Excel for giving a strong opinion, when he's doing the same. And personally, "Obama is not going to win by double digits. Not anymore." comes off to me more as a statement than an opinion. If you are going to rag on Excel for stating opinions as fact, it doesn't help your argument against said poster when you are doing the same. I was just pointing out that in actuality Excel has more of a basis for predicting that Obama will win with double digits than theMarx predicting it will be close, as every primary thus far where Obama has had an early lead has played out practically the exact same way... Clinton "catches up" the week before, but in the end the race never is as close as the polls make it out to be. There is nothing conclusive to indicate that North Carolina will be any different.


:yay: :yay:agreed...

[hippie_hunter]

Senator Barack Obama has won the Guam Democratic territorial convention by just 7 votes. All 21 precincts reporting has Senator Obama with 50.1% of the vote to Senator Hillary Clinton's 49.9%. As a result of the near tie like in Missouri, Guam's delegates will be split evenly.

[Matt]

Umm, yay?

[Kelly]

LMAO......they each get 2 delegates from Guam.

[The Senator]

That's all well and good, but what states have had primaries in the last month? Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. All states Clinton was favored to win by over 20% a little over a month and a half ago. Those states don't indicate that Obama's support is shrinking, all it proves is that Obama has not built upon his support in the last month in states he was already expected to lose. Nonetheless, using those states as examples why Excel is wrong about North Carolina is like me using the Potomac primaries as an example for why Obama could close the gap in Ohio. In fact, two weeks before that primary I probably did say as much. But Obama was never going to close the gap in a state like Ohio, no matter how much bad press Clinton received at that time. I'd wager the same will probably hold true in North Carolina with Clinton. I'm not knocking you specifically because I've noticed Matt, JMan, and Kel more or less completely dismiss Excel lately as well. I just hate that you are completely ignoring what Excel is saying just because you didn't agree with him about Pennsylvania, Texas, and Ohio. That doesn't change the fact that Excel's argument for why Obama will win with double digits has some basis in truth. Surely you can see that polls a week before a primary have so far been completely unreliable. This isn't a one time thing either. It's consistently happened in contest after contest this whole primary season. I honestly cant even remember the last primary where the final results were within the margin of error, that's how bad polls have been. And time and time again the favored candidate did better than expected. Why would that change now?

Excel is making guarantees. Such as "Clinton will be forced to drop out if she loses North Carolina." That statement is a true overstatement. The Clinton campaign has expected to lose North Carolina since the Potomac Primaries, when it was revealed that Obama had upwards of a 20-point lead. Additionally, when he makes guarantees that so many super delegates will switch over to Obama by a certain date, he is making an overstatement. It's nothing more than guess work.

And whenever someone presents a refuting argument, he replies with some comment along the lines of "face the facts" or "I'm not gonna be the only one saying 'gtfo.'" He makes extremely bold, ridiculous statements, and refuses to acknowledge that he may be wrong. Only when he gets badgered does he vaguely hint that he's probably not correct.

I have stuck myself in the middle of this whole debate as of late. I don't care who wins, I don't care if the Democrats win at all in November. But I do care when people make arguments and guarantees without reliable numbers and based on overwhelming bias. That's why I'm dismissing him. He makes guarantees, not objective claims.

[The Senator]

Senator Barack Obama has won the Guam Democratic territorial convention by just 7 votes. All 21 precincts reporting has Senator Obama with 50.1% of the vote to Senator Hillary Clinton's 49.9%. As a result of the near tie like in Missouri, Guam's delegates will be split evenly.

Why do territories get to vote in Presidential primaries? If they can't vote in the general election, then what good is it if they vote in the primary?

[Marx]

That's all well and good, but what states have had primaries in the last month? Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. All states Clinton was favored to win by over 20% a little over a month and a half ago. Those states don't indicate that Obama's support is shrinking, all it proves is that Obama has not built upon his support in the last month in states he was already expected to lose. Nonetheless, using those states as examples why Excel is wrong about North Carolina is like me using the Potomac primaries as an example for why Obama could close the gap in Ohio. In fact, two weeks before that primary I probably did say as much. But Obama was never going to close the gap in a state like Ohio, no matter how much bad press Clinton received at that time. I'd wager the same will probably hold true in North Carolina with Clinton. I'm not knocking you specifically because I've noticed Matt, JMan, and Kel more or less completely dismiss Excel lately as well. I just hate that you are completely ignoring what Excel is saying just because you didn't agree with him about Pennsylvania, Texas, and Ohio. That doesn't change the fact that Excel's argument for why Obama will win with double digits has some basis in truth. Surely you can see that polls a week before a primary have so far been completely unreliable. This isn't a one time thing either. It's consistently happened in contest after contest this whole primary season. I honestly cant even remember the last primary where the final results were within the margin of error, that's how bad polls have been. And time and time again the favored candidate did better than expected. Why would that change now?

There's a little more to it than that Souv. (But anything that I could say has already been said by Jman ^^above^^.)

[hippie_hunter]

Yeah, the problem isn't with Excel's beliefs. It's that he refuses to recognize anyone elses arguement and makes guarantees instead of predictions and makes the most outrageous claims that have either no basis or no sense at all.

[Kelly]

Why do territories get to vote in Presidential primaries? If they can't vote in the general election, then what good is it if they vote in the primary?

I think it is to give them "some" say in who there leader is, kinda by proxy....

[The Senator]

I think it is to give them "some" say in who there leader is, kinda by proxy....

Well... then they should let them vote in the general election. Hell, give all the combined territories 3 electoral votes, like they did DC. Otherwise, I don't really see the need for them to vote in the primaries, only to have no say at all come November.

[souvlaki]

There's a little more to it than that Souv. (But anything that I could say has already been said by Jman ^^above^^.)

No, I understand what you guys are saying... I mean, you guys all know I'm an Obama guy by now, and even I thought Excel's predictions for Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas were unrealistic. But I do happen to agree with what he says about North Carolina (well, agree that his prediction is more likely). Admittedly, anything can happen, and I am not about to make any predictions... but I just don't see how Obama winning North Carolina with double digits is unrealistic just because Excel thinks it is possible. That was my gripe. Anyhow, enough of that. Sorry for the ranting, y'all.

[Kelly]

Well... then they should let them vote in the general election. Hell, give all the combined territories 3 electoral votes, like they did DC. Otherwise, I don't really see the need for them to vote in the primaries, only to have no say at all come November.


But they are autonomous to a certain extent.........if they are going to vote in our general election, then they need to be annexed, if not.............no way.....why should they get the same rights I have, and yet not fall under the same laws as I do....????

[Matt]

No, I understand what you guys are saying... I mean, you guys all know I'm an Obama guy by now, and even I thought Excel's predictions for Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas were unrealistic. But I do happen to agree with what he says about North Carolina (well, agree that his prediction is more likely). Admittedly, anything can happen, and I am not about to make any predictions... but I just don't see how Obama winning North Carolina with double digits is unrealistic just because Excel thinks it is possible. That was my gripe. Anyhow, enough of that. Sorry for the ranting, y'all.

I don't think anyone really debated that Obama COULD win NC by double digits. I think we are debating the notion that Clinton will drop out or super delegates will suddenly jump ship in masses because Obama won a primary that everyone knew he was going to win by a big margin for months now.

[souvlaki]

I don't think anyone really debated that Obama COULD win NC by double digits. I think we are debating the notion that Clinton will drop out or super delegates will suddenly jump ship in masses because Obama won a primary that everyone knew he was going to win by a big margin for months now.

I never questioned she would stay in the race after North Carolina.

As for the super delegates... could go either way after NC, but he isn't going to pick up a large amount unless he wins both NC and Indiana.

[The Senator]

But they are autonomous to a certain extent.........if they are going to vote in our general election, then they need to be annexed, if not.............no way.....why should they get the same rights I have, and yet not fall under the same laws as I do....????

You raise the same concerns as I have. Which is why I don't think they should be allowed to vote in our primaries. They have their own laws and their own governments, they don't vote in our presidential elections... yet for some reason they're allowed to have a say in the two parties' nomination contest? It seems absurd to me.

[Kelly]

If they were "fully" independent, "fully" autonomous....then I would agree, but they aren't.......I think they deserve some say.......

[The Senator]

No, I understand what you guys are saying... I mean, you guys all know I'm an Obama guy by now, and even I thought Excel's predictions for Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas were unrealistic. But I do happen to agree with what he says about North Carolina (well, agree that his prediction is more likely). Admittedly, anything can happen, and I am not about to make any predictions... but I just don't see how Obama winning North Carolina with double digits is unrealistic just because Excel thinks it is possible. That was my gripe. Anyhow, enough of that. Sorry for the ranting, y'all.

As Matt said, no one is debating whether Obama can win North Carolina by double digits. He's been expected to win by double digits since mid-February.

What we are debating is the notion that Clinton is going to drop out after she loses that state, or that all the uncommitted super delegates are going to flock to Obama. Many people thought a wave of super delegates would flock to him after Texas and Ohio. That didn't happen. Others thought upwards of sixty super delegates would flock to him within 48 hours after Pennsylvania. That hasn't happened. I doubt 107 super delegates (the number Excel has professed) are going to flock to him once he wins a state he's expected to win.

[StorminNorman]

If they were "fully" independent, "fully" autonomous....then I would agree, but they aren't.......I think they deserve some say.......

Then let them vote in the real election. Especially since most elections are decided far before they vote anyway not getting them a real say.

[hippie_hunter]

I never questioned she would stay in the race after North Carolina.

As for the super delegates... could go either way after NC, but he isn't going to pick up a large amount unless he wins both NC and Indiana.

But the main point of this argument is the way Excel debates. It's very, very possible that Obama will win by 5% - 10%. We all pretty much agree with that.

But the way he debates he refuses to see any possibility that things change dramatically. He refuses to see any negatives towards the candidate he supports to the point that he cannot be objective which I think is required if someone is interested in politics. He makes claims that have no basis at all (like Clinton will drop out when she loses North Carolina). There's a difference between being an Obama supporter and being an Obamamaniac.

[Matt]

I never questioned she would stay in the race after North Carolina.

As for the super delegates... could go either way after NC, but he isn't going to pick up a large amount unless he wins both NC and Indiana.

No one said you did, we are simply explaining why we, as you put it... "pick on Excel"

[Kelly]

Then let them vote in the real election. Especially since most elections are decided far before they vote anyway not getting them a real say.

Answering this would be repeating myself......it was answered above.

[Excel]

I have made 1 guarentee this entire time, Hippie, Matt, and whoever else just said I do, and it had nothing to do with any of the candidates; it was about what % of jaw sin American did not like Hitler. Here be proof :up:

http://forums.superherohype.com/search.php?searchid=4037076

So yall can scratch that argument.

Excel is making guarantees. Such as "Clinton will be forced to drop out if she loses North Carolina."

Thats a lie :up:

The link above shows it. Though I have stated a loss there mauls her (tiny) chance at the nom pretty much, but she could obv stay in if she choses n can afford to.

But the way he debates he refuses to see any possibility that things change dramatically.

OBVIOUSLY theres a possiblity, but you guys are acting wayyyy worse than I am because you act like thats likely. I say what i think will happenb, you say its wrong because somethign drastic will occur and therefore Obama wont be the nominee. Thats how all you come off. Like you think some earth shattetring thing is gonna come and stop Obama. It could, but you guys EXPECT it to happen and say Im stupid for not :down :rolleyes:

He refuses to see any negatives towards the candidate he supports to the point that he cannot be objective which I think is required if someone is interested in politics.

I can obv. be objective, I just flat dont see any major problem with the guy. I dont think Wright matters the same way I dont think McCain paster matters. What DOES matter is honesty. Ive accepted all candidates lie, but the extent Hillarys done it, its clear she just thinks im an idiot, and she thinks the same of all you, supporter of her or not.


He makes claims that have no basis at all (like Clinton will drop out when she loses North Carolina). There's a difference between being an Obama supporter and being an Obamamaniac.


The claim that shed drop out after NC was assuming she lost Texas because I felt shed use an Ohio win as an excuse to go on and then shed win Pennsylvania.

Keep throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks, Ill be the one whose right in the end when Obamas the nominee.

[The Senator]

Excel, you do realize you don't have to say the word "guarantee" to make a guarantee, correct?

Because if I want to, I can go through all your posts and find every one where you said that Clinton will be forced to drop out after she loses NC, as well as the ones where you say many super delegates will flock to Obama after he wins that state.

[Excel]

Know, that is not a gaurentee. If thats what a gaurentee is than everybody here makes them. As Matt has said, it goes without saying than anything I post thats my opinion is just that-MY OPINION. What I think will happen is not a gaurentee and its not my problem if you took it as one; If I make a gaurentee itll say "I GAURENTEE" :rolleyes:

Like it or not, you aint got **** to back up your argument.

[The Senator]

I can obv. be objective, I just flat dont see any major problem with the guy. I dont think Wright matters the same way I dont think McCain paster matters. What DOES matter is honesty. Ive accepted all candidates lie, but the extent Hillarys done it, its clear she just thinks im an idiot, and she thinks the same of all you, supporter of her or not.

The issue isn't about Wright as a person, it's about Wright as a surrogate, and Obama's inability to deal with the situation. Instead of denouncing Wright from the very beginning, Obama played politics (which he's said he's against). He treated Wright as if his controversial remarks didn't matter, and he only changed his position when he discovered that voters were concerned about Wright's connection to the campaign.


The claim that shed drop out after NC was assuming she lost Texas because I felt shed use an Ohio win as an excuse to go on and then shed win Pennsylvania.

No, you said as early as a week ago, maybe two weeks ago, that she would be forced to drop out if she lost NC. Again, I will go through your posts if I have to in order to prove you wrong.


Keep throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks, Ill be the one whose right in the end when Obamas the nominee.

Here you go again... making yet another baseless guarantee... :whatever:

[Excel]

The issue isn't about Wright as a person, it's about Wright as a surrogate, and Obama's inability to deal with the situation. Instead of denouncing Wright from the very beginning, Obama played politics (which he's said he's against). He treated Wright as if his controversial remarks didn't matter, and he only changed his position when he discovered that voters were concerned about Wright's connection to the campaign.

Ummm no, that is not what happened. He didnt denounce Wright because they were FRIENDS and Obama didnt want to throw his friend under the bus, even when all yall and the media wanted to come out and say what an idiot he was. When Wright kept doing it even after he knew what he was doing to Obamas campaign, he had no choice.

You cannot blame him for not wanting publically embarass a good friend or for getting angry when said friend you stuck up for backstabs by doing exactly what got him in trouble. You cant.

You cannot tell me you dont care that Hillary thinks you and all her supporters are so damn stupid that you believe all that crap she spews (like her bosnia trip) because that is what she thinks. She thinks everyone us who listen to are REATRDED. Thats why she thinks she would get away with saying, on several occasions, she was in combat in Bosnia even though she damn well knew it wasnt the truth. But yet you freak out when Obama fails to condemn a person hes been friends with and just condemns his point of views and opinions.

That is not objective at all :dry:

No, you said as early as a week ago, maybe two weeks ago, that she would be forced to drop out if she lost NC. Again, I will go through your posts if I have to in order to prove you wrong.

Go ahead. All Ive said is it gives him the nomination. I never said she WILL drop out; she might, if Obamas wins Indiana than I would say its probable, but I aint said NC alone will cause her to drop out since March 4th. You wont find a post of me gaurenteeing a Clinton drop out from recent weeks, so dont bother. You have nothing to back up that argument.

Here you go again... making yet another baseless guarantee... :whatever:

Baseless? In your dreams. Yall love to live in fantrasy worlds and ;lala land where Hillary will just magically get all the suers to go to her, where people will just ignore all that Obamas won more votes more states and more delegates. Because hes winning those, it is VERY likely (wether oyu like it nor not) hell win all those.

So no, saying Obama looks to become the nominee is farrrr from baseless :rolleyes:

But again, that was not a gaurentee ;)

[souvlaki]

As Matt said, no one is debating whether Obama can win North Carolina by double digits. He's been expected to win by double digits since mid-February.

TheMarx WAS debating this... that's what started this whole damned argument. I can quote what he said again, but I've already done it like 50 times in the last two pages. Point being he shouldn't rag on Excel for sounding so sure of himself, and sure of his opinions when he's doing the same thing.

[Excel]

Word, people around here think so highly of their own opinions but because they disagree with mine, I am not aloud be confident, when math, statistics, and numbers are all on my side :rolleyes:

And then theyll try and say its not my opinion but I make guarentee's but I just showed ya that aint true either. So what is it gonna be now?

The only damn guarentee anybody made around here is that nobody will cross 2,025 by the end of june and by yall own logic you cant gaurentee that because "anything can happen" :rolleyes:

Jmans probably bout to posts a dozen quotes of me saying a big NC loss ends Hillary shot at being President or that I think supers will come out heavily for Obama after it and say they're "guarentees" even though it never says that. :rolleyes:

[The Senator]

No it wont Lightning; Obama will quite simply be too close. It is math. The supers wont get together in one huge room and say "were going for Hillary". Hillary can take the supers at a margin better than 2-1 and she still will not win. Obama will quite simply just be too damn close. Obamas magic number is 114. Realistically, he will only need about 320-340 supers. If Obama achieves 350 supers, the nomination is his. It is HUGHLY unlikely he finished with under 1675 pledged delegates.

Right now Obama is at 236, so his magic number of 114 is how many supers away he is. Realistically he is 90-100 supers away from clinching the nomination and there are 300 left. He will find away to get that number, wether its from them voting for him mout of guilt or fear of killing the party or backroom promises.

Here he guarantees that Obama will have the nomination no matter what.

Hillary looks set to lose in pledged delegates, votes, and states.The problem is, these big state wins-California, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania-all mean NOTHING. And super delegates KNOW IT.

Here he claims to know not only how the super delegates think, but that there is no way Hillary Clinton will lead in the popular vote or pledged delegates when all is said and done.


:up:

And this will happen after NC. After that her fundraising will bite the dust, and supers will make their move to Obama.

Here he guarantees that Super Delegates will flock to Obama following a loss in NC, and that she won't be able to raise money afterwards.


Marx, what? Are you serious? I dont know the ize of the bitter comments, but I assure they are no where near as large as Bosnia. Marx you smarter than this, she didnt misspoke. She said the same damn thing several different occasions.

EVERYONE knows she flat out lied, it showed in her poll numbers when only 37% said they trust her. That is a HUGE number that cannot be ignored. She was caught LYING, not misspeaking, and that is what people took away from it. Nobody outside of Clintonites buys her " I misspoke", hell a lot of her own supporters knew it was bs, because they dont believe. They dont trust her.

Noone is gonna vote for someone they do not trust.

Here he says that no one is going to vote for Hillary Clinton, and that her Bosnia gaffes have screwed her over... even though Clinton leads against John McCain in statewide polls in crucial swing states, whereas Obama does not...

Matt look at any polls. Every time they both campaign, she drops, he rises. Cant argue it. Thats her problem. Unless a persons currently a support of Hillary, you dislike her. Thats how it with 90% of democrat's. They see her ads and think their ridiculuos, they hear her speak and change the channel.


Here he claims that 90% of the Democratic Party feels Clinton's ads are ridiculous, and that they change the channel whenever her ads appear on TV.

It may make a difference but it wont be noticeable. The fact is Obamas popularity is only going up and Hillary can only go down, its that simple. I see very little undecided ground in this election, Hillary is love/hate. 99% of the people voting in this election had their mind made up on her months ago. She either has your vote or she doesn't. Obama meanwhile, is only gaining votes.

I dont see his endorsement having a big effect just becase people made up their minds on Hillary a long time ago.

I think people are under estimating what Bosnia has done to Hillary. Any undecided voters there were or Clinton supporters considering switching will not vote for a candidate they dont trust or believe. Being caught ina flat out lie and havign as blown up as the one is 10x damaging as Wright-Bittergate combined. If they dont trust what the candidate says, theres just no way theyll vote them. A lot of people will be thinking this as they walk into vote tomorrow.

Here he says that Clinton's popularity can only go down... even though recent polls show that she is doing better against Obama in swing states such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Missouri...


Do I need any more, or are these sufficient?

[Marx]

But the main point of this argument is the way Excel debates. It's very, very possible that Obama will win by 5% - 10%. We all pretty much agree with that.

But the way he debates he refuses to see any possibility that things change dramatically. He refuses to see any negatives towards the candidate he supports to the point that he cannot be objective which I think is required if someone is interested in politics. He makes claims that have no basis at all (like Clinton will drop out when she loses North Carolina). There's a difference between being an Obama supporter and being an Obamamaniac.

A very clear difference, in my opinion.

OBVIOUSLY theres a possiblity, but you guys are acting wayyyy worse than I am because you act like thats likely. I say what i think will happenb, you say its wrong because somethign drastic will occur and therefore Obama wont be the nominee. Thats how all you come off. Like you think some earth shattetring thing is gonna come and stop Obama. It could, but you guys EXPECT it to happen and say Im stupid for not :down :rolleyes:

We are not acting any certain way. All we are saying is that anything is possible. None of us, to my knowledge, have ever said that you are stupid for thinking the way that you do.

[Marx]

TheMarx WAS debating this... that's what started this whole damned argument. I can quote what he said again, but I've already done it like 50 times in the last two pages. Point being he shouldn't rag on Excel for sounding so sure of himself, and sure of his opinions when he's doing the same thing.

Ok Souv, let's get something straight. I said that I do not personally believe he will win by double digits anymore because of Rev. Wright and the fact that the popular NC governor endorsed Clinton. Not to mention the Edwards' bias toward Clinton. That was the statement that I made. I'm not going to play the blame game, all I will say is that the DEBATE were are having was not started by a statement that I made. There's a little more to it than that, which you agreed on.

[The Senator]

Ummm no, that is not what happened. He didnt denounce Wright because they were FRIENDS and Obama didnt want to throw his friend under the bus, even when all yall and the media wanted to come out and say what an idiot he was. When Wright kept doing it even after he knew what he was doing to Obamas campaign, he had no choice.

You cannot blame him for not wanting publically embarass a good friend or for getting angry when said friend you stuck up for backstabs by doing exactly what got him in trouble. You cant.

The "friends" argument only goes so far. Obama is running to be president of the United States. He is running to represent the interests of all Americans. He is running to represent African Americans, whites, Asians, Latinos, etc. And when a close friend comes out and says that white people invented AIDS to destroy Africans and African Americans, or when he refers to the U.S. as "US of KKK-A," Obama has no choice but to denounce that man's comments as hateful. But instead of denouncing Wright's comments, Obama turned them into a speech about race. I found the speech to be touching and very well spoken... HOWEVER, the issue wasn't solely about race. It was about his vile, hate-filled pastor and his ridiculous comments. His critics wanted answers to such questions as "How could you attend church for twenty years while this man said such things?" or "Why did you hire Wright to be your spiritual adviser, knowing what kind of things he said?" Instead, he gave a 45-minute lecture on race, in what appeared to be an effort to switch the focus at the moment. On top of that, he referred to Wright as a silly old uncle who says crazy things. He tried to laugh off a serious situation, rather than notice that many Americans took issue with what Wright had to say. I certainly wasn't laughing.

Also, if Obama is so worried about protecting a friendship, then he shouldn't be president of the United States. That proves that he puts his personal interests above the interests of voters.


You cannot tell me you dont care that Hillary thinks you and all her supporters are so damn stupid that you believe all that crap she spews (like her bosnia trip) because that is what she thinks.

Can you provide a source which verifies this claim?

She thinks everyone us who listen to are REATRDED.

Where did she say this? I need a source if you're going to make claims like this.


Thats why she thinks she would get away with saying, on several occasions, she was in combat in Bosnia even though she damn well knew it wasnt the truth. But yet you freak out when Obama fails to condemn a person hes been friends with and just condemns his point of views and opinions.

That is not objective at all :dry:

I've condemned Clinton for her lies about Bosnia, just as I have condemned Obama for his connections with Wright and other surrogates. I feel they are both huge issues which reflect poorly on Clinton and Obama's character, and that they should be examined carefully by voters before they make a decision in the remaining primaries, or even in the general election.


Go ahead. All Ive said is it gives him the nomination. I never said she WILL drop out; she might, if Obamas wins Indiana than I would say its probable, but I aint said NC alone will cause her to drop out since March 4th. You wont find a post of me gaurenteeing a Clinton drop out from recent weeks, so dont bother. You have nothing to back up that argument.

You have made countless guarantees or baseless statements, as evident by my above selection of "Excel's Greatest Claims List, Volume 1." I'm sure there are more to go around.



Baseless? In your dreams. Yall love to live in fantrasy worlds and ;lala land where Hillary will just magically get all the suers to go to her, where people will just ignore all that Obamas won more votes more states and more delegates. Because hes winning those, it is VERY likely (wether oyu like it nor not) hell win all those.

So no, saying Obama looks to become the nominee is farrrr from baseless :rolleyes:

But again, that was not a gaurentee ;)

See, Clinton can still win the nomination. Clinton has a strong edge with the demographics which make up the bulk of the remaining states. If she can prevent Obama from winning most of the remaining states, and if the super delegates decide not to endorse a candidate after all is said and done, Clinton can make her case at the convention.

The idea that the party is definitely going to nominate the person with the most votes or delegates is absurd, and history has shown that this situation doesn't always play out.

[souvlaki]

Ok Souv, let's get something straight. I said that I do not personally believe he will win by double digits anymore because of Rev. Wright and the fact that the popular NC governor endorsed Clinton. Not to mention the Edwards' bias toward Clinton. That was the statement that I made. I'm not going to play the blame game, all I will say is that the DEBATE were are having was not started by a statement that I made.


"Obama is not going to win NC by double-digits. Not anymore."

That is not an opinion, that is a statement. When you look at what Excel has said in the past, and look at what you said here, it's the same thing. Just because Excel doesn't preface everything with "in my opinion" doesn't mean it's not his opinion. My point is all of you need to stop being hypocrites because whether or not you would like to admit it, ALL of us sound like (operative word being "sound like", not "are" before anyone tears me a new one) a bunch of pompous know-it-alls that think they know how every state is going to vote, and how the super delegates are going to vote, including myself.

[Marx]

"Obama is not going to win NC by double-digits. Not anymore."

That is not an opinion, that is a statement. When you look at what Excel has said in the past, and look at what you said here, it's the same thing. Just because Excel doesn't preface everything with "in my opinion" doesn't mean it's not his opinion. My point is all of you need to stop being hypocrites because whether or not you would like to admit it, ALL of us sound like (operative word being "sound like", not "are" before anyone tears me a new one) a bunch of pompous know-it-alls that think they know how every state is going to vote, and how the super delegates are going to vote, including myself.

There was a little more to our conversation than that Souv. I said what I just ^said^ several times during that conversation.

[souvlaki]

There was a little more to my statement than that Souv. If there wasn't, I just clarified it. Though I'm pretty sure what I just said above was in what I said before...making it MY OPINION.

And Excel has done the same as well. Everyone that posts on this board talks like their opinion is the final word, but Excel is the one that gets singled out.

[Marx]

And Excel has done the same as well. Everyone that posts on this board talks like their opinion is the final word, but Excel is the one that gets singled out.

I, by no means, believe that my word carries anymore weight than anyone else. All I'm saying is that I clarified "my statement" several times to you in that conversation. I told you why I believed the way I did. I wasn't simply stating it as fact.

[souvlaki]

I, by no means, believe that my word carries anymore weight than anyone else. All I'm saying is that I clarified "my statement" several times to you in that conversation. I told you why I believed the way I did. I wasn't simply stating it as fact.

So does he when he is backed into a corner. But that doesn't mean the initial statement comes off as any less arrogant.

[The Senator]

And Excel has done the same as well. Everyone that posts on this board talks like their opinion is the final word, but Excel is the one that gets singled out.

Because Excel does it in such a way which exceeds simply stating an opinion. He does so with arrogance and little objectivity. He doesn't provide sources when he makes outlandish claims and pretends to know how everything will end when that simply isn't the case. His predictions aren't simply predictions, they are implied guarantees. Excel is the only poster here who acts as if he knows how things are going to end, whereas Matt, Excel, Hippie Hunter and myself have all said "hold on... this could happen too." Instead of approaching things objectively, which is an absolute necessity in debate, he takes one side and will not back down from it. Then he presents numbers which he heard on some talk show or read on some blog, and presents them as if they have the final word. And when someone makes a post refuting those numbers, or showing him that there are other possibilities out there, he ignores those posts and goes back to posting the same things.

This isn't a case of "picking on Excel." This is a case of being sick and tired of his nonsense.

[Marx]

And Excel has done the same as well. Everyone that posts on this board talks like their opinion is the final word, but Excel is the one that gets singled out.

I enjoy the conversations that I have with Ex. But there's alot to be said for the way one presents an opinion/debate/argument/statement.

[Matt]

And Excel has done the same as well. Everyone that posts on this board talks like their opinion is the final word, but Excel is the one that gets singled out.

Again, Excel gets singled out because of his attitude. You will find literally NO ONE else on this board who will say something like "Whatever, come June I'll say I told you so."

[souvlaki]

I enjoy the conversations that I have with Ex. But there's alot to be said for the way one presents an opinion/debate/argument/statement.

Well, I just think we all need to mellow out a little. This isn't just a problem Excel has, or you have, or I have... But then again I guess I should expect passionate and heated arguments from a bunch of fellow fanboys on a comic book messageboard (I mean that in the nicest way possible, btw :cwink:). I just think things are getting a bit too personal around here.

[souvlaki]

Again, Excel gets singled out because of his attitude. You will find literally NO ONE else on this board who will say something like "Whatever, come June I'll say I told you so."

That doesn't mean everything he says is without merit though. His opinions may come off as a little standoff-ish and bias at times, but it's not like he's pulling it out of his ass, and making stuff up. He is just interpreting the facts differently than you are.

[Kelly]

No more talk of the poster, talk about the debate, issue, whatever.......this is getting ridiculous......move on and discuss the issues.

If some are having an enormous problem with a poster, then put them on ignore.......

[Marx]

No more talk of the poster, talk about the debate, issue, whatever.......this is getting ridiculous......move on and discuss the issues.

If some are having an enormous problem with a poster, then put them on ignore.......

It's being blown out of proportion and some won't let it go.






SO HOW 'BOUT THOSE PRIMARIES HUH??? I hear they're going to be quite interesting!

[The Senator]

That doesn't mean everything he says is without merit though. His opinions may come off as a little standoff-ish and bias at times, but it's not like he's pulling it out of his ass, and making stuff up. He is just interpreting the facts differently than you are.

He said that Hillary Clinton thinks that voters are retarded.

How is that not pulling something out of his ass?

[souvlaki]

I support that idea wholeheartedly, Kel.

New polls have Obama up by 2 in Indiana, and up by 9 in NC.

[The Senator]

SO HOW 'BOUT THOSE PRIMARIES HUH??? I hear they're going to be quite interesting!

I hear there are two days until North Carolina and Indiana. My bets are on Clinton winning Indiana 54-45%, and Obama winning North Carolina by pretty much the same margin, judging from recent polls, at least.

[Marx]

I hear there are two days until North Carolina and Indiana. My bets are on Clinton winning Indiana 54-45%, and Obama winning North Carolina by pretty much the same margin, judging from recent polls, at least.

You think they will both win each by 10 percent margins?

[souvlaki]

I hear there are two days until North Carolina and Indiana. My bets are on Clinton winning Indiana 54-45%, and Obama winning North Carolina by pretty much the same margin, judging from recent polls, at least.

I think Indiana will be a little closer than that, but more or less I think your prediction on the winners will be right.

[The Senator]

You think they will both win each by 10 percent margins?

I think those numbers will be close. The trend on RCP shows Obama with a seven-point lead in NC, while Clinton has a five-point lead in Indiana. Both states still have many undecided voters, and as we've seen with Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, undecideds went to the winner overwhelmingly. That's where I'm basing my numbers on, but this is just a random guess.

But who knows, Clinton might win North Carolina by surprise, or Obama might win both states. It's really up in the air at this point.

[Marx]

I think those numbers will be close. The trend on RCP shows Obama with a seven-point lead in NC, while Clinton has a five-point lead in Indiana. Both states still have many undecided voters, and as we've seen with Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, undecideds went to the winner overwhelmingly. That's where I'm basing my numbers on, but this is just a random guess.

But who knows, Clinton might win North Carolina by surprise, or Obama might win both states. It's really up in the air at this point.

I completely agree man. One thing is for sure though - ANYTHING is possible!

[Matt]

I support that idea wholeheartedly, Kel.

New polls have Obama up by 2 in Indiana, and up by 9 in NC.

Thats Zogby again. Frankly, Zogby really hasn't been impressive since 2000. He has been riding on the wave of his predictions in 96 and 2000 but really hasn't gotten anything major right since. Just some food for thought. I don't think we will see any suprises on tuesday. Obama wins NC, Clinton wins Indiana, both by 5-10 point margins. The question is, however, is losing by a 5-10 point advantage a win for Clinton? It implies she cut the margin big time and certainly gives her argument to the S.D.s a little bit more validity.

[Marx]

Thats Zogby again. Frankly, Zogby really hasn't been impressive since 2000. He has been riding on the wave of his predictions in 96 and 2000 but really hasn't gotten anything major right since. Just some food for thought. I don't think we will see any suprises on tuesday. Obama wins NC, Clinton wins Indiana, both by 5-10 point margins. The question is, however, is losing by a 5-10 point advantage a win for Clinton? It implies she cut the margin big time and certainly gives her argument to the S.D.s a little bit more validity.

I think if Obama wins by anything less than 10 percent, it's going to turn into the question of "yeah he won, but was it by enough?"

[souvlaki]

I think those numbers will be close. The trend on RCP shows Obama with a seven-point lead in NC, while Clinton has a five-point lead in Indiana. Both states still have many undecided voters, and as we've seen with Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, undecideds went to the winner overwhelmingly. That's where I'm basing my numbers on, but this is just a random guess.

But who knows, Clinton might win North Carolina by surprise, or Obama might win both states. It's really up in the air at this point.

Out of curiousity, how reliable has Real Clear Politics been this election cycle, and how reliable has Zogby been? Because Zogby has Obama up 2 in Indiana, and 9 in NC.

Edit- I see Matt answered my question.

[souvlaki]

Thats Zogby again. Frankly, Zogby really hasn't been impressive since 2000. He has been riding on the wave of his predictions in 96 and 2000 but really hasn't gotten anything major right since. Just some food for thought. I don't think we will see any suprises on tuesday. Obama wins NC, Clinton wins Indiana, both by 5-10 point margins. The question is, however, is losing by a 5-10 point advantage a win for Clinton? It implies she cut the margin big time and certainly gives her argument to the S.D.s a little bit more validity.

Clinton cutting the margin down to below 10 is no more a win for her than Obama cutting Clinton's lead in Texas was a win for Obama. He received more delegates in that state, and it's still not considered a win for Obama.

[Excel]

Clinton by 6 in Indy, Obama by 10 in NC.

You have made countless implied guarantees or baseless statements,

Oh I se enow, this is how you cover yourself for getting into a whole argument over your misinterprets of my posts. There are no such posts where I gaurentee anything so you have to add in "implied" :rolleyes:

[The Senator]

Oh I se enow, this is how you cover yourself for getting into a whole argument over your misinterprets of my posts. There are no such posts where I gaurentee anything so you have to add in "implied" :rolleyes:

I wasn't really covering myself. You didn't outright say the words "guarantee," so I stuck "implied" in there because you have made numerous guarantees without saying the words "guarantee." And if your argument is that you technically didn't guarantee anything because you didn't use the word "guarantee," I felt it was my duty to get more technical.

Of course, from the posts I quoted, you made numerous guarantees and baseless statements without any implications. They were straight up guarantees. So I probably shouldn't have included the word "implied" in that post at all. I can always go back and edit "implied" from my post, considering I even managed to prove myself wrong. Fancy that.

[The Senator]

Out of curiousity, how reliable has Real Clear Politics been this election cycle, and how reliable has Zogby been? Because Zogby has Obama up 2 in Indiana, and 9 in NC.

Edit- I see Matt answered my question.

Real Clear Politics does a spread of all the combined polls from various sources. They don't issue their own polls, they only analyze others.

[The Senator]

I would still like sources as to where it was reported that Hillary Clinton thinks all voters are retarded. Excel, can you hit me with those links? I'm sure it would make for an interesting read.

[Excel]

you have made numerous guarantees without saying the words "guarantee".

And you say I spew nonsense :hehe:

That doesnt make a damn bit a sense.

I would still like sources as to where it was reported that Hillary Clinton thinks all voters are retarded. Excel, can you hit me with those links? I'm sure it would make for an interesting read.

Oh you dont need sources, all you need is a brain. Think about it, if you were to lie to someone of whome you need their support, would you do it if you thought they smart enough to catch you? Of course not.

But thats just how I see it, you can interpret her...expecting you to believe her....bits anyway you want.

[The Senator]

And you I spew nonsense :hehe:

That doesnt make a damn bit a sense.

Let's look at the English language, shall we?

Say you want to bet that The Dark Knight does better than Iron Man. You don't have to say "I bet The Dark Knight will make more money than Iron Man." You can say "I'll put money on TDK over Iron Man." Or you can say "The Dark Knight will make more money than Iron Man, hands down." There are also multiple ways to imply that you are making a bet without saying the words "I bet."

So you can make a guarantee that something will happen without saying the word "guarantee." As long as you present something which has yet to happen as a factual statement, you are basically making a guarantee.

So, you said that Hillary Clinton would not be able to raise funds after losing NC. You didn't say "I guarantee," but you presented something which has not yet happened as a fact. You made an implied guarantee, which is just as baseless as a guarantee.

When I write a paper, I can have a direct thesis or an implied thesis. A direct thesis is when I outright tell my reader what I'm going to talk about. Take, for example, this: "Advancements in technology has made the war in Iraq the most personal war in American history for all sides involved-- for better or worse." I am directly telling you that I am going to talk about technological advancements and how they have made the war in Iraq personal. Now, if I did not use that thesis, but spent my entire paper talking about how email has made it easier for soldiers to communicate with their families, how blogs have made it easier for journalists to report up-to-the-minute information, and how terrorists have been able to recruit members through their websites, I'm implying a personal connection without directly saying it.

Thus, you made implied guarantees. If that doesn't make sense to you, I'm sorry I excel better at the English language than you do. Maybe in a few years you'll understand.


Oh you dont need sources, all you need is a brain. Think about it, if you were to lie to someone of whome you need their support, would you do it if you thought they smart enough to catch you? Of course not.

So, you're admitting that you made a baseless claim without having a source to back up your information? How can we take anything you say seriously?

I mean, I can say that I feel Hillary is reaching out to possible supporters, and that she's trying to present herself as a heroine because she will be up against a proven war hero in the general election. Of course, I don't have any facts to back that claim up. You're talking about the motives of a candidate. You cannot know her motives unless she or someone else reported on those motives. Thus, it's entirely baseless and altogether false to say that she thinks voters are retarded.

So again, I ask, where are the sources which claim that Clinton thinks all voters are retarded? They'd make for a wonderful read, and would make your argument credulous.

[Marx]

Clinton cutting the margin down to below 10 is no more a win for her than Obama cutting Clinton's lead in Texas was a win for Obama. He received more delegates in that state, and it's still not considered a win for Obama.

That is true Souv, but I do remember people in media-land saying that it was still somewhat a victory for Obama to come out with the numbers that he did.

[Excel]

Let's look at the English language, shall we?

Say you want to bet that The Dark Knight does better than Iron Man. You don't have to say "I bet The Dark Knight will make more money than Iron Man." You can say "I'll put money on TDK over Iron Man." Or you can say "The Dark Knight will make more money than Iron Man, hands down." There are also multiple ways to imply that you are making a bet without saying the words "I bet."

So you can make a guarantee that something will happen without saying the word "guarantee." As long as you present something which has yet to happen as a factual statement, you are basically making a guarantee.

So, you said that Hillary Clinton would not be able to raise funds after losing NC. You didn't say "I guarantee," but you presented something which has not yet happened as a fact. You made an implied guarantee, which is just as baseless as a guarantee.

When I write a paper, I can have a direct thesis or an implied thesis. A direct thesis is when I outright tell my reader what I'm going to talk about. Take, for example, this: "Advancements in technology has made the war in Iraq the most personal war in American history for all sides involved-- for better or worse." I am directly telling you that I am going to talk about technological advancements and how they have made the war in Iraq personal. Now, if I did not use that thesis, but spent my entire paper talking about how email has made it easier for soldiers to communicate with their families, how blogs have made it easier for journalists to report up-to-the-minute information, and how terrorists have been able to recruit members through their websites, I'm implying a personal connection without directly saying it.

Thus, you made implied guarantees. If that doesn't make sense to you, I'm sorry I excel better at the English language than you do. Maybe in a few years you'll understand.

Or, you simply misinterpreted my statements. Dont argue, thats what you did, I think I would be in a better position to what I meant than you are. Im sorry if I come off arrogant but this getting ridiculous; dont tell me what I was saying. I know damn well what I was saying.


I mean, I can say that I feel Hillary is reaching out to possible supporters, and that she's trying to present herself as a heroine because she will be up against a proven war hero in the general election.

That has nothing to do with it. She LIED about something she knew she could get caught for. It's like you rob a bank, see the camera, film youing you, and then tell the police you didnt rob it. Thats what she did. She went to Bosnia knew there where cameras and people there who saw it was a qaint peaceful scene, and she proceeded to tell people on several occassions there was made up gunfire n running with their heads covered that simply never happened.

She wasnt exagaerating anything she was making it up.

She felt she could say that **** and not get caught by us, you tell me what you think she thinks of us voters.


So, you're admitting that you made a baseless claim without having a source to back up your information? How can we take anything you say seriously


Its not baseless at all, Ive explain why I feel this way. There is no claim, its only my opinion.

[The Senator]

Or, you simply misinterpreted my statements. Dont argue, thats what you did, I think I would be in a better position to what I meant than you are. Im sorry if I come off arrogant but this getting ridiculous; dont tell me what I was saying. I know damn well what I was saying.

Or maybe you're covering yourself because I've presented the evidence which proves you've made countless claims without being able to back them up? And because people are calling you on it, you're searching for any excuse imaginable. Had you not been making guarantees, you wouldn't have presented them as such, and gone on to debate the issue further with statements such as "face the facts."



That has nothing to do with it. She LIED about something she knew she could get caught for. It's like you rob a bank, see the camera, film youing you, and then tell the police you didnt rob it. Thats what she did. She went to Bosnia knew there where cameras and people there who saw it was a qaint peaceful scene, and she proceeded to tell people on several occassions there was made up gunfire n running with their heads covered that simply never happened.

I don't know, both arguments seem pretty convincing. I can see why she would lie. After all, she'd be up against a war hero like McCain in November. She probably felt like she needed to one-up him. It may have been a lie, but she could have had decent motives behind it. Without proof that she directly manipulated voters, how can you tell that either claim is correct? You can't.


She wasnt exagaerating anything she was making it up.

She felt she could say that **** and not get caught by us, you tell me what you think she thinks of us voters.

Maybe she thinks voters base their decisions on whoever says what they want to hear? Again, we're talking about the motives of a candidate. It's hard to say what her motives are without her really telling us, or without a report which presents a piece of evidence which suggests she thinks a certain way about the minds of voters. It's a tough call.



Its not baseless at all, Ive explain why I feel this way. There is no claim, its only my opinion.

Nope, you said it as if it were a fact.

You said Hillary thinks voters are retarded. You didn't say that you think she thinks we're retarded. Again, you presented a baseless claim without presenting a reputable source.

So, again, I ask, where is the source which says she thinks voters are retarded? I've been up all evening waiting for this source, it might make me downright hate her and refuse to vote for her in the general election. But if you're lying to me, maybe I'm going to have to endorse her and start supporting her again.

After all, I can say that some of Obama's supporters are liars, and point to your post where you say Hillary thinks we are all retarded as evidence. It's a downright lie to make such a claim about a candidate's motives without having a source to back up your claims.

[Marx]

Aren't we past this pointless bickering yet? Maybe that conversation should be taken to PM's? It's just a suggestion.

[The Senator]

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Here's an interesting article discussing the demography of Indiana, and which demographics each candidate is likely to perform well with. It also implies that Clinton has a better shot at winning Indiana, and that this could be her "comeback" state.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/will-indiana-save-hillary/

[Marx]

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Here's an interesting article discussing the demography of Indiana, and which demographics each candidate is likely to perform well with. It also implies that Clinton has a better shot at winning Indiana, and that this could be her "comeback" state.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/will-indiana-save-hillary/

I think every state since "Super Tuesday 1" has been billed as the "comeback state." Don't you think so Jman?

[Excel]

Aren't we past this pointless bickering yet? Maybe that conversation should be taken to PM's? It's just a suggestion.

Id like to but this is obnoxious; i cannot post here with someone taking my stuff way out of context and the only reason for it is because in support obama and for odd reason nobody here wants to see him win. whatever, ill end the stupid quoting war, i dont really give a **** anyways it wont change the outcome.

[The Senator]

Aren't we past this pointless bickering yet? Maybe that conversation should be taken to PM's? It's just a suggestion.

I presented my argument and tried to put an end to it a while ago. If he wants to take it off the boards, that's fine. But I'm not the only person who has a problem with the way he presents his arguments as "fact," and it's gotten to a point where it's like debating with a pile of bricks.

So, from here on out, I've made my points. I'm done with it. :up:

But I still want the source which says that Hillary thinks voters are retarded. It would seriously make for a splendid read.

[souvlaki]

That is true Souv, but I do remember people in media-land saying that it was still somewhat a victory for Obama to come out with the numbers that he did.

Really? I don't remember that at all. I remember the general consensus in the media the day after Ohio and Texas being that it was a disappointing night for Obama. How many people even know that Obama received more delegates in Texas than Clinton?

[The Senator]

I think every state since "Super Tuesday 1" has been billed as the "comeback state." Don't you think so Jman?

I think every state she wins will be billed as a collective comeback. If she manages to do pretty well between now and June, she will have a strong argument come the convention. The results in PA, OH and TX show that Obama can't perform well with rural, blue-collar voters. They are key to winning many of these crucial swing states, and if she can convince enough super delegates to swing her way, this could become a close, nasty fight to the finish.

And I'm all for it :up:

[souvlaki]

Id like to but this is obnoxious; i cannot post here with someone taking my stuff way out of context and the only reason for it is because in support obama and for odd reason nobody here wants to see him win. whatever, ill end the stupid quoting war, i dont really give a **** anyways it wont change the outcome.

If it's any consolation, I want him to win.

[Marx]

Id like to but this is obnoxious; i cannot post here with someone taking my stuff way out of context and the only reason for it is because in support obama and for odd reason nobody here wants to see him win. whatever, ill end the stupid quoting war, i dont really give a **** anyways it wont change the outcome.

There are people on these boards who support every candidate. I think it's a bit of an overstatement when you say "nobody wants to see Obama win." I do see your point though Ex. I think anyones postings can be taken out of context. It's all about how a person frames or presents those posts. If that makes any sense.

I presented my argument and tried to put an end to it a while ago. If he wants to take it off the boards, that's fine. But I'm not the only person who has a problem with the way he presents his arguments as "fact," and it's gotten to a point where it's like debating with a pile of bricks.

So, from here on out, I've made my points. I'm done with it. :up:

But I still want the source which says that Hillary thinks voters are retarded. It would seriously make for a splendid read.

I'm glad Jman.


I think we should just all agree to disagree. Regardless of who we all support and why, no matter what thoughts or opinions that we all have...we're all very passionate.


So about those poll numbers? :cwink:

[Excel]

If it's any consolation, I want him to win.

:up: