IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
If that's what Mankiw is saying, then he's wrong. I think he just misspoke and he's really more interested in making a point about increasing tax revenues, which is reasonable.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter adonis
- Start date
Gopher State
Footballguy
Those "hillbilles" are what are called blue collar workers, and if Obama continues to lose this vote, he will lose to McCain.
Gopher State
Footballguy
Analysis: Obama looks to general election, hoping America won't notice West Virginia
By NEDRA PICKLER , Associated Press
Last update: May 14, 2008 - 2:26 AM
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama is in hot pursuit of general election voters, hoping America won't notice he got his head handed to him in West Virginia.
The Illinois senator virtually pretended the primary didn't happen Tuesday, with no election night speech or any public appearance at all after the polls closed and gave Hillary Rodham Clinton a more than 2-1 victory even though her candidacy is likely doomed.
At Obama's Chicago headquarters, advisers said there was no reason to worry — West Virginia was demographically suited to Clinton and won't be part of their general election plans. It's also true that Clinton's win is unlikely to slow his march toward the nomination — Obama picked up 30 superdelegates this week, more than the 28 total pledged delegates up for grabs in West Virginia.
But maybe the Obama camp should be more worried. The voters who went against Obama Tuesday night — white, rural, older, low-income and without college degrees — don't just live in West Virginia. They live everywhere in the country, in places Obama needs to win.
They live in places like Macomb County, Mich., where Obama planned to start his day Wednesday by dropping by a Chrysler plant. That's a recognition that he has work to do to win over working class voters even if his campaign doesn't say it.
Obama's daylong visit to Michigan will be his first campaigning there since he signed onto a pledge nine months ago to boycott the state. He pulled his name from the ballot in the state's illegitimate primary, held too early for party rules.
That means many voters in the state are just starting to get to know Obama, said Bill Rustem, president of Michigan think tank Public Sector Consultants.
"There's a lot of excitement among young people and among African-Americans, which should serve him well," Rustem said. "There still are questions among older white people that I think he's going to have to try to appeal to them in some way, shape or form. I'm sure that's in part why he's coming to Michigan — to begin that process."
Obama's campaign leaders say they are confident most of these Clinton voters are Democrats first and will support Obama once the primary is over. In a memo before the polls even closed, they said conclusions cannot be drawn about the general election campaign from the results of the Democratic primaries and pointed out that head-to-head polls between Obama and McCain show Obama is running as well as past Democratic candidates among white voters.
"These people are Democrats," said Democratic consultant Steve McMahon, who is not working for either candidate. "They will come home."
Clinton's advisers said she planned to use her big victory to try to persuade uncommitted superdelegates during a meeting at her home Wednesday that she would be the strongest nominee in the general election.
"It is a fact that no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia," Clinton said in her victory speech. "The bottom line is this: The White House is won in the swing states, and I am winning the swing states."
The Obama campaign also said in its memo that Clinton also will likely win handily next week in Kentucky. His saving grace is that Oregon votes on the same day and is likely to give Obama a big win to balance it out. A double shellacking for Obama would have had him limping to the nomination.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Nedra Pickler has covered presidential politics for The Associated Press since 2002.
Obama will have a very tough time with McCain. He is getting 90% of the black vote, a vote that typically votes democratic. The states he is winning are typically republican states in recent presidential elections. The main reason he is getting victories in the mountain states and the southern states is the black vote and the young professionals. I'm glad that people are going out and voting but he won't win the general election. If the black vote was split 50-50 rather than 90-10, Hillary would have beat Obama in most states
By NEDRA PICKLER , Associated Press
Last update: May 14, 2008 - 2:26 AM
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama is in hot pursuit of general election voters, hoping America won't notice he got his head handed to him in West Virginia.
The Illinois senator virtually pretended the primary didn't happen Tuesday, with no election night speech or any public appearance at all after the polls closed and gave Hillary Rodham Clinton a more than 2-1 victory even though her candidacy is likely doomed.
At Obama's Chicago headquarters, advisers said there was no reason to worry — West Virginia was demographically suited to Clinton and won't be part of their general election plans. It's also true that Clinton's win is unlikely to slow his march toward the nomination — Obama picked up 30 superdelegates this week, more than the 28 total pledged delegates up for grabs in West Virginia.
But maybe the Obama camp should be more worried. The voters who went against Obama Tuesday night — white, rural, older, low-income and without college degrees — don't just live in West Virginia. They live everywhere in the country, in places Obama needs to win.
They live in places like Macomb County, Mich., where Obama planned to start his day Wednesday by dropping by a Chrysler plant. That's a recognition that he has work to do to win over working class voters even if his campaign doesn't say it.
Obama's daylong visit to Michigan will be his first campaigning there since he signed onto a pledge nine months ago to boycott the state. He pulled his name from the ballot in the state's illegitimate primary, held too early for party rules.
That means many voters in the state are just starting to get to know Obama, said Bill Rustem, president of Michigan think tank Public Sector Consultants.
"There's a lot of excitement among young people and among African-Americans, which should serve him well," Rustem said. "There still are questions among older white people that I think he's going to have to try to appeal to them in some way, shape or form. I'm sure that's in part why he's coming to Michigan — to begin that process."
Obama's campaign leaders say they are confident most of these Clinton voters are Democrats first and will support Obama once the primary is over. In a memo before the polls even closed, they said conclusions cannot be drawn about the general election campaign from the results of the Democratic primaries and pointed out that head-to-head polls between Obama and McCain show Obama is running as well as past Democratic candidates among white voters.
"These people are Democrats," said Democratic consultant Steve McMahon, who is not working for either candidate. "They will come home."
Clinton's advisers said she planned to use her big victory to try to persuade uncommitted superdelegates during a meeting at her home Wednesday that she would be the strongest nominee in the general election.
"It is a fact that no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia," Clinton said in her victory speech. "The bottom line is this: The White House is won in the swing states, and I am winning the swing states."
The Obama campaign also said in its memo that Clinton also will likely win handily next week in Kentucky. His saving grace is that Oregon votes on the same day and is likely to give Obama a big win to balance it out. A double shellacking for Obama would have had him limping to the nomination.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Nedra Pickler has covered presidential politics for The Associated Press since 2002.
Obama will have a very tough time with McCain. He is getting 90% of the black vote, a vote that typically votes democratic. The states he is winning are typically republican states in recent presidential elections. The main reason he is getting victories in the mountain states and the southern states is the black vote and the young professionals. I'm glad that people are going out and voting but he won't win the general election. If the black vote was split 50-50 rather than 90-10, Hillary would have beat Obama in most states
djcolts
Footballguy
Poblano Model explains how Obama can win
If it is assumed that there will be no more new registered voters than in a usual Presidential election cycle, then it is easy to see how Obama could struggle in the general election. However, as has been proven so far by a very large Democratic primary turnout, this isn't a typical year. The above link will explain what Obama's campaign strategy is and how it works.
If it is assumed that there will be no more new registered voters than in a usual Presidential election cycle, then it is easy to see how Obama could struggle in the general election. However, as has been proven so far by a very large Democratic primary turnout, this isn't a typical year. The above link will explain what Obama's campaign strategy is and how it works.
culdeus
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Excellent article, and I have a feeling that it's dead on. Everything about Obama's campaign, the 50 state strategy, the money poured in from new donors, and above all the use of the internet, represents something we have not seen before in American politics. Those who argue that Obama cannot beat McCain are looking at the older models, I fear.Any study of the history of warfare will always tell you that the experts get it wrong every time because they refer to past battles. For instance, in early 1940, all the military experts predicted a long gruelish battle between Germany and France, duplicating the trench warfare of 1914. None of them could forsee how the massing of tanks combined with control of the air made that old warfare obsolete; the Germans won within a month. I think we may be seeing a similar analogy here. It's unfortunate for me, as a McCain supporter, but I think it is true.
saintfool
Dead sexy
how much active courting of this "blue collar" vote will mccain do? as a rule, GOP candidates are:- anti-union;- they're seen as in the pocket of the super rich and corporations;- they're anti-immigrant; and- cutting gov't spending on social programs.although Iraq and the WoT aren't at the top of the list of grievances, McCain is seen as a proponent of the current policy. a policy that has kept sons and daughters in harm's way for far too long.once the Dem campaign and the media coverage that follows it shifts from internecine to GOP v Dem then we'll see whom the average american embraces more readily.
Good analysis Lhucks.
flufhed
Footballguy
OH and FL are swing states, too, but I like your argument here.
flufhed
Footballguy
I am no longer as confident as I was in an Obama victory, but I agree Hillary has NO CHANCE in the general.Right now, the Republicans are tremendously unenthused and uninspired by their candidate. Nothing would galvanize Repbulicans together and bring them out of the wood works more, IMO, than Hillary Clinton.Turnout matters alot in the general, and I think alot of Republicans stay at home this cycle with McCain vs. Obama.
flufhed
Footballguy
The funny thing with McCain is that he has managed to really p### off the Republican base, while at the same time p###### the independents and moderates that supported him before. He is neither a conservative, nor a maverick, at this point.
flufhed
Footballguy
Have you been to WV?
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
When she says stuff like that I always wonder who buys it. Now I know. Primary results do not translate to GE results. They can't. Do you guys also beleive that all the states McCain lost will automatically go for Obama? Do you think California will go for McCain? Losing a state to Clinton in the primaries does not mean that state can't be won by Obama against McCain.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I think Obama can win both of those.OH and FL are swing states, too, but I like your argument here.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Nice job leaving out Ohio and West Virginia, two states that the Democrat must win in November. Obama lost handily to Clinton in both of those states. And let's not forget Florida, which isn't counting, but we all know that Clinton would stand a better chance of winning there than Obama would. And please do not put me into the "delusional Clinton supporters" category. I have already said I cannot stand her. I am just trying to be realistic about the chances of both Democrats in the general election.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Good thing I never said that. And I know that primary results do not always translate to general election results, but assuming you are an Obama supporter, are you telling me his poor effort in several significant swing states does not concern you?
flufhed
Footballguy
He is going to need to spend A LOT of time with Jewish voters, in my opinion. No one talks about that much, but I see that as a big problem that needs to be fixed by Obama. Jewish voters it seems have been swaying towards the right more and more every year since the war on terror, and turmoil in the Middle East, and the whispers about Obama and some of his own misstatements I bet are already taking their toll among Jewish voters. This is something that he needs to fix FAST. Everything he says about Israel needs to be strong, pro-Israel, he needs to assure the leaders one on one about Farrakhan and the like. I really like his statement in one of the debates about how he wants to restore the historical bond between Jews and blacks from the civil rights era. Well, guys like Farrakhan were largely responsible for severing that bond and driving a wedge.I really think he has alot of work to do here.I think Obama can win both of those.OH and FL are swing states, too, but I like your argument here.
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Yes, I'm telling you does not concern me. This is the first time "my candidate" has lost and I was glad to see that he's looking to the general and going to Michigan rather than dwelling on it.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I completely agree - and I think Florida is going to be VERY tough for him. He may very well lose FL.I think in Ohio, McCain will be his best friend if they can successfully tie McCain to Bush and blame him for the economy.He is going to need to spend A LOT of time with Jewish voters, in my opinion. No one talks about that much, but I see that as a big problem that needs to be fixed by Obama. Jewish voters it seems have been swaying towards the right more and more every year since the war on terror, and turmoil in the Middle East, and the whispers about Obama and some of his own misstatements I bet are already taking their toll among Jewish voters. This is something that he needs to fix FAST. Everything he says about Israel needs to be strong, pro-Israel, he needs to assure the leaders one on one about Farrakhan and the like. I really like his statement in one of the debates about how he wants to restore the historical bond between Jews and blacks from the civil rights era. Well, guys like Farrakhan were largely responsible for severing that bond and driving a wedge.I really think he has alot of work to do here.I think Obama can win both of those.OH and FL are swing states, too, but I like your argument here.
Jeremy
Footballguy
Let's not forget in the "electability" argument that Obama has had to endure a lot of attacks from both Hillary and the Republicans, while Hillary has been treated very well by Obama, and the Republican part of the media has been actively campaigning for her for months. That will NOT be the case in general election. The same Republicans that are kissing her butt right now will turn on her with a fury that will make the swiftboat stuff look like child's play. And who buys into that BS? Uneducated voters. I doubt she'd still be the "working class hero" after the Republicans dig out every skeleton in her closet, and plant a few more of their own.
adonis
Footballguy
Now that the last Hillary bastion is behind us, we can go on with closing out this election. From here on out, the race gets interesting. Last nights news surprised no one. Obama didn't campaign much at all there, knowing the demographics hugely were against him.
But upcoming contests:
Kentucky: 51 delegates ---- Clinton +27% ish
Oregon: 52 delegates ---- Obama + 15% ish
Puerto Rico: 55 delegates (open primary)
Montana: 16 delegates (open primary)
South Dakota: 15 delegates
So, it looks like Obama and Clinton will split states next Tuesday, taking more delegates off the table without much advantage going either way (slightly clinton). After next Tuesday, there will be only 86 delegates left, and many more superdelegates left.
To be honest, the next week elections really won't matter that much. This was the last state that really mattered to the campaigns, and from here on out, it will be less about the states, and more about superdelegates and behind the scenes power plays. More and more supers will come out for Obama, and Hillary will try to use the data from this latest state to slow that tide, to show that Obama is not going to be able to draw blue-collar whites with lower education levels. Whatever power she can muster from her strong showing, she will wield...but to what effect.
Obviously, she wants the presidency, but to get that, the rules have to change. Will she wield her power, her votes, her reputation, to force the delegates from MI and FL to be seated? Will this become the central focus of her campaign from here on out? I can't see any other option for her than to hit that topic hard and often, and use whatever political leverage she has to get them counted, because then, only by raising the magic number from 2025 to something a few hundred higher, does she have ANY shot.
If she can win a revote in those states, she has a bigger shot as well. Odds are, she'll by lobbying for that too. So at this point, the remaining states are not really worth much to her, what's worth more is what's off the table right now - MI/FL and the superdelegates. Full court press on these subjects should be coming soon.
But upcoming contests:
Kentucky: 51 delegates ---- Clinton +27% ish
Oregon: 52 delegates ---- Obama + 15% ish
Puerto Rico: 55 delegates (open primary)
Montana: 16 delegates (open primary)
South Dakota: 15 delegates
So, it looks like Obama and Clinton will split states next Tuesday, taking more delegates off the table without much advantage going either way (slightly clinton). After next Tuesday, there will be only 86 delegates left, and many more superdelegates left.
To be honest, the next week elections really won't matter that much. This was the last state that really mattered to the campaigns, and from here on out, it will be less about the states, and more about superdelegates and behind the scenes power plays. More and more supers will come out for Obama, and Hillary will try to use the data from this latest state to slow that tide, to show that Obama is not going to be able to draw blue-collar whites with lower education levels. Whatever power she can muster from her strong showing, she will wield...but to what effect.
Obviously, she wants the presidency, but to get that, the rules have to change. Will she wield her power, her votes, her reputation, to force the delegates from MI and FL to be seated? Will this become the central focus of her campaign from here on out? I can't see any other option for her than to hit that topic hard and often, and use whatever political leverage she has to get them counted, because then, only by raising the magic number from 2025 to something a few hundred higher, does she have ANY shot.
If she can win a revote in those states, she has a bigger shot as well. Odds are, she'll by lobbying for that too. So at this point, the remaining states are not really worth much to her, what's worth more is what's off the table right now - MI/FL and the superdelegates. Full court press on these subjects should be coming soon.
Mark Davis
Footballguy
The following two links show this phenomenon. I'm not saying Obama can't win some of the states that are narrow now and win in November, but I think it shows presently that Clinton has the advantage in those swing states. These maps have nothing to do with the primary, but rather polling each Democrat individually against McCain. I also get that both sides are still bitter at the other now and some of that may subside. All of that said, this is Hillary's case and the polling for now does support that.http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May14.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clin...Maps/May14.html
cobalt_27
Footballguy
So, even counting Ohio and WV, I'm not sure how the claim can be made that Hillary has this overwhelming influence in the "swing" states. Some, yes. Others, no. But, Obama has more broad support than Hillary. He has the support of more states. He has more votes. He has more delegates. He has more support from party leaders/Superdelegates. He would fare better than Hillary, it appears, in at least half of these so-called "swing" states.I'm just not seeing it...this defense of Hillary being the better national candidate.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Edwards got 7% of the vote. GB Appalachia
Voltaire
Footballguy
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ provides much better info IMO. It uses the averages of several polls in its calculation.Right now Obama gets 266 electoral votes against McCain and Hillary gets 259 in her race. As an Obama supporter this isn't a bad thing, he's shown the ability to run an excellent campaign. That is underestimated by a lot of people.Mark Davis said:
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't say that's true if the purely economic standpoint includes public choice theory. The permits aren't going to be given away for free either way; the question is whether the cost should be paid through an auction or through political campaign contributions.IvanKaramazov said:
There is reason to think holding an auction would cut down on rent-seeking behavior.
This issue is related to the rent-seeking I mentioned above as well as to the gas tax holiday.What normally happens when the government gives out permits (or other benefits to producers) for free instead of charging for them? In a competitive market, the benefit goes to the consumers in the form of lower retail prices. The value of the handout to producers is competed away. Because the price to consumers is reduced, the quantity purchased increases.
But I don't think that can happen here because the quantity of permits is fixed. And therefore the quantity of goods that can be produced is fixed. Since the quantity of goods purchased cannot increase, the price of goods will not be reduced. Thus the handout to producers is not competed away after all; it is enjoyed by the producers. (Just like the gas tax holiday would benefit producers rather than consumers.)
The handouts would therefore create economic rents -- i.e., producers would enjoy supercompetitive profits. Ordinarily that would attract new entrants into the marketplace to compete for those profits. But in this case there is a prohibitive barrier to entry -- there are no more permits available. (I guess the permits could be distributed randomly to anyone who puts his name on a list; but I suspect the political reality is that they'd instead be distributed to already-existing firms in the relevant market.) A new market entrant could purchase permits from the firms that got the handouts; but unlike in a normal situation where economic profits are available, the quantity of production, and thus probably the quantity of firms engaged in production, will not increase. This -- along with built-in rents preventing inefficient firms from going out of business -- will have a limiting effect on innovation and creativity.
I think Mankiw is right that the edge here goes to Obama.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This isn't really true, because the permits aren't "handouts." Under the status quo, energy companies can pollute costlessly. A cap and trade system restricts their ability to pollute, whether you give permits away or sell them. Either way, there's now an opportunity cost associated with pollution: either you have to buy a permit from the government, you have to buy a permit from another firm, or your forgo the opportunity to sell a permit on the open market. Any cap and trade system takes a resource that previously had a price of zero (pollution rights) and drives its price up to its socially efficient level, assuming the program is implemented correctly. That happens regardless of how permits are allocated. You could auction them give them away; the market price ends up being the same.
I'm sure Mankiw knows this. I think when he talks about an auction system as being the same as a Pigouvian tax, he means that both achieve social efficiency and they both generate an identical amount of revenue for the government. Giving permits away achieves social efficiency too, but doesn't generate any tax revenue.
FWIW, the original SO2 program involved only a very small number of permits being auctioned. I think something like 95% of them were just given away to firms based on their previous production patterns. That program worked pretty well, and didn't generate any super-normal profits, because they made it costlier to produce SO2, not cheaper. Edit: Not only were few permits auctioned off, but the proceeds from the auction were rebated to firms in proportion to their SO2-allocation levels. There was apparently no net transfer of wealth from the industry to the government at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Good explanation. Thanks.So because pollution is currently not an internalized cost, the effect of instituting a Pigouvian tax would be to increase production costs and therefore, assuming some elasticity of demand, to decrease the quantity of goods produced. (Goods whose production generates pollution, that is.) Which I suppose is the point. (With a cap-and-trade program, it's not elasticity of demand that is required; it's a cap level below current pollution levels.)
So one efficiency-related concern is related to transaction costs. Would an initial auction have lower costs than handouts followed by having permit-sellers and permit-buyers hook up on their own (maybe through eBay)? I'm guessing it probably would, but I don't know.
Aside from transaction costs, though, I think there's another efficiency-related concern -- one that more clearly favors an auction.
The revenue generated by the government from holding an auction, if government spending is independent from such revenue (i.e., if getting revenue from the auction won't cause government spending to increase), will decrease inefficiency in other areas. Generally, the government collects revenue in ways that cause inefficiencies -- through income taxes, excise taxes, etc.
If the government can, in this case, collect some revenues in a way that's neutral with respect to efficiency, then it can decrease tax rates in other areas that are not neutral.
(Does it sound like I'm just looking for ways to justify a preference for Obama's plan rather than McCain's? I'm not consciously doing so.)
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Right. Both systems should reduce the amount of electricity, say, produced. A tax does so indirectly by increasing marginal cost, while a cap system does so by restricting pollution. (Ignoring abatement efforts, of course, which both programs encourage).
I think there were some minor problems at first with SO2 markets being a little thin, but it wasn't a big deal and it didn't last long.
That would be nice, yes. I'm just talking about auction systems vs. give-away systems in a vacuum. If we knew for sure that the government would spend that auction revenue in an efficiency-enhancing manner, then that would be an argument in favor of an auction, and Mankiw alluded that that in his blog. Let's just say that I'm less than completely optimistic about the government doing things that way, but it's a valid point. There are a couple of other minor points I should make:1) I did some quick reading on this, and your earlier concern about rent-seeking seems to be justified. Richard Schmalensee is one of the guys who helped design the SO2 system in the early 1990s, and he's written a lot about this program. He mentions that there seems to have been at least some degree of rent-seeking behavior in the process of allocating permits. That's not really a deal-killer, but it is worth keeping in mind. 2) On the other hand, Schmalensee also says that they considered auctioning permits, but it was going to be politically impossible to get such a program through Congress. I don't know if things have changed since then, but I would imagine that Obama's program would encounter some serious industry opposition, which cuts against point (1).
I don't think so. I don't have a strong prefernce for either Obama's plan or McCain's plan. Either would be a clear improvement over most alternatives, including our current policy or lack thereof. It was just that Mankiw's quote made it sound like McCain's program was clearly worse than Obama's in terms of economic efficiency, and that just isn't the case. In a theoretical vacuum the two programs are economically identical, and even when you factor in practical issues like auction design, thin markets, and public choice stuff, it still isn't clear that one is obviously worse than the other.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
VA is definately up for grabs this season. NC and GA may very well be also. If he chooses the Gov. of KS as his runningmate, and being his mother was from there, maybe there is a shot there as well. Hell, after Katrina I wouldnt rule out MS or LA as being up for grabs either. Mississippi republicans had an issue today right?Ghost Rider said:
Trey
Footballguy
Okay Okay... time for a reality check. Virginia and North Carolina are in play. The end. (It should be noted at this point that they are NOT in play for Clinton.)I understand that there are lots and lots of black people in GA, LA, and MS but they are not going blue in November.
skol asylum
Footballguy
[Wright]No, GD Appalachia.[/Wright]NorvilleBarnes said:
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
GOP just lost a republican congressional district in northern MS by special election that Bush won by 25% in 2004 and the republican won with 60% his last election. Republicans lost a congressional seat in LA in a district that had been republican for over 3 decades. I think there are a lot of places in play this year because the GOP has been so horrid for 7+ years and those two states felt the brunt of it. Hell, China had 20,000 workers mobilized and helping mere hours after that earthquake (which had no warning) and we couldnt get #### done in NO or the MS gulf coast when there was 2 days notice of a hurricane.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
CNN JUST SAID EDWARDS IS ABOUT TO ENDORSE OBAMA AT THE EVENT IN MICHIGAN!!!
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Tremendous Upside
Footballguy
Well it sure ####### took long enoughPractically worthless at this pointShould have happened months ago
skol asylum
Footballguy
CNN Breaking News: Edwards to endorse Obama
adonis
Footballguy
Just made it on CNN.com's breaking news too, although reports come from Obama's campaign!
Last edited by a moderator:
adonis
Footballguy
Just made it on CNN.com's breaking news too, although reports come from Obama's campaign!
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Edwards' campaign manager on CNN now confirming Edwards is on his way to Michigan to endorse.
timschochet
Footballguy
He waited way too long, IMO. He was trying to play politics, be some kind of power broker at the convention. Plans like that never really work out. I think Edwards' day as an influential Democrat are done.
Trey
Footballguy
I just took a trip over to Poblano, which is the new guru site when it comes to electoral projection...
Obama's chances in November:
Mississippi: .2%
Louisiana: 2.8%
Kansas: 5.8%
Georgia: 6.2%
But yes, let's keep pretending that he puts every state in the entire country in play because he is god. That will surely work out in November.
He's going to win the White House. Not with Ohio and Florida, but with Virginia + Colorado + North Carolina. But let's not get ridiculous here.
Obama's chances in November:
Mississippi: .2%
Louisiana: 2.8%
Kansas: 5.8%
Georgia: 6.2%
But yes, let's keep pretending that he puts every state in the entire country in play because he is god. That will surely work out in November.
He's going to win the White House. Not with Ohio and Florida, but with Virginia + Colorado + North Carolina. But let's not get ridiculous here.
skol asylum
Footballguy
Obama could get Edwards 19 delegates now, but they aren't bound to follow Edwards.
adonis
Footballguy
I bet those were approximately his odds of winning the nomination at the start of the contest. Not saying that he'll get those states, but, at this point, it's a bit early for those numbers to mean a whole lot. I'd multiply them by 10 to give them a more accurate number come november.
adonis
Footballguy
Depends on what happens here. If this unleashes the floodgates of superdelgates to back Obama, then he could still be considered a leader.To me, it all was about getting PA and WV behind her, because from here on out, the good news is nowhere near as good as those two states.
simey
Footballguy
I don't think Obama is a shoe-in for North Carolina.
Tremendous Upside
Footballguy
Now let's not get ahead of ourselvesThere's no way Obama wins Georgia and Kansas with 62% and 58% respectively
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Right. It's what it signifies for the party. The state voting is pretty much moot at this point, so the endorsement doesnt get the vote out for Obama, but it shows a clear direction of the party, and probably the super delegates. Talk about taking the wind out of Clinton's sails after a big WV win and interview with Wolf on CNN.
adonis
Footballguy
Those are chances of him winning the state, not outcomes.I think he will put a few southern states in play that previously haven't been. Louisiana would've been a prime candidate if many of the black people weren't scattered to other states from Katrina. It's not that he only gets black votes, but that is a huge base of his and if they were still in LA like they were before, I could see them coming out huge for him.
Similar threads
