|
|
Post by gogonutz on Mar 12, 2008 12:02:42 GMT -5
^^I'm not so sure Obama will go on a winning streak after PA. Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia & Kentucky are states that can go either way, and I dare to say that in NC & WV Clinton might even have a little edge, especially if she plays out her win in PA well. If FL & MI will count, Clinton will win FL and MI could go either way again.
But in general you're right, Clinton needs to win by margins that we haven't really seen this race, otherwise there's no way she'll catch up in either pledged delegates or popular vote. And it seems Obama is slowly gaining on her in superdelegates, so he really is still going strong.
Personally, about the FL/MI issue, I don't see why they should redo them. It's crazy expensive, no one wants to pay for it, and in the end it's not gonna make a big difference. It might help Clinton to close in SLIGHTLY but no more than that
|
|
|
|
Post by lhrulz2007 on Mar 12, 2008 20:37:54 GMT -5
Clinton will win PA, but I don't think she'll be able to pull off the margin that the polls have her winning it now. Every time Obama is able go to place and spend time there he's able to close the gap between him and Clinton. She may be able to net up to 15 delegates there. She needs the victory there to have a case at the convention.
After PA, I see Clinton winning in Kentucky ,West Virginia, Indiana, and Puerto Rico by a decent margin but not enough for any significant change in the delegate race. Obama should win big in Oregon, North Dakota and Mountana and might be able to win the delegates there 2 to 1. North Carolina should be a strong Obama state he could win the popular vote 60-40, but I think Clinton will go in strong there and should be able to knock down his margin. I think Guam will probably split 2-2. Just doing a rough estimate I think Obama's pledged delegate lead will go from 163 now to 174 at the end of this(not including redos in Florida and Michigan.) The projection I have at the end of this in pledged delegates is 1702-1528 Obama. Factoring in known super-delegates It's Obama 1913-1775.
Clinton's wants the redo in Michigan and Florida for Super Delegates not really for pledged delegates. The pledged delegates would likely be a wash, but she'd net about 25 Super Delegates from those states. I really think a redo is unlikely in those states because I don't see a compromise between the campaigns on how to do it. In Florida a caucus would be rejected by Clinton and a mail-in Primary would likely be rejected by Obama. Michigan's politics are just complex and I doubt something could get done there. I personally think the DNC should just pay for the do overs in both states to avoid one bit of the controversy that'll surround the convention.
|
|
|
|
Post by savemeimdtba on Mar 12, 2008 21:38:10 GMT -5
Can someone explain to me in simple terms what happened in FL and MI? I don't quite understand..
|
|
|
|
Post by gogonutz on Mar 12, 2008 23:01:18 GMT -5
the gouvernors moved up the primary dates so they were held earlier than the DNC said they were supposed to be. And they were not aloud to do that without permission from DNC. But they still did, even though they knew it would have consequences. They figured the DNC couldn't really sanction 2 big and important states. But now that it happened (while they were the ones screwing up themselves) they feel like they're being left out.
And now a lot of sides (democratic, republican, gouvernor('s office), party officials, campaign people, etc.) are discussing and some even demanding do-overs in both states, though there's a bit more noise about it in FL.
In Florida there's a whole boat of legal matters that will probably prevent anything from really happening (a mail in is illegal, unless they let an outside company do it, but they can't sell the lists with registered voters to an outsider, so that wouldn't work either). So the only three legal options are:
- a new primary (would cost way too much, and no one wants to pay / also, a lot of places already removed the voting computers so that causes complications too)
- let it go to the convention and let the super delegates decide whatever will happen (doesn't solve the issue, but if there's no solution in time, this is what will happen, most likely)
- a caucus (doubtful that Clinton would agree to that)
(there is a 4th option to count the original results, but that would be unfair to Obama since he wasn't even on the ballot in MI and he did nothing in FL, as was agreed on).
For MI, there are a bunch of other problems too, but like Mike said, it doesn't seem like they are getting things straight there in time anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by savemeimdtba on Mar 13, 2008 11:42:41 GMT -5
Geez, FL always screws up, huh? We should banish them for a whole election and maybe they'll learn their lesson  What happened seems fair to me.. I mean, both states knew the rules and they broke them. It can't just be consequence free... |
|
|
|
Post by lhrulz2007 on Mar 13, 2008 17:27:48 GMT -5
I think they got what they deserved. The DNC said only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are allowed before Feb. 5 and Michigan and Florida jumped up and lost all their delegates. I just think it's funny that if they'd just stayed put they would've been 2 of the most important states the way things turned out.
|
|
|
|
Post by gurlnlifemagazine on Mar 13, 2008 19:30:21 GMT -5
I don't think they should have a redo. Rules are rules and they shouldn't have broken them. Yeah, the voters get stiffed, but they only have themselves to blame because they are the ones who put those policatican's in office.
Obama has been winning in states that are mostly white and the black vote. Clinton is really only getting the Latino vote so how is she gonna justify that she's a stronger candidate when she's not willing among whites and blacks? If Obama can kick her ass in an election with 95% of the state being white (big wins mind you) then how is she a better choice.
Clinton's supporters are ruining her chances because they keep playing the sex and race card. They talk more about how she's a woman running for office than the fact that Barack is a black man running for office. I'm so sick of them trying to play the viticim when they know that's not the case. Her camp and supporters are just pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Post by lhrulz2007 on Mar 13, 2008 20:51:31 GMT -5
The reason I think there should be redos funded by the DNC is that will prevent one of what will be many points of controversy sorrounding the convention. This convention could get ugly on the floor and I see no reason to add fuel to the fire.
I think Clinton will have a case to make at the convention. I don't particularly agree with the I won all the big states that Obama isn't the Senator from case, but it is a case the super delegates might take seriously. Also the way she keeps attacking Obama and him not fighting back may make it so she's closer to McCain in the polls than Obama will be. If she's able to make that happen she'll have a very strong case at the convention that she'd be better able to beat McCain.
|
|
|
|
Post by adhara on Mar 13, 2008 21:49:36 GMT -5
The reason why I don't think there should be a redo in Florida and Michigan is because I just don't trust what could happen in a redo. Are some people (not necessarily connected to either party) going to try to pull off something shady? If so, we can be stuck with conspiracy theories, recounts lasting till November, and who knows what that will detract from the general election against McCain. Plus, if there's a redo, things are going to get nastier between Clinton and Obama (especially because this will truly be Clinton's last chance) and I don't think anyone in the Democratic party wants to see punches thrown...
|
|
|
|
Post by gurlnlifemagazine on Mar 16, 2008 23:18:43 GMT -5
The reason I think there should be redos funded by the DNC is that will prevent one of what will be many points of controversy sorrounding the convention. This convention could get ugly on the floor and I see no reason to add fuel to the fire. I think Clinton will have a case to make at the convention. I don't particularly agree with the I won all the big states that Obama isn't the Senator from case, but it is a case the super delegates might take seriously. Also the way she keeps attacking Obama and him not fighting back may make it so she's closer to McCain in the polls than Obama will be. If she's able to make that happen she'll have a very strong case at the convention that she'd be better able to beat McCain. The fact that he's not attacking makes him a better candidate because that means he's sticking to his word about changing polictics. Obama is the face of new polictics and if he falls under the pressure of the media to sling mud back at Hillary then he's not standing up for what he says. I hate the media for tryign to bring him donw to her level. They talk about him because he won't fight, but the minute he does they'll be talking about how he's gone back on his word   . I won't let the media confuse me about with this. If he sticks to his issues and his message then he'll get through. |
|
|
|
Post by savemeimdtba on Mar 17, 2008 9:55:55 GMT -5
Agreed 100%, Lisa. Why should he have to have a negative campaign in order to win or get to people? That's a ridiculous notion... why would we want him to be just like every other lying, cheating politician?
|
|
|
|
Post by lhrulz2007 on Mar 17, 2008 17:40:50 GMT -5
If he doesn't learn to fight back he'll get killed in the general. The Republicans will make the swiftboating in 2004 look like nothing if he's the nominee. Kerry tried the same thing Obama is doing. He didn't allow for negative speeches at the convention and never really fought back against the swiftboat ads. I don't think the Super Delegates will go with him if doesn't prove he can counter an attack.
|
|
|
|
Post by gogonutz on Mar 17, 2008 18:00:26 GMT -5
Yeah, and I think there is a way to fight back respectfully, and still show you can be agressive, both in a defensive strategy and offensive strategy.
PS. Floriday seems to be backing down on the re-do primaries
|
|
|
|
Post by disarray on Mar 18, 2008 11:07:59 GMT -5
I think the Reverand Wright has destroyed Obama's chances to win the nomination. He can say he disagrees with his inflammatory statements all he wants, but no way do you sit in a church for 20 years and be as close to someone as he says he is to Wright and NOT KNOW how he feels about his country or how he feels about whites.
I had high hopes for Obama, but now I see him as nothing more than a carefully crafted image with absolutely no substance at all.
I'm officially without a candidate in this race.
|
|
|
|
Post by ledvedderman on Mar 18, 2008 11:33:10 GMT -5
I think the Reverand Wright has destroyed Obama's chances to win the nomination. He can say he disagrees with his inflammatory statements all he wants, but no way do you sit in a church for 20 years and be as close to someone as he says he is to Wright and NOT KNOW how he feels about his country or how he feels about whites. I had high hopes for Obama, but now I see him as nothing more than a carefully crafted image with absolutely no substance at all. I'm officially without a candidate in this race. I've been a Lutheran for 25 years (my whole life), and whenever my pastor goes off on gay marriage, abortion, or anything else that he sees fit I just tune it out. Why can't Senator Obama do the same thing? I understand his devotion to the church where he married his wife and where his children were baptized. I don't know how something like this can change someone to say that he is now nothing more than a "carefully crafted image with absolutely no substance at all". |
|
What happened seems fair to me.. I mean, both states knew the rules and they broke them. It can't just be consequence free... 
. I won't let the media confuse me about with this. If he sticks to his issues and his message then he'll get through. 
. I'd also like to know if anybody has an HD copy of Lifehouse at Pinkpop 2003. BY far their best concert ever