Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 18, 2019, 04:39:27 am
News: 2020 U.S. Senate Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Who had a Better night Obama or Clinton?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] Print
Poll
Question: Who had a Better night on Feb. 5th Obama or Clinton?
#1Obama  
#2Clinton  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 98

Author Topic: Who had a Better night Obama or Clinton?  (Read 6915 times)
Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,410
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: February 07, 2008, 04:04:04 pm »

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?
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: February 07, 2008, 04:05:13 pm »

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.

The person who loses the elected delegates and wins the nomination will split the party, if that happens.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: February 07, 2008, 04:47:00 pm »

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.

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.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,655


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: February 07, 2008, 04:48:21 pm »

Why do people on this site still have the ridiculous idea that Howard Dean is any more than a puppet head of the DNC?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,708
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: February 07, 2008, 04:52:29 pm »

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
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: February 07, 2008, 05:36:07 pm »

Again,

"NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party’s complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

You can't post numbers that have 120 Delegates unaccounted for, and declare those the end result. NBC NEWS AGREES WITH THE OBAMA NUMBERS.

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".

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

To a high degree, NO. Which is one of the reasons that Senator's have not traditionally done well when facing former Governors. [/quote]

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.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The biggest point is that it doesn't use Mandates. [/quote]

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.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you being anti-semitic now? I sure hope not. Sarcasm or not, that's not a very nice statement to make. Please retract it.[/quote]

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.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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).
Logged
Thomas Jackson
ghostmonkey
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 710


Political Matrix
E: 8.77, S: 8.79

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: February 07, 2008, 06:04:02 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another non-response.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that distinction falls on you.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Debate? That's laughable.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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. Smiley
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: February 07, 2008, 06:18:41 pm »

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.
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: February 07, 2008, 06:20:49 pm »

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.
Logged
Angel of Death
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,120
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: February 07, 2008, 07:59:26 pm »

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.
Logged
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 42,858
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: February 07, 2008, 08:09:55 pm »
« Edited: February 07, 2008, 08:11:42 pm by Eraserhead »


How do you figure? Perception is reality in American politics.
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,183
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: February 07, 2008, 08:11:18 pm »

Its Al. He doesnt figure, he just slams Obama for no reason. When Al steps into this forum section, he gets delusional.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,708
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: February 07, 2008, 08:17:28 pm »


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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that were true Obama would have won a landslide in New Hampshire.
Logged
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 42,858
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: February 07, 2008, 08:26:27 pm »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC