The Obama Bubble is about to Burst

highway80west · 04-23-2008, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuttyjoe

You were exactly right about the numbers, Gary. Good Job! I still disagree with your analysis, though. It's not about whether Obama can win in the certain states he didn't win against Clinton. He won't be running against her in November (or she against him; if she should somehow get the nomination). He would be running against McCain- Democrat versus Republican. I do not believe that the last eight years will get the GOP any brownie points with the voting public. I still believe the Republicans have lost the White House for the next sixteen years at least.
So Hillary has survived to fight another day. She definitely does have the willpower to stay on; I'll give her that. This was good for her to win, but bad for her in that I think it was really not large enough to change any minds as far as any superdelegates are concerned. So, I guess this means that we must have the same scenario for the next primaries; North Carolina and Indiana. Any predictions, Gary?

Obama can probably win in Indiana and North Carolina. Hillary only gained 24 delegates over Obama, which does not clearly cut into the total delegate count, of which Obama is still 130 delegates ahead. Hillary would have had to gain well more than 55% of her tally, like to 65%.

It still a tough uphill climb, and Obama only needs 311 more delegates to claim the nominat, while Hillary needs 441 delegates. Time is running out for Hillary.

Take a look at pre-delegate count for states that have not voted yet.

Election Center 2008: Delegate Scorecard - Elections & Politics news from CNN.com

pensacola_niceman · 04-23-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Can any President fix the current economic problems? Most of which are caused by the American people just as much as politicians or big banks.

For decades Americans have refused to drive smaller more economical vehicles like their counterparts in the rest of the industrialised world. Had they bitten the bullet in the 1970's the problem wouldn't be as bad.

And nobody was forced to take on a mortgage with an escalating interest rate.

I, for one, am not driving some little underpowered shit car. I'll pay the gas and have my power. The age of the gasoline powered car will probably end before too long anyway. I'm going to enjoy whilst I can.

Katczinsky · 04-23-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highway80west

Obama can probably win in Indiana and North Carolina. Hillary only gained 24 delegates over Obama, which does not clearly cut into the total delegate count, of which Obama is still 130 delegates ahead. Hillary would have had to gain well more than 55% of her tally, like to 65%.

It still a tough uphill climb, and Obama only needs 311 more delegates to claim the nominat, while Hillary needs 441 delegates. Time is running out for Hillary.

Take a look at pre-delegate count for states that have not voted yet.

Election Center 2008: Delegate Scorecard - Elections & Politics news from CNN.com

While Clinton supporters are chanting a "win is a win and percentages don't matter", the polls of the remaining states seem to indicate the impossibility or at least very unlikeliness of her winning the nomination. A win is nice and all, but it doesn't mean shit if it doesn't get you a nomination. Hillary really needed to sweep Pennsylvania and in my personal opinion she didn't do that, even at a 10% margin. All this victory did for her was to give her an excuse for not immediately dropping out. Her only relevance at this point is to attempt to convince Democrats that she should be included on the Obama ticket, or in some miracle, gets at least 70% of the remaining undeclared superdelegates to vote for her (and even in the unlikely case of the latter, both candidates would probably be at essentially the same delegate totals given the opinion polls of the remaining states hold relatively true).

But the media likes to portray it as a lot closer than it is so people stay on their toes and the candidates keep flinging mud, both of which is good for ratings.

Gary's percentage guess for Penn might have been on the money, but one thing's for sure, the 'Obama bubble' didn't burst!

forester814 · 04-23-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Gary's percentage guess for Penn might have been on the money, but one thing's for sure, the 'Obama bubble' didn't burst!

Yup, looks like this one is going to go the distance.

I'm not sure how the Clinton campaign tactics could get any more nasty, but I think we are going to find out.

highway80west · 04-23-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

While Clinton supporters are chanting a "win is a win and percentages don't matter", the polls of the remaining states seem to indicate the impossibility or at least very unlikeliness of her winning the nomination. A win is nice and all, but it doesn't mean shit if it doesn't get you a nomination. Hillary really needed to sweep Pennsylvania and in my personal opinion she didn't do that, even at a 10% margin. All this victory did for her was to give her an excuse for not immediately dropping out. Her only relevance at this point is to attempt to convince Democrats that she should be included on the Obama ticket, or in some miracle, gets at least 70% of the remaining undeclared superdelegates to vote for her (and even in the unlikely case of the latter, both candidates would probably be at essentially the same delegate totals given the opinion polls of the remaining states hold relatively true).

But the media likes to portray it as a lot closer than it is so people stay on their toes and the candidates keep flinging mud, both of which is good for ratings.

Gary's percentage guess for Penn might have been on the money, but one thing's for sure, the 'Obama bubble' didn't burst!

Quote:

Originally Posted by forester814

Yup, looks like this one is going to go the distance.

I'm not sure how the Clinton campaign tactics could get any more nasty, but I think we are going to find out.

It is a shame that the Clinton camp are being cynical about "a win is a win, no matter how you slice it." That's arrogance on their part.

If Hillary could have garnered 75% of the vote, the results might have been more noticeable.

They are determined to stay above water until they can find bigger fish to fry. Hillary probably will try to make this campaign more dirtier.

garysher · 04-23-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highway80west

It is a shame that the Clinton camp are being cynical about "a win is a win, no matter how you slice it." That's arrogance on their part.

Why??

Many of Obama's victories have been by a lot less than 10%, but they are still wins.

If Hillary could have garnered 75% of the vote, the results might have been more noticeable.

They are determined to stay above water until they can find bigger fish to fry. Hillary probably will try to make this campaign more dirtier.

Why again?

How is Hillary making this campaign "dirty"?

The fact is that Obama's magnetism is beginning to fade. People are seeing him for what he is - an inexperienced Senator with no track record, a great stage presence and a marvellous team of writers.

I still hope Hillary is the nominee and picks Obama as running mate. In 8 years time he would be a shoe-in for the Presidency.

forester814 · 04-23-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

I still hope Hillary is the nominee and picks Obama as running mate. In 8 years time he would be a shoe-in for the Presidency.

I would absolutely get behind a Clinton/Obama ticket, for now, and for 2016.

Though I'm not sure if adding Obama to the ticket gives Clinton as much breadth as selecting someone else, someone with different types of experience than she has.

I suspect we will not see these two on one ticket, regardless of order.
Though I would certainly be ok with it if we did.

Katczinsky · 04-23-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Why??

Many of Obama's victories have been by a lot less than 10%, but they are still wins.

Actually, most of his wins were by margins of either 10% or above. I think only a couple of his were within single-digit margins. The latter seems to be the rule when it comes to Clinton's wins, however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Why again?

How is Hillary making this campaign "dirty"?

The fact is that Obama's magnetism is beginning to fade. People are seeing him for what he is - an inexperienced Senator with no track record, a great stage presence and a marvellous team of writers.

Clinton's campaign has been negative primarily because all she's been running on the illusions of her name and supposed 'experience'. I can't think of a time when Clinton doesn't meet the opportunity to jab him in the side. As for dirty, I know a number of different fabrications and diversions that were spread and in some instances started by the Clinton campaign; the whole Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim email chain, the Canada/NAFTA fiasco, and the reverend flap are just a few that come to mind. While Clinton seems to throw out the smelliest shit and hopes it sticks, the only thing 'dirty' coming from Obama seemed to be his defenses of the shit being thrown at him.

I think Americans are largely tired of the Clinton's, and especially with the de facto dynastic politics. Obama certainly isn't perfect, and I highly doubt he will be much of a revolution to the political structures in Washington, but he certainly is a breath of fresh air compared to Clinton.

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

I still hope Hillary is the nominee and picks Obama as running mate. In 8 years time he would be a shoe-in for the Presidency.

It seems you're getting your hopes up, then.

nuttyjoe · 04-23-2008, 04:12 PM

I actually think Clinton's negatives are finally starting to get to her. Even so, she has no other choice but to continue on her present course of attacking Obama personally, and trying to scare the voters for her votes.
She is fighting a war on several fronts in this election.No matter how you define it or explain it; Obama'svictories since Super Tuesday guarantee that he must be on the ticket for the Dems in some form. I think Hillary understands this at least.
Even with her latest win in Pennslyvania, she will need to have landslide victories very soon in order to try to get more delegates; and even more importantly; hold onto her current ones from jumping. Mathematically, she is trying to stay afloat and hope that somehow the DNC will give her all of Michigan and Florida; which is unlikely.
Another problem is her continued shortfall in the campaign funding department. Soon, money will start drying up as her contributors start to see this equation.
Her Pennslyvania win didn't alter the delegate count in no great way. It did, hoever; give her impetus to survive for the next set of primaries. She will have to survive from primary to primary; until the money runs out. Then the delegates run out also.

fxashun · 04-23-2008, 04:44 PM

IMHO, most of the voters for the either of the Democratic offerings are just voting against the Repubs. This doesn't seem to be an election where people are voting for anyone.