Super Tuesday (and the other primaries)

[Amele]

What's a fourth estate? Like a fourth player in the game? So that would make the third player Canada/Harper, and the fourth is the American media?

it's another term for the free press.


kyod: whether or not he was going to 'win' Ohio, the proportional delegation system of the demo primary there means that the approximately 10% swing Clinton appears to have gotten (based on cross-referencing the exit polls of late deciders with previous day straw polls) translates into delegates that shifted from one column to the other - delegates that represent votes that Ohio may regret now that the truth is out.

the hard part is that by the time the next major NAFTA concerned states come up (IN, PA) this will probably be forgotten, if US mainstream media even picks up the story at all.

[Xavier]

What's a fourth estate? Like a fourth player in the game? So that would make the third player Canada/Harper, and the fourth is the American media?

it's another term for the free press.


kyod: whether or not he was going to 'win' Ohio, the proportional delegation system of the demo primary there means that the approximately 10% swing Clinton appears to have gotten (based on cross-referencing the exit polls of late deciders with previous day straw polls) translates into delegates that shifted from one column to the other - delegates that represent votes that Ohio may regret now that the truth is out.

the hard part is that by the time the next major NAFTA concerned states come up (IN, PA) this will probably be forgotten, if US mainstream media even picks up the story at all.

There is some truth to what you said, but no offense, if Obama couldn't win voters by reminding them that it was Hillary's husband that passed NAFTA in the first place, then nothing could have helped.

[kyod]

What's a fourth estate? Like a fourth player in the game? So that would make the third player Canada/Harper, and the fourth is the American media?

it's another term for the free press.


kyod: whether or not he was going to 'win' Ohio, the proportional delegation system of the demo primary there means that the approximately 10% swing Clinton appears to have gotten (based on cross-referencing the exit polls of late deciders with previous day straw polls) translates into delegates that shifted from one column to the other - delegates that represent votes that Ohio may regret now that the truth is out.

the hard part is that by the time the next major NAFTA concerned states come up (IN, PA) this will probably be forgotten, if US mainstream media even picks up the story at all.

There is some truth to what you said, but no offense, if Obama couldn't win voters by reminding them that it was Hillary's husband that passed NAFTA in the first place, then nothing could have helped.

Agreed, if this little thing was enough to shoot down Obama, then it won't take much for the GOP to destroy him in the general election.

[Amele]

of course, none taken. Politics isn't a personal sport unless I'm the one running for office, ha-ha.

it's important to remember though that he erased a 20 point lead in the straw polls in a couple weeks. so even a close result was a big upside compared to what it looked like say, the day after super Tuesday. (that said, OH wasn't that close a result - the larger than expected gap was mostly due to late deciders breaking Clinton's way.)

[kyod]

of course, none taken. Politics isn't a personal sport unless I'm the one running for office, ha-ha.

it's important to remember though that he erased a 20 point lead in the straw polls in a couple weeks. so even a close result was a big upside compared to what it looked like say, the day after super Tuesday. (that said, OH wasn't that close a result - the larger than expected gap was mostly due to late deciders breaking Clinton's way.)

The late deciders thing is nothing new. Clinton performed extremely well among late deciders in most of the primaries so far.

[Xavier]

of course, none taken. Politics isn't a personal sport unless I'm the one running for office, ha-ha.

it's important to remember though that he erased a 20 point lead in the straw polls in a couple weeks. so even a close result was a big upside compared to what it looked like say, the day after super Tuesday. (that said, OH wasn't that close a result - the larger than expected gap was mostly due to late deciders breaking Clinton's way.)

Its important to note that the 20 point lead started vanishing while outspending Hillary 3 to 1 in the state, I believe. Not taking anything away from him, he made it very competitive, but money was a big factor.

[Amele]

of course, none taken. Politics isn't a personal sport unless I'm the one running for office, ha-ha.

it's important to remember though that he erased a 20 point lead in the straw polls in a couple weeks. so even a close result was a big upside compared to what it looked like say, the day after super Tuesday. (that said, OH wasn't that close a result - the larger than expected gap was mostly due to late deciders breaking Clinton's way.)

Its important to note that the 20 point lead started vanishing while outspending Hillary 3 to 1 in the state, I believe. Not taking anything away from him, he made it very competitive, but money was a big factor.

I had heard 2 to 1 but yeah, money has been a big part of the dem primary cycle (they both have quite a bit to throw around honestly - both campaigns broke all time records this year.)

A big part of his recent spending advantage isn't just how much he's taking in (overall, he's only up about 8 million, excluding the 5 million loan from Clinton's personal funds.) but that because his donor base is much wider, a much larger percentage of his funds are allocated to the primary cycle and did not need to roll-over into the general coffer. a smaller part of that is that his campaign has been more efficient money wise, spending a larger percentage on face to face time and advertisements and less on consulting and infrastructure than Senator Clinton has. (neither strategy is necessarily better - it just means he has more dollars to throw around advert. wise.)

[Infiltrator]

The remaining field for 2008 absolutely stinks.

[Maxxthepenguin]

of course, none taken. Politics isn't a personal sport unless I'm the one running for office, ha-ha.

it's important to remember though that he erased a 20 point lead in the straw polls in a couple weeks. so even a close result was a big upside compared to what it looked like say, the day after super Tuesday. (that said, OH wasn't that close a result - the larger than expected gap was mostly due to late deciders breaking Clinton's way.)

Its important to note that the 20 point lead started vanishing while outspending Hillary 3 to 1 in the state, I believe. Not taking anything away from him, he made it very competitive, but money was a big factor.

The interesting thing is he raised tons of that money from individual people, through the internet and such. So while, yes, a lot of the gain was through a lot of spending, a lot that money came from the fact that he made a big impression on individuals.

Also, Hillary originally had a TON more money and her earlier lead can account for her earlier lead. She blew her load so to speak before super Tuesday, thinking it would be the be all and end all.

It's really sick how much money all these candidates have to spend :/

[evilbau]

More news

A plan to raise soft money to pay for a second Florida Democratic primary--this one by mail--seems close to approval, according to Sen. Bill Nelson.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119901

Hard to believe they can organize it on such short notice, but hopefully they can get it resolved. This will end up being a boon for Hillary.

Obama adviser resigns; called Clinton ‘monster’
Power told newspaper rival candidate stooping to low tactics

LONDON - A Barack Obama adviser resigned Friday after calling rival Hillary Rodham Clinton "a monster."

Samantha Power, an unpaid foreign policy adviser and Harvard professor, announced her resignation in a statement provided by the Obama campaign in which she expressed "deep regret."

"Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign," she said. "And I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and the remarkable team I have worked with over these long 14 months."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23519392/

edit: and a second story http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stum ... emark.aspx

pretty lol imo

[kyod]

Obama has some pussies in his camp. What the guy said wasn't even that bad, yet he resigned over it? What the fuck.

Can you imagine if Bush had his people resign everytime they said a mean comment? We'd have new cabinet members every week.

[Charla]

Reading the article is good for you.
Protip: it's not a guy.

[kyod]

I did read the article, I usually refer to people as guy/dude/etc even if they are female.

It still doesn't take the merit out of my comments. I would find being called Ken Starr even more insulting than a monster.

[evilbau]

your comments are without merit because he is campaigning on the platform of 'new politics' which include no personal attacks, no negative comments not on the issues. You cannot have someone working on your campaign who betrays your message. You cannot compare it to President Bush and his administration's comments as he is usually referring to the opposition party or a member of the 'Axis of Evil'. This is a primary with two Democratic candidates that are trying to keep it clean (see the repeated comments from both sides saying things remain civil this primary season, its obvious they don't want the appearance of attacking each other), it seems perfectly reasonable that Clinton's campaign would make a fuss about it, that the DNC would call for action, and the Obama campaign to fire her. But she wasn't fired. She resigned. Comparing a Rando on his campaign to a cabinet secretary is a bad comparison. The backpedaling on pronoun use was a nice touch.

[kyod]

your comments are without merit because he is campaigning on the platform of 'new politics' which include no personal attacks, no negative comments not on the issues. You cannot have someone working on your campaign who betrays your message. You cannot compare it to President Bush and his administration's comments as he is usually referring to the opposition party or a member of the 'Axis of Evil'. This is a primary with two Democratic candidates that are trying to keep it clean (see the repeated comments from both sides saying things remain civil this primary season, its obvious they don't want the appearance of attacking each other), it seems perfectly reasonable that Clinton's campaign would make a fuss about it, that the DNC would call for action, and the Obama campaign to fire her. But she wasn't fired. She resigned. Comparing a Rando on his campaign to a cabinet secretary is a bad comparison. The backpedaling on pronoun use was a nice touch.

Clinton obviously doesn't give two shits about the 'new politics' as you see her aides constantly make comments about Obama in the media. None of which resigned, if memory serves me right. This new politics bullshit isn't going to fly in the general election, I can just picture GOP leaders laughing their ass off if Obama gets the nomination and continues his "new politics" message into the general.

I'm tired of the "let's play nice" politics, when that shit isn't going to work in the general election, which is where the votes really count.

[Amele]

it certainly seems to be working pretty well in the primary, despite the 'other team' not playing by it. *shrugs*

early word has Obama winning wyoming by a 30 point spread. by the by. he's now "won" twice as many as hillary (more or less, depends on how you count texas really.)

[kyod]

it certainly seems to be working pretty well in the primary, despite the 'other team' not playing by it. *shrugs*

early word has Obama winning wyoming by a 30 point spread. by the by. he's now "won" twice as many as hillary (more or less, depends on how you count texas really.)

Comparing current primary wins with electoral votes, Obama has 193 currently. Clinton has 219, but 263 if you count Florida and Michigan. Alot of Obama's wins are in traditionally red southern states. Clinton could easily take the swing states of Ohio and Florida, whereas I'm pretty sure Obama couldn't.

For me, it's all about who can win in the general election. I'm not convinced Obama could.

[Olo401]

This is a primary with two Democratic candidates that are trying to keep it clean (see the repeated comments from both sides saying things remain civil this primary season)

two Democratic candidates that are trying to keep it clean

keep it clean

Hillary's campaign has done nothing of the sort. Please, don't get me started on this.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Hillary's campaign isn't nearly as bad as, say, Bush '00. It's just your average douchebaggery.

[evilbau]

Hillary's campaign has done nothing of the sort. Please, don't get me started on this.

Go ahead, provide some proof. Insinuating someone isn't experienced enough to handle being president is hardly playing dirty.

You know what is?

"Today we are a nation at war. And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror: They would retreat, declare defeat.
And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that would make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt.
...
If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Sens. Clinton or Obama would win. In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror
...
And one of the things we believe in is that we cannot allow the next president of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism."

- Mitt Romney