Oh, I see no scenario where she can win the remaining primaries by 65%. She can’t win this on delegates from this point onwards, I believe. I also do not believe it’s possible for Obama to win outright on delegates though. I do think she will crush him in Florida on a revote, but that’s interesting we’ll see. As for Michigan, not so much because 40% voted uncommitted in order not to vote for her so I think she maybe eeks out a victory there but not by much.
What I think can happen is she will win the majority of the popular vote. At the convention, the superdelegates will go her way despite the delegate count which they have every right to do (49% think they should vote based on their own beliefs of the best candidate, 46% think it should be based on votes - http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/poll.democrats/index.html.)
Riots ensue. “You denied a black man despite have a delegate lead” will be heard and all hell will break loose. Obama will then call for calm in a bid to make himself that much more of a Christ figure of bringing peace and harmony. And that will fracture his black support even more. Just one possible scenario.
Seeing as how neither candidate campaigned there, both names were on the ballot, and Obama was the only one to technically break the rules by his national MSNBC ads running in Florida (defined as campaigning), maybe we can move up the prediction of the date for those riots if FL was just counted as is. LOL
Doubtful, but there’s an argument (above) to be made for it.
P.S. By the way, there’s a cute comic in The Week excerpted from another rag that shows Uncle Sam chewing out a little Dennis the Menace-type brat named FL on his shirt with Sam saying “Recounts! Revotes! Can’t I have ONE ELECTION without you acting up??” LOL Thought you’d enjoy that.
I’m happy we can talk this way as well. It’s a pleasure talking to people with opposing views without frothing at the mouth and flinging daggers. Especially in GD.
Florida is a no go for now huh…Hmmm. Interesting, we’ll see how that plays out.
Hopefully we’ll hold off the riots as long as we can
Big story a few weeks ago was Obama polling way ahead of McCain by a considerable amount.
Now, HRC polls better against McCain than Obama, but both within the margin of error. It’s now a dead heat when comparing Hillary vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain.
To me, that goes stronger to my support of HRC. Those numbers show people have more unfavorables towards her…being “cold”, etc. and his are rising.
And yet, his lead over McCain has shrunk to a dead heat and she’s risen in her numbers against McCain. It goes to folks liking him on all those factors and even with THAT still thinking HRC does as well or better than Obama against McCain.
It goes to her negatives being figured in, in my view.
But yeah, there will always be polls that go both ways and seesaw around.
Feel better! Everyone I know (including myself lately) have gotten some bug. It sucks. Fluids and rest (and maybe an Obama speech to boot )!
Here’s the latest latest: Both HRC and Obama are now in a dead heat vs. McCain. So much for Obama’s 12 point lead over McCain. I think it’s Wright fallout. And 12 points is a pretty huge amount to evaporate that fast.
And actually, looking again McCain is actually beating Obama now by a little more than he beats HRC due, in the reporter’s view, to the back and forth between them. Again, so much for Obama’s commanding lead over McCain.
I just saw a poll on Fox that had McCain over Obama by a single point and Clinton over McCain by 3. Polls this far from Novemeber are pretty much useless. Once the Dems have a candidate (who will be Obama), they’ll come together and w’ll see another good boost in the polls for BHO. The Wright story is over, Obama is recovering pretty well and he will soon regain his momentum. Even the right wing echo chamber is reaching a level of fatigue from waving the scary negro on a stick all day every day…
I heard that Obama said something about his grandmother being a “typical white person” today, though, so look for hysterical outrage about that on the hate shows tomorrow.
You’re quick! I just read that myself from a radio interview. He said that like any “typical white person” when they see someone “different” there is a “you know…reaction.” It’s for reasons like that that I believe this won’t die and folks don’t like to get into race at all, on any side, even as a subject of major discussion in a race (no pun intended!) between candidates. We’ll see how that goes.
I hadn’t seen that Fox poll but wow it shows McCain beating Obama but HRC beating McCain, huh? If that keeps up, you can be sure it’ll be part of her argument to the superdelegates. I think her lead will grow and his losses will start to pile up.
I agree that once a nominee is chosen (which of course I think should be HRC) then the polls will shift somewhat and the Dems will rally around that nominee, but there is a difference there as well: more than twice as many HRC supporters have said they’d rather McCain than rally around Obama compared to the number of Obama supporters that have said the same in reverse. Of course, it’s early and a significant number will rally around whoever the chosen nominee is anyway but I don’t think it will be in even numbers between them. It may not matter.
But the Pew polls indicates that HRC gets more Obama supporters to rally around her if she’s the nominee than he gets from her if he becomes the nominee.
I suspect that’s because for many Obama folks, HRC was their first choice when she was the presumptive nominee. Then he came along, became a real contender, and they saw someone without the Clinton fatigue that they could support and without any negatives AT ALL (at the time), which is unheard of. Now that he’s got negatives (fairly or not), I think the honeymoon may be ending and that’s why twice as many of his folks say they’ll switch to her than vice versa and it says quite a lot about someone’s negatives when Dems say they’d rather vote for McCain than their own nominee if it’s Obama.
I would vote for Hillary if she got the nomination and would have backed her from the start if I thought she could beat McCain. I just think that enough of the electorate is so hardened against her (for almost completely irrational reasons) that she could never prevail in general Election. Believe me when I say that nothing would give me more glee than seeing the looks on the dittoheads’ faces if she won the White House, though.
Especially given that they’d have helped her, even if in small part, by trashing Obama and even going so far via Rush to ask some of their folks to vote for her in Texas! LOL Now THAT would be karma and I’d laugh myself off the rails.
And, if Obama could be VP with her if he’s not totally trashed by then with dozens of other racial allegations (and I don’t think it gets better from here) that would be the best image I could imagine for those folks: a woman and a black man.
Cut camera to the dittoheads’ faces. LOL I think Rush’s head would explode, literally.
I noticed in the news that some federal employees have been fired and another disciplined for snooping into Obama’s passport information and an investigation is underway as to why they were looking into his files.
Meanwhile, John McCain has given the boot to someone for racial remarks.
By the way, 9thFloor, that “Advisory Board” for Obama’s campaign was actually the African American Religious Leadership Committee. His political Advisory Board remains intact.
“Parsing” has a definition. It doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean. It has linguistic implications. Linguistics is the science of language. I’m not an expert, but I did take upper level courses in it at Vanderbilt in preparation for twenty years of teaching English. You have yet to show that you have any idea of what parsing actually means. And certainly, you have not given an example of Obama’s parsing a sentence.
This is Great Debates. You when make a claim that something is factual, you are expected to be able to provide evidence when it is called for.
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.
I have provided links to several examples of parsing. You don’t agree it’s parsing, you don’t agree with my definition, you don’t agree with the definition used by Fineman who wrote the article, that’s fine. Perhaps you’d like to go insult him as well for not being entitled to his own facts.
I consider those parsing. That’s my opinion. And clearly, from the editorial, I’m not alone. So don’t insult me with your snide “you are not entitled to your own facts.” It’s my view that he’s parsed, and the examples I provided are what lead me to that conclusion. I’m speaking, of course, of political parsing (as in “splitting hairs”, not parsing a sentence). Thanks, I know this is Great Debates. It doesn’t mean opinions can’t be expressed. Congratulations on your upper level courses at Vanderbilt.
I don’t know what you’re parsing about the African American Religious Leadership Committee. That IS his spiritual advisory board, which he formed for the express purpose of supporting his candidacy. That’s just what he called it.
If you think that I was conflating that board with his Political Board, I’m not but fair enough on making sure that’s clear. It’s that board that he formed on which he had Wright to which I refer. He put him ON that board. He shouldn’t have. And he has now taken him off. For obvious reasons. He was wrong.
By the way, here’s a YouTube clip making fun of HRC for parsing which you might enjoy and would bring you up to speed on what’s meant by the term in politics: splitting hairs, doublespeak, wiggling around with answers, contradictions, etc.
I offer it not as proof of Obama having done so (I already did that, and you rejected the quotes as evidence of parsing, fair enough), but for you to understand what is meant by “parsing” in this context. Enjoy.
I wish I had all night…I’m sadly quite sick right now and am hoping to get back to work tomorrow.
)!