Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[peter12]

McCain and the Republicans are going into campaign mode. Serious detriment to the Democrats.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Johnny 99

Lanny, at this point it is not about delegates. Heading into the convention, a delegate lead of less than 200 is meaningless. It is all about perception and momentum - Hillary was under severe pressure to drop out of the race, yet now she has the momentum to carry her home in Pennsylvania. Obama had the look of a winner about him coming into tonight; the roles are reversed now. This is going to be very interesting.

Delegates is all it's about...

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Delegates is all it's about...

But if it goes into the convention, things are up in the air.

[Johnny 99]

No, superdelegates are much more important at this point. If you are a super delegate why would you ever vote for someone that can't win the critical swing states that decide the real election - answer - you wouldn't. That is the whole purpose behind having superdelegates in the first place. Hillary has a commanding lead on the superdelegates side, not due in any small part to her husband and also the fact that she's running against a black person. The southern USA, I hate to say, is far readier to vote for a white woman over a black man. You can't name one president in history who was elected without carrying a large portion of the south.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

It's not about delegates? Really? Then why are they going through this charade? Why not just wait until the convention and slug it out there in a private manner, rather than airing all the dirty laundry and giving the Republicans exactly what they want. The Democrats will continue to spin their wheels and do more damage to themselves. It will be almost two months to Pennsylvania, and that means two months of mudslinging by the Clintons and Obamas. That should sour most of the country on both of them and really screw the Democrats. Meanwhile, McCain will be sitting back, watching all of this unfold, and wringing his hands in glee as the Democrats tear down the candidate that could likely defeat him. Makes a guy want to vote for McCain, just because he, and his party, has his crap together.

[Johnny 99]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

It's not about delegates? Really? Then why are they going through this charade? Why not just wait until the convention and slug it out there in a private manner, rather than airing all the dirty laundry and giving the Republicans exactly what they want. The Democrats will continue to spin their wheels and do more damage to themselves. It will be almost two months to Pennsylvania, and that means two months of mudslinging by the Clintons and Obamas. That should sour most of the country on both of them and really screw the Democrats. Meanwhile, McCain will be sitting back, watching all of this unfold, and wringing his hands in glee as the Democrats tear down the candidate that could likely defeat him. Makes a guy want to vote for McCain, just because he, and his party, has his crap together.

You have to go through this "charade" because you have to finish what you've started. You can't just call the race off now and be all like, "OK, thanks to the states that haven't voted yet, but your voice doesn't matter". Realistically, after Hillary's showing tonight in Ohio, Obama won't be able to head into the convention with a commanding delegate lead. He will have a lead, but a small one. This is where the superdelegates come into play.

You're right about one thing - this is only good for McCain and the Republicans. This is like watching the number one and a number two ranked teams in college football slug it out to play the number ten seed who is waiting in the wings. The Republicans have a winner-take-all process, whilst the Democrats prefer a more proportional system of allocating delegates, and it may cost them dearly in November. Still, the Democrats are heavy favourites to take the White House in November even at this point, according to betting exchanges, which is the far and away the most accurate way of predicting politics.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Johnny 99

You can't name one president in history who was elected without carrying a large portion of the south.

lincoln
garfield 1880
mckinley 1896
mckinley 1900
roosevelt '04
taft '08
harding '20
coolidge '24
hoover '28
eisenhower '52
eisenhower '56
johnson '64
nixon '68

seems like there are lots of them

[Nehkara]

Updated OP.

[Nehkara]

Interesting night. Obviously a bit disappointing for Obama and his supporters that they couldn't wrap up the nomination tonight, however, something to note is that CNN about 2 weeks ago said, "Hillary Clinton does not only need win Ohio and Texas, she needs to win them BIG. About 65-35." Basically they figure she needed to win by 30 points.

At this moment she has a 55-43 (12 points) advantage in Ohio with 92% counted and only a 51-48 (3 points) advantage with 82% counted.

Honestly, these were states where Clinton should have destroyed Obama. She won decently on Ohio, although by less than she needed, but simply squeaked by in Texas, if indeed her lead holds up.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Johnny 99

Still, the Democrats are heavy favourites to take the White House in November even at this point, according to betting exchanges, which is the far and away the most accurate way of predicting politics.

If this election has shown us one thing, it's that politics in the US can be, at times, completely unpredicable.

Im curious to what the "betting exchanges" would have had for:

McCain being the nominee several months ago when McCain failed to raise a fraction of the financial support that Romney, Giuliani or Thompson did and when McCain had to completely reshuffle his campaign, asking many to work for free because the budget was tighter than anticipated.

Obama having any chance in the primaries after Hillary was holding a solid, double digit lead in the polls entering the primary season.

Obama reeling off 12 straight primary wins.

Hillary winning both Texas and Ohio to stop Obama's streak.

Saying the Dems are still favorites to win the White House because of "betting exchanges" is hilarious. A month of finger pointing and one-upping each other until Pennsylvania is going to create deeper cracks in the energized and passionate Dem base. Something they dont want/need. Meanwhile, McCain is the man for the GOP, he can start rallying his supporters and can fire shots at the Dems early instead of beating fellow party members up for the next 5 months.

It's a crap shoot now and judging by the previous 9 months (when Hillary was a shoe-in and Giuliani was setting fundraising records), a lot can change in the next 9.

[Johnny 99]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

If this election has shown us one thing, it's that politics in the US can be, at times, completely unpredicable.

Im curious to what the "betting exchanges" would have had for:

McCain being the nominee several months ago when McCain failed to raise a fraction of the financial support that Romney, Giuliani or Thompson did and when McCain had to completely reshuffle his campaign, asking many to work for free because the budget was tighter than anticipated.

Obama having any chance in the primaries after Hillary was holding a solid, double digit lead in the polls entering the primary season.

Obama reeling off 12 straight primary wins.

Hillary winning both Texas and Ohio to stop Obama's streak.

Saying the Dems are still favorites to win the White House because of "betting exchanges" is hilarious. A month of finger pointing and one-upping each other until Pennsylvania is going to create deeper cracks in the energized and passionate Dem base. Something they dont want/need. Meanwhile, McCain is the man for the GOP, he can start rallying his supporters and can fire shots at the Dems early instead of beating fellow party members up for the next 5 months.

It's a crap shoot now and judging by the previous 9 months (when Hillary was a shoe-in and Giuliani was setting fundraising records), a lot can change in the next 9.

I'd familiarize myself with betting exchanges such as betfair and wsex before I'd go knocking their reliability. The odds on all that you list were, in fact, very short altogether. The Republicans have been underdogs for at least three years - currently listed at +154. Having a 72 year old warmonger as their nominee doesn't help things.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Johnny 99

No, superdelegates are much more important at this point. If you are a super delegate why would you ever vote for someone that can't win the critical swing states that decide the real election - answer - you wouldn't. That is the whole purpose behind having superdelegates in the first place. Hillary has a commanding lead on the superdelegates side, not due in any small part to her husband and also the fact that she's running against a black person. The southern USA, I hate to say, is far readier to vote for a white woman over a black man. You can't name one president in history who was elected without carrying a large portion of the south.

That's one way to look at it, but the way that usually loses you elections. You want the candidate that mobilizes the most voters in the states you are weak. The Democrats know they are going to take California, New York and some of the NE states regardless of who they have on the ticket. The secret is to tap into the voters in the regions they have always struggled.

Obama has more appeal and is more likely to tap into diverse demographic sets than Clinton. In fact, Clinton could drive many of the voters away from the Democrats and directly to the Republicans or to Nader. Clinton will get destroyed against McCain. He's stronger on every single facet where Clinton claims superiority to Obama. Clinton is not an alternative candidate to what the Republicans are running, she's the exact same thing, which means all those things she's beat up Obama for will come back home to roost and aid in defeating her. Obama is the natural candidate to run against McCain because he presents a different perspective and this is what the people want. Going with Clinton will spell another painful defeat for the Democrats. You can bet on that.

[Nehkara]

OP updated. Clinton wins Texas primary by 3 points, Ohio Primary by 10 points. I will post a delegate update later in the day when it is likely to be more accurate. Lots of delegates still being counted from last night.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

And the mudslinging seems ready to begin.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignp...GhvnE0C6xh24cA

The DNC better get their heads together and realize that the Clintons can and will do irreparbale damage to the party and that a run against a "rested" McCain will be made just that much easier with all the dirt exposed on the surviving candidate. The Democrats were pretty well handed this election on a platter by the eight years of corruption and incompetance by the Bush lead Republicans, but now the Democrats are going to find a way to flush that down the toilet and make a race out of it. Unbelieveable. Another self-inflicted wound.

[Cowperson]

The night of coverage and differing pundit opinions from both sides of the debate are nicely summarized by the ever prolific Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post . . . . . some tarnish starts to stick to Saint Obama:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Somewhere in here, Florida and Michigan are going to have to come back into play.

Cowperson

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Somewhere in here, Florida and Michigan are going to have to come back into play.

Cowperson

I forsee a big ugly lawsuit.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Johnny 99

I'd familiarize myself with betting exchanges such as betfair and wsex before I'd go knocking their reliability. The odds on all that you list were, in fact, very short altogether. The Republicans have been underdogs for at least three years - currently listed at +154. Having a 72 year old warmonger as their nominee doesn't help things.

"72 year old warmonger"... now who's resorting to personal attacks?

I suppose it's useless arguing about this now, seeing as we dont actually know who the candidate will be for several months. It's going to be a very interesting general election.

[JohnnyFlame]

I'm Hillary and her team I up the negative ads exponentially. Obama is doing the high road, fluffy oratory, pie in the sky without a hint of specifics campaign. Indeed his resume ain't much to look at especially compared to McCain's.

Will Obama hit back? IF he does McCain will be laughing all the way. He can paint them as atypical politicians while he can paint himself as a maverick.

If he stays high road the Clinton's can hammer away and see if they can get him to crack.

Bush managed to gut McCain. Hillary can use the same approach with Obama.

LOL I think this campaign just got a whole lot more interesting. Go get him Hillary!!!(personally I could care less who wins but for the entertainment value I hope she hits him with every below the belt shot she can manage).

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The night of coverage and differing pundit opinions from both sides of the debate are nicely summarized by the ever prolific Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post . . . . . some tarnish starts to stick to Saint Obama:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Somewhere in here, Florida and Michigan are going to have to come back into play.

Cowperson

Conservatives are scared less of Barack Obama, and they have every right to do so. They are doing weverything they can to make sure that Obama doesn't get the nomination, and that includes voting for the same woman they have been demonizing for years.

"On Fox, meanwhile, there was talk about Rush Limbaugh urging Republicans to vote for Hillary, and she had been shortchanged by the media. "There's a backlash against the gentle press treatment of Barack Obama," Bill O'Reilly declared."

Ironic that it was the conservative media that was shortchanging Clinton. Also, what are these hacks from FauxNews now talking about? Supporting the Great Satan? The lack of conviction that American conservatives display is what makes me detest them so much.

What we are seeing is that Clinton represents everything that Obama has been saying that her and McCain represent. The BS and dirty tricks are just starting to surface.

"She pounced on the NAFTA flap, which had Obama on the defensive because his campaign couldn't get its story straight."

Forget the fact that Hillary is lying through her teeth in Ohio, claiming that she will fight NAFTA and get a better deal for the rustbelt. It was her husband that strengthened NAFTA afterall, after saying pretty well the same things to get elected.

"Fineman described Hillary's answer on "60 Minutes" -- that Obama was not a Muslim as far as she knew -- as "brilliantly Machiavellian" and "positively Nixonian.""

And I guess that if Obama were to say something long the lines of, "Hillary really isn't a thieving elitist that has used her political power to orchestrate a murder and steal millions of dollars, as far as he knows" would be above board, honest, and brilliant? This is the type of crap we need out of politics, not more of it finding its way back in. McCain slammed the crap out of Cunningham for his ignorant comments about the Muslim connection, and I hope someone takes Clinton to task too. The most important comment made last night was when Chris Matthews asked,

"When does it become clear that the Clintons are interested in the Clintons and not the Democratic Party?"

That's the big question that the DNC needs to worry about. The most important thing they can understand is this comment.

"How is Obama a flawed Democrat? He can't win big states, her aides will argue. Clinton has now won Ohio, Texas, New York, California, and New Jersey. Obama has only limited appeal, they will argue, whereas Clinton wins the kinds of Democrats necessary to win in big, electorally rich states. But it's not that simple. Obama won electorally crucial swing states such as Missouri, Colorado, and Wisconsin, and he's won all across the country, so his appeal isn't that limited. He also lost Texas by only a whisper."

You don't select the candidate that will deliver what you already have sewn up, you select the candidate that will deliver that you never had a chance to win.

Florida and Michigan would very likely be a wash. With UAW support behind Obama, Clinton likely doesn't want to go back into Michigan. Conversely, Obama doesn't want to head back to Florida to get punted around by all them ex-New Yorkers and Florida rednecks. I think an agreement will be reached, and those delegates will not get seated. If they are, the DNC loses complete control over their primary process. I can't see that happening without the party imploding.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Last night all for naught? Delegate count has pretty well reverted back to what it was thanks to the caucuses.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/...TEb725aEFh24cA