• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Official Feb. 12th Primary Thread (Obama/McCain Beltway SWEEP SWEEP)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deku

Banned
Obama's message of hope is probably what is drawing in a lot of people who would normally not vote for democrats. The last time a president projected the vision of America as the shining city atop a hill was Ronald Reagan.

The idea of restoring America's prestige is also something many conservatives can get their head around and the pragmatists will understand that at least in the industrialized world, a democrat will project much more credibility than a republican one.,

I admit some of it may be because some true blood Republicans hate Hillary more.
 
Amir0x said:
I definitely think Hillary is going to beat Obama in Texas, but this is one prediction I'd love to be wrong about. At that very moment, she'd basically have officially lost the campaign no matter what she does... I think I may tear up at that moment!

I'm calling for an obama victory, albeit a slim one. Why?

I seem to remember MSNBC stating that a full 8% of obama's totals in VA came from republicans who "crossed over" in the open primary and voted democrat. something like 70+% of the republicans (and 60+% of independents) who voted in the dem primary went Obama.

With the republican race all but decided, I'm willing to bet a substantial amount decide to put their two cents into the much more exciting and much more publicized democrat race where their votes will actually count, and a decent amount of those will lean obama...eliminating or surpassing any advantage hillary might have gained there.
 

Triumph

Banned
Mandark said:
I just wanna say that Triumph's wholehearted riding of a center-left candidate's bandwagon is really creeping me out.
Well, there are reasons.

1) The immediate alternative is worse. I am no fan of the Clintons and have jokingly referred to Bill in the past as "the kindest Republican President of the last 40 years".
2) Nader isn't running.
3) The time has come to make at least a dent in some of the big problems in the country. While I don't trust Obama 100% to accomplish everything I want, I do believe that he'll get some things done and won't make most things worse, which is what would happen if McCain or to a slightly lesser degree Hillary were elected.
4) I forgot who pointed this out, but truly fundamental political changes happen after landslide victories- social security etc in the 30's, civil rights act after '64. I honestly believe that Obama is the one that can get a landslide victory and build up enough capital. He might wake up with a blue country the day after the election, in which case he has no excuse not to get shit done. And I think he would want to have a positive legacy at home and abroad.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Deku said:
I think there's 80 some delegates for ex-pat democrats.
Smiles and Cries said:
democrates have 22 but only half a vote = 11 delegates
sangreal said:
it would be 15 votes

the 14 pledge delegates have half a vote, and the 8 super delegates have a full vote (I believe -- otherwise some DNC members got a raw deal)

Smiles and Cries is the closest to being right. Democrat Abroad send a total of 22 delegates to the Convention with each one counting as a Half vote. Of those 14 delegates are pledged delegates and 8 are superdelegates. So they have a total of 11 delegation votes.
 

sangreal

Member
grandjedi6 said:
Smiles and Cries is the closest to being right. Democrat Abroad send a total of 22 delegates to the Convention with each one counting as a Half vote. Of those 14 delegates are pledged delegates and 8 are superdelegates. So they have a total of 11 delegation votes.

You just repeated what he said while ignoring my point about whether super delegates from democrats abroad only get half a vote. It turns out that yes, they do only get half a vote so he is correct, but without that additional piece of info your post is just a meaningless 'he is right because I say so'
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
typhonsentra said:
When will the abroad count be announced?

We might get the Democrats abroad primary results in a week or two. It takes longer to tally the votes since they are from around the world. However we may not get the delegate results until the convention on April 12

sangreal said:
You just repeated what he said while ignoring my point about whether super delegates from democrats abroad only get half a vote. It turns out that yes, they do only get half a vote so he is correct, but without that additional piece of info your post is just a meaningless 'he is right because I say so'
Yes, Democratic Abroad Superdelegates only count as a 1/2 vote

EDIT: Proof: http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/20070607_DistrictAllocationChart.pdf
 
http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences
Democrats TX
Clinton 42%
Obama 48%
Someone else 3%
Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.

Looks like she might not get that 60%.
 

Zeed

Banned
Deus Ex Machina said:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/



Looks like she might not get that 60%.
This is like the 10th time this same poll has been posted and discredited. Search next time.

I've been thinking, after taking on Hillary's campaign - one of the best funded, devoted, and dirty machines imaginable - will McCain and the Republicans be easy in comparison? I mean I look at McCain and Obama side by side and can't see how Obama could lose - but there was an article I read that outlined ways that McCain might attack.

It would call for swiftboat-like character assassination, heavy negative campaigning that banks on ignorance, paranoia, and fear. They would attack Obama's encouragement of the Luo Kenyans (who are now doing bad things) and try to paint him as "soft" on Islam - the kind of attacks that would win over the numerous voters like CoolTrick. I'm sure we'd also see "unsanctioned" emails about him being a Muslim - hell Clinton tried that herself, but not on a large enough scale.

It really would become a campaign of "Hope" versus "Fear". I look at how well fear has worked in the past...and it's frightening.
 
Zeed said:
This is like the 10th time this same poll has been posted and discredited. Search next time.
I did search this thread using the url link but came back with nothing... I couldn't use anything else in that article as a base for a search.

So please don't assume
 

numble

Member
More marginal news:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOHi_1Y0UVOBGmYRzQ151Dn8z79AD8UQV6R00

Sarah Swisher, a superdelegate and member of the SEIU from Iowa City, had committed to Edwards. After he quit the race, she switched to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, but she changed her mind again after her union endorsed Obama. "That will be kind of cool," Swisher said. "I will have supported all three."

I believe Obama is now +11 in superdelegate endorsements in the past 7 days. Marginal.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Triumph said:
Well, there are reasons.

1) The immediate alternative is worse. I am no fan of the Clintons and have jokingly referred to Bill in the past as "the kindest Republican President of the last 40 years".
2) Nader isn't running.
3) The time has come to make at least a dent in some of the big problems in the country. While I don't trust Obama 100% to accomplish everything I want, I do believe that he'll get some things done and won't make most things worse, which is what would happen if McCain or to a slightly lesser degree Hillary were elected.
4) I forgot who pointed this out, but truly fundamental political changes happen after landslide victories- social security etc in the 30's, civil rights act after '64. I honestly believe that Obama is the one that can get a landslide victory and build up enough capital. He might wake up with a blue country the day after the election, in which case he has no excuse not to get shit done. And I think he would want to have a positive legacy at home and abroad.

5) You so totally enjoy seeing someone stick it to establishment type figures. It's true, it's true.


You might as well have heard (4) from me. See here, here, and here.

I'm a big believer that the best weapon a president can have is a crushing mandate for a substantive platform.

Hillary talks about defending Social Security against Bush, and that was one of the Democrats' best moments in the last few years. But it also illustrates why you have to openly campaign on your agenda if you want to get it enacted.

Bush's campaign took pains to avoid talking about SS before the election. He ran on a two part platform of being strong on terror and of John Kerry being a gay Frenchman. When he sprung this huge new item on the agenda, the public reaction was "WTF? I didn't sign up for this," and it was that much easier to defeat.

So even if Hillary were viciously effective and effectively vicious campaigner and Mark Penn is the Democratic Lee Atwater (which I seriously doubt), winning an election because McCain is old, mumbly and a flip-flopper won't do much for progressive politics.

And even if Hillary were a brilliant negotiator of smoke-filled back rooms (a theory I would dearly love to believe, and have vainly scoured the public record to find evidence for), she couldn't trump the political mood.

No president can create a social movement from scratch. Except maybe George W. Bush, who is 90% responsible for the current enthusiasm for the Democratic party. Whether Clinton or Obama gets elected, a responsible leftist will shift gears from supporting them to holding them to their word starting January 21st.

But Obama seems confident about molding the possible to fit him at least as much as he molds himself to fit within the possible. I just don't see that with Hillary.

Also, flag burning. WTF was that all about?
 
February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences
Democrats TX
Clinton 42%
Obama 48%
Someone else 3%
Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.

Anyone see this?
 

Zeed

Banned
Deus Ex Machina said:
I believe you need to take you're own advice.
By your own admission you did not conduct a search for anything related to the article. Had you even bothered to browse a few pages back you would have seen the same poll posted multiple times.

Please shut the fuck up and stop cluttering the thread with the same bullshit articles that have already been reposted ad nauseum, thanks.

grandjedi6 said:
Zeed is going to kill you
Pretty sure he's making a joke.
 
Zeed said:
By your own admission you did not conduct a search for anything related to the article. Had you even bothered to browse a few pages back you would have seen the same poll posted multiple times.
.
ZzzZZZzzz :lol

your posts are funny
 
why are we getting all cranky over some poll data? A poll is a poll so what if that company has gotten it wrong 8 out of 10 times no need to get upset because some people want to believe them this time around.

before you get angry, just ask yourself what would Obama do?
 

Zeed

Banned
Deus Ex Machina said:
ZzzZZZzzz :lol

your posts are funny
And you're quite obviously an idiot.

Smiles and Cries said:
why are we getting all cranky over some poll data? A poll is a poll so what if that company has gotten it wrong 8 out of 10 times no need to get upset because some people want to believe them this time around.

before you get angry, just ask yourself what would Obama do?
It's not the poll's credibility that's pissing me off - it's having to scroll by the same poll five times in the same thread because someone couldn't be bothered to read.
 
Smiles and Cries said:
why are we getting all cranky over some poll data? A poll is a poll so what if that company has gotten it wrong 8 out of 10 times no need to get upset because some people want to believe them this time around.
Seriously! I think zeed been in this thread too long.

before you get angry, just ask yourself what would Obama do?

He would reach over the aisle :p
 

Chipopo

Banned
Zeed said:
By your own admission you did not conduct a search for anything related to the article. Had you even bothered to browse a few pages back you would have seen the same poll posted multiple times.

Please shut the fuck up and stop cluttering the thread with the same bullshit articles that have already been reposted ad nauseum, thanks.

read this with comic book guy voice and its LOL funny.
 

Mike M

Nick N
Man, I don't know how to feel. I'm cautiously optimistic about Obama's chances, but to be fair this is totally an echo chamber of Obama supporters, so I don't know how much of the Kool Aid I ought to be drinking.

I just keep thinking about the 2004 election when everyone and their mother thought that Bush was finished : (
 
Aulatori said:
Deus Ex Machina said:
How much have we given so far? Is there a stat somewhere?
Aulatori said:
Currently sitting at: $949
Deus Ex Machina said:
I'll give $10 right now

Lets try to reach $1000 before tuesday
Deus Ex Machina said:

Just got the email receipt.

I feel like i'm apart of something larger than myself.

email:
Thank you for your generous donation.

Your gift will be immediately put to work building a campaign to change
our country and our politics for the better.

Looking for more ways to get involved?

Head over to My.BarackObama.com where our growing set of tools puts the
future of this campaign in your hands

Go Obama!!!
 

numble

Member
Demconwatch is saying that this Feb. 15th article on South Dakota superdelegates identifies 2 Obama endorsers that weren't known previously. Don't know if this is in grandjedi's total.

grandjedi6 said:
I have for the last 7 days:

+18 Clinton Superdelegates
+30 Obama Superdelgates

Oh and by +11, I meant the difference versus Clinton (you have it as +12 for example).
 

Marvie_3

Banned
numble said:
Demconwatch is saying that this Feb. 15th article on South Dakota superdelegates identifies 2 Obama endorsers that weren't known previously. Don't know if this is in grandjedi's total.



Oh and by +11, I meant the difference versus Clinton (you have it as +12 for example).
Well at least my home state's delegates seem to be coming through for Obama...
 
heil!!!!!

capt.1ddedaf1d5124b3f89c3b9e28d938904.clinton_2008_txeg104.jpg
 

Sharp

Member
Posted? DEM BIGS DEAL HILL 'SUPER' SHOCK
New York Post said:
February 16, 2008 -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the Democratic "superdelegates" should follow the will of the people in their states if they end up breaking the tie in the nomination battle - a position that dovetails with that of Barack Obama.

Pelosi, in an interview with Bloomberg TV's Al Hunt that airs today, also backed Obama's position that delegates from Florida and Michigan shouldn't be seated at the convention.

Her surprising comments came as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has said it expects the tight contest for the nomination to be settled by the roughly 800 "supers" - elected officials and party bigshots who cast votes at the August convention in Denver.

Pelosi, who hasn't endorsed either candidate, said, "I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that . . . I don't think that will happen. It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided."

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker meant that if one candidate has a clear lead in delegates amassed through the primaries, then the superdelegates shouldn't undermine it.

Clinton booster Bob Kerrey, a former US senator who now heads the New School, agreed with Pelosi's position about the Michigan and Florida contests. He recently told the Villager newspaper: "You don't change the rules in the middle of the game. Period."

"No new vote and no new caucuses, either," Kerrey added last week. "Just stick to the rules that they agreed to."

The delegate contest is close, with Obama leading by less than 100, according to RealClearPolitics.com.

At the same time, prominent South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn said he disagrees, and the "supers" should have free will.

Pelosi also told Hunt that the 313 combined delegates from Florida and Michigan - which were stripped of convention delegates as punishment for moving up their primaries - shouldn't be seated.

"I don't think that any states that operated outside the rules of the party can be dispositive of who the nominee is," she said. "That is to say, they can't make the difference, because then we would have no rules."

Pelosi said she hoped there would be a clear winner before the convention. "We certainly don't want to ignore Florida and Michigan, but we can't ignore the rules which everyone else played by," she said.

Clinton spokesman Jay Carson argued, "We believe the votes of the hundreds of thousands of people who turned out in Florida and Michigan matter, and we will work to make sure that the delegates they elected are seated."

Clinton won the vote in both states, although Obama had taken his name off the ballot in Michigan.
Very good news for Obama if true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom