Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 08:41 pm
fishin wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
This doesn't mean that Clinton will carry the "Bush States" in 2008, or that Obama will lose any of the "Kerry-Gore" states but if she wins the primaries in most of the "Big States" then it's logical to assume that she would have a better chance than Obama in winning them once pitted against a Republican in the general election.


You're just being silly here. What you see as "logical" has a great big hole right square in the middle of it. You can't compare how Clinton and Obama will do against each other based how the states broke for Bush or Kerry. It's an apples/oranges comparison.

Of course I can't, but then I didn't try to.

Only ~30% of the voters in TX will be able to vote in the Dem Primary. What makes you think they are representative of the State's total voter base? This is a single party priimary we're talking about here. ~70% of the state's voters (about half of which are registered Republicans) couldn't care less what their state Democrats do. There are no "Bush states" within the Dem Party. John Kerry and Al Gore both won every one of the states that you've been discussing in their primaries.

I am not trying to predict whether Obama or Clinton will win Texas, Ohio, or Pennsylvania. I am assuming, for the sake of my argument, that Clinton wins all three.

If she does, she will have won the majority of the "Big States" or call them "Key States" if you prefer. This doesn't mean that she will win them in the general election or that Obama will lose them, but isn't it reasonable to think that she will do better in these states against McCain than Obama?

I am not offering an irrefutable way to prove anything. I am trying to demonstrate an argument reasonable enough that a super delegate could use it to explain why he or she voted for Clinton even though Obama had more delegates. They don't have to actually believe it to use it.
[/color]
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 08:45 pm
I guess I don't think it's all that reasonable of an assumption. I think they probably assume that whoever the nominee is will get most of their opponents voters.

A more reasonable estimation, IMO (and not just because it favors my candidate), is to look at who is winning the independents. When the population is more or less split 50/50 between the parties, it's the independents who determine who wins.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 08:49 pm
Per Kos,

Quote:

Update: Chuck Todd just said Clinton has to win TX, OH and PA by 63% or so to catch Obama after Wisconsin and Hawaii. I'd like to see the math, but if so, that's insurmountable. She won't get those numbers.


Clinton will not win those states with 63% of the vote.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 08:59 pm
Obama won MD, VA and DC by a wide margin.

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/7615/picture4zc8.png
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 08:59 pm
She will lose in PA and OHio, she may even lose in Texas.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:02 pm
CalamityJane wrote:
Obama won MD, VA and DC by a wide margin.

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/7615/picture4zc8.png


That 1% in Maryland must be coming in from Baltimore. I can't see that margin holding up.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:06 pm
Well, DC is reporting 49 % counted and it's still remarkable the difference
between Hillary and Obama.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7643/picture5zj4.png
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:06 pm
Remarkable indeed.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:11 pm
Well, you know things have changed when McCain starts dissin' Obama in his victory speech rather than Clinton. Of course, it just makes him sound like an old man.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:18 pm
He is an old man, FreeDuck Wink

Here the delegate count

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/1449/picture6pw9.png
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:20 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
If she does, she will have won the majority of the "Big States" or call them "Key States" if you prefer. This doesn't mean that she will win them in the general election or that Obama will lose them, but isn't it reasonable to think that she will do better in these states against McCain than Obama?


No. It's silly.

Hillary could win 100% of the vote in the Dem primary in TX and end up with losing the state badly in the general election. There are 12 million+ voters in TX. If their turnout is good (20% would be fabo) and Hillary wins 60% of the votes in the Dem primary, she'd get a grand total of right about 450,000 votes. What does that tell anyone other than that 60% of the primary voted prefer Hillary over Obama? Nothing! That sampling is only 3.5% of all registered voters in the state and it's skewed because 1. it only includes Democrats and 2. those voters were never given the option of voting for other people that will be on the general election slate.

You simply can't compare state level stats from primaries (especially those with closed primaries) and extrapolate anything that relates to the general election in any meaningful way.

Quote:
I am not offering an irrefutable way to prove anything. I am trying to demonstrate an argument reasonable enough that a super delegate could use it to explain why he or she voted for Clinton even though Obama had more delegates. They don't have to actually believe it to use it.


I understand what you are trying to to. I just disagree with your idea that it makes any sort of sense or is in any way "reasonable". Any such argument would quickly be dismissed by national polling data comparing both Clinton and Obama against McCain in the general election.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 09:58 pm
fishin wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
If she does, she will have won the majority of the "Big States" or call them "Key States" if you prefer. This doesn't mean that she will win them in the general election or that Obama will lose them, but isn't it reasonable to think that she will do better in these states against McCain than Obama?


No. It's silly.

Hillary could win 100% of the vote in the Dem primary in TX and end up with losing the state badly in the general election. There are 12 million+ voters in TX. If their turnout is good (20% would be fabo) and Hillary wins 60% of the votes in the Dem primary, she'd get a grand total of right about 450,000 votes. What does that tell anyone other than that 60% of the primary voted prefer Hillary over Obama? Nothing! That sampling is only 3.5% of all registered voters in the state and it's skewed because 1. it only includes Democrats and 2. those voters were never given the option of voting for other people that will be on the general election slate.

You simply can't compare state level stats from primaries (especially those with closed primaries) and extrapolate anything that relates to the general election in any meaningful way.

Quote:
I am not offering an irrefutable way to prove anything. I am trying to demonstrate an argument reasonable enough that a super delegate could use it to explain why he or she voted for Clinton even though Obama had more delegates. They don't have to actually believe it to use it.


I understand what you are trying to to. I just disagree with your idea that it makes any sort of sense or is in any way "reasonable". Any such argument would quickly be dismissed by national polling data comparing both Clinton and Obama against McCain in the general election.


Well we disagree then
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 10:25 pm
I drifted briefly off to sleep just a few moments ago and I dreamed that Hillary's Texas campaign had moved its headquarters to the Alamo.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 10:50 pm
OBAMA-DAGNABBED-RAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 11:48 pm
snood wrote:
OBAMA-DAGNABBED-RAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


RIGHT ON

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Tue 12 Feb, 2008 11:52 pm
http://www.thenation.com/images/_img/student_potw/6681.jpg
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 13 Feb, 2008 08:33 am

That was hilarious Laughing
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 13 Feb, 2008 08:44 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
My comments relate to electability in the general election and have nothing to do with delegate counts in this primary.

OK, sorry, I misunderstood you.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
if she wins the primaries in most of the "Big States" then it's logical to assume that she would have a better chance than Obama in winning them once pitted against a Republican in the general election.

This I dont buy for a second. The ability to win a plurality in your own party's primary does not need to say anything about your ability to win a general election in the state.

Of course it does help to have the enthusiastic support of your own base (though I dont think Obama will have a problem with that). But doing well in your primary can also just be a sign of being partisan, in a way that actually makes it hard to contend in the GW. That would seem the case especially if, as is true with Hillary, it's thanks to strong support among partisan Democrats but despite your support dropping starkly among independent voters.

EDIT: Oh, I've seen Fishin's already gone through this with you..
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 13 Feb, 2008 10:04 am
Quote:
The Thinking Man's Madrassa Smear
If things continue on their current trajectory and Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee we should get used to much more of the still largely subterranean effort to scare Jews and broader portions of the electorate into believing that Obama is anti-Israel. The truth is that there's little apparent difference between Obama's position and Hillary's or, for that matter, anyone else in the mainstream of the Democratic party or most of the non-Taliban wing of Republican party. Here's a relatively mild example of the effort here -- a story in the New York Sun about how Obama supporter Zbigniew Brzezinski (the article calls him an 'advisor' -- he's probably something between a supporter and advisor) is leading a delegation to Syria sponsored by the highly controversial left-wing Rand Corporation.

On another front, here is a recent post here at The Politico about emails sent out by a member of Clinton's finance committee asking friends and acquaintances to "read the attached important and very disturbing article on Barack Obama." The enclosed article is this one by the neanderthal American Thinker blog by Ed Lasky here

There's much more of this going on than you realize. And it may be prepping to expand dramatically.

--Josh Marshall
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Wed 13 Feb, 2008 10:18 am
JFK's Speechwriter Now Putting Words Into Obama Campaign
If you wonder why Barack Obama's speeches remind you of the speeches of John and Robert Kennedy, it's because their speech writer, Ted Sorenson, is writing Obama's speeches. ---BBB

JFK's Speechwriter Now Putting Words Into Obama Campaign
Written by: Doug G. Ware
Email: [email protected]
Last Update: 2/09/08

Theodore C. Sorensen, Special Counsel and primary speechwriter to U.S. President John F. Kennedy. (Abbie Rowe - National Park Service)
"He is more like John F. Kennedy than any other candidate of our time" - Ted Sorenson, adviser to JFK, about Barack Obama NEW YORK CITY - The man who actually hand-wrote some of the most popular and historic words ever heard from the White House is now lending his creativity and support to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Theodore Chaikin "Ted" Sorenson was Pres. John F. Kennedy's speechwriter in the early 1960s. He wrote some of Kennedy's most-remembered speeches and conducted some of the Administration's most critical business -- that sometimes went far beyond the realistic expectations of a mere wordsmith.

In fact, some historians say Sorenson's talents saved the world from nuclear destruction.

Sorenson, who turns 80 in May, has long been retired from actual speechwriting but he now feels compelled to lend creative service to who he feels is the country's best option right now: Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

"I endorsed Barack Obama for president... because he is more like John F. Kennedy than any other candidate of our time," Sorensen said recently.

He also noted similarities between Kennedy and Obama, like how both canddiates were called "too young" and "inexperienced." Sorenson also makes mention of the social challenges both candidates had to face; Kennedy being a Roman Catholic and Obama being an Afro-American.

"The times are too important. We have got to have someone with judgment leading this country," he said. "I'm supporting Obama because I believe he has that same spirit, that same desire to call to public service... especially the young people, but all the citizens to live up to their obligations." (Watch video of Sorenson endorsing Obama)

Sorenson graduated from the University of Nebraska and immediately went to work for John Kennedy. By the time the Massachusetts senator became president in 1960, Sorenson was penning his speeches -- including the famed words on inauguration day 1961 that urged Americans to "ask not what your country can do for you... ask what you can do for your country."

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shares a laugh with reporters during a flight from St. Louis to Wilmington, Del., Sunday, Feb. 3, 2008. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)
According to reports, Sorenson has now become close with the young speechwriters in Obama's camp -- and has occasionally thrown in a creative phrase or a clever one-liner to be used during one of the senator's future exhortations. In addition, Sorensen is said to be giving advice and support to the Obama campaign.

It would almost be unthinkable for Obama to refuse the offering, too. Sorenson's acts during 13 days in October 1962 are believed, by some, to have saved the world from nuclear annihilation.

In addition to being JFK's primary speechwriter, Sorensen also served as Special Counsel and Adviser to the president -- meaning he weilded significant influence when it came to matters, foreign and domestic. The foreign part was put to use at the start of the Cuban Missile Crisis on Oct. 14, 1962.

President Kennedy and Sorensen drafted communications to be sent to the Soviet Union with hopes of striking a deal to stop the crisis. Soviet ships carrying nuclear warheads were bound for Cuba -- less than 100 miles from the U.S. cost -- while other missiles were already being put together on the island.

At one point during the crisis, Sorensen even met with a carrier for the KGB on a Washington, D.C. street, where he exchanged a newspaper that contained an important message for the president.

In the film Thirteen Days (2000), a retelling of the crisis, Sorenson is played by actor Tim Kelleher and is portrayed as a crafty speechwriter that, accurately, contributed greatly to the situation.

Obama's campaign can certainly use Sorenson's proven skills as many polls indicate that he lacks Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. However, the two are neck-and-neck in the amount of delegates they have secured so far; 832 to 821 for Clinton and Obama, respectively.

2,025 delegates are needed for the official nomination.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 488
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.27 seconds on 06/27/2025 at 10:01:08