Talk Elections

Basically who do you think did better than was thought of them.


While I concede that while California and Massachusetts didn't go as well as they should have I also have to say that Obama outperformed Hillary in basically all of the other states on Feb. 5th.
Personally I am going to go with Obama.

The media has clearly decided to spin it as a draw and it looks they are going to end up with about the same amount of delegates. So I'll go along with that theory.

There was good and bad for both sides, really.

Clinton won California, and it looks to be a pretty convincing win at that.  No amount of spin can play down the significance of that.

But Obama won a fair number of states like Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado that make his candidacy still credible.

I'm going to give the edge to Clinton purely due to California, though.

Obama needed a draw, and he got it.

KKKlinton.  The media will be doing her hatchet job on the results soon enough.

("Massive victory in California, Massachusetts, even after the endorsements of John Kerry and John Kennedy!  This was truly a blow-out, Jim, another demonstration of the abilities of our own 'comeback kid'...")

Clinton, basically.

More specifically:  I'll tell you after I read the wires tomorrow morning.

Working against Obama: counties may go to sleep, not resume counting until after newspaper press tomorrow.  Which is unfair, but c'est politics.

Washington Post's headline will read that the Democratic race is a tie, McCain assumes mantle of frontrunner.

I don't think she will end up winning convincingly.  It seems that most of the early returns were just from absentee ballots and not reflective of overall numbers in certain areas.  This is demonstrated by the fact that Edwards is currently getting 10% of the vote even though he dropped out a week ago.

He will probably get over 40% of the vote, possibly 45%.

Clinton, if only because there was an incipient expectation that her campaign was supposed to be blown out of the water today and it withstood the tidal wave- arguably on Obama's unexpected weaknesses as much as Hillary strengths. Obama underperformed in primary states given his superior endorsements, money, organization, momentum, and media coverage, while doing well in caucus states.

I don't recall any media guys saying anything of the sort.

The media said Obama could win Massachusetts and New Jersey and California. In fact Obama peaked at just the right time- election day was the day was about when the shift happened from 'Obama catching up' to 'Obama caught up'.

Obama. It's basically being written off as a draw now (which it is too if you take delegates into account), but Hillary was counting on it to finish off Obama. New York and California were supposed to be the coup de grace to his campaign. She got her wins but they weren't enough.

The calendar for the rest of the month doesn't favor Hillary. I think she has a problem.

I agree. In terms of what today does, it doesn't change anything about the national dynamics. But it gives Obama an opening to sweep a series of primaries and caucuses and leave Clinton sidelined.

Obama didn't need to finish off Clinton today, just do well enough to be able to stay in for the other February primaries. But Clinton might have needed to finish off Obama.

http://www.slate.com/id/2183819

Here John Dickerson makes a convincing case for both sides.

Ultimately last night was a tie, but it was also a bizzaro-world kind of tie. The victories for each camp seem to contradict the narrative of their respective campaigns.

Clinton won the big states, the momentum states. California, New York, etc. She won more votes than Obama, most of them from the coasts were the 'elites' live.

But Obama won more states. He won in the heartland among the salt-of-the-earth types on whom Clinton had theoretically built her campaign. He won more delegates but Clinton's still in the lead because of Superdelegates.

It's a topsy-turvy kind of tie. Whether tonight benefits one candidate over the other is irrelevant. The race goes to individual states (or groups of just a few) which makes it more like Iowa and New Hampshire again: unpredictable, captive to local issues.

Clinton, but not overwhelmingly.

It's a draw. The next states favor Obama a bit, but that just about cancels out Clinton's un-democratic superdelegate advantage.

That's about right.  She won the "big" states and the primary states, plus she still has the delegate lead.

Obama won a lot of the smaller states and the caucus states.  I see both of those facts as asterisks.  He did win a competitive Connecticut and Missouri, but lost Massachusetts and California.

Clinton dodged a bullet, so her camp will be more relieved.

However, Obama won all his favorable states, Clinton lost two of hers.

And Obama can feel more confident about where he is for the rest of the month.

So 2/3 says Obama won.

If the primaries were a war, then this battle would be a draw. However, a draw probably benefits Obama more as it will give him time to pick up more momentum, which seems to be his strong point.

.......

Agreed. Some things stand out as good for Clinton, some stand out as good for Obama. Overall, I'd call it a draw. Though if Clinton wins really big in Cali that may hurt Obama a little extra.

it takes a lot of spinning for you guys to convince yourself that obama had a better night.

all i heard all week was how the kennedys were going to win california and mass for obama.

neither were even close.

Everyone said whoever won California would be the winner.  Clinton won it, hands down.

:D :D :D

Obama did, he won CT and DE, which Clinton was up by 20% or more a month ago. He won GA, AL, MO, KS, MN, ND, UT, ID, NM(I believe). He ended up doing ok with the hispainic votes, and he won over the white male vote.  CA and MA was a long shot to start with but he made tons of ground up.

Obviously, Clinton crushed Obama in the buzz states of Massachusetts and California. She also did well in Arizona. But beyond that, Obama did very well for himself, beating expectations in most places. Clinton is probably hoping to clobber Obama in March where the primaries look favourable to her. The question is whether she can sustain momentum until then.

Clinton. The good news for Obama is that he overperformed in the south, but whoever won at least 2/3 of CA, MO and MA was going to get the most momentum, and Hillary did that.

If no-one breaks out after March, what are the chances of Michigan and Florida holding new elections?

Obama appears to have the lead in the delegate count.......to me that settles who had a better night.

I think close to 0. More likely is a battle over whether the delegates should be seated. Dean is already backing off of his position that they shouldn't count, and he says it's up to the credentials committee.

Yeah Obama really screwed up that whole thing. He took his name off the ballot in the state he could win and kept it on in the state he could never win!

He couldn't have won Michigan.

So, what are the chances Michigan and Florida gets seated at the convention?  I'm saying, at minimum, 95%.

100% if their vote will not affect the outcome......

Actually, it's closer to 100% if their vote will affect the outcome, less if not...

I think Clinton won.  Obama needed New Jersey, or at least to have Mass or Calif be very close.  While Obama has an edge in the next few states, they are mostly smallish.  I am worried that he will get clobbered in Texas, and will be lucky to pull out close victories/losses in Pennsylvania/Ohio.  He wins lots of states - she wins the biggies (Ill excepted, of course)... He tends to win the states the Republicans will win in November.

Anyway, it's hard for me to see where he's going to make a big enough run at her to prove he's THE guy, which will make it unlikely that the superdelegates will jump Hillary's ship, and she should have the edge in adding additional superdelegates to her total.

I hope I'm wrong. 

3 post shills rock.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/gary_younge/2008/02/during_the_entire_week_that.html

Last night Obama performed well. Were it not for the fact that a raft of commentators had once again been believing their own hype, the night would even have been regarded as a victory for him.

For the last few months he has been trailing across the country. For the last few days he has been catching up. Much like New Hampshire, the fact that he was even competitive was diminished by the fact that he didn't win. When all the votes are counted he will have held his own in the northeastern states and fared excellently in the Midwest. At the time of writing California is still too close to call. In all likelihood he will lose. The fact in itself would have been remarkable this time last week.

For the last month now we have seen poll-happy pundits mistake their own fantasy for fact. So excited by the possibility of an Obama victory that they lose all sense of themselves and their credibility. Not for the first time, Obama is doing far better than anyone expected. And not for the first time, the pundits are faring worse.

............

This was the Obama situation on 2/4/08.

1.  He was raising more money.

2.  He had numerous newspaper endorsements.

3.  He had, for what I think is the first time since 1980, the public support of Ted Kennedy in the Primary, along with numerous members of the "establishment."

4.  He had his major weapon, which probably gave him Iowa, deployed:  Oprah.

5.  Arguably, he had momentum.  Even the FL loss was largely discounted by the media.  Media had been hugely friendly.


This is what the result was:


A.  Obama may have one more delegates than Clinton on Super Tuesday, but not enough to give him the overall lead.  Clinton leads.

B.  He lost a number of traditionally Democratic states, NY (understandable), NJ, MA, and CA.  MA should have been a win.

C.  In the southern states that he won, he did so largely because of winning the Black vote.  The states where he won the white are states he would have virtually no chance of winning in the fall (UT).

D.  Unlike Huckabee, he could not solidly hold a region, i.e. the South (TN).

For the effort put out, which I don't think he can sustain, he should have done a lot better.  The only really good news way NM (?), CN, and MO.

Obama has had two chances to put this away, NH and yesterday.  Both times, he has come up short.

Considering Obama's name was not even on the ballot in MI, I respectfully disagree.

................

Ghostmonkey - again, I state that nobody won the battle last night. Also, while a tie may favor Obama in terms of long term strategy, it will all depend on whether his campaign is able to take advantage of the situation or not. How Clinton handles herself in the coming races will also be of importance. Declaring anyone a winner at this point is premature.

....

What's fascinating to me is that the one area of the country he deployed Oprah (California), the black population didn't show up.  What's up with that?

Didn't think it was, but you seem to be overstating Obama's advantage at this point. I'm just trying to keep our feet on the ground, because if we don't we may be in for a rude awakening.

Are you kidding me?  You didn't exist on this forum until this thread.  Now you appear and are screaming to high heaven about how Obama had a great night because he won places like DE and ND when the big prizes last night (NY, MA, and CA) went Clinton.  You are the pure DEFINITION of a shill.

Go stand in the corner.

mypalmonkey?

This is another example of overhype of Obama and now the post Super Tuesday spin when he failed expectation.  Supposedly, Obama was going to win CA, and MA, and he didn't.  Obama just called Clinton the "front runner."

And "early voting" is voting.

....

I'll work on my banana jokes. ;)

.........

The media is fawning of Obama that if his grandmother voted against him, they call it racism.

bitter...

No, my first choice won.  :)

I have never seen anyone get the media hype like Obama has.  And it's not Obama doing it; it is the pundits.  It actually hurts Obama, long term, because he can't live up to expectations.

I would say Obama, if only because he didn't get destroyed. In fact, he actually overperformed. I would be very nervous if I were Clinton, it's a very close race and the primaries to come strongly favor Obama.

I'm just glad that Texas actually matters in something related to the Democrats. :)

Ok ... you've been lurking but for some reason today seemed like a great day to post a bunch.  Ok.

And as for substance, you're spinning this as a huge Obama win.  Most people are saying it was a draw.  A WIN would have been if Obama had picked up more delegates than Clinton.  He didn't.

And I will agree with you that I would have expected a Hillary win in NY (where she is Senator), but you'd have thought that Obama would have won MA (both of the MA Senators endorsed Obama).  And you'd also have figured that CA would have been a toss-up but it wasn't.



Again, why do you think Hillary was "always" going to win MA and CA?  That doesn't make any sense to me.

Also, I view DE and CT as toss-up states.  I see no reason why either state would have favored either candidate.  And as for MO ... ummm .... St Louis has a very large African-American community and Obama does very well with African-Americans.  I'm not shocked at all that he won MO, why are you?



Actually in this forum, on Air America, and several other places the Obama supporters have been nonstop bashing Hillary.  They use terribly mature tactics such as name-calling and trying to shout-down anyone interested in engaging about the issues.  Their favorite discussion point is "she voted for the war".

Also, what is this CRAP about attacking Obama's race?  The only shread of evidence that would imply that is that Bill compared Obama's win in SC to Jesse Jackson's win in SC.  [sarcasm] OMG!  How dare he compare Obama to a famous black leader of the past!?!  This is almost as bad as when Bill compared Obama's initial lead after Iowa to Howard Dean's lead!  [/sarcasm]

Now, as I've said in many other places, I like Obama but I dislike his supporters who seem willing to split the party just to get their guy into office.  Obama supporters who say "I won't vote for Hillary in the general election" are just like the Naderites of 2000 who gave us George W Bush.

That's truth talking, not bitterness.  No one who has watched TV for even half a second can deny that Obama is the media's choice.  There is no negative media attached to him whatsoever, while on the opposite end Hillary gets nothing but negative media.

Part of it is not the Black population; Oprah was good with white women in Iowa.

Some of it was that she could be on the ground for days in Iowa, retail politics.  She could have changed the results in NH.  Part of it is that there are many "celebrities" in California and she wasn't a huge attraction.

Possible putting on the trail in places like MA, NJ, NM would have been a better deployment, as would putting her in the neighborhood of LA.

I don't know whether anything could have change MA or NJ that much.  Can she help with the NM dead voting population?

I disagree.  Obama underperformed in the states he was trying to make a surprise upset over Hillary.  These are California (the biggest one, and a huge loss to Obama--the most recent polls showed him in the lead), New Jersey, Massachusetts...  Sure, he overperformed elsewhere, as in my own state of Georgia, but we all know which demographic he has to thank for that.

In fact, I would go so far to say that if Obama had the exact same message and political views, but was white, he would not have won here, and wouldn't have won a few other states either like Alabama; at the very least, the races would've run a lot closer here.  This just goes to show how helpful the black vote is, and how helpful they are to a black candidate.

I agree about Obama and the media.  Way, way way too much hype - seems set for a fall when he doesn't achieve it fully in the future.  I worry about long-term in the primaries, frankly.

This is one of the reasons I voted for Hillary yesterday.

I would say that Obama has under performed twice.  In NH, he had a chance to destroy Clinton and be the nominee; he would have been unstoppable.  Yesterday, he had a chance to win and show broad based support, nationally; he could also have ended the day in first place with the delegate count.  He didn't and he had everything going for him.

The problem now is money.  People will contribute to the presumptive winner (John McCain for the GOP).  Obama is not the presumptive winner and, after yesterday, should begin to see money problems.  Hillary is married to the fund raiser in chief; money has never been a problem.  She can conduct an extended campaign better than Obama.  It won't be pretty, but she can pull it off.

As I told an old friend once, "That's why they call it a campaign."

Obama underperformed compared to the huge hype, undoubtedly. And if he had taken one of CA, MA or NJ, that could have been the end of Clinton. Equally she could have finished Obama - but as it turned out, it was a tie.

Another way of looking at it, is that the polls average, as posted on this site, predicted Obama to win two states, Clinton 11 with nine toss-ups. Obama held both of his two, won four of Clinton's and won the toss-up states 7-1, with NM still to call. All-in-all, not a bad night for Obama! Its only the fact that the one toss-up she took just happened to be California, that keeps things even.

meanwhile, the big hispanic states are largely out of the way, as are Clinton's 'home states' in the NE. The two big exceptions are TX and PA, however, which means it will all come down to super-delegates at the convention ......

I have, his name is John McCain... the bravest most moderate hero on the face of the friggin planet... Chris Matthews practically begged him to father his kids so they'd have purple hearts and maverick brains!

overall Obama: Hillary failed to knock him out, and this was her last, best chance to do so. Hillary won the big states, but Obama blew out the cacucus states, did well in the south, and won some pivotal states like Missouri. Hillary held California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, but she'd had 20-point leads in all three for months, so that's not as big an accomplishment as people are staying it is. If the delgate count ends up being roughly equal, then Obama has the advantage because he has more money and the map from here on out favors him for the most part.

However, it's far from over: both won the states they had to win and neither scored any big upsets.

Also, Obama's intrade score went up 11.5 points, while Hillary's went down 12.5. That's an Obama victory in my book, and a pretty good indication that the race has changed from a tossup with slight advantage to Hillary to a pure tossup.

I saw a picture of Jesse Jackson holding an Obama placard.....gotta be Clinton had the better night since he wasn't holding hers.

Obama...he won the most states and almost tied the delegates.He did lose CA,which everyone expected him to win in the last days,but the delegates are going to be almost tied.Also,his loss in MA is not surprising at all,no matter what the Clinton campaign tries to say. 2 months ago no one would have bet a cent on such a good night for Obama happening.

I'm sorry, but this is a very hackish statement to make. Obama just outraised Clinton more than 2 to 1. Why? Because due to the sheer difference in number of donors, Hillary is starting to get hurt badly by the per-donor fundraising limit!

January fund raising:
Obama: $32 million
Clinton: $13 million

Yeah...

Not hackish, but practical.  Obama had a huge win in SC, gigantically favorable press, and mega endorsements.  He looked like he could pull off a decisive Super Tuesday victory, for a while.  He didn't.

Clinton can now say, "Look, Obama had all the newspaper endorsements, Ted Kennedy, and most of the Kennedy Clan, mega good press, more money, and I am the one in the lead."  That raises funds. 

Nothing succeeds like success.  On Super Tuesday, Obama was not a failure, but he wasn't a success either.

I'll add that, from what I've seen Obama can pick off states, and is great in person, but he falters and the larger, more unified, campaign.  He can win a victory, but he can't follow up and exploit one. 

Obama did very well down here in my area. In Norwalk we had pretty low voter turn out, but Clinton got 2,953 votes while Obama got 4,081. Kucinich got more votes than Edwards lol.

The press is now whispering that the Clintons are starting to pull a Romney and campaign out of their own pockets. I find this hard to spin in their favor.

I'm not that big of a believer in the Intrade market meaning much BUT I think you overstate the Obama hype situation.  Hillary consistently traded in the 60's thruout January.  Why would the "bettors" on intrade be solidly behind Hillary's chances, but the campaign donors be behind Obama - kinda cuts against your theory that the money follows the winner (even though I think there's generally merit to that argument).

Not to mention, after NH, Hillary looked like she was practically home free, yet she still only raised 13 mil in the entire month (not all fundraising occurred post SC).

If I understand the figures correctly, Hillary had more cash on hand than Obama raised.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019

Obama needed a clear win.  He didn't get it.

To all those who said it was better for Clinton: Intrade disagrees.

Good, it's easier to attack her for nepotism.

Did Clinton win what she was expected to win? Did Obama win what he was expected to win?

Simple as that.

I've seen the Intrade numbers well below sixty.

Absolutely no way was anyone claiming Hillary was "home free" after NH.  Last two weeks of January, it was all about Obama, and how terrible Bill was.

I think Obama was in very good shape to walk out of Super Tuesday as the front runner; I'll even go so far as to say that, before Texas, he may emerge as the front runner for a while.  Hillary is better able to sustain a campaign.

Hillary will be the nominee, probably with the help of the Super Delegates and/or with the seating of the FL delegation.

It is a long term campaign and I don't think that the Obama campaign fully understood that.  Hillary does.

I seem to remember Intrade saying NH would go to Obama.  I seem to remember me saying, "Buy Clinton." ;)

BTW, here is the latest quote from Intrade that I have:

That doesn't mean anything at all, actually.


You're right.  Clinton won everything she was expected to win except Missouri.  However, she also picked up California and New Jersey, both states she was not expected to perform too well in.  Even more unexpected for Hillary was the large lead she enjoyed in California.

Obama, on the other hand, won almost everything he was expected to win, plus Missouri.  He did, however, lose two states that should have gone his way--two states that were polling his way, and were expected to go his way:  California and New Jersey.  Those are two very big losses for him, while Hillary really didn't have any huge upsets (she didn't lose Missouri by more than a percentage point, and in fact carried the state the whole night up until the last few precincts came in.  (I might count Massachusetts as well, given his endorsements from the state's two senators and governor, but I'm not sure how polling was up to yesterday's vote.)

Hillary leads in the delegate race.  She leads in the popular vote, when combining the vote totals from each state so far.  That's what you call a winner.

Obama was supposed to win in NJ? What? He never lead in New Jersey, New Jersey is in New York's backyard, the north of the state is effectively NYC's suburb/exurb.

Obama took CT, DE, MO and NM is still too close to call. She took the states she was supposed to take, he took the states he was supposed to take, and then he took a couple extra.

Pretty much an even split.  Obama won more states, but lost CA.

Define "a couple extra."

And Clinton was supposed to take California?  Hmm...I guess I was dreaming when all the media and polls showed Obama ahead in the state.

Not a single poll in over a year had Obama winning New Jersey.  The average of every poll since February 1st was a 6 point lead for Clinton.

Six of the eleven polls in California since February 1st showed a Clinton lead.

Some polls showed Obama ahead in California. Some showed Clinton ahead. Some showed it tied. None of the media said that Obama was ahead: they called it at best a toss-up, pointing out that Clinton had a huge lead a week ago.

Are we all...

()

...having fun?

California was considered a toss-up, and ended up a bit more solid for Clinton than expected.  Result: a small public victory for Clinton.

Elsewhere, a small public victory for Obama thanks to the overall state wins, the "we've surged in a few months" argument, Missouri and Connecticut.

Most importantly, all of the news coverage was of a tie.  Some news sources focused on Obama winning more states (and probably more delegates); others focused on Clinton's California win.  There were no big news stories either way, even from the sensationalist newspapers.  That says a lot.

This is really not a big public perception deal either way, and I'm amazed that the Clinton and Obama die-hards are spinning it that way.  Man, you guys are really true believers, both in the American public and your candidates.

That's a pretty harsh way of telling someone he's deranged.

There was that supposed last minute surge for Obama.

Yeah well, "New Jersey for Clinton" was still of news value comparable to "DC for Kerry" in the 2004 general to the uninformed observer. Really, there'd be few states she has less business losing.

Worth noting that Clinton's poll numbers never really fell in New Jersey, even if her leads did.

Ah. Yeah, I was hoping for a surprise there, but I expected something closer in liner with what we got.

J. J., I have no real way of proving it, but I doubt the average American really heard more than an off-hand comment about California.  And then even, I bet the reaction was more "oh, gee, screwy polls.  I heard Obama won some other states though!" than "OMG Obama collapse."

People are generally stupid and poorly-informed, not just stupid.

obama's surge led to some unrealistic expectations among some of the pundits/public.  some felt he might win Mass, Cal and NJ, but most felt these were likely Clinton victories.

I don't think any of them going for Clinton was much of a surprise even to those who believed fully that Obama was surging, but I do think the margin surprised most, especially in Cal and Mass.  Obama did win CT and MO but both were thin margins, unlike Hillary's big wins. 

Just like NH, Hillary's wins were semi-comebacks that got more press base on the lowered expectations.  Not sure how much they fed into this thing intentionally, but for whatever reason, it did seem to work.

When did you start?


Wrong again. http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080206/cm_thenation/15281018


Hillary! Had huge leads in both MA and CA. Even the last SUSA poll had Hillary! +13 in CA. She was supposed to win Both. She did what she was supposed to do. That's not a "victory".


Hillary! had consistant leads in these States. Consistant. Like it or not, you can't change those facts.


Hillary! had big leads in All of these States. Some of them were 20+ just two weeks ago.


Nonsense. Hillary! supporters have tried to play the gender card over and over again. Her supporters support her because of what is between her legs. They brand anyone who dares speak out against the machine as "anti-woman".


The fact is, many Hillary! supporters have attacked Obama's race. They keep trying to paint him as the "Black Candidate" when he is anything but.


Under no circumstances would I EVER vote for Hillary! She could be running against Kermit the Frog, and Kermit would get my vote. Beyond that, Obama is inspiring, positive and hopeful. Hillary! is cruel, cunning, and manipulative.

....

I think that our new friend is so special that he deserves a toy all of his own:

()

MSNBC has Obama leading 838-834 with pledged delegates. Of course, Clinton leads superdelegates.

I'm reminded of the fact that even in the 1950's (in Britain, btw) it was estimated that about a third of the population had no real knowledge of or interest in current events. And this a time in which turnout at general elections here hovered around 80%.

Man, I don't think you could have asked for a closer race.

.........

Substantially more. Not effectively equal numbers.

As if that was the only thing that mattered. Massachusetts was never a likely candidate for an Obama win.

Missouri is hardly a strongly Black state. They're just very concentrated. (No, I'm not "shocked".) CT was always going to be Obama's best state in southern New England, but I wouldn't have guessed him to win it.

Well, Kermit... yeah, I'm tempted to agree. But not anybody from the original Republican field.
LOL at Hillary being "cruel". Seems like the 94 Radio Right Brainwashing has caused lasting damage to the American psyche.... As for cunning and manipulative... All successful politicians are. Up to a point. Obama is.  As for "inspiring and positive", that's just a friendly way of saying "manipulative".
And drop the annoying ! if you want people to take you seriously. Just a friendly suggestion. ;)

Hillary loaned herself 5 million dollars. She has maxed out her donors.

Oh man, she had better hope the media doesn't make too big of a deal out of it - having to finance your own campaign when you're supposed to be the front runner is a sure sign than your campaign is in trouble, and people are going to pick up on that.

Welcome to the Forum, Ghost Monkey. I am annoyed that some of my peers are attacking you simply because you are new. We were all new at some point.

I think the "Hillary!" thing is funny. Its not just a joke, she really is very forceful and overpowering, so it has some truth to it.

JJ wants Clinton to win because she will be easy to defeat in November. Clay has no excuse to support her, except that he's a white Southerner (I don't know why they don't like Obama, its not just because of his race, its probably other issues, she's always done well with poor people too.)

Sam I didn't know you were a registered Democrat. Why do you still have a green avatar? You and Harry support Hillary, which further supports my statement above.

Clinton was supposed to win California, New York and Massachusetts. Just because 2 senators endorsed Obama doesn't mean that he'll win the state. At the very last minute, the CA polls said Obama, but lots of people voted early, which I don't think should be allowed. All of those wasted votes for Edwards could have helped Obama there (not enough to win though).

I think Obama should campaign a lot in central and southern Ohio, the Rio Grande Valley, and urban areas of Texas over the next month.

I'm watching Tucker for some reason, and that's all he's talking about. He also just said that some of Clinton's staff are forgoing their pay, which reminded everyone on the panel of another New Yorker who recently dropped out.

Here's the story.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/06/page-exclusive-some-clinton-senior-staff-working-without-pay/

Yeah, I came onto this forum 6+ years ago.  Typically newbs don't come in shilling like a madman posting to only 1 thread.



Ahh yes, the Nation.  Because you know "no one owns the Nation" ... except that CNN is showing it 580 for Clinton and 571 for Obama, http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

I trust CNN more than I trust "The Nation".


A win is a win is a win.  The Patriots were supposed to the AFC Championship over the Chargers.  They did.  But because they were supposed to does that make it "not a win"?



And Obama had leads in states you crowed about.  Again, last night was a draw.  Saying otherwise is pure spin.


Ahhh ... I see, you're a mind-reader.  The only reason someone would support a former First Lady of the last Democratic President over someone who was still in Law School while she was living in the White House is because of gender bias?

Jesus, why not just play the race card?  Oh wait ... you did ....


Give me an example.  Look buddy, race has nothing to do with this election.  Yes, Obama is black.  I also hear he smokes and has 10 fingers and 10 toes.  Whoopie.


Yeah .... I remember 8 years when idiots on the Hard Left said the same thing about Gore.  He was too right-wing.  All he wanted was power.  Voting Nader would push the Dems to the left.  No way would Bush win.  And even if he did how much damage could he do?  And certainly he'd be out in 4 years.

Were you a Nader voter?

I couldn't agree more.

People are generally both more intelligent and less well informed than the political and media classes like to think.

No doubt Obama.  Although I'm pleased with how Hillary did, Obama was more impressive.

Well, intelligence is irrelevant here.

What's relevant is:

1. Ability to analyze political results realistically
2. Keeping up with said political results

In both cases, the average American fails much too miserably for last night to mean much.

Like I said, most people are even less well-informed about politics than we (ie; all those inside some form of political bubble) realise.

.........

No, sorry, I've thought she would be the likely winner after NH.  I do thing Obama is over-hyped (and I actually think that's hurting him).

No, you get laughed at for exaggerating last night's results.


LOL ... ahh yes, the Nation has more credibility than CNN.  I'm sure.  But since you seem to like MSNBC, lets use their numbers.  Now what is being discussed are the results from last night only (as in who got more electors LAST NIGHT).  Here's the MSNBC link, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914

The 838-834 number which you cited is ALL delegates (so it includes NH, SC, IA, etc) allocated thus far.  Go back and add up the states which voted last night for the Dems.  That is AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MA, MN, MO, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OK, TN, and UT.  Now ... use the MSNBC link and add up the delegates.  Clinton got 786, Obama 775.

As I said, last night was a draw.  Good for both of them.  Can you look past your Barack support and admit that Hillary did well?


Actually the only time I've heard the gender card used is when someone launches a "Hillary is a d*ke" attack or "no one will respect a woman as our leader".  And yes, I've heard those in campaign.  On the flip side I CONSTANTLY hear that if you question Obama on anything it is because you are racist.  Compare him to a failed Dem candidate for President?  You're a racist.


You also need ideas to run a country.


Riiiight because that is a completely fair assessment.  Here's a better one.  Lets say your wife was the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and you were involved in the management of the company, so closely involved that you managed one of the major initiatives undertaken by her management team (Healthcare).  As married couples do you constantly discussed business.  When she retired you then spent 8 years in a high executive position.  Now you are up for a CEO job and it is safe to assume that she will be right along with you as an advisor throughout.  Yeah, I'd say you'd be bringing some nice credentials to the table.


Nope, but I must have missed whatever it is that you are on about.  The relevant thing regarding SC that I can think of is that the Obama people cried because Bill drew a parallel between the Obama campaign and the Jackson campaign (as in SC isn't a bellweather state for the Dems).  He drew the same sort of comparison to the Dean campaign when Obama jumped out to an early lead.  Was that racism too???


If you can't see the parallel between your position that you won't vote for Clinton if she gets the nom and the people who said the same thing about Gore in 2000 then you're hopeless.  You're part of the group that is willing to split the party and return the GOP to the White House if "your guy" doesn't get the nom.  And then you charge the Clinton supporters with "splitting the party".  How selfish are you?

Don't you get it that a Republican President will stay in Iraq and more soldiers will needlessly die?

Don't you get it that John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg probably won't survive to 2012 and that a Republican President only needs to put 1 more hardcore conservative Justice on the Supreme Court to give them the majority?

Don't you get it that a Republican President won't care about creating a reasonable healthcare system or the environment?

Which branch of Obamites are these that believe the bringing together means everybody across the country, expect Clinton supporters, and probably Republicans, and maybe nobody who is not a true believer?  Do you think they see the irony?

There have to be more reasons than a feeling that you think he is over-hyped, which he may be at this point, its hard to say. When someone has momentum, its can seem the same as hype.

looks like 38.7% of this forum are hillary hacks LOL

Well Obama is certainly cleaning her clock in the spin war for once. No denying that.

No kiddin. If she had such a great night, why'd she do her speech so far ahead of Obama?

11:00 PM news in the East.  Same reason Obama didn't speak after winning California, oh wait, he didn't win did he?

That was my thinking, but I also thought... "she's going just as the polls close in CA?"

Actually, neither of them had the night they needed. If Obama had taken CA, or Hillary managed to pull back CT, pulled in GA or managed to perform well in ANY of the caucuses (it still boggles my mind) - then there would have been some pressure. Obama won the states I expected (bloody CT... my only mistake!!) it's just the margins that were off. Clinton did badly in some places, but also exceeded recent expectations on others. Noobdy delivered a death blow, which means now, someone is going to die slowly. 

I support Obama. I voted in this for Clinton. Obama needed to win two out of CA, MO and MA (I always had the impression NJ would go to Clinton, as did most of the public imho) (wow, that was a remarkable statement, but I can't find a better form of words...) and he didn't. Clinton needed to win all three, and she ddn't, but by denying him a 'come-from-behind' story she defended her lead and that's a win for her. Obama didn't fall further behind, but by being behind he at best tied and lost a very strong chance at taking the lead.

And it's largely the political and media classes' fault. ;D

Obama. The only disappointments being in that California and Massachusetts weren't closer but he was never really, despite prominent endorsements, in contention in MA

All in all it was a draw but moving through February, it's advantage Obama. Texas on March 4 is Hillary's firewall. Furthermore, it's, arguably, now the only state in which Hispanics are a major demographict.

The good thing is, however, Obama has time to campaign intensely in TX, in a way he could not focus on CA, AZ and NM (and he did reasonably well among Hispanics in AZ). Hispanics just don't know him, relative to Hillary that is

Dave

........

Please stop the tiresome exclamation of Hillary's name.  It serves no purpose.

I will honestly tell you that I do not know the exact # of delegates which were at stake on Super Tuesday.  I will say that you pointed at MSNBC as being a source that we could agree was reliable and that the #'s on their website show that Clinton picked up 11 more delegates on Super Tuesday.

Now you have pointed to 2 stories (1 from "The Nation" and the other from Politico.com) which both say "The Obama Campaign Says They Won More Delegates".  When/IF the news source (MSNBC) which we agreed was reliable updates their #'s on their website to reflect what the Obama camp claims, then I will agree with you.  But since that hasn't happened you are just being intellectually dishonest.  You're going by the spin of the campaign.


How does that Kool-Aid taste?  Obama may have exceeded his goals (I don't know what his goals were).  Hillary won the big prizes on Tuesday.  The Obama camp may claim they won MO, but if you notice the MSNBC site shows that each candidate got the same # of delegates from MO.


You say you've been hanging around this forum?  Do you want some links to those attacks on Hillary?  And frankly I think your claim of "anti-male" comments is just laughable.  Yeah, the campaign is going to alienate 50% of the electorate.


I like how instead of offering up Obama's plans/ideas in a positive and constructive light you bash the Clinton healthcare program by dishonestly representing her position.

The wages garnishing was something suggested by JOHN EDWARDS.  Clinton said she wouldn't take anything off the table but she never said she would garnish wages.  In the real world the best way for government to enforce programs is via tax incentives.  Since your employer most likely pays your healthcare costs using money which could otherwise be given to you as wages (yes, I am an employer and I give my employees the choice) said unpaid money should be tax deductable.  If you choose NOT to take the healtchare then you should ask your employer to pay you the money they are saving by not covering your healthcare!  You would, of course, have to pay taxes on this money ..... something some would call "garnishing your wages".  Understand?


You're like the John Cleese character from the "Dept of Arguments" sketch.
Ok, take my example and strike the word EXECUTIVE from it (since you clearly don't know the difference between office executives and executive in terms of branch of government).  Hillary was a key advisor to Bill when he was in office.  The proof of that is that BILL SAYS SHE WAS.  And oddly enough I think he knows better than you about his administration.  8 years as a key advisor to the President followed by 8 years in the Senate is a lot more experience than 8 years in the IL state legislature.


Oh really?  And what are the issues that are important to you which make your preference in candidate go Obama/McCain/Clinton?


Considering that she has repeatedly said she will withdraw them I find that highly doubtful.  But this is a popular Obama attack.  So if Obama is so anti-war why did Obama vote against the Kerry bill to withdraw soldiers?  Why has he said he wants to reduce the # of soldiers, not withdraw them?

Obama saying "I never voted for war" is the same as me saying that.  Neither of us were in Congress at the time.


A Scalia?  No.  An Alito?  Yes.  Watch the campaign.  I guarantee you that he comes out and tells you he will use abortion as a litmus test for Supreme Court Justices.

I do know how many delegates were at stake. 1681. Do a simple search and you would find that information. So if 1681 were at stake, how does your math add up?

You are claiming that MSNBC is saying Hillary! won with 786 to Obama 775. Do some simple math and you find that number equals 1561, Not 1681. You are over 100 delegates short in your count.

I'll repeate the relevant portion that is NOT coming from the Obama Campaign, but rather NBC news.

With the delegate count still under way, NBC News said Obama appears to have won around 840 delegates in yesterday’s contests, while Clinton earned about 830 — “give or take a few,” Tim Russert, the network’s Washington bureau chief, said on the “Today” show.

Obama won more delegates.


Obama was shooting for a -100 delegate Count. Did he exceed that?


The core Hillary! contigent could care less about alienating half the electorate. They blindly think that they can get all the women to vote for Hillary! to negate that effect. They don't realize how their negative anti-male attacks turn off not only Men, but also Conservative/Moderate Women.


As you have already demonstrated not knowing the Delegate Count, Not knowing Obama's goals for the Night, it should be no suprise that you don't know Hillary!'s plan. Frankly however, I am suprised.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_30

"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans."


Ad Hominem.


Your additional Ad Hominem aside, An Office Executive would be the equivalent to the President. As both involve exercising management and leadership. Serving in the Senate does not come close by any stretch of the imagination. I find it telling that you don't understand your own argument.


Hillary! was a key advisor in her own mind. She rode the coattails of her Husband and tries to paint that as something more than it was.


Strong Leadership, Willingness to bring Change to the Government, I like Obama's health care plan much better than Hillary!'s.


Hillary!'s exact words on this issue betray her:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security. This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Neither she, nor you, can have it both ways.


Ah abortion! That must be your key issue. Perhaps that's why you support Hillary! so much?

Can I ask you, are you female?

Regardless, are you aware that McCain has been attacked from the Right specficially because he said Alito was too Conservative?

For what it’s worth, I’ve been told the same thing John F. reported — that at a private meeting McCain said he would appoint justices like Roberts, but not like Alito — who wears his conservatism on his sleeve. The report of the comment — first in D.C. conservative circles and now in the WSJ — has set off alarm bells with conservatives who’ve worked on the judicial issues, for obvious reasons. We already got Alito despite a president who wanted to go in another direction. This time, folks feel like they’re being warned beforehand.

.............

Seconds out, Round 8!

I find ghost monkey's arguments quite good, but I then I lean Obama. However that Clinton quote is out of context of the argument, which is whether she would withdraw now. In fact I think she justifies her vote for the war well, insofar as she was fed the lie by the crook Bush that Hussein still had WMD.


ding ding...

It's also very childish.

(I've ignored the rest of your post due to its irrelevance.)

Clinton.  She got more delegates and overcame some rather low expectations created by a reporting frenzy in favor of Obama--the Kennedy endorsements, the huge crowds, polls tightening in favor of Obama, a last-minute Zogby poll showing Obama up by 13 in California.

Speaking of delegates, the number you read depends on who's reporting.  They vary wildly:

NBC
Clinton: 582
Obama: 485

AP
Clinton: 845
Obama: 765

CNN
Clinton: 823
Obama: 741

CBS
Clinton: 1058
Obama: 984

New York Times
Clinton: 892
Obama: 716

Nuts.  The only thing that's consistent is that Clinton is consistently ahead of Obama.

Well, they haven't all been counted yet but the prediction is that he will end up with slightly more on the night to go with the delegate lead he already had. But we won't know until all the results are in, tomorrow maybe. Also, most of the news stations are adding the committed superdelegates into the total, which is a bit disingenuous of them.

Is New Mexico still up in the air...?

Clinton lost the spin war. Badly.

In the end that's all that matters.

Non. In the end nothing matters less.

I wonder how Obama and Clinton are doing WITHOUT SUPERdelegates.

Ok, ghostmonkey, lets take this item by item.

# of Delegates on Super Tuesday.  Here's the MSNBC website http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914
One would imagine that these are the official "most up-to-date" NBC #'s.  It is telling that the article you cited was published at 11 AM on Feb 6th.  I think 24 hrs later they have better info.

Below I list the states contested on Super Tuesday and the delegate count as listed by MSNBC.  Please let me know if I have missed any states or if I have misreported any of the MSNBC #'s or if I mistotal them.

AL - 25 Obama, 23 Clinton
AK - 9 Obama, 4 Clinton
AZ - 25 Obama, 31 Clinton
AR - 7 Obama, 24 Clinton
CA - 163 Obama, 202 Clinton
CO - 13 Obama, 6 Clinton
CT - 26 Obama, 22 Clinton
DE - 9 Obama, 6 Clinton
GA - 40 Obama, 23 Clinton
ID - 15 Obama, 3 Clinton
IL - 87 Obama, 44 Clinton
KS - 23 Obama, 9 Clinton
MA - 38 Obama, 55 Clinton
MN - 48 Obama, 24 Clinton
MO - 35 Obama, 35 Clinton
NJ - 42 Obama, 56 Clinton
NM - 12 Obama, 13 Clinton
NY - 93 Obama, 135 Clinton
ND - 8 Obama, 5 Clinton
OK - 14 Obama, 24 Clinton
TN - 29 Obama, 33 Clinton
UT - 14 Obama, 9 Clinton

TOTALS = 775 Obama, 786 Clinton

Now you have said that there were 1681 delegates in play on Tuesday.  Ok.  One would imagine that MSNBC would update there website as soon as they figure out where those remaining 120 delegates fall.  Until then these are the #'s we have.


Can you provide us with a link to one of these "anti-male" attacks?  If not it really just sounds like you are pulling the "say something long enough and people will believe it" tactic.


When asked about the plan she said she wouldn't take any options off the table.  The question was repeated about whether she, like Senator Edwards, would be willing to garnish wages.  She said she wouldn't take anything off the table.  That is how you get to "MIGHT be willing".

We can debate health insurance if you want, but you do realize that someone without health insurance ultimately has it paid for by the tax payers, don't you?  You also realize that you are currently paying for your own health insurance whether you like it or not (if you want to opt out then you need to talk to your employer and explain how you are saving them money by opting out and how you want that money to be added to your paycheck).

People with health insurance are more likely to seek preventative care which is vastly less expensive than critical care.  If everyone has health insurance then everyone is more likely to seek preventative care and the cost to the system and to the population as a whole goes down.


Do you honestly believe that serving in the Senate does not require management and leadership?  You're forgetting about Senate committees, the management of their staff, the coalition building which is required to be a Senator, and the general familiarity with the issues.


I repeat that Bill Clinton has said she was a key advisor.  I think Bill Clinton is more familiar with his administration than you.


2 red herrings and healthcare.

All the remaining candidates are strong leaders.  They wouldn't have gotten this far if they were not.

Change for the sake of change is just change.  Not all change is good.  When Lenin seized power in Russia that was change.

What do you like about Obama's healthcare plan?  Go ahead and sing its praises.


THE WAR AND VOTING - Again, if Obama is opposed to the war then why did he vote against the Kerry bill?  Now if you want to talk about why Hillary voted for the war ... well, she did it for the same reason several other Dem Senators did.  She voted for it because the White House told her and others that Hussein had acquired said weapons and that we had definitive proof of it.  Yes, she was duped by the lie.  Most people in this country were duped by the lie.  


I have a Y chromosome.  But if I didn't my opinion would be equally valid.  [sarcasm]Are you a red-headed, blue-eyed Orthodox Jew who smokes?[/sarcasm]

Abortion is one of many important issues which I believe a Super-Conservative Supreme Court would threaten.  They would also go after the minimum wage, environmental protections, free speech, etc.

.......

The current MSNBC site has it 838/834 for Obama, without the Super Delegates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914

Clinton is still leading overall, with a lot of strong and delegate rich states out there.

The winner of the elected delegates will be the nominee. No matter who the Super Delegates are supporting in the present. If Obama is in the lead with elected delegates after March 4th then expect Dean starting to pull strings in order to get Obama a influx of supers. He wants this thing wrapped up soon.

No, that will split the party.

Having Hillary win based on unelected superdelegates won't?

The person who loses the elected delegates and wins the nomination will split the party, if that happens.

If Dean looks like he's "pulling strings," that will anger half the delegates, no matter what.  I actually think you will have either a divided the party, unless it's settled in the field.

Why do people on this site still have the ridiculous idea that Howard Dean is any more than a puppet head of the DNC?

Faith

Ghostmonkey, your politico.com article is now 30 hours old.  The numbers on MSNBC's website remain consistent.  We can quibble back and forth over the +/- 10 delegates, but it is still basically a numerical tie.

BTW, you may want to work on reading and comprehension.  I did not call my total "the end result".  In fact, read my post .... I say that is what we have thus far.  You're relying on 1 article with a projection.  Projections change.  Clearly MSNBC hasn't managed to finalize things yet and the 120 delegates in question are still "in question".


One comment by a random poster on a random blog?  That's your evidence?  I thought you said that Senior members of her campaign were doing this?  Why you backed off of that one quick.  BTW, did you notice the attacks on Hillary by other random posters?


Nope, that isn't what I said but way to spin.  The garnishing wages idea was introduced by John Edwards.  This led reporters to ask Mrs Clinton whether she would be in favor of garnishing wages.  She said she wouldn't take anything off the table.  You, and other Obamites, have spun this to claiming that her position is garnishing wages.  A total misrepresentation.

It is a shame your tactic isn't to present a plan of your own and talk about its virtues.  It is much easier to just attack someone else's plan that to present one of your own.


That and Senators have a voting record they have to defend and frequently issues in Congress are not as black and white as the pundits make them out to be.


I'd be happy to have Bill back in the White House.  I think it is funny that you think you know more about the goings on of said administration than the man who ran it.


Actually it seems that the point is that you don't know much about it ... just that it "doesn't use mandates".  You know what else doesn't use mandates?  Doing nothing.  The problem is that doing nothing rarely solves problems.


I love how you continue to avoid the question about why Obama voted against the Kerry Bill to end the war.


Yes, I'm clearly an anti-semite for pointing out how ridiculous your question about my gender was with a sarcastic retort.  Well, let's be fair, I'm only hateful towards red-headed, blue-eyed Orthodox Jews who smoke.


You're not very good at remembering topics, are you?

The Supreme Court Justice issue debate went like this .... you said you would never vote for Hillary if she wins the nom.  I said that this election is too big to be selfish and that returning the GOP to the White House would mean 1-2 more conservative Justices.  You pulled the "you must be a woman" thing out of your pocket and accused me of only caring about abortion.  I pointed to many issues a Conservative Supreme Court would hurt America on.  You come back with "Obama won't appoint Conservatice Justices".  So somewhere in that you lost the fact that we were talking about McCain appointing them .... which he most assuredly would do if he wants a 2nd term (he won't win without the conservative base twice).

My reading comprehension is just fine. You tried to claim over and over that Hillary! won more delegates. When I showed you sourced material that proves she didn't you try to deny it.


You asked for ONE. I gave you ONE. Now that's not enough?


A bold faced lie. Please retract that statement now. I said that Hillary! Supporters are making such comments. The words "Senior Campaign Members" never left my mouth.

I see you've retreated to the tired Hillary! tactic of lying. I think it's time to use the ignore feature.


That doesn't negate the attacks made by Hillary! supporters that you denied existed.


Her position is Garnishing wages. That was her own words. That's what the media is reporting. Or are you now going to claim that the Media is owned by Obama?

Do you see UFO's as well?


Read the Obama Plan. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/


Governor's don't make decisions and defend issues? What?


Another non-response.


Again, read the plan. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/



I asked a question. You the one who responded in an anti-semitic way. And you still won't retract.


No, that distinction falls on you.


Debate? That's laughable.


You really like distortions don't you. You also apparently can't read. I pointed out that neither Obama nor McCain would appoint "Super Conservative Judges". You also apparently have a profound ignorance on what the Supreme Court can actually do. You were also the person who first brought up an "Abortion Litmus Test." When I responded, you now want to try to flip the script. Sorry, it ain't happening.

This "Conversation" is actually a very good representation of everything that is wrong with the current system, and by proxy, Hillary!. You've demonstrated quite well what depths Hillary! supporters stoop to when confronted with reality. It's time for me to rise above it.

You know my positions, I know yours. We are finished.

I am saddened that you retreated to twisting the truth and resorting to some rather bold faced lies. Since you have decided to do so We are done here. Welcome to my ignore switch. Buh-Bye. :)

Obama had two chances to win this outright, NH and Super Tuesday.  Both times he failed.  It now becomes a long drawn out process that might last until August.  I wonder if Bill will be unleashed again.

I agree that this is a totally pointless discussion.  You have drank so much of the Kool-Aid it is beyond comprehension.


To summarize your perception of the world:

*1 aging article is enough even if contradicted by a more recent item from the same source.
*All candidates should be held accountable for all statements made by random internet bloggers that appear to support said candidate.
*Saying you won't rule out any options means you will support ALL options
*It is ok for you to say "Are you a woman?" But if someone asks "Are you a <insert random characteristic>?"  They are clearly biased against the random characteristic group.
*The Supreme Court is a powerless entity.

Additionally it is fascinating that:
*You cannot debate the virtues of your candidate's proposals
*When confronted with a tough question you decline to answer it.


Welcome aboard troll.

Now that a few days have passed I think we can now come to a more levelheaded conclusion.
Normally speaking, the fact that Obama kept it so close, should be considered a huge accomplishment for him.
Unfortunately for him, at the same time, he was also, again, significantly damaged by overhyped expectations, this time with regards to California and, to a lesser extent, Massachusetts. In a race where momentum plays a very important role, this should not be underestimated.

How do you figure? Perception is reality in American politics.

Its Al. He doesnt figure, he just slams Obama for no reason. When Al steps into this forum section, he gets delusional.

What sort of people care about who's winning or losing the spin war? Think.


If that were true Obama would have won a landslide in New Hampshire.

So the spin war has no impact? I disagree. It impacts fundraising, superdelegates, etc. I'm not saying there isn't anything Hillary can do to turn it around but it doesn't feel like she in the driver's seat anymore. You don't ask for a debate a week if you are in good shape generally.