To say there were missteps in her campaign is putting it rather mildly. I believe she has run the worst primary campaign in modern history. Look where she was last summer- a huge lead in the polls, a huge war chest left over from her Senate campaign, universal name recognition. One can understand her not taking Obama seriously before Iowa, but to not organize in caucus states after Iowa is just nuts. After Iowa, and especially after South Carolina, she should have gotten a clue that the race would not be won on Super Tuesday. She could have started organizing in caucus states at that point. But she still seemed to believe that the race would be handed to her. Now after watching Giuliani bomb out with his Florida strategy, she mounts a weak effort in Wisconsin and is banking on Texas-Ohio to bail her out. She seems completely unable to adjust her campaign to political realities and is convinced that her “experience” trumps everything else on the planet.
I totally agree. That is why I’ve mostly stayed out of these political conversations around the dope and other places.
The scary part is, he is serious.
Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
:shrugs: Let them rant. Eventually they will figure out that it sounds pretty stupid to say, “Bush is the Worst President Evah, and I support Obama because he is marginally better than that.” This is the Usual Suspects’ idea of how to pick a President
Regards,
Shodan
On paper, Obama beats the stuffing out of Bush. In reality, well, OK we don’t have a lot of data on Obama as president. But sheer chance would make him better than Bush at that job. In fact, saying that Obama will be a better president than Bush slides off the tongue like an insult.
I predict that 28% of Americans will be really dissapointed in an Obama presidency.
MOSTLY a fiction, was what he said, IIRC. And he’s correct.
Terrorism is a law-enforcement problem, not a military one.
ETA: Response to post #543, above.
They made some big mistakes, but the advantage in the polls was pure name recognition and that kind of lead doesn’t last. But they did underrate Obama’s ability to stay in the race and raise money, even though they had lots of time to see that he was good at that. The combined strategy of writing off the caucuses and assuming they would wrap it up on Super Tuesday was especially ill-advised.
No disrespect to Senator Obama but Bill the Cat would be a better president than Bush. Crap, MY cat would be a better president than Bush.
Which means 72% will be tickled pink. I can live with that.
I still expect Hilary to take Texas – she won California (handily) by her hold on Latino voters, and I haven’t heard anything to indicate that Obama has made any inroads there. Anybody seen any polls from Texas? And is it winner-take-all?
god, I just hope it doesn’t come down to super delegates at the convention, and a credentials fight over Florida & Michigan. There’s only one way the Democrats can blow it this time, and that would be to tear themselves apart.
(ISTM that a compromise on Florida & Michigan would be to seat the delegates but release them from any commitment based on their respective primaries)
Correct. One criminal act does not make a “war,” and no, America is not in any danger. The Muslims are not going to get us. The real threat of ME terrorism has been exaggerated beyond all sense of proprtion. People are buying into this “time of war” rhetoric like we’re London under the blitzkrieg. It’s bullshit.
FoieGras, what do you say to the 9/11 survivors who agree with me? many of them do, you know, and they don’t appreciate demagogues who try to brandish them as emotional weapons or appropriate them to their own political side.
I believe that Obama made significant progress with Latinos in the Potomac Primaries.
“In Virginia and Maryland, Latinos went for Obama over Clinton by 6 points, though their support was not decisive in either contest – only 5 percent of Democratic primary voters in Virginia and 4 percent in Maryland were Latino.”
I believe the Latinos in Texas are both younger and less numerous than in California, and he has actually done better in that group since Virginia.
I think yesterday’s polls had them pretty close or tied. None of the states are winner-take-all, and Texas is even more complicated than most - it’s a primary FOLLOWED by a caucus.
It’s not winner take all and the latest polls are showing a dead heat.
Didn’t the latest polls before Wisconsin show that a dead heat, albeit with Obama trailing?
More bad news for Mrs Clinton, then. She needs to take all the delegates from a big state…winning 51/49 ain’t gonna get here where she needs to be.
The Teamsters endorse Obama .
The Teamsters endorse Obama .
Good god, I hate this kind of anti-numerate reporting. Not you, Dio, but CNN. Based on the data provided and a guess that the sample size is about 800, Hillary has about a 75% chance of actually being ahead of Obama.
And even more bad news for Mrs. Clinton:
In the last few days he was showing a small lead, albeit not as large as the vote turned out to be. One of the shows I was watching last night said that Obama took a large percentage of voters who said they had made up their minds in the last two days, which might be an indication that they were repelled by Hillary’s negative campaigning or an indication of Obama’s ability turn voters when he’s able to visit a state in person or both or neither. Whatever the case, it doesn’t bode well for Hillary that Obama has shown a propensity to pull late voting surges and win by larger proprtions than expected.
He was 20 points behind in Texas not that long agao. Now he’s pulled even. Even if he doesn’t win but only loses by a couple of points, that’s still a delegate wash and a good as a loss for Hillary. If he shows another surprise surge in the numbers on voting day, we might finally start hearing some rumblings of concession from the Clintons (at the very least, there would be pressure to withdraw from the DNC).