Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I wouldn't vote for Hillary if Obama was her VP. I don't like her, I don't think she'll take the country in a new direction, I think she'll just perpetuate the division that existed during the bush and clinton years, and usher in more of the same in washington. Why would I vote for someone who while being a very capable person, would not change the political climate in washington one iota?
How is Obama going to change the political climate? His Senate record is about as party line as they come.
Oh Absolutely it was a good day, and those who say differently have their heads in the sand.Until a week or two ago, the entire nation was dramatically pro-hillary. Obama was running behind double digits in every poll. If HIllary was such a strong candidate, her lead would've held, however, not only did her lead almost entirely evaporate, but in some states Obama trumped her, and sometimes by a huge margin.Again, in my earlier post I talked about the calculation of HIllary becoming a senator in New York with really no geographical reason to do so. She did it for last night, for the huge number of delegates available for a democratic primary. She also has huge name recognition and popularity among people in California, much due to her husband, which is a large part of why she stayed with him, imo.So, for Obama to come from behind in national polls in only a few weeks, to compete nationally with a woman who has been running for over a decade with so many benefits to her name, last night was unequivocally a success for the Obama campaign, yet the news media will not overtly report this because they are caught up on delegate count and state totals. They don't see the bigger picture, and it's probably not beneficial for them to see it. It's beneficial for the media to see a close race, to garner more viewers, and more ratings.
Obama: 7,215,786Clinton: 7,330,262ETA, that is just for last night... I'll go back and add the other states that counted.
I tend to agree with this. The super delegates can change their mind whenever they want. A pledge isn't a promise. It would also seem that most if not all pleges were made a while ago when Billary was "inevitable". Unless the DNC is brain dead, which is entirely possible, the super delegates will swing to who is polling better to beat the Republican candidate. What I don't understand is that Obama has been polling better recently to beat the Republicans in the general. I don't know if any super delegates have switched pledges or not based on that. In any event, Obama needs to make the case that the GOP is salivating to run against Hillary. He should just make a commercial with all the GOP strategists praying that Hillary wins.
Here are the total votes cast to date (excluding MI and FL)Obama: 7,621,362Clinton: 7,589,733It's hard to see how the Democrats could be more evenly divided right now.
First, admit that Hillary won't change the political climate. Her style of politics is embedded in the politics of the past few administrations. Slash and burn, do whatever it takes politics where the other side is demonized and you forcefully push on with your goals. She'll bring Bill back to the white house, which will be a point of contention for republicans who will be just waiting for him to slip up. All of the clinton's baggage will be the stuff of talk shows again, newspaper articles, and animosity that has remained largeley dormant for a decade will seep back out into the public again.Obama offers a fresh new face. He offers the ability to bring people from all walks of life together, and inspire them to a greater cause. This isn't just mushy, pie in the sky crap, it has real ramifications. He brings in more independents and republicans than Hillary ever could. He brings over reasonable minded people and doesn't demonize the other side. He's basically galvanized a new form of politics, where cordiality reigns supreme. The past debate was played on HIS home ground, not clintons, as if it were her home turf, many more allegations and swipes would've been delivered, just like her Rezko comments in the previous debate.Obama has shown on the campaign trail that he can elevate the dialogue. He's a black man but his campaign isn't about race, it's about a movement. He gets a lot of the black vote but he doesn't focus on that. He gets a lot of the youth vote but doesn't focus on that. He focuses on the idea that he's leading a movement, a fresh movement, a movement that is bringing in people from all walks of life, and he's got the charm to pull it off.When he gets into office, he will bring his excellent judgement abilities, as shown by his opposition to the war from the start IN ADDITION TO his ability to select excellent people for positions, as evidenced by how amazingly run his campaign has been. Imagine, this is a guy that put together a campaign organization that is competing with Hillary clinton's..the most entrenched political family outside of the kennedy's. I mean, this shows excellent judgement and ability to choose capable people to surround himself with. He has shown ability to bridge gaps between people on issues, and he doesn't enter the white house on day one with a decades worth of animosity in his overnight bag.So the difference between how they would be as presidents is huge to me. Fresh start, Obama, more of the same, Clinton.
What nation is that? Anyone have a link to a nation-wide "What do you think of Hillary Clinton?" poll? She's barely winning a majority of registered democrats and basically everyone on the other side of the aisle hates her much more than Obama. Similar to Bush, she has a lot of supporters and could win the election, but the only people who are "pro-Hillary" at all are those voting for her. Non-voters, Obama voters, and Republicans make up a pretty big portion of the nation.
Absolutely, there's no doubt that MI should be off the table, and in my mind, Fl should NO DOUBT be off the table as well. If you don't campaign in a state, why should the results be counted? I mean, it's basically like a poll. The floridians didn't get to talk to obama, didn't get to meet edwards, and taht makes all the difference in these elections. I would be extremely pissed if Florida's votes counted. They made the decision to move up their primary in full knowledge of what would happen, and the candidates (except for Hillary) respected this. For her to go in there and have a victory celebration, in addition to unions mobilizing behind her (which i heard was close to, if not a violation, of the democratic ban on campaigning), is quite ridiculous. But it's nearly criminal, or at least as criminal as politics can be, to suggest that florida's uncontested votes should be counted.
You're due.
How about this - as of a month ago, Hillary was the overwhelming frontrunner and prohibitive favorite to win the nomination. Go back over a month ago, and Obama was an afterthought.
Awesome post.I think you nailed how I feel about the "experience" thing. It's all about judgement, and ability to surround oneself with talented people. His campaign has proven this. I like his Mitt Romney dig the other night when someone believed the country needed a "CEO President" like Romeny, and Obama offered he didn't think Romney has gotten a good return on his investment and that he'd gladly compare his campaign to his. Obama has built this campaign from the ground up in about a year and has more cash than Billary and is in a dead heat with them. That in itself speaks volumes about his ability and in my mind that trumps longevity in Washington argument. The dude has skillz.
If he was energizing all walks of life he would be winning. He isn't getting female voters, hispanic voters, or AARP voters. A lot of his big wins are based solely on race and his voting record is more polarizing than Hillary's. I understand you have drunk the kool-aid, but that's all it is. You like him because he has charisma, which is understandable. The rest is rhetoric.
Yes. I'm speaking specifically of the democratic race, and polls linked to the candidates.What nation is that? Anyone have a link to a nation-wide "What do you think of Hillary Clinton?" poll? She's barely winning a majority of registered democrats and basically everyone on the other side of the aisle hates her much more than Obama. Similar to Bush, she has a lot of supporters and could win the election, but the only people who are "pro-Hillary" at all are those voting for her. Non-voters, Obama voters, and Republicans make up a pretty big portion of the nation.
Maybe I'm arguing samantics here and you meant to say "the majority of democratic voters were pro-Hillary".
Depends on how you define prohibitive. I don't remember ever seeing a price above -200 for her. For comparison New England was a -500 favorite at the close.-200 is roughly a 4.5 point favorite in a football game. I think she might open again today around a -130 price though I doubt any number will be posted on the online books for the next few days till things get settled.
That's pretty darn close to call it without CA being finished. If he is wrong he is going to look silly.
How silly to dismiss what I say as rhetoric. Hispanic voters don't even really know who he is, and honestly, they don't know much about HIllary either. She's getting their votes almost entirely because of name recognition, and because she's associated, for whatever distorted and messed up reasons, with the prosperity that was around when her husband was president.And regarding women, AARP members, and anyone else who are typical democratic voters, if Obama was the candidate, HE would be getting their votes too. Can Hillary say the same thing for the youth, for the indpendents and the republicans? She certainly cannot.So yes, Obama is mobilizing and enthusing a segment of the population which typically doesn't vote democratic, or vote at all. And he has shown good judgement, not only on the Iraq war issue, which Clinton still refuses to admit was a mistake or to apologize for, but also on the Iran vote, and has most recently shown his ability to lead by putting together an amazing campaign and changing the tone of the entire election, i'd even argue, on both sides.So I'm sorry to that you see it as rhetoric, but when it's all said and done, Obama can bring out more people to vote democrat than Hillary can, and he can change the tone of the country just like he can change the tone of an election.Think about who has endorsed him. He's bringing the fringe left side of the party, like Moveon.org, Teddy kennedy, to the SAME PERSON that independents and republicans are voting for. That's pretty amazing, if you ask me. Who would've thought that the moveon people would ever vote for the same person that repubs and independents are voting for?
One could also say Hillary is not getting males, blacks and young people.See, we can both play this game.Love the Hillary hand-wringing going on today. 
I was more referencing what I think would happen as the convention nears. If he won the delegate count and is still ahead of McCain while Hillary trails, there's no way the super-delegates won't swing to him. They both know it which makes last night so damaging for her (and why she continually harps on MI and FL). Obama's people claim they won the delegate battle last night 841-837 (we'll see if that actually holds) which in the end is a huge victory for him as the playing field switches to more friendly states now. If he can get that lead up to 75-100 by March 4th, its going to be mighty hard for her to counter that.
When I say more of the same, I mean that she will not change the political climate in america, which is very divided, very bitter. She will usher back in the same old arguments, the same old scandals, and the major players involved. In that way, it will be more of the same. Different face, same division, same politics, same players. She won't pull republicans and independents, she has her base, and that's all she'll be able to get. She's a polarizing figure...who has ever said that about Obama?Anybody who believes Hillary Clinton will be "More of the same" needs to either start clarifying what they mean or get their head examined. If anybody believes Hillary Clinton will be like George Bush the past 7 years running wild mainly with a Republican congress for most of those years then do me a favor and get an IQ test and let me know if you beat a bumblebee in the test.
Yes, he's certainly winning states like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Minnesota based on race. He's making progress with the Hispanic vote, and has consistently shown that he will get the Independent vote. That is the real key. He is generating interest not just from Democrats but from Republicans and Independents as well. He has the ability to change the political climate just like Reagan did, by building a coalition and moving the country towards his positions.
Well..."NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton. "
I think when people say "more of the same" they are talking about the time Bush Sr took over, until today....all that time, it's been the same crap presented differently, year after year. Hillary won't change that.Anybody who believes Hillary Clinton will be "More of the same" needs to either start clarifying what they mean or get their head examined. If anybody believes Hillary Clinton will be like George Bush the past 7 years running wild mainly with a Republican congress for most of those years then do me a favor and get an IQ test and let me know if you beat a bumblebee in the test.
They assign delegates by Congressional District, so I'm sure they wouldn't be claiming this unless they were sure how the districts are going to divide up now.
This is all complete BS
. Seriously. Let's see some evidence that all of the Hispanic voters are just somehow in the darkThe most liberal elements of the party putting their force behind the most liberal candidate isn't amazing.
Obviously. He's not calculating it on his own. The networks aren't exactly infallible when elections are close.
Any of these clowns on both sides is a change from Bush. I want a change from CLINTON. You liked the last year of Bills presidency? The grid lock, the witch hunt, the absolute glee the GOP had in stopping cigar boy at every turn. I hated that soap opera and nothing got done with that drama. If Bill kept his pants on Gore would of won and there would be no Bush. I blame Billary for Bush.The GOP will "remind" everyone of that dreadful time over and over and over again if she is the candidate. They will question the Clinton's truthfulness and morality and I believe that is a winner for them.Anybody who believes Hillary Clinton will be "More of the same" needs to either start clarifying what they mean or get their head examined. If anybody believes Hillary Clinton will be like George Bush the past 7 years running wild mainly with a Republican congress for most of those years then do me a favor and get an IQ test and let me know if you beat a bumblebee in the test.
There were polls in here showing Obama was going to win CA just a few days ago. I don't see where I was wrong, or at least any more wrong than most of the others around here.
Republicans will say he has no ability to build a coalition, will brand him as the nations "most liberal senator" just like they did Kerry. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ator-last-year/
I'm sure they are going by their own counts, not the networks.
I've read multiple articles that refer to Obama as the "como se llama" candidate, as in they don't know his name. On NPR this morning, interviews with hispanics after voting said that they remembered Bill and associate those years with Hillary, they know her name whereas they don't know Obama's. I'd look up references for you, but I doubt it'd matter. If you really care, just do some searching yourself.This is all complete BS
That's not what I said. What's amazing is that the liberal candidate is attracting NOT ONLY the most liberal elements of his own party, but also independent and republicans as well. THAT is what is amazing. That is how Obama is able to unify, not only the split democratic party, but also will go a long way towards getting over the polarization that has pervaded our country for over a decade.
And yet, Republicans and Independents will still vote for him. A friend and I were having a conversation this weekend about the Republican strategy of labeling everything just half a degree to the left of you as "liberal." The problem is they have diluted their own attack; and when "conservative" has lead us into massive deficits, unpopular wars, and teetering on the brink of recession, all of a sudden the alternative doesn't look so bad.
And he will rise above brandings, just like he has risen above the race issue even though people like Bill Clinton have tried to apply that to him. He's risen above the naive label. The inexperienced label.He's becoming the figurehead for a movement, not just a political campaign about one person like we're used to seeing. It's bigger than him.
Seriously? They've been running him since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.
When Obama talks about change, I guess I'm not understanding what he's referring to when his political records shows that he's going to vote down the party line. So, when he says "we need change", isn't he saying that we need Democratic philosophies guiding the country ?
Obama is said to have an advantage in the "beltway" primaries (DC, MD, VA), while Hillary is said to have an advantage in TX, OH.
Also need to add again here, as you can see in my sig, that the Republicans are clear about who they would rather face in the Fall and it isn't Obama.I was laughing when Hillary used the line in her speech last night that she wouldn't let the Republicans "swift-boat her campaign," because they are sure as hell going to Whitewater it.
