Support NeoGAF

[Smiles and Cries]

Then why is no one outside of BarackObama.com and GAF claiming Obama won Texas? Is every single newspaper and news show ran by Hillbots?

yes

 

[Karma Kramer]

A lesson in which I was the winner? That is quite confusing.

My lesson is that many Obama fans are blind to the possibility of loss I guess?

He didn't lose

 

[CowboyAstronaut]

Then why is no one outside of BarackObama.com and GAF claiming Obama won Texas? Is every single newspaper and news show ran by Hillbots?

Whatever helps you handle the pain :lol

 

[Cheebs]

Think of that post as talking to PhonexiDark, not about him.

Spoiler

Meaning he's not the "they" in that statement.

Spoiler

I thought no one here treated PD as a human on a equal level though.

 

[maynerd]

A lesson in which I was the winner? That is quite confusing.

My lesson is that many Obama fans are blind to the possibility of loss I guess?

No your lesson is.

"Always bet on black"

 

[Cheebs]

He didn't lose

Again with people trying to change history. The lead up to texas was talking about the PRIMARY. Everyone knew he'd win the caucus. Triumph and basically everyone in here hoped and predicted he'd win the primary.

Not the combination of the two's delegate count. No one argued or disputed that. Triumph and all of you were wrong your Texas predictions, man up and admit to it.

 

[Rorschach]

I thought no one here treated PD as a human on a equal level though.

Trust me. I'm just as surprised. ;b

 

[PhoenixDark]

How is it not a win?

I don't understand.

The only way to win the nomination is delegates, literally. He won more delegates from Texas. While I understand the popular vote argument, at WORST it is a draw. There's no other way to spin it. Delegates are ALL that matter, whether they be pledged or super.

That makes no sense, and I'd imagine the only people who think Obama won Texas are either on GAF or Obama's website. More people rejected Obama in Texas than chose to support him and that's the bottom line

 

[Cheebs]

No your lesson is.

"Always bet on black"

Except he lost the primary. THe discussion here was on the PRIMARY. The caucus was almost never mentioned because everyone knew what the result would be.


You guys are worse than Spinners for Obama. Go look at that thread. Everyone was hoping and predicting he'd win the POPULAR VOTE. And when he didn't you changed the storyline.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Again with people trying to change history. The lead up to texas was talking about the PRIMARY. Everyone knew he'd win the caucus. Triumph and basically everyone in here hoped and predicted he'd win the primary.

Not the combination of the two's delegate count. No one argued or disputed that. Triumph and all of you were wrong your Texas predictions, man up and admit to it.

He won Texas... he got more delegates.

Media spins it otherwise... but thats not the truth.

 

[APF]

Mandark: so your assertion is that BO himself argued for the President to have "outs" to allow him to reassess his commitment to withdrawing troops, at his (Bush's) discretion--and in fact argued in support of the idea that you can't really make such a commitment regarding what circumstances may be in the future? If BO's own advisers argue BO shouldn't rely on plans he supported as a Senator, why should he ask Bush rely on those plans?

Unless he hopes to use it to build political capital

 

[Amir0x]

That makes no sense, and I'd imagine the only people who think Obama won Texas are either on GAF or Obama's website. More people rejected Obama in Texas than chose to support him and that's the bottom line

You're making an atrocious argument as to why it makes no sense. Unless you want to reject the delegate/superdelegate system - and I'd wholeheartedly agree we should have winner take all instead - the end game is, fact, delegates are all that matters. That's not something up for debate. It's not something you can wiggle around and pretend is not the reality.

Fact: Delegates only matter.
Fact: The one with the most delegates wins at the end of the day.
Fact: He won the most delegates for Texas, ergo the only thing that matters in this game.

Therefore: Case made - at worst a draw.

YOU make no sense.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

TEXAS

Primary:
Clinton won the primary with 51 percent of the popular vote to Obama's 47 percent, according to the Associated Press. Those results earned her 65 delegates to Obama's 61 delegates.

Caucus:
The state Democratic Party estimates that Obama will come out ahead: 37 pledged delegates to Clinton's 30 delegates


Clinton: 65 + 30 = 95
Obama: 61 + 37 = 98

 

[Cheebs]

He won Texas... he got more delegates.

Media spins it otherwise... but thats not the truth.

No, gaf is spinning it. Not the media. Everyone here discussed him winning the popular vote. Not just the delegate count. No one disputed he'd win more delegates in texas. What the arguments were all about was the popular vote count. Everyone said PD and I would be wrong, he'd win the primary (not the caucus but the PRIMARY).

And guess what? When everyone was wrong they changed what they meant by a win. It's stupid and fanboyish.

 

[Amir0x]

ok, see, you're only talking about people who made ban bets obviously. Chuck Todd's delegate wizardry is the only thing that matters to me, and by extension the Democratic Party.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

why is this a Florida question :lol

 

[Cheebs]

TEXAS

Primary:
Clinton won the primary with 51 percent of the popular vote to Obama's 47 percent, according to the Associated Press. Those results earned her 65 delegates to Obama's 61 delegates.

Caucus:
The state Democratic Party estimates that Obama will come out ahead: 37 pledged delegates to Clinton's 30 delegates


Clinton: 65 + 30 = 95
Obama: 61 + 37 = 98

When did anyone deny he won the most delegates. Everyone in that previous thread claimed he'd win the primary. And when they were wrong they want to act like that never happened and all they talked about was the combined delegate count.

 

[APF]

Here's the "to" I'm missing up there.

 

[Star Power]

Why are you guys arguing this. Who cares? He lost Texas in terms of popular vote, at this point it's about "momentum" which is what a popular vote win gives you, regardless of delegate totals. We all know he actually won the delegate count, but do the headlines say that? No. So, for all intents and purposes, Hillary won Texas. Big deal. I thought we were over that already.

 

[Cheebs]

ok, see, you're only talking about people who made ban bets obviously. Chuck Todd's delegate wizardry is the only thing that matters to me, and by extension the Democratic Party.

There is no Democratic Party without Democratic voters. Who do you think the majority of voters saw as the winner of Texas?

Why are you guys arguing this. Who cares? He lost Texas in terms of popular vote, at this point it's about "momentum" which is what a popular vote win gives you, regardless of delegate totals. We all know he actually won the delegate count, but do the headlines say that? No. So, for all intents and purposes, Hillary won Texas. Big deal. I thought we were over that already.

Simply put this is the truth

 

[CowboyAstronaut]

I'm really starting to believe the CNN (Clinton News Network) crap that has been said often :lol

CNN is making a mountain out of a mole hill making it sound like a scandal of biblical proportions over Power's statements.

Ohhh now we have a Obama is saying one thing about Iraq in speeches and another suggesting he wont really end the war :lol

 

[PhoenixDark]

You're making an atrocious argument as to why it makes no sense. Unless you want to reject the delegate/superdelegate system - and I'd wholeheartedly agree we should have winner take all instead - the end game is, fact, delegates are all that matters. That's not something up for debate. It's not something you can wiggle around and pretend is not the reality.

Fact: Delegates only matter.
Fact: The one with the most delegates wins at the end of the day.
Fact: He won the most delegates for Texas, ergo the only thing that matters in this game.

Therefore: Case made - at worst a draw.

YOU make no sense.

I make no sense? Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary. Therefore she won the state. You can spin all you want about Obama having 3 more delegates, but that does not constitute a win of the state considering the majority of the vote went to Hillary, not Obama.

My argument is simple because the issue at hand is simple. Making things more complicated than need be only leads you to bad logic and conspiracies.

 

[Karma Kramer]

No, gaf is spinning it. Not the media. Everyone here discussed him winning the popular vote. Not just the delegate count. No one disputed he'd win more delegates in texas. What the arguments were all about was the popular vote count. Everyone said PD and I would be wrong, he'd win the primary (not the caucus but the PRIMARY).

And guess what? When everyone was wrong they changed what they meant by a win. It's stupid and fanboyish.

I don't really care about this ban bet... all I am saying is that Obama won Texas. He won more delegates... so therefore he won.

Maybe he didn't do as well as many here on GAF would have hoped... and I think most here were looking at Texas as a loss initially because the media was overblowing it and claiming Hillary is now on a comeback... but the end result.. which we now know... is that Obama won the state of texas.

This is not disputable.

 

[Cheebs]

I'm really starting to believe the CNN (Clinton News Network) crap that has been said often :lol

CNN is making a mountain out of a mole hill making it sound like a scandal of biblical proportions over Power's statements.

Ohhh now we have a Obama is saying one thing about Iraq in speeches and another suggesting he wont really end the war :lol

I do agree its sad CNN absolutely crushes MSNBC in ratings, but meh.

 

[belvedere]

TEXAS

Primary:
Clinton won the primary with 51 percent of the popular vote to Obama's 47 percent, according to the Associated Press. Those results earned her 65 delegates to Obama's 61 delegates.

Caucus:
The state Democratic Party estimates that Obama will come out ahead: 37 pledged delegates to Clinton's 30 delegates


Clinton: 65 + 30 = 95
Obama: 61 + 37 = 98

That's what I was looking for, thanks.

Obama won more delagates=Obama won.

 

[Amir0x]

There is no Democratic Party without Democratic voters. Who do you think the majority of voters saw as the winner of Texas?

The media said it was a Hillary win, so the voters saw it as a Hillary win. That's irrelevant to the REALITY that delegates are all that matters, that the one with the most delegates WINS, and he WON the most delegates out of Texas.

At the end of the day, it's your choice to talk up the losing team's homerun - the delegates are still all that matters, and he won those.

 

[Mandark]

APF: Rephrase?

 

[CowboyAstronaut]

Hilary has also SUCCESSFULLY got most media sites and CNN (of course) to mostly ignore Wyoming and Mississippi as insignificant.

Amirox the way cheebs talks you would assume Hilary's actual vote lead was gigantic :lol

Making it seem like next to no Democrats are voting for him.

 

[Star Power]

I'm really starting to believe the CNN (Clinton News Network) crap that has been said often :lol

CNN is making a mountain out of a mole hill making it sound like a scandal of biblical proportions over Power's statements.

Ohhh now we have a Obama is saying one thing about Iraq in speeches and another suggesting he wont really end the war :lol

MSNBC is doing the same thing. "'MONSTER' CONTROVERSY" is one phrase they keep repeating..

 

[Cheebs]

I don't really care about this ban bet... all I am saying is that Obama won Texas. He won more delegates... so therefore he won.

I am not talking about the ban bet. People in the other thread claimed he'd win the PRIMARY. Over and over. They said that the clinton momentum was just statistical error and the 3 AM ad would hurt her.

Not just triumph. But nearly everyone. PD & I were over-whelmed. Nearly everyone claimed Obama would win the primary. Not just the delegate count.

 

[Amir0x]

I make no sense? Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary. Therefore she won the state. You can spin all you want about Obama having 3 more delegates, but that does not constitute a win of the state considering the majority of the vote went to Hillary, not Obama.

My argument is simple because the issue at hand is simple. Making things more complicated than need be only leads you to bad logic and conspiracies.

But you're wrong.

THE ENTIRE TEXAS SYSTEM IS NOT JUST A PRIMARY.

It's a PRIMARY+CAUCUS. Your logic only works if the caucus did not exist. TOO BAD FOR YOU, IT DOES.

And the states delegates are portioned BASED on the results of both, because clearly both the state and the Democratic party knows both fucking matter. Therefore, at the end of the day, FACT, delegates are all that matters and he won the most. While she won the popular vote. Since both the caucus+primary count toward deciding who won Texas.

THEREFORE: Case once again made - at worst a draw.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Why are you guys arguing this. Who cares? He lost Texas in terms of popular vote, at this point it's about "momentum" which is what a popular vote win gives you, regardless of delegate totals. We all know he actually won the delegate count, but do the headlines say that? No. So, for all intents and purposes, Hillary won Texas. Big deal. I thought we were over that already.

How is it about momentum? Wtf are you talking about. All that matters now is the delegates and super delegates.

Media says that Clinton won sure... but the media doesn't = fact.

 

[Star Power]

I don't really care about this ban bet... all I am saying is that Obama won Texas. He won more delegates... so therefore he won.

Maybe he didn't do as well as many here on GAF would have hoped... and I think most here were looking at Texas as a loss initially because the media was overblowing it and claiming Hillary is now on a comeback... but the end result.. which we now know... is that Obama won the state of texas.

This is not disputable.

Well yes, technically he "won" since this is a delegate race, but the media defines who WON and who LOST. They're the ones turning this into a horse race, and the fact of the matter is Clinton won the popular vote, therefore she "won" Texas. Again, what is the big deal?

 

[Smiles and Cries]

I make no sense? Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary. Therefore she won the state. You can spin all you want about Obama having 3 more delegates, but that does not constitute a win of the state considering the majority of the vote went to Hillary, not Obama.

My argument is simple because the issue at hand is simple. Making things more complicated than need be only leads you to bad logic and conspiracies.

She won the Primary in Texas

we can just leave it at that if Texas was only a Primary. You can't just leave it at that because Texas has a crazy 2 step

You can't act like the Caucus does not exist in Texas so don't try to spin it that way

 

[Cheebs]

MSNBC is doing the same thing. "'MONSTER' CONTROVERSY" is one phrase they keep repeating..

It doesn't help Obama is having a HORRIBLE week in the media right now. Everyone is going insane over the monster comment and his iraq stuff. Not just CNN.

 

[Particle Physicist]

This is a good example that none of you read what I say before you leap in to attack. It's not the plans per-se, it's that, "if Obama can't commit to a withdrawal strategy for Iraq because he and his advisers feel he can't be prepared for unknown circumstances (and because he does not have the same information access as the President), how can he be so vehement in his legislative support for timed withdrawal for troops under the current President?"

first of all. you are twisting obama's words.

and second of all. how can you be so 'vehemently' against obama on this issue, when the candidate you seem to support has had the same exact stance. maybe you should look into a 3rd party candidate.?

 

[belvedere]

I make no sense? Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary. Therefore she won the state.

If this were the case, wouldn't Al Gore be our president right now?

 

[maynerd]

Obama won texas by delegate count when you combine the primary and the caucus. I would consider this Obama winning TX because delegates are what count in the end.

The question however is, what was the ban bet for? Was it for just the primary? If it was just the primary then Obama lost.

 

[Cheebs]

She won the Primary in Texas

we can just leave it at that if Texas was only a Primary. You can't just leave it at that because Texas has a crazy 2 step

You can't act like the Caucus does not exist in Texas so don't try to spin it that way

no one is denying the caucus. What is being denied is nearly every single person in this thread said he'd win the PRIMARY and mocked PD & I for saying he wouldn't. And then they try to spin it like they didnt say any of that now.

You cant deny nearly everyone here mocked PD & I's views that he'd lose the primary and when proven wrong they largely tried to ignore their predictions.

The question however is, what was the ban bet for? Was it for just the primary? If it was just the primary then Obama lost.

Triumphs post just linked here shows clearly it was just for the primary.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

hah hah Obama just said "Look who ran the best Campaign"

 

[Particle Physicist]

I figured something out you guys. Hilary is not going to accept her loss I put money on it she will run as a third party candidate :lol

You guys wanna bet?

That will really do a good job of improving her pity vote. Poor Hilary the outcast of her party running as a woman fighting against the male establishment risking it all for her Country. :lol

if she runs as a third party candidate, neither obama nor hillary will win. they'll just split the vote. quite foolish if you ask me.. they'll both just end up running again in 2012, adn this shit will start all over again.

 

[syllogism]

I am not talking about the ban bet. People in the other thread claimed he'd win the PRIMARY. Over and over. They said that the clinton momentum was just statistical error and the 3 AM ad would hurt her.

Not just triumph. But nearly everyone. PD & I were over-whelmed. Nearly everyone claimed Obama would win the primary. Not just the delegate count.

It doesn't help Obama is having a HORRIBLE week in the media right now. Everyone is going insane over the monster comment and his iraq stuff. Not just CNN.

Actually I predicted Hillary would win both states, I was merely pointing out how flawed your poll analysis was.

As for you being mocked, that's understandable as the only person with a worse track record so far is PD and he is mostly trolling.

 

[Cheebs]

hah hah Obama just said "Look who ran the best Campaign"

It isn't Obama who is running the best campaign this week, even you can admit that. His campaign is in a lot of chaos right now. The monster comment is all anyone can talk about.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Why are you guys arguing this. Who cares? He lost Texas in terms of popular vote, at this point it's about "momentum" which is what a popular vote win gives you, regardless of delegate totals. We all know he actually won the delegate count, but do the headlines say that? No. So, for all intents and purposes, Hillary won Texas. Big deal. I thought we were over that already.

.

End of subject. People can spin all they want but the argument makes no sense. Obama lost Texas, Ohio, and his momentum. Most likely he'll lose Penn. And I'd bet he'll lose against McCain assuming he manages to beat Hillary first

 

[Amir0x]

oh ok so it's the media that decides who wins what, not the actual facts :lol

The facts: He won the delegates, and therefore at worst ended with a draw in Texas. That's all that matters, the facts not the media interpretation.

 

[syllogism]

.

End of subject. People can spin all they want but the argument makes no sense. Obama lost Texas, Ohio, and his momentum. Most likely he'll lose Penn.

Agreed, and then he'll win the nomination.

 

[Atrus]

It isn't Obama who is running the best campaign this week, even you can admit that. His campaign is in a lot of chaos right now. The monster comment is all anyone can talk about.

One week's instability in the face of her kitchen sink attack does not undo the sheer incompetence of how she has mismanaged her campaign and finances.

 

[APF]

quadriplegicjon: as I said before, you don't understand the point I'm arguing, either out of ignorance or out of an unwillingness to actually read what I'm saying.


Mandark: I know that wasn't phrased elegantly, but I'm not sure I can put it better.

 

[Star Power]

.

End of subject. People can spin all they want but the argument makes no sense. Obama lost Texas, Ohio, and his momentum. Most likely he'll lose Penn. And I'd bet he'll lose against McCain assuming he manages to beat Hillary first

:lol :lol Hey I didn't say all that!

 

[Smiles and Cries]

I'm so damn tired of Primary season I should just ban myself from these threads

I try to understand why people support Clinton, I try to like her but I just can't get over who she is.