If this is the way Clinton runs her campaign....

[cannon_fodder]

The Cubs are up by 6 over the Yankees at the top of the 9th in game 7, and the Yankees are at bat.

The closer for the Cubs is still in fine form and, if anything, is tossing more strikes than early on (as seen by growing national poll and shrinking Penn margins).  The Yankees have a man on first and have called up their DH and the count is full - if he strikes out we are on to the bottom of the Yankee line up.

If he knocks one out and they bat around the lineup to tie things up, the Cubs still have the bottom to take the lead.

Basically, if Hillary doesn't ding a good one in Penn (65%+) the odds drop dramatically.  Even if she knocks out 65%, Obama will likely erase any gains in NC and other other states.  

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I don't want RM to be crushed if/when things go bad.  Plus, turning around analogies is fun.  []

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Enough with the basketball analogies...there is no clock in campaigns.

Now baseball...

Obama is four runs ahead, but Hillary has a couple of batters on base and Obama suddenly can't find the strike zone.

Look, the wind has shifted and is suddenly blowing out.

Of course there are clocks in elections.  Its over when the last election is held.  Not like baseball, which can go on until the last strike.

If you want to use baseball as analogy, you should make clear that Obama is 14 runs ahead (states) or 163 runs ahead (delegates), that Clinton has just lost her best hitter, that earlier she had to replace her pitcher, that its the ninth inning, and so far Clinton's team has been unable to hit more than one or two out of the ball park, while Obama has had a streak of homeruns.  She needs a few grandslams to stay in the game.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk
That's just reality.

Do you really think I believe in reality?

Obama got a big lead in January and February before the media began to ask questions of his dealings with the Chicago mobster Rezko and his Pastor videos showed up.

Now he hasn't won a primary in a while and was smoked in Ohio and is behind in Pennsylvania and Indiana and West Virginia. He is burning through millions of dollars in ad spending and is still behind.

You really crack me up, RM.  You should take this on professionally.  Obama hasn't won a primary in a while because there hasn't been a primary in a while .  After Supertueday, Obama won 11 states in a row.  On March 4, Hillary really only won a single significant state.  Since then, Obama has won two more.  Her polls are dropping nationally and in Pennsylvania.  His are rising quickly, and he has double-digit leads in North Carolina and Oregon.  Yet, somehow you think Obama's supporters should be worried.

[cannon_fodder]

Obama has won the last 2 primaries.

Before that he split 2/2 with Hillary.

Before that he won 11.

Prior he won super Tuesday.

and of course he won all the early primaries.
- - -

Seriously.  You have been stretching things for Hillary RM, but that statement is just wrong.  Hillary has not won a string of primaries yet - the best she has done is split the count with Obama.

How do you claim that he hasn't won any for a while when he won the last two?
- - -

No more hyperbole or rhetoric, here is what is left:

State Delegates (recent polls):
Pennsylvania 158  (Consensus of polls Hillary by 6%)
Guam 4 (no official data)
Indiana 72 (Hillary by 6% to a tie)
North Carolina 115 (Obama by 16%)
West Virginia 28 (Clinton by 10%)
Kentucky 51 (no official data)
Oregon 52 (Clinton 10)
Puerto Rico 55 (no official data)
Montana 16 (no official data)
South Dakota 15 (no official data)
TOTAL 566

Lets pretend that the trend of Obama cutting Clinton leads in half or over coming them does not happen (Clinton has yet to surge best her initial poll #s).  Lets give Clinton wins in all states with no data by 10 points.  And lets ignore that a 10 point win may be a delegate tie and proportion the delegates pro-rata.

That gives Clinton 293 and Obama 277 in what you must admit is a good scenario for Clinton, barring Obama shouting "kill whitey."  

SO, that would be:
Clinton 1544 pledge + 252 Super = 1796
Obama 1692 pledged + 225 Super = 1917

At which point 318 Super Delegates remain.  In order to win (2024), Clinton would need 73% of those super delegates to vote for her.  To win Obama would need 28% to vote for him to win.

So, unless you think the Obama camp will totally collapse, or you think Clinton will get 73+% of the remaining super delegates as well as performing as indicated above - things are grim.  The next best course of action would be to file a lawsuit in Florida to have those delegates seated.  A campaign which was pretty well put to rest several weeks ago (Michigan is totally moot at this point).

Sorry RM, not even as an advocate, but just looking at the numbers it seems like a long shot.

[RecycleMichael]

On March 4th, she won the popular vote in Texas and Ohio. Which of those were not a significant state?

The voters are choosing Hillary now. I saw a poll today that had Hillary up by 18 points in Pennsylvania. If true, Obama should be worried.

Let's do a bowling analogy. Hillary actually owns a bowling ball and Obama bowled a 37.

Yes, we can (throw it in the gutter).

[pmcalk]

She may have won the popular vote in Texas, but he won.  You win the nomination by winning the most delegates, and he won 5 more than her in Texas.  Again, it goes back to running a better campaign than her.

CF--Obama is up by 10 in Oregon, not Clinton.

Can we do a tennis analogy?  I love tennis....

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

On March 4th, she won the popular vote in Texas and Ohio. Which of those were not a significant state?

The voters are choosing Hillary now. I saw a poll today that had Hillary up by 18 points in Pennsylvania. If true, Obama should be worried.

1) The last poll released as Clinton +3.

Here is a link to all polling data on Penn:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

The last 10 average to Clinton +6.  The last 4 released (all this week) are even, Clinton +3, +5 and plus 18.  That was done by Survey USA, which has consistently had Clinton at 10+ ahead and is 2 of 3 to have her with more than a single digit lead in the last 2 weeks while 8 others have the lead in single digits or tied.

2) Is it delegates or popular votes that count?    If popular votes only matter Obama is up by nearly 1,000,000 and Clinton would have to get 70+% of likely voters to surpass that total.

If popular opinion is what matters the latest poll has Obama +10 over Clinton in likely voters nationwide.

3) Even if the +18 (the highest margin by a factor of 3 times released in the last week), that is the kind of margin she needs to win ALL THE REMAINING STATES BY to get ahead in pledged would delegates.  +18 is what you need to see, it mean she is still in the race, not that Obama is out.

4) Man, bad pick on the bowling RM.

Obama only bowled 7 frames, he would have finished with a healthy 53 in 10.  Still below my thresh hold for respectable by 47 points.   BUT, we will say he bowled a 37 and not bother extrapolating it out.

Clinton, meanwhile, bowled a ZERO!  She missed the pins entirely.  Extrapolate that out to 7 frames... ZERO!  But I'm glad she was able to bowl at tax payers expense while it in the white house - maybe Obama can achieve a zero after living in the Whitehouse for 8 years.  []

[Hometown]

Pmcalk, to my recollection, the only positive statement you have ever made here about Obama was that you believe he can move us beyond partisanship.  I asked once and you didn't respond with your postive reasons for supporting Obama.  Now, this man has been in the public eye for all of four months so you probably aren't very familiar with his various positions and policies, but I sure would like to hear a definitive statement from you about what you like about Obama and what he is going to do for the United States.

FOTD made one positive statment about Obama, he'll get rid of lobbyists.

I honestly believe when you and FOTD and USRufnex repeatedly post negative statements about Clinton it is because you are worried that she might win.

[RecycleMichael]

I can say plenty of positive things about Obama.

His strength is his weakness...he has only been in Washington for two years.

He is a great communicator that brings tears to my eyes and has me believing we really can change Washington. And most importantly, I think he believes he really can change Washington.

I just think Hillary is better prepared to be President for our problems today. I like her economic plans better, I like her health care plan better, I think she is more versed on International leaders and issues. She is just not as likable as Obama and doesn't inspire the hope we need in a leader.  

What we need in a President (or a governor, mayor, etc) changes.

Sometimes we need a manager. Someone who can finish projects on time, control spending, set priorities, etc. Often they are called on to break partisanship gridlock.

Sometimes we need a decision-maker. That is the type who makes bold moves, seeing the big picture and embracing change. Their moves are often critized initially and often they completely redo the bureacracy.

Sometimes we need a faith leader. That type inspires us to sacrifice or get involved in the movement including raising our children and bringing communities forward by love and spirit.

I think Hillary is trying to be all of these. Obama knows he is the third type and is great at it. His popularity tells me that the need cycle for our country has swung toward his strength.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Pmcalk, to my recollection, the only positive statement you have ever made here about Obama was that you believe he can move us beyond partisanship.  I asked once and you didn't respond with your postive reasons for supporting Obama.  Now, this man has been in the public eye for all of four months so you probably aren't very familiar with his various positions and policies, but I sure would like to hear a definitive statement from you about what you like about Obama and what he is going to do for the United States.

FOTD made one positive statment about Obama, he'll get rid of lobbyists.

I honestly believe when you and FOTD and USRufnex repeatedly post negative statements about Clinton it is because you are worried that she might win.

I did right my reasons for supporting Obama back on Supertuesday, and I am sorry I didn't again, but just didn't have time.  But I am happy to explain why I support Obama.

Really, I cannot say its based upon policy differences, because there really isn't much difference.  Just like you and RM, my support for my candidate has more to do with the person.  First, I think that Obama is brilliant.  Don't get me wrong, Hillary is smart as well, but Obama is brilliant in that he not only sees what the problems are, but he understands how to solve them.  I became an ardent supporter of his after reading Audacity of Hope.  In that book, he talks about the need to try and understand different points of view, that you don't win an argument simply by screaming louder.  It really is something I believe that this country craves--a need for a more civil discussion.  We need less division, and he sees that.  While Clinton and McCain continue to cater to the "microtrends", Obama looks to the whole country.  I am tired of the constant analysis of the "soccer mom vote", the "Catholic vote", the "impressionable elite vote".  We need to find more things that unite us, not divide us.

Obama understands how to talk to people.  I know that you think its just pretty words, but to me the way you speak to an audience tells something about your character.  I like that he actually refers to his opponents by name.  I like that every time he mentions McCain, he takes a moment to respect McCain's service to his country.  His speeches are not full of "I"; they are full of "us" and "you."  Once again, that's where he gets it--that the citizens of our country desperately need to feel part of something bigger than themselves.  Maybe it's because of his experience as a community organizer, but he speaks in a way that makes people want to believe in something better, something that they can be a part of.  

And he also speaks to us as adults.  When I read the great speeches of past presidents, I am always struck by the fact that they actually said something, and they spoke as though their audience actually had an education.  I am soo tired of the dumbing down of our country through sound bites and snappy phrases.  Life is more complicated than a 3 minute sound bite.  His speech on race reinforced that--he gave a long, complicated speech that required actual thought.  

Finally, in my opinion, he has consistently shown good judgment and has run a campaign that will be talked about in historic terms.  His organization and ability to raise money in small amounts is unprecedented.  To me, more than anything, that shows he can beat anything that is thrown at him.

I cannot help but add why I am not for Clinton, even though I have tried not to attack her too much.  In the past, I was a strong Clinton supporter.  I lived in DC during their administration, and had the opportunity to meet Hillary and hear her speak.  I was very impressed with her knowledge, and her command over so many different subjects.

Yet, throughout their administration, I felt constantly let down.  I know that they were attacked, I know that most of it was unfair.  But they really did such a poor job of handling it.  For example, according to the PBS documentary, had Hillary simply relented and released paperwork early on, Ken Starr would have never been appointed.  The administration was plagued by scandal--and at some point, you have to ask yourself how much of it was their fault.  Ultimately, my support for the Clintons was lost the day that Bill Clinton looked the cameras in the eye and said "I did not have sex with that woman."  Honestly, I don't care that he did have sex with her.  If he had looked at those cameras and said "none of your business" I would still be suppporting him.  And I don't care what he said under oath, because I don't think that was something that deserved an investigation.  But he lied to the American people.  He dismissed and demeaned Ms. Lewinsky, and as a woman, I find that offensive.  But most of all, he did this even though he must have known that the truth would eventually come out.  How could he have been so stupid as to think he would get away with it?

Experience is important only insofar as you actually learn from it, and I don't think Hillary has.

She repeatedly told her story of Bosnia, even when challenged.  Then the video was released.  Could she not have seen this was coming?  Surely she knew there was video out there--she was the first lady after all.  I don't care if she was shot at or not--I do care if you continually make stupid mistakes. I am quite certain that a Clinton administration will be no different than the last one.  Some good things will get done, but most of the time we will be bogged down in fighting, scandals, and "vast right-wing conspiracies."

I am sure that you will now say I am naive, and that Obama's presidency would be no different.  Maybe your right.  But I would rather hope for something better then to settle for Clinton.

[Hometown]

Thank you.  I regret missing your earlier post on the subject.

I hear what you are saying.  And my partner and I have talked about how we wish we liked Obama.  But I look at the same guy you are looking at and I honestly don't see it.

The bad blood from the Clinton presidency came from the Right.  I've never seen a president reach across the aisle like Clinton did, to no avail.  I believe in this ruff and tough era we are in you achieve unity through strength and leveraging and arm twisting.  And that should Obama reach the White House, his speeches will fall on deaf ears and his background will provide more fodder for political wars than the Clintons' ever did.

I have been puzzled by women who have your take on the Lewinsky affair.  I do believe your attitude in this regard is naive.  It reminds me of Barbara Boxer forcing a leading proponent of women's rights out of the senate because he goosed his secretary.

Finally, did you see the picture of the new city council?  I was saddened that Maria Barnes wasn't there to bring some balance to the all male crowd.  I can't help but believe that women are less represented in Tulsa, now than before the election.  I have that same feeling about the White House, I think it's time to open up the club and that Ms. Clinton offers us our best hope for that.

Please spend one evening watching Fox to get a preview of November.  The hate that you hope to put behind us is alive and well and focused on Obama.  It will rain down on our Candidate whether it is Obama or Clinton.  We will have to respond or we will be vanquished.  Clinton is best prepared to fight back, forge consensus and move us forward.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Pmcalk, to my recollection, the only positive statement you have ever made here about Obama was that you believe he can move us beyond partisanship.  I asked once and you didn't respond with your postive reasons for supporting Obama.  Now, this man has been in the public eye for all of four months so you probably aren't very familiar with his various positions and policies, but I sure would like to hear a definitive statement from you about what you like about Obama and what he is going to do for the United States.

FOTD made one positive statment about Obama, he'll get rid of lobbyists.

I honestly believe when you and FOTD and USRufnex repeatedly post negative statements about Clinton it is because you are worried that she might win.

Too old McBush.....not Clinton despite this news..... Hillary Clinton: The Wal-Mart Videos
http://www.publicintegrity.org/clintonwalmart/.
She is a hypocrit....
I prefer a change from the past 16 years.....youngblood!http://communicativeaction.blogspot.com/2008/04/surge-hearing.html
We need a home run hitter!

[cannon_fodder]

HT,

From a more conservative perspective I can assure you the hate will rain down from some on the right no matter who the democratic nominee is.  Hannity, Rush, and Coutler will slam whoever it is blindly.  But each of them only get one vote.

I would have to assert that more moderates (ooh, ooh, I like to think that's me) and independents (me in Oklahoma since the Libertarians are not recognized) favor Obama - or at least are neutral towards him.  For whatever reason, there is a ton of bad blood with the Clintons from many angles.

Also, at the risk of being extremely un-PC, every gay couple I know supports Clinton.  Not that I know every gay couple, but from a young lesbian couple in Telequah to friends and relatives in  Tulsa, Iowa or Chicago they are all die hard Clintonites.  Did Bill have a strong gay rights agenda or does Hillary push one now or is this just a happenstance?  

I'm not trying to appoint you a spokesmen or anything, I'm just wondering if I was not paying close attention during Clinton I or missed something.  Feel free to tell me it is highly offensive and none of my damn business, I was just curious at the trend.

[Hometown]

FOTD, the only homerun hitter our party has seen since LBJ was Clinton.  Our party is peopled by losers who have crashed and burned -- except for the Clintons.  If you want a homerun, I suggest you look to someone who has hit a few instead of someone who has no record.

Cannon, I haven't seen any endorsements from gay groups.  I haven't really been involved in gay politics for many, many years.  I'll have to tell you about Tulsa Gay Alliance 1973 one of these days.

Gays constitute about 10% of the population in the United States.  About the same percentage as Blacks.  Given our disposible income, I would guess we have been important to the party.  

I have been dismayed by some local gays who admit to voting Republican and I look at them like, don't you have any memory of what the Republican party has done to gay people.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

FOTD, the only homerun hitter our party has seen since LBJ was Clinton.  Our party is peopled by losers who have crashed and burned -- except for the Clintons.  If you want a homerun, I suggest you look to someone who has hit a few instead of someone who has no record.

Cannon, I haven't seen any endorsements from gay groups.  I haven't really been involved in gay politics for many, many years.  I'll have to tell you about Tulsa Gay Alliance 1973 one of these days.

Gays constitute about 10% of the population in the United States.  About the same percentage as Blacks.  Given our disposible income, I would guess we have been important to the party.  

I have been dismayed by some local gays who admit to voting Republican and I look at them like, don't you have any memory of what the Republican party has done to gay people.

The Clitons are a disgrace.....and if Obama wins the nomination, that's a grand slam. No democrat ever mustered up the numbers of working class voters the way he has done.
Just because you don't feel included does not indicate LBJ democrats are still worthy members of our party.