or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why Can't He Close the Deal?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Can't He Close the Deal? - Page 2

post #41 of 141
I don't blame people for assuming a Democrat is weak-willed and unprincipled. That is exactly how the party acts and has acted for decades. Obama will have a hell of a time proving that he is different and willing to grab the key emotional issues (like a Republican) instead of try desperately to pretend they don't exist (like Gore, Kerry, etc...).
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #42 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I totally disagree.

You can disagree, but you're still wrong.

Quote:

None of this will matter by the time we reach Nov.

Care to wager?

Quote:

Whoever the democratic nomination is the rest of the party will stand with that person.

Not according to the polls. As many as 15% will not, from what I've seen. McCain has independent and centrist appeal--don't forget that.

Quote:

McCain won't win because he favors many of the same policies as Bush ( Iraq even more so " make it a hundred if we have to " ). Pure and simple.

No, that's simply your opinion. I don't deny that a perception that he's close to Bush will not help him. But it will be outweighed by other factors.

Quote:

The people will vote against him just to get out from under this situation. Anything else is just conservative wishful thinking and I really don't buy it.

The country is very tired now with the economy the way it is ( does McCain have a viable solution for this? ) and the war as Bush and CO. have almost run us into the ground.

No doubt the economy should work in the Dems favor. But never underestimate their ability to lose elections.

Quote:

The gas prices will stay high as long as we stay in Iraq. OPEC ( in case you need a reminder of how they operate :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC ) sets the prices and as they said recently they won't up production. They sited American mismanagement but the real reason is that they really don't want us poking around over there. None of the people in control over here are motivated to change anything about it as they are seeing huge profits and won't feel the pinch like the average person will ( this includes our Texas Big Oil president ). Yes I know you'll say something about Tinfoil hat or some such nonsense but there's a very simple truth to this. We're getting shafted both ways big time!

First, it's "cited," not "sited." Secondly, OPEC does not "set the prices." They set the production quotas, which impacts supply. Of course, the problem is not with crude supply. High gas prices are being caused by lack of refining capacity, geopolitical tensions/speculation (like any other commodity), a weak dollar and third...demand.

As for Bush and "big oil," well of course I have to mention something. It's just silly. Bush has nothing to do with it. In fact, your friends in Congress have far more to do with it by their total lack of action.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #43 of 141
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Look at the quality of the presidents from the two parties and you will see that my claim is correct...

I like that reply. It has a high snarkiness content.

Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

As an interested observer from the Great White North, I feel Obama wouldn't make a great president.

Change for the sake of change is the only message he seems to have, listening to some of his supporters.

I believe he doesn't have the balls to stick to whatever his agenda is.
Weak will comes to mind.

Just my impression of listening to him.

Oh you could never get that impression. It doesn't exist. It is just an insanely retarded meme I've made up that doesn't exist anywhere else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

trumptman:

Thank you for finally realizing the stupidity of the question that is the title of this thread. He can't close the deal because no one can close the deal before the convention. He can't "put her away" because she has no reason to go away, even if her chances are gone.

He can close the deal. He could take her odds of getting to number of delegates needed and reduce them to zero just like McCain.

Quote:
Even further, McCain doesn't have a single real vote right now. He's got pledges, which can change if something crazy happens.

Using the exception as a rule is a fallacy. The fact that "something crazy" could happen is true of every person in this race. You can't seem to get over the fact that having enough pledges to lock up the nomination but going through the formality of a convention is not the same is NOT having enough pledges to lock up the convention no matter how many times you toss that "something crazy" out there. Maybe McCain and Hillary will choose to run together, break from both parties and form a third party that becomes unnecessary after Obama declares himself to be from Saturn.

Or maybe "something crazy" shouldn't be used as a rule or as a way to make a point.

Quote:
Not true at all. Obama's odds are great, hers are terrible.

Clinton, now behind by 150 delegates, got a net of 7 to 10 delegates from Pennsylvania. This is from the biggest state since Texas/Ohio in which she is favored.

She lost. That isn't even the question anymore. She lost.

It is not statistically impossible for her to get the nomination. I find it very interesting that every pundit and newspaper is remarking about the impossibilty for both, the reality of a brokered convention and yet you treat anyone mentioning this as being disconnected from reality. I can cite five articles today to make my point but it is just some insanity that I pulled out of the air that no one else thinks except for me... and Maureen Dowd, and AP, and...well most others get the point.

Quote:
The only question remaining is not whether or not Obama will win, but why Obama isn't winning bigger. And it's a good question, because it goes a hell of a long way into getting into real discussions about what is happening in this extended Democratic primary (without leaning on asinine sports/sex analogies).

Can you address how Obama has won without question when the odds of Clinton still being able to get enough delegates is not zero? We aren't talking about impossible. We may be talking about NY Giants versus Patriots, but that isn't impossible. The odds may be a bit long but not impossible. I've read numbers like 80% Obama likelihood to 20% Clinton likelihood. No one says that looks great but it isn't impossible, zero, a foregone conclusion, etc.

Quote:
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. A 50/50 split of all remaining states (with the odd delegates going to Clinton) and superdelegates sends Obama well over the threshold.

Obama isn't guaranteed a 50% split (nor is Clinton) and the uncommitted super-delegates are in no form or fashion required to split along any particular lines with regard to percentages. Possible, even probable doesn't mean the same thing as actually having crossed the threshold.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #44 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Can you address how Obama has won without question when the odds of Clinton still being able to get enough delegates is not zero?

I'm not sure what your point is or why you're contesting this.

So her odds aren't zero. Big whoop.

We've been through this over and over again. First, there's a *chance* that Clinton will come out on top in terms of pledged delegates. But, being that she needs to win something like 70-80% of the vote in *each* remaining contest, Obama would have to suffer a complete meltdown for that to happen. Second, there's a "chance" that Clinton will come out on top at the convention with the help of superdelegates, but that scenario is extremely unlikely, again, barring a complete meltdown on Obama's part.
post #45 of 141
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I'm not sure what your point is or why you're contesting this.

So her odds aren't zero. Big whoop.

We've been through this over and over again. First, there's a *chance* that Clinton will come out on top in terms of pledged delegates. But, being that she needs to win something like 70-80% of the vote in *each* remaining contest, Obama would have to suffer a complete meltdown for that to happen. Second, there's a "chance" that Clinton will come out on top at the convention with the help of superdelegates, but that scenario is extremely unlikely, again, barring a complete meltdown on Obama's part.

The reason why it has been gone over is because Obama has had the multiple opportunities with a win in pretty much any large state to take those odds to zero and has not been able to do it. I don't think anyone here has claimed Clinton is going to get the nomination. Rather it is the fact that super-delegates will have to bring about a result that Obama himself could not achieve.

The odds on catching on delegates are rather slim, but the odds of gaining or keeping a majority of the popular vote for Clinton are not at all slim. Imagine the blood spilled when the party of count every vote has to disenfranchise two states and have the backroom boys (and girls) pick their nominee. It will likely leave some very hard feelings indeed.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #46 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The reason why it has been gone over is because Obama has had the multiple opportunities with a win in pretty much any large state to take those odds to zero and has not been able to do it.

And in your view this is due to a deficiency in Obama's candidacy, rather than to the popularity of Hillary Clinton among Democratic primary voters. Newsflash: Obama can be a popular candidate who represents change and draws all kinds of new people into the political process *and* still have a popular opponent in the primary. There's nothing mutually exclusive about that.
post #47 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You can disagree, but you're still wrong.



Care to wager?



Not according to the polls. As many as 15% will not, from what I've seen. McCain has independent and centrist appeal--don't forget that.



No, that's simply your opinion. I don't deny that a perception that he's close to Bush will not help him. But it will be outweighed by other factors.



No doubt the economy should work in the Dems favor. But never underestimate their ability to lose elections.



First, it's "cited," not "sited." Secondly, OPEC does not "set the prices." They set the production quotas, which impacts supply. Of course, the problem is not with crude supply. High gas prices are being caused by lack of refining capacity, geopolitical tensions/speculation (like any other commodity), a weak dollar and third...demand.

As for Bush and "big oil," well of course I have to mention something. It's just silly. Bush has nothing to do with it. In fact, your friends in Congress have far more to do with it by their total lack of action.


Sigh!

OPEC is where two thirds of the world's oil comes from. When they don't up production ( on purpose ) and demand is up prices will follow. They could increase production they just won't. This is not normal supply and demand. This is supply being shortened on pupose and higher demand. Once again the dead dinosurs are running out. It's just not that time for real yet. The stiuation we have here is political. Look at the link again. Specifically " Oil As a Weapon ".

Sorry about the typo. I'll be sure and " Cite " the next one you make.

That 15 % say that now but when it's crunch time it won't matter.

Bush has nothing to do with it? Ok. But he's not motivated to do anything about it either as I'm sure he's looking at the profits. Remember Bush used to own an oil company ( When he was friends with the Bin Lauden family ). He ran the company into the ground by the way. I'm sure he still has many other friends in the business.

" No doubt the economy should work in the Dems favor. But never underestimate their ability to lose elections. "

It won't help you this time.

And no it's not just my opinion about McCain being in line with Bush's policies. Republicans say that's not true to distance themselves from the Bush baggage.

As a matter of fact SDW it's you who are simply wrong about a great many things.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #48 of 141
trumptman:

Quote:
He can close the deal. He could take her odds of getting to number of delegates needed and reduce them to zero just like McCain.

McCain had the luxury of opponents whose desire for power was not so large as to prevent them from reading the writing on the wall.

Romney was not mathematically eliminated when he dropped out.
Giuliani was not mathematically eliminated when he dropped out.
Not even Thompson was mathematically eliminated when he dropped out.

Romney could still be in the race right now if he wanted, but he realized his chance of winning and stepped down.

It is not Obama's fault that Clinton lives for nothing but the acquirement of personal power.

Quote:
Or maybe "something crazy" shouldn't be used as a rule or as a way to make a point.

If that were the case, you wouldn't have started this thread.

The only way Clinton could win the nomination is if something crazy happened, therefore she is put away in every rational sense.

Quote:
It is not statistically impossible for her to get the nomination.

Of course. Many things are statistically possible that are not worth taking seriously. I could be Jesus, it is statistically possible.

Quote:
Obama isn't guaranteed a 50% split (nor is Clinton) and the uncommitted super-delegates are in no form or fashion required to split along any particular lines with regard to percentages. Possible, even probable doesn't mean the same thing as actually having crossed the threshold.

That wasn't your argument. You said that one needed to take "someone who is already pledged away from the other candidate."

As I said, that argument was bullshit. You are attempting to move the goalposts.

Quote:
The reason why it has been gone over is because Obama has had the multiple opportunities with a win in pretty much any large state to take those odds to zero and has not been able to do it.

What wins and states are you talking about?

Would winning California, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by 15 point margins have reduced Hillary's odds to zero?

Even assuming that your logic is valid (which it isn't)... here's the answer: Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are popular! *mindblown*
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #49 of 141
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

And in your view this is due to a deficiency in Obama's candidacy, rather than to the popularity of Hillary Clinton among Democratic primary voters. Newsflash: Obama can be a popular candidate who represents change and draws all kinds of new people into the political process *and* still have a popular opponent in the primary. There's nothing mutually exclusive about that.

I view it based off the fact that Clinton has insanely high negatives (55%) Obama has been able to out-raise and outspend her and that this isn't an isolated incident but has been repeated several times throughout the primary. You plot several points and you begin to be able to draw some lines or conclusions. I've not argued anything at all with regard to not being popular. I've simply said that regardless of all the positives he possesses, he hasn't won a single large state and thus has not been able to cinch the nomination. There are certain things you have to do as a candidate in terms of winning an election. You may not have to be perfect or do them every time, but to not be able to do them ANY time is troubling.

For example it is clear Obama was less than stellar at the last debate. It shouldn't and doesn't bother you because you have seen him have good debates and know he can and will do better in debates. Take the opposite result now though. Imagine he had a bad debate and throughout all the debates you had never seen him have a good debate. By now, you would find this troubling.

It should be seen as troubling that Obama appears limited in his appeal. It just appears not to scale up PERIOD. It doesn't scale up some of the time versus all of the time. It doesn't scale up most of the time but not as often as some other candidate. It simply doesn't scale up. Obama has won 27 states to Clinton's 17. The states he hasn't been able to bring home just so happen to be the states that Democrats need to win the presidency using the electoral college. The Democrats do not win as many states as Republicans have in the past few elections. They simply bring home the huge coastal blue states. The middle ground states, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, those are the ones that have given them a fighting chance after getting close with California, New York, etc. It is precisely those states that Obama appears limited in. You give up one or two of them and the election is over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

trumptman:
McCain had the luxury of opponents whose desire for power was not so large as to prevent them from reading the writing on the wall.

Well they each had a path to the nomination and when it was clear they weren't going to be going down it, most of them did drop out since it was winner take all and many of them were not winning where they claimed they would get their foothold and begin moving up.

Quote:
Romney was not mathematically eliminated when he dropped out.

In a way he was because it was clear he was having to spend too much per vote to achieve a result and half the time still wasn't usually getting the result. He was basically being beat by Huckabee who was broke. He also lost several big leads early in the primaries and had McCain and Huckabee divide up victories that were supposed to be his. There is only so long fundraising will sustain spending twice as much to get half as many votes.

Quote:
Giuliani was not mathematically eliminated when he dropped out.

Giuliani staked his entire campaign on being able to ignore the small states and bring home the big states. The problem was he didn't bring them home. McCain did.

Quote:
Not even Thompson was mathematically eliminated when he dropped out.

He wasn't eliminated but he, like several others went through several contests and never gained a single delegate. When you go through several contests where you are supposed to be strong and don't win a single one of them, the writing is one the wall.

And this is the point I brought up about Obama, it is one thing to occasionally falter in an area of strength, but when you never perform there, it is a problem. Thompson was supposed to be a person who could bring home the Southern vote yet after several of the primaries, he had not won a single election or delegate. NEVER is a pretty strong indictment.

Quote:
It is not Obama's fault that Clinton lives for nothing but the acquirement of personal power.

It is Obama's fault that he has not denied her a single large state that would stop her from pressing on.

Quote:
If that were the case, you wouldn't have started this thread.

The only way Clinton could win the nomination is if something crazy happened, therefore she is put away in every rational sense.

It isn't crazy at all. 20% isn't crazy. .000002% is crazy.

Quote:
Of course. Many things are statistically possible that are not worth taking seriously. I could be Jesus, it is statistically possible

If you have a 20% chance of being Jesus I would say go for it. 20% is still a serious chance especially with several weeks left for something to happen.

Quote:
That wasn't your argument. You said that one needed to take "someone who is already pledged away from the other candidate."

As I said, that argument was bullshit. You are attempting to move the goalposts.

I think you and I probably see this different because I think Florida and Michigan will factor into the convention with it being so close. I think the party is very concerned about McCain being able to cleave off Hillary voters if she doesn't get the nomination.

Go here and you will see the Obama delegate lead becomes only 9 when those two states are included. You see what the each need, 413 or 422 and see the remaining 803 which will probably be close to evenly split since the Democratic formula requires basically supermajorities to get disproportionate delegates from a contest. You split that 803 evenly and see that they are both short delegates.

So to get there in my view, yes someone must take away from someone else in the end. This type of stuff can easily come up at the convention which is why everyone is praying it doesn't get there. If Obama doesn't get there on a first ballot, basically all bets are off.

You may not think this scenario likely but at least understand that I'm not lying about it.

Quote:
What wins and states are you talking about?

Would winning California, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by 15 point margins have reduced Hillary's odds to zero?

Even assuming that your logic is valid (which it isn't)... here's the answer: Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are popular! *mindblown*

How popular will the party be if it "disenfranchises" all women (especially older white women) when Hillary could win IF they sat the delegates from Florida and Michigan? How popular will the party be if Obama could have won if they didn't change the rules about seating those delegates?

Both are spin for a brokered convention, but people will buy what they want to buy and vote accordingly afterwards. Each candidate is profoundly popular within their various demographic groups, but appear not to have enough reach outside of that which is what this thread is basically about.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #50 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I view it based off the fact that Clinton has insanely high negatives (55%)

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I've not argued anything at all with regard to not being popular.

Falsehood #1.

Aside from how the idea is not to contradict yourself in the same post, her "insanely high negatives" among all voters have nothing to do with a Democratic primary race. She's extremely popular among Democrats, and that's why she's getting votes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I've simply said that regardless of all the positives he possesses, he hasn't won a single large state and thus has not been able to cinch the nomination.

Falsehood #2.

Obama won Illinois, the 5th most populous state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The states he hasn't been able to bring home just so happen to be the states that Democrats need to win the presidency using the electoral college. The Democrats do not win as many states as Republicans have in the past few elections. They simply bring home the huge coastal blue states. The middle ground states, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, those are the ones that have given them a fighting chance after getting close with California, New York, etc. It is precisely those states that Obama appears limited in. You give up one or two of them and the election is over.

Falsehood #3.

Obama and Clinton put different states into play in a prospective general election matchup with McCain.

You should honestly read TPM and Matt Yglesias.
post #51 of 141
Just out of curiosity, what does a Democratic candidate's capacity to win a state in a primary, against another Democratic candidate, have to do with their ability to carry states in a general election, against a Republican opponent?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #52 of 141
That's exactly right Addabox.

My question is... why does anyone reply to posts created by Trumptman, SDW and the like? They are not looking for honest answers. They are posting loaded questions.... like their only goal is to ruffle feathers, nothing more. It's a waste of time and energy to respond. Has either of them ever conceded a point? There is no real discussion where they're involved.

My other question...... do either of them even own a Mac? \
post #53 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Unfortunately, you haven't read his policy proposals, which of course isn't surprising given that all the media seems to care about is sucking off mccain (who grows more senile by the minute) and enticing the democrats into a cat fight... but whatever, when whomever mccain gets as a vp takes over when the old man keels over and launches nukes against the Sunnis in Iran for supporting Al Queda, we'll all be laughing our asses off...

My impression of him has nothing to do with his policies, but can he get them realized.
I just don't think he's strong, or tough enough.

As for the rant against McCain, I can't see what you're seeing in regards to the media.
I'm no fan of his policy wise as I lean more to the left.
post #54 of 141
Well one thing that's funny about all of this on a side note. Oregon's primary usually doesn't count for much. By this time things are pretty well lined up. Finally we can stand for something!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #55 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

the key emotional issues (like a Republican)

What would you consider emotional issues?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #56 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Just out of curiosity, what does a Democratic candidate's capacity to win a state in a primary, against another Democratic candidate, have to do with their ability to carry states in a general election, against a Republican opponent?

It's a question of support, and the energy, or lack thereof, for the nominee.

One might think that the voters are picking the strongest candidate for their party... and turnout is the key to winning elections. The real question is wether the 20% or so on each side will or will not carry through on their threat to stay home or go McCain if their candidate does not win the Dem primary.

The inability to win a state convincingly means that there will still be work after the primary within the party, "healing" and such. Trust me, after watching what happened at my local Dem caucus in March, there is a huge problem that is not currently getting much better. It's getting worse. It's interesting to see a party hung up on race being divided along racial lines. Beyond just the HRC/hispanic bloc, there is the black vote, and the dixiecrat vote. One hell of a tap dance is going to be necessary.

It's a problem when you have to be concerned about still winning over your own party members, when you should be focusing on swing and independents in the general. It means fighting a two-front campaign where there should only be one.

Will blacks stay home if it is not Obama, after all this?
Will the bitter, feminists, and lower class whites stay home if it is not Hillary?

I think it is time for us to post a poll on PO... "Who are the superdelegates going to hand this to."
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #57 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

It's a question of support, and the energy, or lack thereof, for the nominee.

One might think that the voters are picking the strongest candidate for their party... and turnout is the key to winning elections. The real question is wether the 20% or so on each side will or will not carry through on their threat to stay home or go McCain if their candidate does not win the Dem primary.

The inability to win a state convincingly means that there will still be work after the primary within the party, "healing" and such. Trust me, after watching what happened at my local Dem caucus in March, there is a huge problem that is not currently getting much better. It's getting worse. It's interesting to see a party hung up on race being divided along racial lines. Beyond just the HRC/hispanic bloc, there is the black vote, and the dixiecrat vote. One hell of a tap dance is going to be necessary.

It's a problem when you have to be concerned about still winning over your own party members, when you should be focusing on swing and independents in the general. It means fighting a two-front campaign where there should only be one.

Will blacks stay home if it is not Obama, after all this?
Will the bitter, feminists, and lower class whites stay home if it is not Hillary?

I think it is time for us to post a poll on PO... "Who are the superdelegates going to hand this to."

OK, but if that's true it's true for both candidates. It's not an argument for Hillary being the stronger national candidate.

And, I don't buy it for a second. What a Hillary or Obama supporter is saying now about refusing to support the other candidate will be ancient history by the time the general rolls around.

The idea that there are substantial numbers of "bitter feminists" that would usher in a McCain presidency, just for spite, strikes me as primarily an artifact of your ill informed opinions about "feminists" capacity for "bitterness"-- and you might want to steer clear of ascribing "bitterness" as an attribute of anyone, elitist scum.

Anyway, the concern trolls have gotten a little thick on the ground, hereabouts. I think we can trust that the Dems will get their candidate, that there will be a certain percentage of the population that will find it difficult to vote for a black guy, and that when it's all said and done McCain is going to be running on a platform of extending Bush's war and economic policies.

Meanwhile, the extended campaign is getting many, many new Dem voters registered and energized and strengthening party infrastructure across the contested states.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #58 of 141
Why Can't McCain Close the Deal-e-o?

(1) He has no opponent yet. He's running basically unopposed at this point. (2) He's 70+ years old. He should be able to garner Grandpa-like sympathy and wow us with Socrates-like wisdom. Where's the beef? (3) He's been in the Senate forever. Because of the foregoing, McCain should be up by 30-40 pts.

Because he's not, I consider this a deficiency in his campaign.
post #59 of 141
Emotional issues are the ones that foster great emotion.

Abortion is the #1 example.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #60 of 141
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Falsehood #1.

Aside from how the idea is not to contradict yourself in the same post, her "insanely high negatives" among all voters have nothing to do with a Democratic primary race. She's extremely popular among Democrats, and that's why she's getting votes.

I would argue if she actually were as popular as you claim then it wouldn't have been so easy to make her lead collapse so quickly in the polls. It evaporated so quickly because Obama simply represented a more palitable choice. Clinton with debate and various gaffes manages to make the issue about Obama because the second it is about her, she loses. Clinton claims the policy wonk role but has high negatives. Obama claims the change agent role is mostly an empty suit. This is why neither have closed the deal.

So I haven't contradicted myself. The race dynamics move between popularity and experience/policy. Clinton cannot control the ebb and flow of that but it explains quite a bit about the back and forth between the two.

Quote:
Falsehood #2.

Obama won Illinois, the 5th most populous state.

It would be pretty much impossible for him to lose his home state. Name another top 10 state he has one. You can't.

Quote:
Falsehood #3.

Obama and Clinton put different states into play in a prospective general election matchup with McCain.

You should honestly read TPM and Matt Yglesias.

I prefer reading sources that are not filtering the news for me thank you. Polls in Florida and Ohio swing 10-12% in favor of McCain depending upon whether it is Obama or Clinton. There are several more states that are this way as well. Obama loses big ground in many of the battleground and midsize states.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Just out of curiosity, what does a Democratic candidate's capacity to win a state in a primary, against another Democratic candidate, have to do with their ability to carry states in a general election, against a Republican opponent?

If they can't capture their own base over another candidate, it is unlikely they can win the state and thus the election. Obama for example does very poorly in Florida and Ohio against McCain compared to Clinton. We aren't talking a margin of error type of difference, we are talking 10-12 point difference that essentually hands the state over to McCain. You get of these, the election is lost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akumulator View Post

That's exactly right Addabox.

My question is... why does anyone reply to posts created by Trumptman, SDW and the like? They are not looking for honest answers. They are posting loaded questions.... like their only goal is to ruffle feathers, nothing more. It's a waste of time and energy to respond. Has either of them ever conceded a point? There is no real discussion where they're involved.

My other question...... do either of them even own a Mac? \

I own three Macs. MacBookPro, and two G4 towers.

If you don't want to reply, then don't. A search around here will note I've said that to others several times.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #61 of 141
Wrong, wrong, wrong. And intellectually dishonest to boot.

Dean supporters in 2004 vowed that they would NEVER support John Kerry if he were the nominee. They were passionate and fully supported Dean even after that infamous Dean-scream.

Guess what?

They ALL voted for Kerry. The alternative was simply unacceptable.

And it still is.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #62 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It would be pretty much impossible for him to lose his home state. Name another top 10 state he has one. You can't.

Yes, you're right about that fact.

Obama hasn't won a single large state except for his home state of Illinois.

That aside, one of the hallmarks I think of productive discussion is a give and take.

If you say "Obama hasn't won a single large state" and then are provided with evidence that Obama has in fact won a large state, most people would acknowledge that mistake before launching into an argument. "Ah. I stand corrected. But my point still stands. Except for his home state, Obama has trouble winning large states against Clinton." It's just the good-faith thing to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I would argue if she actually were as popular as you claim then it wouldn't have been so easy to make her lead collapse so quickly in the polls. It evaporated so quickly because Obama simply represented a more palitable choice. Clinton with debate and various gaffes manages to make the issue about Obama because the second it is about her, she loses. Clinton claims the policy wonk role but has high negatives. Obama claims the change agent role is mostly an empty suit. This is why neither have closed the deal..

I have no idea what this means.

If you want to argue that Clinton isn't a popular politician in Democratic circles, then I'm going to have to scratch my head.
post #63 of 141
Relying on national polls in April to predict voting habits in November is stupid, to put it mildly. Voters are not like that. Allegiances are not like that. People are generally loyal to parties, not people. Those who are not loyal to parties are independents.

All this rage Hillary voters feel over Obama won't last long after she drops out and starts telling them to get behind Obama. They'll kiss and make up and the vast majority of Americans will forget they were ever fighting. Not only that, but she will get out on the stump for Obama and start gleefully attacking John McCain, comparing him to George Bush and attempting to gather some of the reflected glory for herself as someone who battle-tested Obama and helped get him elected. There's no reason for her to do anything else; it is in her interest as a power-seeker.

We won't know until those first McCain/Obama debates how this will shape up. They haven't gone toe-to-toe yet and that is what the independents will make their decision based on.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #64 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

OK, but if that's true it's true for both candidates. It's not an argument for Hillary being the stronger national candidate.
And, I don't buy it for a second. What a Hillary or Obama supporter is saying now about refusing to support the other candidate will be ancient history by the time the general rolls around.

So you think that blacks will come out for Hillary, when the first viable black presidential candidate has just been defeated by Hillary? I guess there is a case to be made for that. I think some are going to stay home. And you think that hispanics are going to vote for Obama, after this turmoil AND a republican in the race that supports amnesty? Interesting.

Quote:
The idea that there are substantial numbers of "bitter feminists" that would usher in a McCain presidency, just for spite, strikes me as primarily an artifact of your ill informed opinions about "feminists" capacity for "bitterness"-- and you might want to steer clear of ascribing "bitterness" as an attribute of anyone, elitist scum.

Go back and re-read... the bitter AND feminists. Not bitter feminists... except Geraldine Ferraro. "Ill informed opinions"? I did not make a statement concerning feminists and their bitterness, or any other trait about them. Come on adda... I'm throwing out questions for honest debate here... just asking about what extent who is going to support who. And as far as ascribing bitterness, that is a Democrat trait apparently, and calling me "elitist scum" is far below your usual high standard of debate. When I refer to the "bitter" as a group (as I did here) I was obviously referring to those who may have been offended by Obama's remarks.

Quote:
Meanwhile, the extended campaign is getting many, many new Dem voters registered and energized and strengthening party infrastructure across the contested states.

Nevermind 13.5 million people who are being urged to cross party lines and vote for HRC. Meh. And as far as party structure being strengthened... that is not at all what I saw at the Dem caucus here in Texas. There were cops between the factions in the lecture hall.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #65 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Because he's not, I consider this a deficiency in his campaign.

It's hard to get up by very many points with the endless tantric Obamagasms that are only now starting to subside... It's all but impossible to discuss the mechanics of Obama's solutions when someone is in the middle of enjoying the "Big O." I've tried on numerous occasions... and it usually descends into "McCain is old. Obama is young, and articulate, and he has hope, and he loves people" being the so-called substance of the argument.

I just can't wait for Obama to show me something CONCRETE I can believe in. Still waiting...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #66 of 141
I'm a little curious about how, precisely, Obama hasn't "closed the deal." Looks to me like in Act V of the Presidential nomination, the part of Huckabee will be played by HRC.
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 #67 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

So you think that blacks will come out for Hillary, when the first viable black presidential candidate has just been defeated by Hillary? I guess there is a case to be made for that. I think some are going to stay home. And you think that hispanics are going to vote for Obama, after this turmoil AND a republican in the race that supports amnesty? Interesting.



Go back and re-read... the bitter AND feminists. Not bitter feminists... except Geraldine Ferraro. "Ill informed opinions"? I did not make a statement concerning feminists and their bitterness, or any other trait about them. Come on adda... I'm throwing out questions for honest debate here... just asking about what extent who is going to support who. And as far as ascribing bitterness, that is a Democrat trait apparently, and calling me "elitist scum" is far below your usual high standard of debate. When I refer to the "bitter" as a group (as I did here) I was obviously referring to those who may have been offended by Obama's remarks.



Nevermind 13.5 million people who are being urged to cross party lines and vote for HRC. Meh. And as far as party structure being strengthened... that is not at all what I saw at the Dem caucus here in Texas. There were cops between the factions in the lecture hall.

First of all, Obama is the nominee. Any talk of some kind of Hillary coup, at this point, is just the natterings of her campaign press, a national media that knows a horse race, no matter how contrived, pushes ratings, and the RNC.

So we can set aside any notions of African Americans sitting out the national election. And, again, there is virtually no chance that any sizable number of Hillary supporters are going to sit it out for spite, either. They know what's at stake.

It's a fact that the primary is swelling registration numbers and putting ground troops into place. The fact that you saw a fractious caucus in your neck of the woods doesn't gainsay that, as the Dems are a fractious peoples by nature and come November have their best motivation in a generation to close ranks.

The Hispanic vote is certainly in play, but a prolonged primary doesn't have much bearing on that, I don't think, and I can't imagine that there would be a sizable contingent that would have voted for Hillary that will now vote for McCain. Hispanics aren't one dimensional voters that can be herded entirely on immigration.

Elitist scum was a joke, you humorless dog.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #68 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I'm a little curious about how, precisely, Obama hasn't "closed the deal." Looks to me like in Act V of the Presidential nomination, the part of Huckabee will be played by HRC.

Yea... I've kinda wondered that myself... where is the finish line for this thing... when HRC finally concedes? I'm not holding my breath for that one. At least not any time soon. I see this going until the convention or *maybe* until enough Supers answer Howard Dean's prayer and end it.

"Closing the deal" means defeating a Clinton... which is hard within the Democratic party. It is impossible for either of them to "close the deal" because the party elite are going to make the final decision. That's the only "close" there is going to be to the "deal." Short of either one of them (Clinton) dropping out.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #69 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Elitist scum was a joke, you humorless dog.

oh, so now I'm a dog, too?... a yippy little Fancy Feast, no, human-food-eating, little purebred with a Starbucks dog bowl. Well I never...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #70 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Yea... I've kinda wondered that myself... where is the finish line for this thing... when HRC finally concedes? I'm not holding my breath for that one. At least not any time soon. I see this going until the convention or *maybe* until enough Supers answer Howard Dean's prayer and end it.

"Closing the deal" means defeating a Clinton... which is hard within the Democratic party. It is impossible for either of them to "close the deal" because the party elite are going to make the final decision. That's the only "close" there is going to be to the "deal." Short of either one of them (Clinton) dropping out.

She's going to push this to the convention. She has said as much. They're obviously hoping for a brokered convention, but that's likely not goign to happen, considering Obama's commanding lead in all metrics.
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 #71 of 141
If Hillary is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why?

Because IF Obama wasn't black, and IF millions of people weren't supporting him, and IF he didn't raise all that money, and IF his campaign hadn't been run better than hers, and IF Red states hadn't had the gall to vote, and IF those damn activists didn't disagree with her on war in Iraq and nuking Iran, and IF MoveOn wasn't so effective, and IF latte sippers didn't vote, and IF we had the same system as Republicans, and IF the news networks weren't more like Fox News, and IF small states that don't matter didn't count, and IF Keith Olbermann didn't have it out for her, and IF Pennsylvania was the only state that mattered -- then Clinton would be the nominee.

This a quote from a site I'd rather not name so the point is not lost into a meta-argument about bias.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #72 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Yea... I've kinda wondered that myself... where is the finish line for this thing... when HRC finally concedes? I'm not holding my breath for that one. At least not any time soon. I see this going until the convention or *maybe* until enough Supers answer Howard Dean's prayer and end it.

"Closing the deal" means defeating a Clinton... which is hard within the Democratic party. It is impossible for either of them to "close the deal" because the party elite are going to make the final decision. That's the only "close" there is going to be to the "deal." Short of either one of them (Clinton) dropping out.

Wow, we finally agree completely on something.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #73 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Wow, we finally agree completely on something.

<clutches chest>
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #74 of 141
Gentlemen! You can't get along in here! This is Political Outsider!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #75 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

<clutches chest>

His or yours?

post #76 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Gentlemen! You can't get along in here! This is Political Outsider!

Sorry... California SUCKS!

(There, that'll set things straight )
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #77 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

His or yours?


Hmmmmm.. that's a toss up...

Naahhh, I wouldn't want to wrinkle his shirt. Dry cleaning is expensive, gives the wealthy an advantage in business, and harms the environment. Sure to be banned in California very soon.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #78 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Wrong, wrong, wrong. And intellectually dishonest to boot.

Dean supporters in 2004 vowed that they would NEVER support John Kerry if he were the nominee. They were passionate and fully supported Dean even after that infamous Dean-scream.

Guess what?

They ALL voted for Kerry. The alternative was simply unacceptable.

And it still is.

Yup! That's what will happen this time. Sure they have a lot of rabid support for their favorite now but when comes down to it and there's only one to stand behind they're not just going to not vote. And they're not going to vote republican. That's just a conservative's wet dream at best. If it's a choice ( after what we've had for 8 years ) they're going to support their platform. Even if that means supporting the other candidate that they once slung mud at.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #79 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Gentlemen! You can't get along in here! This is Political Outsider!

Oh! Really? I thought it was the " War Room "!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #80 of 141
Anyone want to join me in this... really great video session?

Johnmccain71 in your Skypes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why Can't He Close the Deal?