posted
I find it crappy of one candidate to cut in on another's time. There are only four candidates left; you can bloody well wait your turn.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
MSNBC: "Always speak before Barack Obama, not after Barack Obama."
Damn straight.
I think cutting Obama off was a mistake. (Not because Obama supporters will be piqued, like me, but because of the comparison it invites.) We literally got to see McCain speak on the heals of Obama, and head to head, just in terms of speech-giving ability and nothing else, Obama eats McCain alive.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I am the nominee, I will offer a clear choice. John McCain won’t be able to say that I ever supported this war in Iraq, because I opposed it from the beginning. Senator McCain said the other day that we might be mired for a hundred years in Iraq, which is reason enough to not give him four years in the White House.
If we had chosen a different path, the right path, we could have finished the job in Afghanistan, and put more resources into the fight against bin Laden; and instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Baghdad, we could have put that money into our schools and hospitals, our road and bridges – and that’s what the American people need us to do right now.
And I admired Senator McCain when he stood up and said that it offended his conscience to support the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in a time of war; that he couldn’t support a tax cut where so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate. But somewhere along the road to the Republican nomination, the Straight Talk Express lost its wheels, because now he’s all for them.
Well I’m not. We can’t keep spending money that we don’t have in a war that we shouldn’t have fought. We can’t keep mortgaging our children’s future on a mountain of debt. We can’t keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace. It’s time to turn the page
Still looking for a video.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Obama people usually have it up on youtube within a few hours. There are sometimes other versions up earlier, but they're usually not as good quality.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
rollainm, I mean total number of people who have voted for Obama from across all the states vs. the total number of people having voted for Clinton. Just curious what the total national numbers of votes are. not delegates.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I just have a thing about abuse of tools. A chef's knife shouldn't be used to scrape tile off of a concrete floor. The reporting process, statistics, and elections are tools. It is an abuse of the polling system and an abuse of the election system when a winner is declared well before the number of vote counts from statistical-sample precincts is sufficient to confirm that the actual vote count falls within the polls' margins-of-error. It is an abuse of the reporting process to report gossip as news before making any attempt at confirmation.
It doesn't matter whether the calls ended up being correct. The tools were abused. And I wouldn't have the slightest hesitation in firing everybody who favored the decisions to declare winners before the actual vote&precinct counts were statistically confirmed to be within margins of the polling data. If they are that careless about examining election data before reporting election predictions as election facts, I could not trust them to properly handle their editorial responsibilities on other matters.
posted
Oh, I agree. But what makes you so sure they didn't have more compelling evidence to make that decision?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: He's starting, more and more, to campaign against McCain instead of Clinton.
Noticed that did ya? Halfway through his speech I IMed a friend of mine and said something like "He's starting to campaign like he's the nominee."
I think if anyone else had done that, I'd have found it tacky to be that presumptuous. But for him? I think it looks like he just stepped above the fray. Clinton looks like she's clawing to hang on. She keeps moving the goal posts further and further back, until now she has no where left to go, she has to win Ohio and Texas by wide margins or that's it, she's already declared that's her bulwark, or whatever she called it.
I think Obama is smoothly, oh so smoothly, sliding right into General mode before he officially has it, and I think the more people look at him as the candidate, the more they'll vote to put him in that position. It's risky, which I think is why he's trying to be subtle with it right now, but it's a good place to start.
quote:It is an abuse of the polling system and an abuse of the election system when a winner is declared well before the actual vote counts from statistical-sample precincts
But it's not like the democratic party is declaring a winner. It's the individual media sources that are. "Declaring a winner" just means that "we are pretty damn sure that this candidate will be the winner when the votes are counted."
Now sometimes they are wrong, like in Florida. This of course means nothing, except that the news channels look stupid.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Abuse of the polling system is when you're the party chair in Washington and declare a winner before you finish counting the votes.
It's not an abuse when you're, you know, a media outlet that has no actual power over the election and instead only offer commentary and analysis on it. They're right more often than not. I'm just glad they wait until after the polls actually close so they don't poison the well.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember someone posted total vote numbers between Obama and Hilary earlier in this thread. I wonder where they got the statistic from. Was that you Lyr?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to figure out how Obama beats McCain in the General. I'm thinking that National Security can't be an issue. It can't be in the top three. Poverty, Homeownership, Health Care, Renewable energy, Education, Tax Credits for Children, anything except National Security. It's not as if Obama is weak, it's that McCain is plausibly more zealous. That sort of ruthlessness combined with our arsenal is the reason middle-aged white people will vote for McCain. In their minds, I'm sure it'll be close. They may feel a little bad because they know they are letting their fear dictate their vote. They may even say that they'll vote for Obama in 2012 or 2016, and actually mean it.
It'll be Adlai Stevenson and Ike, all over again. The only salvation I can think of for Obama is if he strongly frames the debate, so much so that he'll make people forget about Iraq. Or foreign leaders come out in support of Obama, in a way that makes the American people believe that they'll put their military where their mouth is. Or turn out, if young people(anyone under fifty) vote in numbers and strategically. I'm talking about absentee voting in swing states, and large swaths of Americans in their twenties and thirties, swarming the poles; Google, bankrolling advertising on their site; it would take nothing less than a movement in thirty of the fifty states. The entire US would have to catch fire like a revival because if we leave it up the economists, they'll real-world-game-theory-pascal's-wager-prisoner's-dilemma the debate into a bunch of people voting for McCain, assuming its the safe route. They'll have white America believing that it's the only rational route. WASP America is closer in feel to Peter than either of the Johns, and they'll deny Jesus three times out of convenience, in a pinch. People are not taught to be selfless in the voting booth. Obama can give a barn burner, appealing to all the nation's better Angels, and McCain only has to say two sentences, "I'm just a regular white guy who'll do anything to keep you safe. And I'll try to lower your taxes." And white people will tip consistently, though with a bit of remorse, to McCain's side.
quote:I'm trying to figure out how Obama beats McCain in the General.
Dude, there's no way it's even a contest.
All I can figure, Irami, is that you're so pessimistic about Obama because he's basically you. That, and you're absolutely terrified of having to let go of your racism.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just summing the votes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_presidential_primaries , I'm getting 9,591,822 votes cast for Clinton, or 47.01%, and 9,503,159 votes cast for Obama, or 46.58%. A total of 20,402,533 votes were cast. Note that the difference in votes is less than half a percent. Keep in mind, I could easily have made an arithmetical or parsing error, so sprinkle liberally with grains of salt.
Here's some scratch work (tools used: elinks and vim):
let me tell you though, the 5 minutes that are there are excellent. I just watched McCain's speech and I see what you guys were talking about.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:All I can figure, Irami, is that you're so pessimistic about Obama because he's basically you. That, and you're absolutely terrified of having to let go of your racism.
If Senator Obama is elected President, you think Irami will let go of his racism?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this is Obama's full speech, but I've got to get to bed, so I'll watch it later. That five minute video was excellent, though.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main body of the speech in that video doesn't start till 3 minutes in. In case you're interested in skipping Obama thanking various people.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I the only one who stared at this for about 3 minutes trying to see the ASCII art picture?
quote:Originally posted by Mike: [qb] Just summing the votes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_presidential_primaries , I'm getting 9,591,822 votes cast for Clinton, or 47.01%, and 9,503,159 votes cast for Obama, or 46.58%. A total of 20,402,533 votes were cast. Note that the difference in votes is less than half a percent. Keep in mind, I could easily have made an arithmetical or parsing error, so sprinkle liberally with grains of salt.
Here's some scratch work (tools used: elinks and vim):
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Am I the only one who stared at this for about 3 minutes trying to see the ASCII art picture?
Probably. Gladly, you are the only one to have quoted it in its entirety so that we have to scroll past the abominable thing twice.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had left/right scrolling issues as well, so that if someone said something outrageous enough, I had to scroll left to see who said it. I think the left right limit was particular to the quoted figures and not the original set.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
You'd think with Texas coming up and winning it now do-or-die, the Clinton campaign would have finessed this more, easing Doyle into a "senior advisory position" or whatever face-saving title they could swing. Instead, she's just out, right before the primary of the state with the second-highest latino vote.
posted
Yes, the numbers include Michigan. I can delete that portion of my post [edit: the ascii art] if it really annoys anyone. (Of course, I can't do anything about Lisa's quote.)
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
January 31st - Hillary Clinton 42%, Barack Obama 19%, John Edwards 18%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Undecided 20%
February 11th - Hillary Clinton 56%, Barack Obama 39%, Other 3%, Undecided 2%
He went from being down 23 to 17, so it looks like undecicded and Edwards voters almost split between them. He still has a lot of ground to make up over the next two weeks.
North Carolina
February 11th - Barack Obama 50%, Hillary Clinton 40%, Other 5%, Undecided 4%
So at least there's some good news for him, he took the lead in yet another state. I expect Ohio to change in the next two weeks. He's going to campaign lightly in Wisconsin to bolster his lead there, and then spend a lot of time in Texas and Ohio. Between campaigning and ad money, he'll chip away at her lead. He doesn't really even need to win it, he just needs to make her lead so small as to become insignificant.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
CNN's delegate count now has Obama ahead by 104 pledged delegates, or ahead by 26 delegates including pledged and super. I think if Clinton's counting on Ohio and Texas, she'd need to win by enough to overcome his lead. If they split pretty close to evenly he'll still be ahead on delegates and probably still be seen as having the "momentum."
Edit: Make those leads 119 pledged and 42 total. They updated right after I posted.
posted
From all the news stories I'm reading, and all the articles that have interviews with superdelegates, I think they are starting to form a consensus that whoever has the most pledged delegates is who they will throw their support behind. They're very nervous about a convention fight, and about making someone the nominee who didn't get more votes from the people. And Obama momentum is starting to sway them as well.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right now I think that the close battle between Clinton and Obama is good for the democrats in general. The republican races is effectively over and so all the media and attention are focused on Obama and Clinton.
As long as the two of them stay positive and don't resort to much mud slinging I think the close race is an overall plus for the eventual nominee.
With that said, I think the longer both of them stay in the race the less that will be true. If the democrats don't have a clear nominee by mid-spring the advantage will swing to McCain if for no other reason than that the democrats will exhaust their resources fighting each other.
If the democratic battle goes all the way to the convention its likely to be the kiss of death for the eventual nominee. If Clinton is nominated without the popular vote behind her and Obama's endorsement, it will likely split the democratic party. Right now Obama has people excited in a way that Clinton does not. Obama nomination will benefit from a ground swell of young volunteers who will go out and canvas to get out the vote. Those people might vote for Clinton over McCain, but they aren't going to work for her.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no way that Sen. Clinton can win nomination without splitting the party, at this point. The supporters of Sen. Obama would stage an uprising.
If Obama wins the nomination and names Hillary as his veep running mate, I would seriously advise Obama to watch his back--there is a long list of dozens of people over the past 25 years who were in a position to embarass the Clintons politically and/or legally who have wound up dead under questionable circumstances.
Conspiracy theory concerns aside, I think that McCain would eat Obama alive in debates, when it comes to foreign policy and the war on terrorism. Obama has such a completely wrong-headed position on Iraq, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, and everything related, he would be like frost before the morning sun. These are the very issues that have resurrected McCain's candidacy from virtual death to virtual coronation, so the view McCain champions is extremely popular with the voting public. Obama's ultra-liberal, Berkeleyish type view of the military, and a rejection of the concept of fighting the war on terror in Iraq instead of here--when the terrorist leaders themselves admit that they have been placing their main effort at confronting America in Iraq--and the utterly foolish stubborn denial that we are clearly winning in Iraq, when fully exposed to the light of day, will make Obama look like the naive, amateurish fanatic that he is. He will shoot himself in the foot repeatedly, and his charismatic glamor will fade.
[ February 13, 2008, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is no way that Sen. Clinton can win nomination without splitting the party, at this point. The supporters of Sen. Obama would stage an uprising.
If she wins most of the coming primaries, she could win the nomination easily without splitting the party.
What you mean is, you really really don't want her to win. At some point, most people learn the difference between reality and what they want to be true. I don't think you have yet Ron.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: As long as the two of them stay positive and don't resort to much mud slinging I think the close race is an overall plus for the eventual nominee.
What a great segue for: Clinton goes negative in new ad. It's airing in Wisconsin and seems to be entirely based on her wanting to have more debates than Obama does. Here's why I think it's ridiculous:
quote: Responding to the ad, Obama campaign manager David Axelrod said, "We've debated 18 times, we're going to debate two more, but we've got other business to do here in terms of meeting voters face to face."
quote:Conspiracy theory concerns aside, I think that McCain would eat Obama alive in debates, when it comes to foreign policy and the war on terrorism. Obama has such a completely wrong-headed position on Iraq, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, and everything related, he would be like frost before the morning sun.
Considering that Obama's views on the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and everything related are far closer to the views of the majority of Americans, I'm quite confident he'll destroy McCain on these issues in the debates.
You may agree with McCain's position that we should stay in Iraq for 100 years if needed -- but polls suggest that majority of Americans find that idea not only wrong-headed but morally repugnant.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Poor Wisconsin. They don't get their own debate! How will they know how to vote?
People in Wisconsin have television now. And computers. They can watch things that happen in other states. They could watch any of the previous forty-seven hundred debates.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:These are the very issues that have resurrected McCain's candidacy from virtual death to virtual coronation...
I doubt it. In fact, I think McCain's in the race despite all these things, mainly because the other candidates imploded.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:These are the very issues that have resurrected McCain's candidacy from virtual death to virtual coronation...
I doubt it. In fact, I think McCain's in the race despite all these things, mainly because the other candidates imploded.
Even if these issues are why McCain is winning the republican nomination, there is a big difference between winning the nomination and winning the election.
To win the republican nomination you have to wint the support of the far right. To win the election you have to win the support of the center.
Last time I read the polls, aver 2/3rds of Americans thought were displeased with the US war in Iraq and thought we should be moving more rapidly toward withdrawing US troops. Unless there are some dramatic developments in Iraq in the next 9 months, this issue isn't going to win the election for McCain.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
