• 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.
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
As the 2000 election so profoundly proved, the popular vote is completely and utterly meaningless in US elections.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Triumph said:
Gladly. You got the stones, Pee Dee? Bet you don't.
Click to expand...

I shouldn't take it considering it's looking like I'm already about to lose another ban bet (
FUCKING CELTICS
) but I'll gladly accept this under the following conditions:

If I lose (unlikely) and Obama wins Texas, I take a one month ban. If you lose, you take a one month ban. And when you inevitably come back from your time out, think better of me

ROTK1.jpg
 
S

Seth C

Member
ArtG said:
That's all well and good, but he needs to win the popular vote for it to be declared a victory. He won more delegates in Nevada, but she won the state in the media's eye because she won the popular vote.
Click to expand...

If he takes every state from now till then, including the other March 4 states, loses Texas, but still gets more delegates from it...I think he will be fine. The ~200 delegate lead he'd have would help diffuse that "defeat."
 
T

Triumph

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
I shouldn't take it considering it's looking like I'm already about to lose another ban bet (
FUCKING CELTICS
) but I'll gladly accept this under the following conditions:

If I lose (unlikely) and Obama wins Texas, I take a one month ban. If you lose, you take a one month ban. And when you inevitably come back from your time out, think better of me

ROTK1.jpg
Click to expand...
Done except for the thinking better of you.

Also, lol Celtics.
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Obama might win Texas due to his advantages, but they have little to do with Republicans

-Texas doesn't have a state-wide vote. Also the Democratic areas in Texas tend to be the urban areas, so they have a disproportant number of delegates compared to the other districts. Obama is competitive in these urban areas and has a sizable voter base
-Texas is part caucus, which is in Obama's favor
-Hillary's latino vote is spread across Repubican districts who have few Democratic delegates in this primary.
-Open primary = independents helping Obama
-Caucus = enthusiastic voters helping Obama

Mandark said:
En masse.

Not "emass."

Not "in mass."

En masse.
Click to expand...

I knew there was always something wrong with how I spelled that. Thanks
 
A

ArtG

Member
Seth C said:
If he takes every state from now till then, including the other March 4 states, loses Texas, but still gets more delegates from it...I think he will be fine. The ~200 delegate lead he'd have would help diffuse that "defeat."
Click to expand...

For sure. I think he needs to take the popular vote in either Texas or Ohio for the calls for Clinton to drop out to reach new heights. If he wins both, I think it's completely over for Hillary.
 
S

Synth_floyd

Banned
The Clintons must lose. Do we really want to go from Bush to Clinton to Bush and then back to Clinton again? Clinton's whole campaign has been built on bullshit inevitability and her "experience." She was only elected to the Senate because she was the first lady. She never even lived in NY before 2000. What's the only thing worse than a stagnant 2 party system? An even more stagnant and corrupt 2 FAMILY system. Jesus Christ. If this kind of thing happened in any other country everyone would see through all the BS but because it's our own country and with the aide of the media nobody even notices.

I mean there are better candidates than Obama but there are few candidates more corrupt or part of the Washington establishment than Hillary Clinton. She must lose. I just feel sorry for many of her supporters who sincerely support her but don't realize what a disaster she would be.
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Synth_floyd said:
The Clintons must lose. Do we really want to go from Bush to Clinton to Bush and then back to Clinton again? Clinton's whole campaign has been built on bullshit inevitability and her "experience." She was only elected to the Senate because she was the first lady. She never even lived in NY before 2000. What's the only thing worse than a stagnant 2 party system? An even more stagnant and corrupt 2 FAMILY system. Jesus Christ. I mean there are better candidates than Obama but there are few candidates more corrupt or part of the Washington establishment than Hillary Clinton. She must lose. I just feel sorry for many of her supporters who sincerely support her but don't realize what a disaster she would be.
Click to expand...

All those are horrible reasons to not vote for Hillary. In fact the reasons who have suggested are less democratic
 
G

gkryhewy

Member
Synth_floyd said:
The Clintons must lose. Do we really want to go from Bush to Clinton to Bush and then back to Clinton again? Clinton's whole campaign has been built on bullshit inevitability and her "experience." She was only elected to the Senate because she was the first lady. She never even lived in NY before 2000. What's the only thing worse than a stagnant 2 party system? An even more stagnant and corrupt 2 FAMILY system. Jesus Christ. If this kind of thing happened in any other country everyone would see through all the BS but because it's our own country and with the aide of the media nobody even notices.

I mean there are better candidates than Obama but there are few candidates more corrupt or part of the Washington establishment than Hillary Clinton. She must lose. I just feel sorry for many of her supporters who sincerely support her but don't realize what a disaster she would be.
Click to expand...

But she just has so much to give... *sniff*
 
S

Synth_floyd

Banned
I think the whole idea of her candidacy is corrupt, arrogant and borderline undemocratic. Would she be better than Bush? Probably, but he set the bar so low that it's nearly impossible to consider any other person as president to not be an improvement.

Edit: What we need are REAL outsider candidates like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel, but of course they are the ones who tell the truth and so they are branded as the crazy people. Not the warmongerers like Bush or McCain or the corrupt politicians like Clinton or Pelosi or Harry Reid. Judicial Watch listed Clinton as the most corrupt politician of 2007, though even Obama didn't get off the hook and was listed as #8 for some real shady stuff he did with some of his political contributors.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judici...on-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Lieberman has been banned from being a superdelegate since he endorsed McCain. While Lieberman wasn't a superdelegate for a while now, he still had the potential to be an add-on superdelegate. So essentially, the DNC has permabanned Lieberman :lol

Also the superdelegate count is down to 794 since Mike Gronstal too over Joan Fitz-Gerald's position. Mike Gronstal is from Michigan so he doesn't count
 
V

v1cious

Banned
Triumph said:
How is Tejas in the bag?

Facts about Texas:
-open primary, so Independents and Republicans can vote... I think we know who they vote for
-due to the weirdness of the Texan Democratic Primary, delegates are tied to state senate districts and apportioned in a way that benefits Obama (i.e. more to the most liberal districts like Austin)
-it's a bizarre 2/3 primary, 1/3 caucus hybrid. I think we know who does better in caucuses.
-Obama's best team has been on the ground in Texas for nearly a week now. They haven't lost a state for him yet.
-Hillary's campaign has been beyond stupid so far.

Do you smell what Barack is cooking, Pee Dee? It's a March 4th sweep.
Click to expand...

ok let's not get ahead ourselves here. i have serious doubts about Texas. i live here, and i'll tell you now, they don't call it "Mexas" for nothing. the best we can hope for right now is that this momentum he has built up carries him well into the situation.

i do however, think he is going to do really well in Ohio.
 
H

harSon

Banned
v1cious said:
ok let's not get ahead ourselves here. i have serious doubts about Texas. i live here, and i'll tell you now, they don't call it "Mexas" for nothing. the best we can hope for right now is that this momentum hae has built up carries him well into the situation.

i do however, think he is going to do really well in Ohio.
Click to expand...

I'm still looking for an answer of how much of the Hispanic population in Texas actually vote? I heard Census includes illegal immigrants into their data.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Smiles and Cries said:
okay guys stop making fun of PD
the Cljnton brand was a strong force once and it can come back an bite our HOPE
Click to expand...
This is true. The reason his predictions were amusing is that they were unlikely, even at the time he made them. He was banking on hope, just a different kind.

It's been fun reading the Clinton campaign try to change the subject away from today in all the pre-results coverage. She's making three campaign stops today. All in Texas. She's working on her firewall.
 
F

Flo_Evans

Member
GhaleonEB said:
This is true. The reason his predictions were amusing is that they were unlikely, even at the time he made them. He was banking on hope, just a different kind.

It's been fun reading the Clinton campaign try to change the subject away from today in all the pre-results coverage. She's making three campaign stops today. All in Texas. She's working on her firewall.
Click to expand...

Good strategy! Worked out well for Giuliani. Actually now that I think about it that was probably the most bone headed move this election. Why did Giuliani bank it all on Florida if he knew the delegates only counted for half there?
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Flo_Evans said:
Good strategy! Worked out well for Giuliani. Actually now that I think about it that was probably the most bone headed move this election. Why did Giuliani bank it all on Florida if he knew the delegates only counted for half there?
Click to expand...

Because it was winner-take-all. Even at half delegates it would've propelled him right neck-and-neck with the others.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Flo_Evans said:
Good strategy! Worked out well for Giuliani. Actually now that I think about it that was probably the most bone headed move this election. Why did Giuliani bank it all on Florida if he knew the delegates only counted for half there?
Click to expand...
Same reason Hilary is bailing out to Texas and Ohio. She's pretty much hosed everywhere else. He thought he had a shot there.
 
T

Triumph

Banned
numble said:
Wisconsin polls

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Wisconsin_Release_021208.pdf

Public Policy Polling says:

02/11 poll of 642 likely Democratic primary votes:
Obama 50
Clinton 39

Compare with American Research Group:
http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/widem8-701.html

02/06-02/07 poll of 600 likely Democratic primary votes:
Obama 41
Clinton 50
Click to expand...
Yah, I could see both being correct. The first was done after Obama's sweep weekend, the other was done right after ST when the spin/narrative was still "tie" at best but more likely "Hillary wins big states".
 
C

Chipopo

Banned
GhaleonEB said:
This is true. The reason his predictions were amusing is that they were unlikely, even at the time he made them. He was banking on hope, just a different kind.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but PD tries so hard to play it off like they are educated guesses. Hence the lulz.
 
T

Triumph

Banned
Chipopo said:
Yeah, but PD tries so hard to play it off like they are educated guesses. Hence the lulz.
Click to expand...
Which is pretty much why I'm so relentlessly vicious towards him- if he'd just admit that as a homeskooled 19 or so year old who doesn't really know much, I would probably leave him alone but he tries to come across as some knowledgeable political junkie.
 
S

Sharp

Member
Haha, PD, even now I think there's a remote possibility that Clinton will do well in Virginia, but from what I've heard from Maryland he's got that place under lock and key, and DC is going to be a blowout Virgin Islands-style. 8% and 10% are not terribly realistic margins for the two.
 
O

Omar Ismail

Banned
I'll make the short leap and say I'm an Obama supporter (not that it means much being in Canada). So one thing that has been bothering me about some of these talking points is this whole "Hillary has more experience than Obama."

Let's consider this for a moment. When people say that Hillary has experience they're implying that experience means skill, competence and expertise. Fine fair enough. But... where are the results? In the real test of her skill, knowledge and expertise she's being shown up by a complete newcomer! If her experience isn't enough to get her a nomination that many deemed "inevitable" then how can people be sure that her experience will be enough to deal with the MASSIVE challenges that the United States is facing, and will face over the coming years?

Other critics slam Obama for speaking in vague messages without much substance. But I say look at the results. Obama's vagueness is making real results, while Clinton's experience doesn't seem to be helping much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Blue Flush: GOP leading Democrats on generic poll for first time this election cycle
21
2K
Future replied
  • Locked
2 in 10 Clinton Primary Voters Weren't Going To Vote For Obama (2008 Flashback)
16
3K
ModBot replied
  • Locked
1 In 10 Sanders Primary Voters Ended Up Supporting Trump
7 8 9 10 11
524
44K
Ekai replied
[Atlantic] America Has a Drinking Problem
2 3
149
18K
Hawking Radiation replied
  • Locked
Hillary's interview w/ A. Cooper: Sander's supporters are still incredibly divisive
2 3 4 5 6
288
21K
ModBot 2 replied
Top Bottom