Nobody’s talking about the wild card- a terrorist attack. Should a major attack occur today, it might just scare voters into supporting those candidates perceived as “tougher” on terrorism. A February attack could save Hillary, an October attack could save McCain.
Other than that possibility, Hillary is facing very steep odds. Barring a stunner in Wisconsin, she needs landslide numbers in Ohio and Texas to get back in, and that appears unlikey.
[QUOTE=Sateryn76]
I have never said this before, but…do you have a cite for this?
I mean no disrespect, and I can see the idea you’re trying to provoke, but really, come on…
[/QUOTE]
Winky smiley. Learn it, live it, be it!
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Winky smiley. Learn it, live it, be it!
[/QUOTE]
Got it…
The thought of Bulworth was clouding my ability to interpret words and symbols… :smack:
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Nobody’s talking about the wild card- a terrorist attack. Should a major attack occur today, it might just scare voters into supporting those candidates perceived as “tougher” on terrorism. A February attack could save Hillary, an October attack could save McCain.
[/QUOTE]
With the FBI, DHS, etc., on constant high alert for the past six years, how could such an attack succeed?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Give it up, Maniac. No matter how ineptly the Dems handle this, John McCain is not going to be our next POTUS. HRC might be; McCain, NFW. Bush has placed this election beyond even the reach of the Democrats’ incompetence.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know how you can say that with any degree of confidence, especially after 2004, and especially if Hillary gets the nomination.
The numbers as of today suggest McCain beats Clinton in a head-to-head.
No election is ever a foregone conclusion, especially when Democrats are involved. I firmly believe that Clinton will lose a general election to McCain, and Obama will be very close, with a slight advantage to Obama.
[QUOTE=cckerberos]
I’m not sure that that’s indicative of anything. Hillary and Obama were virtually tied, while McCain had more or less secured the GOP nomination. Given that Virginia’s is an open primary and Republicans had less motivation to come to the polls, I think that it would have to be expected that the Democratic primary had more activity. There very well may be more support for the Democrats this time around, but the number of people who participated today is not a good way to measure that.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. I think this is an excellent barometer. If Republicans are less motivated to come to the polls now, that doesn’t portend a huge increase in interest for November, in my opinion. And I’m not just talking about the enormous and unprecedented turnout in Virginia, but in every single state so far, including all the traditionally “red” ones.
Back to Hillary’s forkability, from the Obama Blogs:
And there is no way in hell all the superdelegates will support her if she’s still this far behind.
And Obama has picked up another endorsement; The influential Texas blog, the Burnt Orange Report, endorsed Obama today.
Then there’s this. . .
Truly, she doesn’t stand a chance. I predict it’s all over but the singing.
Think of the pressure on poor John Edwards and Bill Richardson.
If they jump the wrong way on endorsements, there goes the Veep slot or plum Cabinet post.
Selling yourself for political gain can be so nerve-wracking.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
I disagree. I think this is an excellent barometer. If Republicans are less motivated to come to the polls now, that doesn’t portend a huge increase in interest for November, in my opinion. And I’m not just talking about the enormous and unprecedented turnout in Virginia, but in every single state so far, including all the traditionally “red” ones.
[/QUOTE]
There were twice as many votes cast in Democratic primaries in 2004 than in Republican ones. Higher participation in primaries does not necessarily lead to a higher number of votes in the actual election. As I said in my other post, there are reasonable explanations for increased or decreased turnout apart from interest.
Also, I didn’t check all of them but there were a larger number of participants in the Alabama and Arizona Republican primaries than in the Democratic ones, and the difference in numbers for some of the other states didn’t seem particularly significant.
Don’t count your chickens. Word of caution to all pro-Obama Dems: Say nothing about HRC in the primaries that, should she win the nomination, would reinforce the memes the Pubs would use against her in the general.
Really. I mean it. The stakes are too high.
While I don’t know if HRC has a fork sticking out of her yet, I think there is a fat lady clearing her throat, and getting ready for some singing.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Think of the pressure on poor John Edwards and Bill Richardson.
If they jump the wrong way on endorsements, there goes the Veep slot or plum Cabinet post.
Selling yourself for political gain can be so nerve-wracking.
[/QUOTE]
They’re both yesterday’s news now. Edwards did nothing for Kerry in '04 and there’s little reason to think he’d have any impact in the VP slot this go around, either. And Obama has already proven that he doesn’t need Richardson, which was the only reason he was bandied about as a possibility in the first place.
You’re right, they snoozed, they loozed. 
ETA: this article, Why Hillary will lose, By Dick Morris, former adviser to Bill Clinton.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
They’re both yesterday’s news now. Edwards did nothing for Kerry in '04 and there’s little reason to think he’d have any impact in the VP slot this go around, either. And Obama has already proven that he doesn’t need Richardson, which was the only reason he was bandied about as a possibility in the first place.
You’re right, they snoozed, they loozed.
[/QUOTE]
They may be irrelevant to voters, but Edwards has 26 delegates.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
A black POTUS is tolerable to the Powers that Be and the Bohemian Grove. But the very idea of a real working-class-based-movement president…
[/QUOTE]
Which would describe George W. Bush as much as it does Barack Obama; Bush’s electoral victories both relied on getting lots and lots of working-class votes. You don’t think all those red state evangelicals are sipping chardonnay on the Riviera every winter, do ya?
Obama’s campaign may get a lot of working class donations, but Barack Obama himself is a millionaire. This isn’t a regular guy here.
As for the general theme of the thread:
Anyone who thinks this nomination is a foregone conclusion has a very short memory.
Anyone who thinks any matchup in November is a foregone conclusion has an even shorter memory.
Anything can happen. Any one of the candidates is one gaffe away from a terrible swoon or a sudden run of luck.
[QUOTE=cckerberos]
There were twice as many votes cast in Democratic primaries in 2004 than in Republican ones. Higher participation in primaries does not necessarily lead to a higher number of votes in the actual election. As I said in my other post, there are reasonable explanations for increased or decreased turnout apart from interest.
Also, I didn’t check all of them but there were a larger number of participants in the Alabama and Arizona Republican primaries than in the Democratic ones, and the difference in numbers for some of the other states didn’t seem particularly significant.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is true. Recall also that George Bush was the only candidate on the Republicans ballot in 2004. That would neatly explain what you’ve observed and still jibe with the talk of greater interest among Democrats. The numbers we really want to see would be comparisons between contested primary turnouts and GE turnouts. The 2004 primaries are kind of an apples and oranges comparison, it seems to me.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
They may be irrelevant to voters, but Edwards has 26 delegates.
[/QUOTE]
Unless Clinton makes a serious change in her luck, 26 delegates won’t matter.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Obama’s campaign may get a lot of working class donations, but Barack Obama himself is a millionaire. This isn’t a regular guy here.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s not fair to put Obama and Bush on the same class level. If he’s a millionaire, it’s only barely, and he actually earned it.
From here :
He may not be a regular guy, but he is relatively poor for a Presidential candidate. Of the serious candidates, only Huckabee was poorer than he is–and that guy eats fried squirrels.
Maybe the difference between one million in net worth and ten or a hundred million is insignificant to voters, but maybe not.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Which would describe George W. Bush as much as it does Barack Obama; Bush’s electoral victories both relied on getting lots and lots of working-class votes. You don’t think all those red state evangelicals are sipping chardonnay on the Riviera every winter, do ya?
[/QUOTE]
A coalition based on working-class votes is not the same thing as a working-class movement. Obama is appealing to the economic interests of the working class, as distinct from their cultural values.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Don’t count your chickens. Word of caution to all pro-Obama Dems: Say nothing about HRC in the primaries that, should she win the nomination, would reinforce the memes the Pubs would use against her in the general.
Really. I mean it. The stakes are too high.
[/QUOTE]
Screw that. Beat her up as much as possible. I’d rather have McCain in any day of the week than Hillary.
Way to try to “Daisy” the campaign, BrainGlutton.
[QUOTE=Ganryu Kojiro]
Recall also that George Bush was the only candidate on the Republicans ballot in 2004.
[/QUOTE]
That fits with my argument in my first post.