Cnn Admits Obama Got Thumped In Pa.

GauchoB

fragileblake wrote:

Wow, post explosion.

Yeah, Obama and Dukakis, what an insightful comparison, I've only heard 10 different talking heads claim the same thing over the past two weeks. Or McGovern (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ec466d61-a900-414c-8daf-16ff27ccf85c) for that matter. I've even heard adlai stevenson. Can't we all come together as a country and decide once and for all what failed democratic candidate Obama is most analogous to? My pick is James M. Cox.

McCain winning New York or California? I haven't seen many polls that would suggest that. Your anecdotal evidence is fascinating though. These are some of the most pro-choice states in the union, they aren't voting republican. Plus I'm not sure if you've heard of this issue called the Iraq war. Its very unpopular in both states.

Then how is it that both States went to Clinton...the candidate who voted to fund the war? Don't kid yourself. And since when are we relying on polls anymore? Hasn't this primary taught anyone anything about the polls. People tell polsters one thing, and do something completely different in the booth.

GauchoB

ledvedderman wrote:

If you went back to your Poli Sci class you would see that Virginia has taken a hard turn towards the Democratic Party because of the boom in the northern part of the state in the DC suburbs. Obama will make Virginia a state in play, and if Obama and Warner do some campaigning together I think they both could take the state. I think Warner is a shoe in, but Obama can also win.

Also, it should be, "OK, now you're just on crack.".

At least you had the decency to back up your statements with some analysis that sounds intelligent even though it probably won't pan out that way. I can live with "a State in play". That is more accurate than saying Obama WILL win Virginia. Virginia is still the South last time I checked.

GauchoB

mca47 wrote:

Well, I'm sure you haven't seen any of these polls as they don't exist...all have Obama facing off against McCain much better than Clinton. It's been that way for some time. Gauco is talking out of his/her ass without facts.

Well I can see the abundance of facts you back your position up with. Lets see these polls.

GauchoB

cornnifer wrote:

i wouldn't consider ten points, with only two candidates, a thumping. Its a solid win, but not a thumping. Furthermore, it wasn't actually a full ten points. About nine actually. Also, when you consider her lead ther was once apx. 30 points, just a few short weeks ago, a 9 point win seems even less like a thumping.

Don't all jump on the messenger. These were John King's words. Not mine. The point was lost.

mca47

GauchoB wrote:

Well I can see the abundance of facts you back your position up with. Lets see these polls.

Step #1: Turn on any tv (it doesn't even have to be HD)
Step #2: Turn to any news station (NBC, CNN, ABC, hell...even Foxnews.
Step #3: Listen

For more savvy types...
Step #1: Purchase newspaper
Step #2: Read front page, political section.
Step #3: Understand what percentages mean.

GauchoB

mca47 wrote:

Step #1: Turn on any tv (it doesn't even have to be HD)
Step #2: Turn to any news station (NBC, CNN, ABC, hell...even Foxnews.
Step #3: Listen

For more savvy types...
Step #1: Purchase newspaper
Step #2: Read front page, political section.
Step #3: Understand what percentages mean.

Ah because the media is never wrong and would never lie to you. Typical Obama supporter. if you seriously think any mock poll between the democratic candidate and McCain has any relevance in April BEFORE the democrats have even selected a candidate and the issue of running mates is not decided, then you are the one talking out your arse. Keep watching TV kid.

mca47

GauchoB wrote:

Ah because the media is never wrong and would never lie to you. Typical Obama supporter. if you seriously think any mock poll between the democratic candidate and McCain has any relevance in April BEFORE the democrats have even selected a candidate and the issue of running mates is not decided, then you are the one talking out your arse. Keep watching TV kid.

So what the hell do you base your brilliant assessment on? Don't get me wrong, I take the media with a grain of salt but I take them to be a little more accurate than a guy who "knows people" on message board.
Secondly, let me ask you as an apparent expert. How can Clinton win? I will support that cold hearted bitch if she aligns the stars and makes everything right in the world and wins this thing because I don't want McCain winning this shit, but the numbers don't exactly work for her. Even after PA she hasn't picked up A/ONE super delagate (oh and that pesky Obama has). Even if she wins Indiana she'll lose any (regular) delegates she may have picked up in North Carolina.
Tread water as long as you want Clinton, the only thing it will cost you is a ton of money, and whatever respect you still may have.

GauchoB

First of all this is a very old thread. Pennsylvania is old news. Did i say Clinton was going to win? No. Never said it. Never said it was not a long shot. But I am tired of all the Obamites on here demanding that she roll over because it's more convenient for them. The reality is you still have to win and if it's not convenient for the party then too fucking bad. That's what you get when you stab people in the back as many people did to the Clintons. This whole campaign is just another exercise in the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot by nominating the wrong person.....again. Look i was never a Clinton lover myself. I actually worked on another Democrats campaign in 1992. But.....he did manage to deliver the White House to the Democrats twice and think that deserves a little if not alot of loyalty. So...fuck em. On to the Convention. Bring your calculators.

mca47

GauchoB wrote:

First of all this is a very old thread. Pennsylvania is old news. Did i say Clinton was going to win? No. Never said it. Never said it was not a long shot. But I am tired of all the Obamites on here demanding that she roll over because it's more convenient for them. The reality is you still have to win and if it's not convenient for the party then too fucking bad. That's what you get when you stab people in the back as many people did to the Clintons. This whole campaign is just another exercise in the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot by nominating the wrong person.....again. Look i was never a Clinton lover myself. I actually worked on another Democrats campaign in 1992. But.....he did manage to deliver the White House to the Democrats twice and think that deserves a little if not alot of loyalty. So...fuck em. On to the Convention. Bring your calculators.

Well you know what, I can honestly say I at least respect that kind of response. I took you/saw you a little bit different that what I should and I apologize.
I for one "like" Bill Clinton. I may not be as big of a fan as the rest, but I respect him to some degree. I cannot say the same for his wife. I will support her if she somehow pulls this off...it still blows my mind how anyone voting in the primaries would go to the "other side" if the other guy/girl wins but you know what...it's not surprising. The system, the people are fucked up.

Oh well. Sorry to be a dick in early threads.

GauchoB

mca47 wrote:

Well you know what, I can honestly say I at least respect that kind of response. I took you/saw you a little bit different that what I should and I apologize.
I for one "like" Bill Clinton. I may not be as big of a fan as the rest, but I respect him to some degree. I cannot say the same for his wife. I will support her if she somehow pulls this off...it still blows my mind how anyone voting in the primaries would go to the "other side" if the other guy/girl wins but you know what...it's not surprising. The system, the people are fucked up.

Oh well. Sorry to be a dick in early threads.

No one gets hurt here...

fragileblake

Theres a big difference in many peoples minds between funding the war initially and openly having the intention to continue it, perhaps indefinitely and "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran". Polls may not definitively predict anything, but they're certainly a way of telling where things are more likely to go.

GauchoB wrote:

Then how is it that both States went to Clinton...the candidate who voted to fund the war? Don't kid yourself. And since when are we relying on polls anymore? Hasn't this primary taught anyone anything about the polls. People tell polsters one thing, and do something completely different in the booth.

GauchoB

fragileblake wrote:

Theres a big difference in many peoples minds between funding the war initially and openly having the intention to continue it, perhaps indefinitely and "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran". Polls may not definitively predict anything, but they're certainly a way of telling where things are more likely to go.

That sounds like a Clinton v. McCain argument. I don't know anyone who wants to continue the war. If your referring to McCain I would have to hear more about his intentions. At least I appreciate the guys honesty when he says we cannot leave. We can't. Too much at stake. I do like the fact that he seems to now be trying to put some distance between himself and George W.

El_Kabong

GauchoB wrote:

That sounds like a Clinton v. McCain argument. I don't know anyone who wants to continue the war. If your referring to McCain I would have to hear more about his intentions. At least I appreciate the guys honesty when he says we cannot leave. We can't. Too much at stake. I do like the fact that he seems to now be trying to put some distance between himself and George W.

do any of the 3 corporate candidates plan on leaving iraq or staying?

DixieN

Back in January we were hearing a lot from Obama on wanting to go into Afghanistan. I haven't heard much of that lately. Nothing was ever really outlined on it, but right off hand, I wasn't sure I liked the idea if we were going to continue fighting on in Iraq. How many wars do we need at the same time? Apparently, Iran looks like a good possible target to the Bushies.

DixieN

fragileblake wrote:

And another thing, Latinos may have preferred Obama over Clinton, but theres little to no evidence that they'll support McCain over Obama. Besides, Obama Obama continues to improve his standing in the Latino community as the days go by.

I'm not so sure. I live in a state filled with Latinos. I'm one myself. An oddball, for sure. But still. With Bush, I noticed a lot of Latinos supporting him based on their perception that he was a pro-religion/religious kind of guy. I don't they've changed a huge lot since the last election. If Obama can be made to seem like he disparages people clinging to their religion--which he's made it very easy to do--McCain could sweep up fairly easily based on that alone. Many Latinos did not vote for Bush based on what would economically benefit them, that's for sure. They should have been in Kerry's pocket, but instead they were in Bush's. Given that McCain's and Obama's immigration policies do not currently appear to be strikingly dissimilar, edge to McCain on the Latino vote, when coupled with the religious aspect.

ledvedderman

GauchoB wrote:

First of all this is a very old thread. Pennsylvania is old news. Did i say Clinton was going to win? No. Never said it. Never said it was not a long shot. But I am tired of all the Obamites on here demanding that she roll over because it's more convenient for them. The reality is you still have to win and if it's not convenient for the party then too fucking bad. That's what you get when you stab people in the back as many people did to the Clintons. This whole campaign is just another exercise in the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot by nominating the wrong person.....again. Look i was never a Clinton lover myself. I actually worked on another Democrats campaign in 1992. But.....he did manage to deliver the White House to the Democrats twice and think that deserves a little if not alot of loyalty. So...fuck em. On to the Convention. Bring your calculators.

I agree with you here. As much as I want Obama to win, I have no problem with Hillary staying in until June. What I do have a problem with is her giving the GOP their talking points for a general election campaign against Barack Obama.

GauchoB

El_Kabong wrote:

do any of the 3 corporate candidates plan on leaving iraq or staying?

Even Obama now won't concede total withdrawel. Can't happen. McCain may not be saying what some of us want to hear but he speaks the truth. Hillary speaks half truths and Obama just flat out lies. So pick your poison.

GauchoB

DixieN wrote:

I'm not so sure. I live in a state filled with Latinos. I'm one myself. An oddball, for sure. But still. With Bush, I noticed a lot of Latinos supporting him based on their perception that he was a pro-religion/religious kind of guy. I don't they've changed a huge lot since the last election. If Obama can be made to seem like he disparages people clinging to their religion--which he's made it very easy to do--McCain could sweep up fairly easily based on that alone. Many Latinos did not vote for Bush based on what would economically benefit them, that's for sure. They should have been in Kerry's pocket, but instead they were in Bush's. Given that McCain's and Obama's immigration policies do not currently appear to be strikingly dissimilar, edge to McCain on the Latino vote, when coupled with the religious aspect.

Let's not forget the geographic issue as well. McCain is an Arizonan. His geographic proximity to California and the Southwest in general will help him with the Latino vote as well. Good insight.

GauchoB

ledvedderman wrote:

I agree with you here. As much as I want Obama to win, I have no problem with Hillary staying in until June. What I do have a problem with is her giving the GOP their talking points for a general election campaign against Barack Obama.

You don't think the GOP had this ammunition a long time ago? Just Wikipedia Obama and all of the Wright history was there long before it became a public issue. GOP was going to hit him anyways. At least now he has time to recover. But based on Reverend Wright's recent comments it doesn't look like Obama has the foresight to put serious distance between himself and this guy. Another sign of his naivety.

fragileblake

This is an interesting piece on the Latino vote, nice to look at some facts instead of anecdotal evidence.

http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/papers/2004vote.pdf