• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)

Status
Not open for further replies.

CoolTrick

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Penn. is going to be another Ohio, ie a bunch of polls showing Obama somehow being competitive in a state where all the demographics go against him, then voting day arrives. I see this as a 10% Clinton victory at the least. But really, it doesn't matter unless Hillary wins by 30-40 points which isn't going to happen.

These guys don't understand why the polls were actually accurate in a number of ways:

They all pretty much got Obama's % right. Which as of now spells badly for him in PA.

My vote matters as much as anyones... except when it goes against the will of Queen Hillary.

I thought this was the Obama campaign mantra, considering they blocked revotes in Michigan and Florida? Or for calls to end the campaign before every state votes?

I think their votes matter just as much as yours.
 
I hated Lanny Davis more when I saw that he did an Op-Ed in the WSJ on Wright today.

I hate him more after I see his stupid face on the screen with Glenn Beck's stupid fat face when flipping channels.

Sam Seder probably avoided the topic on air or he would probably lose it and cuss.
 
CoolTrick said:
These guys don't understand why the polls were actually accurate in a number of ways:

They all pretty much got Obama's % right. Which as of now spells badly for him in PA.



I thought this was the Obama campaign mantra, considering they blocked revotes in Michigan and Florida? Or for calls to end the campaign before every state votes?

I think their votes matter just as much as yours.
Obviously not, otherwise it wouldn't be a matter of certain states being more important then others.

But then again we've had the Hillary campaign relegating certain Obama victories as "Blacks coming out to support their own."

The point that Hillary herself has stated is delegates decide the victor. She felt that way until she lost the delegate advantage. After that not every vote counts, logistics matter, race matters.

Hillary is all for democracy until it takes victory away from her.
 

KRS7

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Penn. is going to be another Ohio, ie a bunch of polls showing Obama somehow being competitive in a state where all the demographics go against him, then voting day arrives. I see this as a 10% Clinton victory at the least. But really, it doesn't matter unless Hillary wins by 30-40 points which isn't going to happen.

Remember one key difference in this comparison. Ohio was early voting even before the Wisconsin primary. I think Hillary won a lot of those early votes. He still would of lost Ohio even if all the votes were on March 4th, but probably not as bad. In Pennsylvania, if Obama is ahead by 1% on election day among voters (not polls,) then he will win the state.
 

Cheebs

Member
KRS7 said:
Remember one key difference in this comparison. Ohio was early voting even before the Wisconsin primary. I think Hillary won a lot of those early votes. He still would of lost Ohio even if all the votes were on March 4th, but probably not as bad. In Pennsylvania, if Obama is ahead by 1% on election day among voters (not polls,) then he will win the state.
1%? No he wont. The genius Chuck Todd said add 4% to all Clinton poll leads due to the Ed Rendell political machine.
 

KRS7

Member
Cheebs said:
1%? No he wont. The genius Chuck Todd said add 4% to all Clinton poll leads due to the Ed Rendell political machine.

I said among voters, not the polls Chuck Todd was referring too. If he won by 1% of those who voted in the election, then he will win the election.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
CoolTrick said:
Neither are you. Clinton has barely been getting any Superdelegates but Obama hasn't been ratching them up at quite the pace that you're implying.
sg34go.gif


CoolTrick said:
I thought this was the Obama campaign mantra, considering they blocked revotes in Michigan and Florida? Or for calls to end the campaign before every state votes?

I think their votes matter just as much as yours.

No they didn't

CoolTrick said:
No, what YOU'RE describing is not how the game is played. If Obama's pledged delegate lead comes from areas the Democrats won't win in November, and Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote, and all the major states, if Superdelegates do decide to weigh that into consideration and by some stretch hand her the nomination, THAT is how the game is played.

Not really. The same argument could be made that Hillary is getting votes from places that will vote Democratic no matter what. Also, the superdelegates have shown hesistance to vote by your method. If anything, most of the party leadership wants to stop exactly what you suggest.

Of course it is a moot point as Hillary hasn't been grabbing the supes she needs to make that claim anyway
 

CoolTrick

Banned
Ohio was early voting even before the Wisconsin primary.

Ohio's early voting /=/ California's early voting.

I believe you need to do it in person -- and perhaps have had a reason to do so, also. But, regardless, Ohio wouldn't have even been competitive had it been as easy to early vote as it was in California and Texas.
 

CoolTrick

Banned
grandjedi6 said:
sg34go.gif




No they didn't



Not really. The same argument could be made that Hillary is getting votes from places that will vote Democratic no matter what. Also, the superdelegates have shown hesistance to vote by your method. If anything, most of the party leadership wants to stop exactly what you suggest.

Of course it is a moot point as Hillary hasn't been grabbing the supes she needs to make that claim anyway

1) Re: Mich & Florida, they did, and Obama fans even condeded this.

2) Even though it makes more sense to look at who the Democratic base likes more, the fact is that when you add in swing states, Clinton still does better.
 

KRS7

Member
CoolTrick said:
Ohio's early voting /=/ California's early voting.

I believe you need to do it in person -- and perhaps have had a reason to do so, also. But, regardless, Ohio wouldn't have even been competitive had it been as easy to early vote as it was in California and Texas.

You are mistaken. Appearing in person was only one option, but by mail was the other. And there was no need to give a reason.

In person - Any registered voter may vote early in person by going to his local county Board of Elections office after absentee ballots are available, usually 35 days before Election Day, and request, receive, and vote his absentee ballot at the office. The last day for in person absentee voting is the day before the election. For a directory of Boards of Elections, please see www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/OhioElections.aspx?Section=boeDir

By mail - Any registered voter may vote early by mail. The voter must make a written request for an absentee ballot to his local Board of Elections. An application for absentee ballot is available at www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/electionsVoter/forms/11a.pdf in PDF format. Addresses and phone numbers for Boards of Elections are available at www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/OhioElections.aspx?Section=boeDir. The application for absentee ballot must be received by the Board of Elections by noon on the Saturday before the election.
 

CoolTrick

Banned
You are mistaken. Appearing in person was only one option, but by mail was the other. And there was no need to give a reason.

Oh.

Oh well, but honestly, Clinton won late deciders in Ohio by a really substantial margin. She would've had it regardless.


Just curious, who WAS the eventual winner in the Texas early voting? By what %? I remember two polls showing it basically even and one showing Obama a few points ahead. But that was before the primary results.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
CoolTrick said:
1) Re: Mich & Florida, they did, and Obama fans even condeded this.

2) Even though it makes more sense to look at who the Democratic base likes more, the fact is that when you add in swing states, Clinton still does better.

1.) Obama certainly didn't help the situation but the revote was doomed from the start
2.) Nope Obama is still ahead then. In fact, Obama is ahead in almost every combination of states you can think of
 

CoolTrick

Banned
1.) Obama certainly didn't help the situation but the revote was doomed from the start
2.) Nope Obama is still ahead then. In fact, Obama is ahead in almost every combination of states you can think of

1) Maybe it would've been but it also wouldn't be dead in the water (where it is now) if he had pushed to support a revote.

2) Well, yeah, duh, but you wouldn't be able to say that after Pennsylvania. And then you might not be able to say whatever THAT result is after mid May. Or maybe by the end of May you'll again be able to say something different.
 

KRS7

Member
CoolTrick said:
Oh.

Oh well, but honestly, Clinton won late deciders in Ohio by a really substantial margin. She would've had it regardless.


Just curious, who WAS the eventual winner in the Texas early voting? By what %? I remember two polls showing it basically even and one showing Obama a few points ahead. But that was before the primary results.

No arguments there, he would of lost Ohio either way. As I said, I don't think he would of lost by as much.

I would also like data on early voting vs. election day voting in both Ohio and Texas. But I am not aware of any breakdown in that regard. I am not sure that their election boards even report that distinction.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
CoolTrick said:
1) Maybe it would've been but it also wouldn't be dead in the water (where it is now) if he had pushed to support a revote.

2) Well, yeah, duh, but you wouldn't be able to say that after Pennsylvania. And then you might not be able to say whatever THAT result is after mid May. Or maybe by the end of May you'll again be able to say something different.

1.) Oh of course. If Obama had supported it, the revote had a far better chance of happening.

2.) Now lets not count our chickens before they hatch
 

CoolTrick

Banned
No arguments there, he would of lost Ohio either way. As I said, I don't think he would of lost by as much.

Maybe, but, again, there didn't seem to be much (publicized, at least) emphasis on the early vote in Ohio, which leads me to think that there was some extra complication in doing so over Texas and California.
 

CoolTrick

Banned
2.) Now lets not count our chickens before they hatch
But that's sort of what you're doing in saying that.

Because there's actually quite a few detailed reports out there showing that when all is said and done, Clinton actually does have a decent shot at winning the popular vote.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/09/clinton.iraq/index.html

"One candidate will continue the war and keep the troops in Iraq indefinitely. One candidate only says he will end the war," she said while campaigning in Pennsylvania.

"And one candidate is ready, willing and able to end the war and to rebuild our military while honoring our soldiers and our veterans."


does this mean that she is going to end one war and start another? ? or is she trying to imply that obama is going to end the war and dismantle the US army?? not sure what she means here. :/
 

KRS7

Member
CoolTrick said:
Maybe, but, again, there didn't seem to be much (publicized, at least) emphasis on the early vote in Ohio, which leads me to think that there was some extra complication in doing so over Texas and California.

Maybe not nationally, but the word was out here from both campaigns. The only reason why early voting might not have been as prevalent as it was in California or Texas is that Ohio just recently changed its rules to allow for this type of early voting. But from the reports I heard, early voting was up substantially in Ohio.
 
we had a lecture on the vietnam war today

nixon's mantra had been to end the war and have "peace with honor"

mccain and others today are saying THE EXACT SAME THING

when will we learn, gaf. when will we learn.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
CoolTrick said:
But that's sort of what you're doing in saying that.

Because there's actually quite a few detailed reports out there showing that when all is said and done, Clinton actually does have a decent shot at winning the popular vote.

Maybe. But things will have to really go in her way for it to happen.
 

CoolTrick

Banned
Maybe. But things will have to really go in her way for it to happen.

That isn't true though. She really does have a credible shot.

It really largely depends on how well Obama does in North Carolina. The thing is, though, it's hard for me to picture Obama getting over 55% in NC, just because that was his total in South Carolina where a MAJORITY of the electorate was black, which went for him like 85%.

So even though like PPP showed him up by like 21 in NC, I tend to think SurveyUSA is accurate with it being around a ten point difference.
 

CoolTrick

Banned
Where is Hillary going to steal 800000 votes from?

Half of that could come from Pennsylvania alone. (Granted that's a best case scenario, but still.)

I'd suggest you go read the Michael Barone report and one or two other ones that show that this really has a valid chance of happening.
 

thekad

Banned
CoolTrick said:
Half of that could come from Pennsylvania alone. (Granted that's a best case scenario, but still.)

I'd suggest you go read the Michael Barone report and one or two other ones that show that this really has a valid chance of happening.
You didn't answer my question.
 
CoolTrick said:
That isn't true though. She really does have a credible shot.

It really largely depends on how well Obama does in North Carolina. The thing is, though, it's hard for me to picture Obama getting over 55% in NC, just because that was his total in South Carolina where a MAJORITY of the electorate was black, which went for him like 85%.

So even though like PPP showed him up by like 21 in NC, I tend to think SurveyUSA is accurate with it being around a ten point difference.
If (big if) she wins the PA primary by over 15%.

Obama's camp puts his popular vote total about 1.3 million people over Hillary's. She will have to gain at least a million more people then Obama in PA to overtake him. If the final tally in PA is any less then a 15% margin of victory for her she won't make up any real difference.

That's why we are saying that she has such a tiny shot at even gaining the popular vote advantage. Her victory in PA will have to be larger then almost any she has had this election to make up the difference.

And that's completely ignoring his delegate advantage.
 

Tamanon

Banned
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080409/D8VUKHHO0.html

WESTPORT, Conn. (AP) - Republican Sen. John McCain refused Wednesday to rule out a pre-emptive war against another country, although he said one would be very unlikely.

The likely Republican presidential nominee was asked Wednesday at a town-hall style meeting if he would reject "the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war," a reference to Bush's decision to invade Iraq without it having attacked the United States.

"I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-emptive war, because obviously, it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces," McCain told his audience at Bridgewater Associates Inc., a global investment firm.

"If someone is about to launch a weapon that would devastate America, or have the capability to do so, obviously, you would have to act immediately in defense of this nation's national security interests."

McCain said he would consult more closely and more carefully "not with every member of Congress, but certainly the leaders of Congress."


The Iraq war was in the spotlight this week as Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, gave Congress a status report on the war. McCain argues for keeping troops in Iraq to capitalize on security gains, despite a recent outbreak of violence. His Democratic rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton argue for withdrawing troops.

Sounds AWESOME!
 

CoolTrick

Banned
You didn't answer my question
Jesus fucking christ, yes I did. If half of that can be knocked off in Pennsylvania, really wide margins in Kentucky, West Virginia, and to a lesser extent Indiana can offset North Carolina and Oregon, so the popular vote will absolutely tighten up. And then there's the wildcards Puetro Rico, South Dakota, and Montana, a region that hasn't seen a primary.
 

thekad

Banned
CoolTrick said:
Jesus fucking christ, yes I did. If half of that can be knocked off in Pennsylvania, really wide margins in Kentucky, West Virginia, and to a lesser extent Indiana can offset North Carolina and Oregon, so the popular vote will absolutely tighten up. And then there's the wildcards Puetro Rico, South Dakota, and Montana, a region that hasn't seen a primary.
:lol
 
CoolTrick said:
Jesus fucking christ, yes I did. If half of that can be knocked off in Pennsylvania, really wide margins in Kentucky, West Virginia, and to a lesser extent Indiana can offset North Carolina and Oregon, so the popular vote will absolutely tighten up. And then there's the wildcards Puetro Rico, South Dakota, and Montana, a region that hasn't seen a primary.
*cough*

Puerto Rico's single delegate will count, but none of the popular vote will.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
it's good to know that in fictitious Hollywood scenarios where doomsday is imminent, Johm McCain is the President for me!

he understands the enemy!
he consults with some people in Congress!
he wants victory!

anything more we need?
 

KRS7

Member
Thunder Monkey said:
*cough*

Puerto Rico's single delegate will count, but none of the popular vote will.

If you are referring to the general election, there is no electoral college representation whatsoever for the US territories.

If you are talking about the primary, then Puerto Rico is sending far more than one delegate to the convention. I think they are sending around 60, but I am not sure if they have full or half votes.
 
scorcho said:
it's good to know that in fictitious Hollywood scenarios where doomsday is imminent, Johm McCain is the President for me!

he understands the enemy!
he consults with some people in Congress!
he wants victory!

anything more we need?
A whole lot of pot and Rum?

If McCain is elected I want to go through the next four years in a haze.

KRS7 said:
If you are referring to the general election, there is no electoral college representation whatsoever for the US territories.

If you are talking about the primary, then Puerto Rico is sending far more than one delegate to the convention. I think they are sending around 60, but I am not sure if they have full or half votes.
Damn you American education system!
 

CoolTrick

Banned
Thunder Monkey said:
*cough*

Puerto Rico's single delegate will count, but none of the popular vote will.

Ah. That's okay. Afterall it can't vote in the general.

But neither will Michigan's.

That's okay, though. It'll go Democratic no matter what.

Florida neither.

Wait, now...wasn't it Clinton who was accused of cherry picking states?


I agree with you, believe it or not, that it's not really right to use Puerto Rico to tip Clinton over the edge in the popular vote and use that as reasoning to bollster her electability argument. But at the same time, the Obama camp can't really go too far in discounting that, because they're the ones who have been discounting Michigan and Florida, too. It's pretty hypocritical and makes the Obama camp look petty.
 

CoolTrick

Banned
KRS7 said:
If you are referring to the general election, there is no electoral college representation whatsoever for the US territories.

If you are talking about the primary, then Puerto Rico is sending far more than one delegate to the convention. I think they are sending around 60, but I am not sure if they have full or half votes.

66 full votes. Not sure if this includes supers or not, though.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
CoolTrick said:
Jesus fucking christ, yes I did. If half of that can be knocked off in Pennsylvania, really wide margins in Kentucky, West Virginia, and to a lesser extent Indiana can offset North Carolina and Oregon, so the popular vote will absolutely tighten up. And then there's the wildcards Puetro Rico, South Dakota, and Montana, a region that hasn't seen a primary.

Indiana is a toss-up too. SD and Montana...maybe. And that would still require Hillary to win by large margins and Obama to not win by large margins. Possibly but unlikely

CoolTrick said:
66 full votes. Not sure if this includes supers or not, though.

Puerto Rico is 63. 8 supes and 55 pledged
 
Francois the Great said:
we had a lecture on the vietnam war today

nixon's mantra had been to end the war and have "peace with honor"

mccain and others today are saying THE EXACT SAME THING

when will we learn, gaf. when will we learn.

Nixon did end the war. Johnson sure as hell didn't.
 

CoolTrick

Banned
Indiana is a toss-up too. SD and Montana...maybe. And that would still require Hillary to win by large margins and Obama to not win by large margins. Possibly but unlikely


Indiana, according to SurveyUSA, is as much as a toss up as Oregon. That's why I was pointing out before how hypocritical it is to say Obama could win Indiana but dismiss my argument that Hillary could tighten up Oregon. And there should be more people in Indiana, too (though I could be mistaken).

SD and Montana should go to Obama, but certainly not in the amount that they did in the neighboring caucuses. SD and Montana have, combined, I think, like 1.8 million voters. Obama's not likely to net much boost in the popular vote there even with severe blowouts, due to the it being a primary.
 
CoolTrick said:
Ah. That's okay. Afterall it can't vote in the general.

But neither will Michigan's.

That's okay, though. It'll go Democratic no matter what.

Florida neither.

Wait, now...wasn't it Clinton who was accused of cherry picking states?
Puerto Rico is a state?

Oh, I see, you're trying to turn a complete clusterfuck (Florida and Michigan) into some tactile reason for Obama's head.

Neither candidate wanted wanted Florida or Michigan to count unless it worked for them. Hillary would rather have them seated as is, then have a revote. Obama would rather have them not seated at all, then seated unfairly (that large chunk that wouldn't be allowed to revote).

I don't see your point. You want someone's head on a stick over this fiasco? Behead the Republicans that set the entire ordeal up.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
CoolTrick said:
Ah. That's okay. Afterall it can't vote in the general.

But neither will Michigan's.

That's okay, though. It'll go Democratic no matter what.

Florida neither.

Wait, now...wasn't it Clinton who was accused of cherry picking states?


I agree with you, believe it or not, that it's not really right to use Puerto Rico to tip Clinton over the edge in the popular vote and use that as reasoning to bollster her electability argument. But at the same time, the Obama camp can't really go too far in discounting that, because they're the ones who have been discounting Michigan and Florida, too. It's pretty hypocritical and makes the Obama camp look petty.

You can say Obama didn't help the revote but he hasn't been discounting Florida and Michigan either, definitely not at Hillary's level at least
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom