or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama! - Page 3

post #81 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

According to George Stephanopoulos/This Week, when they did a hypothetical scenario where Hillary won Texas and Ohio, the total delegate count was still extremely close. If Obama wins both, he'll be ahead by quite a bit.

You're right- it'll still be too close to call if Hillary takes those states.

I have no idea how this is going to shake out anymore.
post #82 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

According to George Stephanopoulos/This Week, when they did a hypothetical scenario where Hillary won Texas and Ohio, the total delegate count was still extremely close. If Obama wins both, he'll be ahead by quite a bit.

I predict that Obama will not win TX for the same reason he did not win OK.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #83 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I predict that Obama will not win TX for the same reason he did not win OK.

... but I'd agree with you on Texas going into the Clinton win column due to the large Hispanic vote, which if my memory serves me well has gone disproportionately to HRC (I'll gladly stand corrected if I'm wrong on this one though);

Quote:
As of the 2005 US Census estimates, the racial distribution in Texas are as follows: 84.14% White; 12.09% African American or African; 3.62% Asian; 0.17% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander; and 1.1% American Indian or Alaskan Native. Persons of Hispanic origin accounted for 35.31 percent of the population and may be of any race.

The largest reported ancestry groups in Texas include: Mexican (25.3%), German (10.9%), African American (10.5%), English (7.2%), and Scots-Irish (7.2%). Descendants from some of these ancestry groups are underreported.

Texas race and ethnic origins
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #84 of 266
According to the AP, Obama is ahead by 3 delegates now (superdelegates included).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ate_count.html

238 delegates up for grabs this Tuesday in the Potomac races: VA, DC, MD. Obama is ahead by 15-20+ points in MD and VA polls; there are no D.C. polls but D.C. will definitely go for Obama because of it's large black population.
post #85 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

According to the AP, Obama is ahead by 3 delegates now (superdelegates included).

Huh, wow. I thought he was down by around 50 if you included superdelegates.

The way I understand it, the superdelegates really shouldn't be counted anyway. They aren't really earned and they could change depending on what happens in the primaries. Usually they just rubber stamp what the primaries determine. But who knows, maybe they could actually change the outcome of the primaries this time.
post #86 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

The way I understand it, the superdelegates really shouldn't be counted anyway. They aren't really earned and they could change depending on what happens in the primaries. Usually they just rubber stamp what the primaries determine. But who knows, maybe they could actually change the outcome of the primaries this time.

Exactly - and If Obama keeps on winning states, they are all likely to switch over to him anyway (except for Bill Clinton, who is a deligate I think). I just don't see Hillary winning - not only is she out of money and momentum, but she can't beat McCain and Obama can. The superdelegates will elect Obama even if Hillary "wins".
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #87 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Yeah.

But if she carries TX and OH, then she basically has this thing wrapped up.

As it relates to Texas this is a good start:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...teupdates/C9kN

Fellows

Obama 2008
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #88 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

As it relates to Texas this is a good start:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...teupdates/C9kN

Fellows

Obama 2008

Anyone know what the Spanish language papers are saying?
post #89 of 266
Quote:
I predict that Obama will not win TX for the same reason he did not win OK.

Texas is very different from Oklahoma.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #90 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Texas is very different from Oklahoma.

You are correct. That does not mean that I am wrong.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #91 of 266
The reason Obama lost Oklahoma is the complete lack of political interest in Oklahoma, as well as its racist population. Texas is more diverse, if only because it is so goddam huge it has real metropolitan centers.

Clinton won by 24% in Oklahoma. There is no way in hell it's anywhere near a 24% margin in Texas, if Hillary even wins at all.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #92 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

The reason Obama lost Oklahoma is the complete lack of political interest in Oklahoma, as well as its racist population. Texas is more diverse, if only because it is so goddam huge it has real metropolitan centers.

Clinton won by 24% in Oklahoma. There is no way in hell it's anywhere near a 24% margin in Texas, if Hillary even wins at all.

I agree and I would add that in our huge cities about 1/2 of the population is from some other state in the union but transfered here with their job.

Texas is very diverse. I have nothing against OK but OK is a different world.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #93 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

I agree and I would add that in our huge cities about 1/2 of the population is from some other state in the union but transfered here with their job.

Texas is very diverse. I have nothing against OK but OK is a different world.

Fellows

Hrm.

And yeah. OK is a totally different world.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #94 of 266
Thread Starter 
Obama just picked up his 2nd Grammy.

post #95 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Hrm.

And yeah. OK is a totally different world.

What are those links supposed to illustrate?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #96 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

What are those links supposed to illustrate?

Facts that someone might use to have this discussion.

I don't particularly care one way or the other. I hated living in OK for 8 years and have never been all that impressed with Texas.

As for the topic at hand: HRC pulls the hispanic vote in massive numbers (for whatever reason) but I don't think that's why she won OK, nor do I think that's why she'll win TX.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #97 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Facts that someone might use to have this discussion.

I don't particularly care one way or the other. I hated living in OK for 8 years and have never been all that impressed with Texas.

As for the topic at hand: HRC pulls the hispanic vote in massive numbers (for whatever reason) but I don't think that's why she won OK, nor do I think that's why she'll win TX.

Alright enough with the coyness, why do you think she won OK?
post #98 of 266
What facts? You linked to a bunch of numbers. What numbers am I supposed to be interested in? The dramatic disparity in Latinos (35.7% in Texas vs. 6.8% in Oklahoma)? Texas having more blacks (11.6% vs. 7.4%)? Oklahoma have more American Indian (0.5% in Texas vs. 6.8% in Oklahoma)? That 15.9% of Texans are foreign-born versus only 4.9% of Oklahomans?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #99 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

What facts? You linked to a bunch of numbers. What numbers am I supposed to be interested in? The dramatic disparity in Latinos (35.7% in Texas vs. 6.8% in Oklahoma)? Texas having more blacks (11.6% vs. 7.4%)? Oklahoma have more American Indian (0.5% in Texas vs. 6.8% in Oklahoma)? That 15.9% of Texans are foreign-born versus only 4.9% of Oklahomans?

Well there you have it. A few difference between Texas and Oklahoma.
post #100 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

The reason Obama lost Oklahoma is the complete lack of political interest in Oklahoma, as well as its racist population.

So Oklahoma isn't OK after all?

Oklahoma, where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain
And the wavin' wheat can sure smell sweet
When the wind comes right behind the rain.
Oklahoma, Ev'ry night my honey lamb and I
won't vote for a black guy
Makin' lazy circles in the sky!
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #101 of 266
Thread Starter 
post #102 of 266
*toot* *toot* PC POLICE COMING THROUGH! *toot* *toot*
post #103 of 266
post #104 of 266
tonton you know better

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #105 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

tonton you know better

Fellows

Absolutely. No corn in OK. It's all wheat.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #106 of 266
Obama wins in Virginia, DC, and Maryland. Picking up steam!
post #107 of 266
Obama won the hispanic / latino vote in Virginia

55% - 45%

When Obama ran for Senate he ran against a latino developer and won the latino vote.

We will have to see how Texas goes. As I prefer Obama I think it is very encouraging that Obama won the latino vote tonight in Virginia by a 10 point margin.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #108 of 266
Thread Starter 
But can he win OH, TX, and PA?

Hm.
post #109 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

But can he win OH, TX, and PA?

Hm.

How do you feel in PA? I think OH will be split and TX will go slightly for Hillary, like by 2%.
post #110 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

But can he win OH, TX, and PA?

Hm.

Are any of those states winner takes all?

I was listening to some election talking heads on MSNBC and they said the margin of victory Clinton would have to win by in these last several big states is in the area of 60 - 40 against obama for her to be able to have enough delegates. This suggests to me that none of these states is winner takes all. It also means Clinton has to win by quite a margin or it is over for her if these talking head / political "experts" are at all correct in what they were saying last night.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #111 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Are any of those states winner takes all?

I was listening to some election talking heads on MSNBC and they said the margin of victory Clinton would have to win by in these last several big states is in the area of 60 - 40 against obama for her to be able to have enough delegates. This suggests to me that none of these states is winner takes all. It also means Clinton has to win by quite a margin or it is over for her if these talking head / political "experts" are at all correct in what they were saying last night.

Fellows

Don't forget that the superdelegates are not wedded to anyone until they cast a vote. We're not going to know who the the nominee is until the convention.

But I will point out this:

In VA, 485,000 Republicans voted (in total) for one of the umpteen candidates left in the GOP side of the race. Obama, all by himself, got 619,000 votes.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #112 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Don't forget that the superdelegates are not wedded to anyone until they cast a vote. We're not going to know who the the nominee is until the convention.

But I will point out this:

In VA, 485,000 Republicans voted (in total) for one of the umpteen candidates left in the GOP side of the race. Obama, all by himself, got 619,000 votes.

Indeed he did!!!!!! Republicans are far and few in last night's primaries.

LOOK AT HOW FEW VOTES McCain GOT COMPARED TO OBAMA!!!!! http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri....html#20080212

BTW I found in a quick bit of research that the "winner takes all" only applies to republicans and republican delegates in certain states.

Democrats get the ratio of delegates pro rated to the popular vote (as it should be)

This works against Hillary at this point in her race.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #113 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Indeed he did!!!!!! Republicans are far and few in last night's primaries.

LOOK AT HOW FEW VOTES McCain GOT COMPARED TO OBAMA!!!!! http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri....html#20080212

BTW I found in a quick bit of research that the "winner takes all" only applies to republicans and republican delegates in certain states.

Democrats get the ratio of delegates pro rated to the popular vote (as it should be)

This works against Hillary at this point in her race.

Fellows

Yes, it does. But it also works against the party. The GOP does the winner-take-all thing to whittle the field quickly. The Dems go for the "catfight all the way to the finish line" model.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #114 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Yes, it does. But it also works against the party. The GOP does the winner-take-all thing to whittle the field quickly. The Dems go for the "catfight all the way to the finish line" model.

But I wonder which one really is bad for the party.
post #115 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Yes, it does. But it also works against the party. The GOP does the winner-take-all thing to whittle the field quickly. The Dems go for the "catfight all the way to the finish line" model.

The GOP is modeled after the Electoral College or "winner-take-all" as you say. This method tends to (unintentionally) disenfranchise ~50% of the electorate in a close contest.

I prefer the Democrats proportional method, in and of itself, as all votes count, until the nominee is selected at the Democratic Convention.

As to the D's superdelegates, in this particular case, I'd much prefer their votes were based on the primary vote in their respective regions.

Watching the Obama and McCain speeches last evening was like dusk (nee McCain) and dawn (nee Obama). Old man reading from a teleprompter in what appeared to be an awkward low key monotone fashion (always seemed to be looking at the same position off in the distance) versus youmg man giving an outstanding-rousing speech from memory/ad lib.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #116 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The GOP is modeled after the Electoral College or "winner-take-all" as you say. This method tends to (unintentionally) disenfranchise ~50% of the electorate in a close contest.

I prefer the Democrats proportional method, in and of itself, as all votes count, until the nominee is selected at the Democratic Convention.

As to the D's superdelegates, in this particular case, I'd much prefer their votes were based on the primary vote in their respective regions.

I agree 100%
Quote:
Watching the Obama and McCain speeches last evening was like dusk (nee McCain) and dawn (nee Obama). Old man reading from a teleprompter in what appeared to be an awkward low key monotone fashion (always seemed to be looking at the same position off in the distance) versus youmg man giving an outstanding-rousing speech from memory/ad lib.

Indeed and might I add,,, Just how many times can the old man say "my friends" It is well known he has this issue... like Bush and Nuke- U -Ler. It is freaking old already like the man who says it endlessly.

McCain is a one trick pony... War War War. and he is more of the same.

Obama is Change We Can Believe In.

McCain is more of the same old Sh*t we know damn well we can't believe in.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #117 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The GOP is modeled after the Electoral College or "winner-take-all" as you say. This method tends to (unintentionally) disenfranchise ~50% of the electorate in a close contest.

I prefer the Democrats proportional method, in and of itself, as all votes count, until the nominee is selected at the Democratic Convention.

As to the D's superdelegates, in this particular case, I'd much prefer their votes were based on the primary vote in their respective regions.

Watching the Obama and McCain speeches last evening was like dusk (nee McCain) and dawn (nee Obama). Old man reading from a teleprompter in what appeared to be an awkward low key monotone fashion (always seemed to be looking at the same position off in the distance) versus youmg man giving an outstanding-rousing speech from memory/ad lib.

I agree. But Obama is such a hopemonger.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #118 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I agree. But Obama is such a hopemonger.

fishmonger = sells fish
hopemonger = sells hope?

What do you mean by that? Is "hopemonger" a positive or negative term?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #119 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

As to the D's superdelegates, in this particular case, I'd much prefer their votes were based on the primary vote in their respective regions.

I'd much prefer that the networks stop adding the super-delegates to the delegates totals. It skews what is actually happening in the race (Obama has won about 120 more delegates than has Clinton), and the super-delegates can change their allegiance at any time, so just because they are leaning to Clinton right now, that doesn't mean that they will continue to do so.

If Obama wins more pledged delegates, do you really think that the super-delegates will overturn what the American people have chosen? There would be a revolt at the Democratic convention and the party might not recover from the debacle for years: how do you convince the people that their voice matters if it's the party insiders that make the real choice? By reporting the super-delegates, it gives the false impression to the people that the race is closer than it actually is. Clinton is in big trouble.
post #120 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I agree. But Obama is such a hopemonger.

Obama gives good hope.

BTW, your comment reminded me of an old (to me) joke;

Q: What's the difference between a nun taking a bath and a whore taking a bath?
A: The nun is the one with hope in her soul.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider