Topic: Oh! Bama (Read 50629 times)

S D S · « **Reply #20 on:** January 24, 2008, 10:56:29 AM »

Yeah. I was pretty dismayed to see Ric Flair throw his weight behind Huckabee.

My prediction: Obama is going to take South Carolina, but it's not going to be enough at this point on a national level to upset Hillary because of her previous victories. The big talk now is Florida, but it's mostly for momentum-building. Unless half of Florida's Democratic voting base suddenly stop loving Hillary, she's going to win; the only issue is by how much. Looking ahead to "Super Tuesday," Hillary Clinton is going to bulldoze Obama in the largest states, like California and New York- with the exception of Georgia and Obama (and Oprah)'s home state of Illinois, Clinton is beating Obama by double digits in every single Feb. 5 state. And many of these states' delegates are winner-take-all. I would personally love a miracle at this point, but a miracle is what Obama is going to need right now. Anything less won't get him the nomination this year.

As far as the shared ticket stuff, not gonna happen. But! I'm not too, too worried. Obama is young enough to wait until both 2012 if Hillary loses to be the presumptive nominee, or 2016 when without a doubt he'll be the VP pick for whoever Clinton tapped in '08 who will likely be uninspiring and "safe" (think Vilsack or Bayh) and will need the presence Obama can command.

Shame, though, because a juvenile part of me would love to see a Clinton/Obama ticket just to watch the collective outrage from racists and mysogonists.

(My unicorn ticket this election is Edwards/Obama, btw)

Thad · « **Reply #21 on:** January 24, 2008, 01:41:56 PM »

Quote from: S D S on January 24, 2008, 10:56:29 AM

Looking ahead to "Super Tuesday," Hillary Clinton is going to bulldoze Obama in the largest states, like California and New York- with the exception of Georgia and Obama (and Oprah)'s home state of Illinois, Clinton is beating Obama by double digits in every single Feb. 5 state.

Source? (EDIT: Found one.) As I noted earlier, I haven't seen Arizona's polls in quite some time. It's hard for me to believe she's that popular here.

It also bears noting that any Arizona poll that doesn't account for Independents is worthless; we have a hell of a lot of them. (Hell, I'm a registered Democrat myself, but any time anyone asks me what my affiliation is I self-identify Independent.) And up to this point, the Independents' darlings are Obama and McCain, and I really don't see Independents turning out for McCain over Obama in Arizona.

There's also a pretty big "undecided" bloc, and I think that'll mostly go Obama's way. There are a LOT of "anyone but Hillary" votes to be had here, and I'm probably one of them.

Thad · « **Reply #22 on:** January 25, 2008, 01:23:03 AM »

Per the "it'll take a miracle" talk, I'm seeing an alternate take suggesting that there may be plenty riding on later states like Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Sure, Clinton looks likely to whomp Obama on the 5th, but there are plenty of delegates to be had after that, from plenty of states which aren't the most Hillary-friendly. She may have momentum coming out of Super Tuesday, but New Hampshire showed us what momentum is good for -- and polls, too, for that matter.

Thad · « **Reply #23 on:** January 30, 2008, 11:23:29 PM »

Quote from: Thad on January 21, 2008, 04:01:37 PM

"Kennedy would have gotten the Civil Rights Act passed if he had lived" is conjecture. "Johnson had more support from southerners and Republicans than Kennedy did" is not.

That said, the rumor mill has it that Hillary's perceived dismissal of JFK are partially responsible for Ted endorsing Obama.

...Incidentally, for the first time ever I can't use the "well, they didn't call ME" canard, because I DID get a call from a pollster the other day. She didn't ask my party affiliation, so she must have known I'm a registered Dem. Either that or they're not distinguishing between D's and I's who are voting D.

Arc · « **Reply #24 on:** February 01, 2008, 11:35:42 AM »

Clinton campaign conference call on Obama's flyer: "It is as outrageous as having Nazis march through Skokie, Illinois..."

Well, I see the similarity clear as day. O-Dawg's Aryan marketing scheme isn't fooling this Nazi Hunter D.

Arc · « **Reply #25 on:** February 02, 2008, 08:40:22 PM »

A day or two behind, but: Hulk Hogan Has Obama’s Back

Quote from: NYTimes

Hillary, we’re waiting. We think Steven Seagal’s still available.

I... I've been beaten to the punch by The Times.

Cue the slow walking away music.

Brentai · « **Reply #26 on:** February 02, 2008, 09:21:52 PM »

You got it, boss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bEvc48JZw4

Thad · « **Reply #27 on:** February 02, 2008, 09:39:30 PM »

Quote from: Thad on January 24, 2008, 01:41:56 PM

It also bears noting that any Arizona poll that doesn't account for Independents is worthless; we have a hell of a lot of them.

Quote from: Thad on January 30, 2008, 11:23:29 PM

She didn't ask my party affiliation, so she must have known I'm a registered Dem. Either that or they're not distinguishing between D's and I's who are voting D.

It turns out I am wrong. Per a month-old Arizona Republic article titled Independents can't vote in Feb. 5 primary election, it turns out that independents can't vote in the Feb 5 primary election.

The source of my confusion:

Quote

[...] a 1998 change in Arizona law that opened all primaries except the Presidential Preference Election to independent voters.

Ah, okay. So Independents CAN vote in primaries...just not the things that, 99% of the time, people refer to when they use the word "primaries".

Explanation:

Quote

The reason Arizona independents cannot vote has its roots in the 1998 state law, which opened the primaries to independents but was unclear whether it applied to presidential preference elections. Then-Secretary of State Betsey Bayless requested an opinion from then-Attorney General Janet Napolitano. Napolitano, who is now Arizona's governor, determined that the law does not extend to presidential preference votes.

So in other words, Janet Napolitano has probably cost her candidate of choice a victory in her state.

Oops.

More fun facts:

Quote

A record 28 percent of the state's registered voters are independents
[...]
The new independent voter is younger, better educated and often has young children.
[...]
[Pollster and professor Bruce] Merrill estimates that as many as 80 percent of people under 30 who are coming into the political system register as independents.
[...]
In the 2006 election, independent voters in Arizona voted 2-1 in favor of Democrats, Merrill said, and they were a major factor in defeating some Republican candidates across the country.
[...]
Some independents are unaware they cannot vote on Feb. 5.

"I thought we could," said Mary Wolf-Francis, 47, of Tempe. "That's ridiculous. I'm hugely disappointed to hear that."

She has been an independent for at least eight years but is a big supporter of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for president.
[...]
Fred Solop, a political science professor at Northern Arizona University, predicts the number of people switching will be too small to influence the election.

"Even though it's not that difficult to re-register, it does take time, and it does take energy, and it does take a little effort," he said.

So yeah, the law pretty much exclusively impacts the Obama demo.

Thad · « **Reply #28 on:** February 03, 2008, 12:39:19 PM »

Incidentally, latest polls are showing Obama closing in. He's only 2 points behind in California, Arizona, and Delaware, he's within 7 points in Alabama, Minnesota, Jersey, and Missouri, and he's up in Georgia, Colorado, and Idaho.

I don't know which states do all-or-nothing delegates, but with numbers like those it's hard for me to believe he's out of the game at this point.

That is, of course, assuming those numbers are RIGHT, and not New Hampshire writ large.

EDIT: AZ's delegates are proportional. Anyone have a more complete list?

EDIT 2: WSJ says:

Quote

In all the Democratic primaries, delegates are awarded proportionally, which elevates the importance of the margin of victory in each race.

So, SDS -- unless I'm misunderstanding that, it looks like there aren't ANY winner-take-all primaries for the Democrats.

In which case, if the polls are accurate, Hillary's going to pull ahead, mostly on New York, but Obama's still going to be very much in the game, and with a lot of southern and midwestern states still to come.

S D S · « **Reply #29 on:** February 04, 2008, 01:59:22 PM »

Well, hell! It looks like I stand corrected, and I couldn't be happier. I know it makes me sound like a policy wonk, but the ins and outs of this sort of thing fascinate me.

Thad · « **Reply #30 on:** February 04, 2008, 07:34:23 PM »

John Hodgman appeared confused on the issue as well.

I wish primary rules were clearer. I'm way above average as far as political savvy, but didn't know until two days ago that independents can't vote in primaries here. Can only imagine how many independents didn't know that. And, as I noted above, that's going to disproportionately affect Obama.

Büge · « **Reply #31 on:** February 04, 2008, 07:52:09 PM »

I really feel for people in the US who have to choose between Hilary and Obama. It seems like people are going to politicize your vote, no matter who you endorse. This is extra true for women, and extra-extra true for women of colour.

Thad · « **Reply #32 on:** February 04, 2008, 09:22:38 PM »

That's the sort of thing you expect from the bottom rung of blog commenters, but when it's goddamn CNN doing it, it's just

. Someone should probably explain to them that WHITE MALE voters are ALSO looking at one Democrat who represents their race and another who represents their gender.

Still, I don't think people tend to take that nonsense seriously. Lord knows CNN's feedback for that piece was less than positive.

Speaking of "less than positive", the "Your candidate can't win" stuff I've seen recently is irritating. I personally think that Clinton will have a harder time against McCain than Obama will, but I wouldn't say she CAN'T win, and hell's bells, I've been wrong before anyway. (I thought McCain was a done deal six months ago, just like everybody else.)

It's times like these I wonder why I continue to read the Huffington Post; it's such a goddamn circle-jerk of (often famous) people who aren't nearly as smart, clever, or insightful as they think they are (with, to be fair, a handful who are). Over the last few hours I've read a post titled McCain Has Some Questions For Obama, suggesting that McCain will clobber Obama's inconsistent record on immigration and the war (because if there's one thing McCain wants to do, it's remind Republicans of his stance on immigration and Democrats of his stance on Iraq -- makes about as much sense as the people saying Lieberman should be his running-mate, because obviously a Republican who Republicans don't like and a Democrat who Democrats don't like would be a GREAT ticket), and another titled Obama's Defense Against the Noise Machine and Other Things That Don't Add Up suggesting that Obama will lose the general election because he's unprepared to deal with right-wing smear campaigns. (Standard Thad cheap shot: it looks like the author of that piece should be less worried about adding and more about spelling.) Jane Hamsher, by contrast, gets it right; obviously I'm not a fan of Clinton, but I AM a fan of Jane and she makes some good points (well, QUOTES some good points; most of the post is actually somebody else's) without deriding Obama, and while still acknowledging there are perfectly valid reasons to disagree with Clinton.

There are perfectly valid policy criticisms of either candidate. But the conjecture on electability is annoying.

S D S · « **Reply #33 on:** February 05, 2008, 08:10:01 AM »

Might as we;; toss my hat in the ring, what with Edwards bowing out and all. I'm pulling for Obama.

Yeah, yeah... Obama's position on many foreign policy issues place him right in the center (he was against the Iraq war from the start, and that means a lot to me, but he's also not someone who's going to make the kinds of radical changes to American foreign policy that I would make on day one if I ran the bus).

But seriously, while I can be an out-there radical at times in political analysis, when it comes down to real world working politics, I'll be an incrementalist (is that a word?).

Now, just because I'm supporting Obama doesn't mean that I hate Clinton or something. I'll support her against any of the Republican candidates, especially McCain. If Clinton ends up taking the nomination, there's no doubt in my mind that she can beat McCain. I have doubts about some of the people she might bring in, true. And while it is a little juvenile, I'll admit that the particular variety of foaming-at-the-mouth hostility she inspires in a lot of right-wingers makes me more inclined to support her, rather than less. If Clinton gets the nomination, I can think of one very big reason for me to go and vote for her: It begins with an "S" and ends with a n "upreme Court".

But I think Obama can do more than beat McCain. I think he can beat McCain and sweep more Dems, AND more progressives, into power with him. I think it's no accident that he's been endorsed by so many elected Democrats in red states like Kansas, Arizona, and North Dakota. -- because they know they'll do better with Obama on top of the ticket.

I think Obama can be something other that the game of inches that has defined politics recently. When I see him speak, I see people get inspired. And that inspires me too.

Kazz · « **Reply #34 on:** February 05, 2008, 08:36:33 AM »

If Clinton gets the nomination, I'm voting for McCain. If someone other than McCain gets the nomination, I'm not voting.

Hillary Clinton is a monster. Everything she does stinks of calculation and manipulation. She is the lowest of the fucking low; my father, a Republican who supports Obama, is upset because he is genuinely convinced that Hillary will have Obama killed. As out-there as that claim seems to me (and, granted, I didn't grow up in the 60's like my father did), I can't say it's impossible. How can I vote for someone who I can't honestly be sure isn't liable to murder out of ambition?

I'd rather see Bush in office for a third term than see Clinton elected. I hate her.

Kashan · « **Reply #35 on:** February 05, 2008, 08:48:51 AM »

Quote from: Kazz on February 05, 2008, 08:36:33 AM

If Clinton gets the nomination, I'm voting for McCain. If someone other than McCain gets the nomination, I'm not voting.

Hillary Clinton is a monster. Everything she does stinks of calculation and manipulation. She is the lowest of the fucking low; my father, a Republican who supports Obama, is upset because he is genuinely convinced that Hillary will have Obama killed. As out-there as that claim seems to me (and, granted, I didn't grow up in the 60's like my father did), I can't say it's impossible. How can I vote for someone who I can't honestly be sure isn't liable to murder out of ambition?

I'd rather see Bush in office for a third term than see Clinton elected. I hate her.

You're rediculous. Everyone at that level of power is incredibly calculating, or a puppet. Sure I'd prefer an inspiring true believer, but I'll take an obvious schemer on my side over a nice guy against everything I believe in. Some of the greatest politicians in history have been vicious calculating assholes. That's just the nature of the game.

Kazz · « **Reply #36 on:** February 05, 2008, 08:59:40 AM »

I'm ridiculous?

Who says I consider Clinton "on my side" anyway?

And if Obama is against everything you believe in, what the FUCK do you believe in?

And if you come back and say that those were just hypothetical examples, just shut the fuck up before Thad comes in here.

S D S · « **Reply #37 on:** February 05, 2008, 09:05:42 AM »

...a nice guy against everything I believe in.

I think Kashan meant McCain.

Kazz · « **Reply #38 on:** February 05, 2008, 09:22:46 AM »

ah.

i like nice guys.

Kashan · « **Reply #39 on:** February 05, 2008, 09:38:41 AM »

Everyone likes nice guys. I do too, that's one of the reasons I voted for Obama. I just think all the people who are saying they'd vote for Obama but not for Hillary, or even worse they'd vote for a Republican over Hillary, are being unreasonable. Substantively Obama and Clinton's platforms are extremely similar, so if you're okay voting for one you should be okay voting for the other, and vice-versa.

And yeah, McCain was the nice guy I was talking about.

News:

Author Topic: Oh! Bama (Read 50629 times)