Support NeoGAF

[monchi-kun]

thekad:

Do you or do you not genuinely believe Rev. Wright permanently hurt Obama?

Answer the question. C'mon. Don't be a scaredy cat.

i'll bite...i say "no" it will not permanently hurt Obama in the general election.

 

[CoolTrick]

Oh, I specifically want an answer from thekad.

And by the way, there is no "...in the general election" add on to that question.

Do you or do you not genuinely believe Rev. Wright permanently hurt Obama?


I want an answer because I think he's arguing what he doesn't believe and is exactly what I'm talking about. He doesn't want to answer because he knows I'm right. None of this "evidence" bullshit: Do you or do you not believe that question in the first place?

 

[theBishop]

Hillary's campaign has had a TON of screwups. A TON. Of course. And Obama has really run a very smart campaign (with the exception of Rev. Wright, which was just awful no matter what way you slice it).

But as of where things stand now, I still devoutly believe Obama is a disaster waiting to happen in the general, and that Hillary can win. That's what matters most to me.

Its is odd that the biggest screw up of Obama's camapaign are some statements made in 2001 by someone other than Barack Obama, and yet he's "a disaster waiting to happen". He's consistently outperformed Hillary in polls against McCain, and he has won the democratic portion of the Democratic primary. If he actually turns out to be a "disaster waiting to happen", that's on registered Democrats at this point. The race is over.

The on-going divisive primary being perpetuated by Hillary Clinton is a disaster currently happening. If anything is hurting Barack's chances in the general, its her continued mudslinging despite an insurmountable loss.

 

[Zaptruder]

Hillary's campaign has had a TON of screwups. A TON. Of course. And Obama has really run a very smart campaign (with the exception of Rev. Wright, which was just awful no matter what way you slice it).

But as of where things stand now, I still devoutly believe Obama is a disaster waiting to happen in the general, and that Hillary can win. That's what matters most to me.

1. How was the rev wright his screw up? A big issue? And not something from which he gracefully recovered, with one of the best political speeches in the last few years?

2. On what grounds do you believe that Obama is a disaster waiting to happen? Lack of experience? Lack of character? Lack of merit? What is it, that you see, that the rest of us doesn't, that so clearly marks him as been unsuitable as a president?

 

[mashoutposse]

Hillary's campaign has had a TON of screwups. A TON. Of course. And Obama has really run a very smart campaign (with the exception of Rev. Wright, which was just awful no matter what way you slice it).

But as of where things stand now, I still devoutly believe Obama is a disaster waiting to happen in the general, and that Hillary can win. That's what matters most to me.

If Wright couldn't sink him, then I think it's time to acknowledge that Obama is GE-ready.

Here's my problem with Clinton: Obama energizes the Democratic base. Hillary energizes the Republican base, and in a very negative way. She and her husband also have a ton of not-so-hidden skeletons in their closet that the Obama campaign is purposefully ignoring that will become 100% fair game in the GE. I think she has made herself practically unelectable with her abysmal performance in the primary.

 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

the rev. wright thing was really nothing. and a lot of these horrible how-dare-she clinton campaign travesties are nothing. this has to be the touchiest election in american history

 

[CoolTrick]

Honestly, I can't debate with people that think Wright won't be damaging in a general. We'll have to agree to disagree because there's no way of fast forwarding time and being sure, but frankly, I think the fact that it's still being brought up is more than telling. If you really don't think it'll hurt him, all I can say is, time is going to prove you wrong. Mark my words.

If Wright couldn't sink him, then I think it's time to acknowledge that Obama is GE-ready.

Here's my problem with Clinton: Obama energizes the Democratic base. Hillary energizes the Republican base, and in a very negative way.

Obama's coalition though is more reliably Democratic and can't win the Presidency alone.

Also, Hillary's been through the gutter for 15 years. People see what they did to Kerry, and they still genuinely think a black man named Barack Obama isn't going to have problems in the general, especially when his own pastor can easily be spun as a black nationalist that he let guide him spiritually for 20 years?'

Look at Ronald Reagen. Those Reagen Dems are the key to winning the Presidency. Notice how when one group wins them over they can sweep the map, and when they fail they can lose the presidency -- either on a large scale (Walter Mondale) or on a small scale (past few noms not winning over that group in Ohio for example).

For all the talk of Obama energizing the Democratic base, a vote is a vote no matter how enthusiastically it's cast. A minority of voters who enthusiastically vote for Obama does not win out over a majority of voters who are more willing to hold their nose and vote for Clinton. Again, a rabid base has its benefits -- fundraising, etc., but both Dem nominees will have much better fundraising than McCain anyway. Obama may have more die-hard fans that will provide benefits, but Hillary's group is much, much more likely to defect.

I think it's one thing to disagree that Hillary is more electable than Obama but to not see the argument at all is unreasonable.

 

[thekad]

Eh? Why would I be arguing a position I don't legitimately believe in? Only simple-minded fools get so entangled with message board drama that they would sacrifice their actual beliefs.

Oh.

 

[CoolTrick]

Eh? Why would I be arguing a position I don't legitimately believe in? Only simple-minded fools get so entangled with message board drama that they would sacrifice their actual beliefs.

Oh.

Do you or do you not genuinely believe that Rev. Wright permanently hurt Obama?

Just answer the question.

I'm calling you out for being an example of what I'm talking about.

 

[FuturusX]

Someone's getting called out. This should interesting.

 

[harSon]

Do you or do you not genuinely believe that Rev. Wright permanently hurt Obama?

Just answer the question.

I'm calling you out for being an example of what I'm talking about.

The only thing you've managed to do is condemn others for taking part in your practice.

 

[thekad]

whoosh

 

[Xeke]

I'm sorry, but frankly, I can tell when someone has a valid argument and when they're just being stubborn and spinning for the damn sake of it. I'm more than happy to argee to disagree and have in the past in this thread, and I'm happy to point out some of Hillary's faults. But people here are so obsessed with thinking this guy does no wrong that it's just as responsible for preventing nice discussion as I'm accused of doing.

Shit like "Why doesn't she run as an independant", or "Rev. Wright didn't permanently hurt Obama because the Gallup daily tracking says so", or "The Clintons are just as bad as the GOP will be in attacking Obama", give me a friggin break.

Then why can't I go through your post history and find ONE positive thing that you said about Obama.

Nobody thinks that he does no wrong. You're the only person who thinks that there are people who think that BUT HE IS SURE A HELL OF A LOT BETTER THAN THE ALTERNATIVE.

I didn't really care about this election before Iowa and Obama's win and then I started to pay attention and inform myself and OF COURSE HE ISN'T PERFECT but of all the politicians out there that I've listened to, this man more than any other has the power to bring people together and not tear them apart.

I know he isn't perfect. He knows he isn't perfect. But without him I probably wouldn't be voting in the PA primary next week. (Say if it were Hillary and Edwards left)

Why do you have such a hard time understanding the way that people feel about him? Are you just cold and emotionless? Watch some videos of Robert Kennedy and see the emotion and how happy they were to be supporting him. That is the way that I feel right now because of Obama. No he isn't perfect, nobody is, but I wont hold that against him because he is aware of it to.

Maybe you don't think that people can actually be excited about politics, like really excited, like you claim all of us cult like Obama supporters are. But if that is how you feel then more than anything, I feel sorry for you. Never before in my life have I watched polls like football games, watched elections like the super bowl.

Obama has obviously brought the life back into this process and I am aware of his mistakes and I am aware that he makes them, but fuck, we all do.

 

[mugwhump]

CoolTrick is a DOUBLE POSTER

 

[Particle Physicist]

:lol wow.

 

[CoolTrick]

Then why can't I go through your post history and find ONE positive thing that you said about Obama.

Because everything positive thing said about Obama is relentlessly said here over and over again. Like I said, I only speak up when my point of view is not being heard. I'm much more willing to be fair to some of the things Obama has been critisized by the Clinton camp for, but everyone here does that to the max.

whoosh

:lol

Yawn. You're nothing but a little sheep. Answer the question. You're exactly what I'm talking about: Someone who might as well have no independant thought process because you just argue out of blind support and to win, whether or not you genuinely believe it. YOU are the kind of poster that makes this thread awful.

 

[mashoutposse]

Honestly, I can't debate with people that think Wright won't be damaging in a general. We'll have to agree to disagree because there's no way of fast forwarding time and being sure, but frankly, I think the fact that it's still being brought up is more than telling. If you really don't think it'll hurt him, all I can say is, time is going to prove you wrong. Mark my words.

Unless there's a brand new development on that front, the Wright effect will be small. It is old news and is only mentioned here and there because there's been little else to talk about these past few of weeks.

Obama's coalition though is more reliably Democratic and can't win the Presidency alone.

Wait until the primary is over before declaring who is and who isn't ready to vote for him.

Also, Hillary's been through the gutter for 15 years. People see what they did to Kerry, and they still genuinely think a black man named Barack Obama isn't going to have problems in the general, especially when his own pastor can easily be spun as a black nationalist that he let guide him spiritually for 20 years?'

Kerry was no Obama. You know it, I know it. Did Kerry really have the people behind him? And if he did, was it for a reason OTHER than being the anybody-but-Bush candidate?

Look at Ronald Reagen. Those Reagen Dems are the key to winning the Presidency. Notice how when one group wins them over they can sweep the map, and when they fail they can lose the presidency -- either on a large scale (Walter Mondale) or on a small scale (past few noms not winning over that group in Ohio for example).

Odd point to make -- are you suggesting there may be more "Hillary Repubs" than "Obamacans?"

For all the talk of Obama energizing the Democratic base, a vote is a vote no matter how enthusiastically it's cast. A minority of voters who enthusiastically vote for Obama does not win out over a majority of voters who are more willing to hold their nose and vote for Clinton. Again, a rabid base has its benefits -- fundraising, etc., but both Dem nominees will have much better fundraising than McCain anyway. Obama may have more die-hard fans that will provide benefits, but Hillary's group is much, much more likely to defect.

Look at the participation in the latest contests. Obama can turn out the vote. At this point, a "stolen" nom for Clinton is practically guaranteed to keep a significant number of people home.

 

[theBishop]

Honestly, I can't debate with people that think Wright won't be damaging in a general.

And by the way, there is no "...in the general election" add on to that question.

Cocaine's a hell of a drug.

If you really don't think it'll hurt him, all I can say is, time is going to prove you wrong. Mark my words.

5 years from now, the name Jeremiah Wright will only be known because it appears in this speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

Obama's coalition though is more reliably Democratic and can't win the Presidency alone.

http://www.republicansforobama.org/

Also, Hillary's been through the gutter for 15 years. People see what they did to Kerry, and they still genuinely think a black man named Barack Obama isn't going to have problems in the general, especially when his own pastor can easily be spun as a black nationalist that he let guide him spiritually for 20 years?'

Clinton's own pastor is sticking up for Jeremiah Wright:
http://www2.nysun.com/article/74027

Look at Ronald Reagen. Those Reagen Dems are the key to winning the Presidency. Notice how when one group wins them over they can sweep the map, and when they fail they can lose the presidency -- either on a large scale (Walter Mondale) or on a small scale (past few noms not winning over that group in Ohio for example).

Hillary Clinton's General Election map looks just like Gore's and Kerry's. A huge part of Obama's lead over Clinton is the fact that he's running in all 50 States.

For all the talk of Obama energizing the Democratic base, a vote is a vote no matter how enthusiastically it's cast. Obama may have more die-hard fans that will provide benefits, but Hillary's group is much, much more likely to defect. I think it's one thing to disagree that Hillary is more electable than Obama but to not see the argument at all is unreasonable.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why Obama outperforms Clinton in the race against McCain:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

 

[Tamanon]

theBishop: Just words.

 

[CoolTrick]

Never before in my life have I watched polls like football games, watched elections like the super bowl.

This is a big problem amongst a lot of the younger voters for Obama, I think.

Politics is NOT like a football game. This shit has real consequences.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think what you said is totally outrageous.

It's great that you're excited about politics. But to think of it as rooting for your favorite football team, where, guess what, it doesn't matter SHIT whether they win or not in the grand scheme of things... wow.

Unless there's a brand new development on that front, the Wright effect will be small. It is old news and is only mentioned here and there because there's been little else to talk about these past few of weeks.

...Until the GOP brings it up again and uses it in ads.

Wait until the primary is over before declaring who is and who isn't ready to vote for him.

Why should Obama fans be able to cite general election matchups that are months away, whereas various polls (and common sense) shows as of NOW that Clinton's electorate is much more likely to defect?

Kerry was no Obama. You know it, I know it. Did Kerry really have the people behind him? And if he did, was it for a reason OTHER than being the anybody-but-Bush candidate?

Kerry was absolutely no Obama, but Obama can still be plagued by the same spin that Kerry got.

Odd point to make -- are you suggesting there may be more "Hillary Repubs" than "Obamacans?"

OF COURSE.

Well, "more", per se? I don't know about more.

But they're the swing group. They're the group that is not reliably Democratic. They gave Reagen a 49 state victory over Mondale.

Didn't you watch the CNN thing tonight? A big point of that was how the Democrats lost touch with the non-black social values voter.

 

[FuturusX]

Because everything positive thing said about Obama is relentlessly said here over and over again. Like I said, I only speak up when my point of view is not being heard. I'm much more willing to be fair to some of the things Obama has been critisized by the Clinton camp for, but everyone here does that to the max.



:lol

Yawn. You're nothing but a little sheep. Answer the question. You're exactly what I'm talking about: Someone who might as well have no independant thought process because you just argue out of blind support and to win, whether or not you genuinely believe it. YOU are the kind of poster that makes this thread awful.

Regardless of whether the Wright thing will hurt him. And who honestly knows. Your insistence on stating that it will, almost seems as though you want it to hurt him. At least now in the primary so that Clinton wins the Nomination.

 

[thefro]

Hillary the elitist from 1992 bashed stay at home moms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rulSnAM6gmM

Also notice she has a fake southern twang.

 

[masud]

Either dem is going to destroy McCain in the GE. I don't get how people don't see this. 65% of the country is against the war ffs. Our economy is in shambles and the GOP hardly wants to acknowledge it. Wright is going to hurt Obama a little (just as Hilary's numerous and arguably worse scandals would have hurt her) but it's not going to change the fact that either of them is going to crush McCain in November. It's just the way politics works, neither side accomplishes much so after 8 years of one party in control it's easy for the opposition to convince the masses that they need change, this is basic shit. Stop falling for Hilary's bs Obama is not unelectable, in fact one could make a good argument that Hilary is more unelectable.

whoosh

:lol for real.

 

[Particle Physicist]

This is a big problem amongst a lot of the younger voters for Obama, I think.

Politics is NOT like a football game. This shit has real consequences.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think what you said is totally outrageous.

It's great that you're excited about politics. But to think of it as rooting for your favorite football team, where, guess what, it doesn't matter SHIT whether they win or not in the grand scheme of things... wow.

...

:x


im at a loss for words.

 

[theBishop]

Stop falling for Hilary's bs Obama is not unelectable, in fact one could make a good argument that Hilary is more unelectable.

Of course Hillary is more unelectable: She isn't being elected.

 

[CoolTrick]

http://www.republicansforobama.org/

Obama originally had more appeal to independants because he was less polarizing than Clinton, but Obama's main coalition of blacks, upscale liberals, and young voters always stay Democratic.

Clinton's base of working class catholics, latinos, poor income voters, moderate women...They swing. That's common sense. There's plenty of stuff to cite that but that should be common sense.

Hillary Clinton's General Election map looks just like Gore's and Kerry's. A huge part of Obama's lead over Clinton is the fact that he's running in all 50 States.

1) Well, yes, a weakness of Hillary's election map is that it does look like Gore's and Kerry's. Her floor is much higher than Obama's. Her ceiling is also lower.

2) In a vast majority of those 50 states, Obama ain't winning them.

3) General Election polls are not only pretty bad this far in advance, but both candidates are running fairly even. There are general, obvious trends though: Obama would do better in the south due to black turnout, Clinton better in rustbelt due to working class vote.

Regardless of the Wright thing will hurt him. And who honestly knows. Your insistence on stating that it will, almost seems as though you want it to hurt him. At least now in the primary so that Clinton wins the Nomination.

But of COURSE it'll be brought up again. Why wouldn't it? It's so easy to soundbyte it and spin it that it's a serious goldmine for the GOP. I don't understand how someone can logically conclude it won't be brought up in the general and spun and whatnot.

 

[Particle Physicist]

i cant wait to see cooltrick start defending mccain when obama gets the nomination. its going to be hilarious

 

[Xeke]

This is a big problem amongst a lot of the younger voters for Obama, I think.

Politics is NOT like a football game. This shit has real consequences.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think what you said is totally outrageous.

It's great that you're excited about politics. But to think of it as rooting for your favorite football team, where, guess what, it doesn't matter SHIT whether they win or not in the grand scheme of things... wow.

WTF?

How fucking literal can you take things? Are you fucking serious you ass clown? I cheer for him with football game like excitement. That doesn't mean I don't get the fucking issues dipshit.

 

[Tamanon]

Yeah I think CoolTrick has finally just lost it. It's kinda sad. Another fighter down

BTW, nobody is saying that Wright won't be brought up again in the General election, they're saying they don't believe it will hurt his chances.

 

[CoolTrick]

I'm not going to defend McCain.

...

:x


im at a loss for words.

You think whether or not a football team wins in the grand scheme of things is just as impactful as who becomes President?

Politicans cannot be thought of as football teams. It's insanely naive. It has real consequence. Polls cannot be blindly looked at as who is winning or who is losing. That's why the polls posted are so misleading, at times: It's not about just the margin, but the %s.

Politics is complex. To freely equate it to rooting for a sports time is just awful, I think. I understand where you're coming from, in that it may inspire the same fervor, but ultimately, it really, really can't be looked at as the same thing. Or at least it shouldn't.

 

[theBishop]

Yeah I think CoolTrick has finally just lost it. It's kinda sad. Another fighter down

Who needs polls, links, evidence, when you have CoolTrick's own special brand of "Common Sense"?

 

[harSon]

Yeah I think CoolTrick has finally just lost it. It's kinda sad. Another fighter down

BTW, nobody is saying that Wright won't be brought up again in the General election, they're saying they don't believe it will hurt his chances.

He lost it a long time ago, around the time of his Muslim comments :lol

 

[CoolTrick]

WTF?

A contradiction like no other.

Did you guys seriously think I was talking about the Presidency not mattering in the grand scheme of things?

Is it REALLY that hard to figure out I was talking about a football team winning not having much consequence?

Honestly now. You people.

 

[FuturusX]

But of COURSE it'll be brought up again. Why wouldn't it? It's so easy to soundbyte it and spin it that it's a serious goldmine for the GOP. I don't understand how someone can logically conclude it won't be brought up in the general and spun and whatnot.

Cool, My statement was that YOU want it STICK and hurt him. So that Clinton wins correct ?

 

[CoolTrick]

Cool, My statement was that YOU want it STICK and hurt him. So that Clinton wins correct ?

I want the electability argument of it to stick, sure, because I think it's totally valid.

As far as actually making out Obama to be an unpatriotic black nationalist with the help of those comments, no, I don't want that, but it is a personal concern I have come November if he's the nominee. Not just due to Rev. Wright, but I don't like the kind of people Obama surrounds himself with in general.

 

[CoolTrick]

Who needs polls, links, evidence, when you have CoolTrick's own special brand of "Common Sense"?

Newsflash:

You going "www.republicansforobama.com" does not provide evidence that Obama's coalition can win the presidency. There's plenty of polls: The Pew and Gallup ones come to the forefront, that have directly shown Clinton's backers are much more likely to defect.

And it should be common sense that upscale liberals, blacks, and young voters are more likely to reliably vote Democratic. I shouldn't need to cite that because that's everywhere.

 

[harSon]

I want the electability argument of it to stick, sure, because I think it's totally valid.

As far as actually making out Obama to be an unpatriotic black nationalist with the help of those comments, no, I don't want that, but it is a personal concern I have come November if he's the nominee. Not just due to Rev. Wright, but I don't like the kind of people Obama surrounds himself with in general.

Please go into depth, I have to hear this :lol

 

[Xeke]

Did you guys seriously think I was talking about the Presidency not mattering in the grand scheme of things?

Is it REALLY that hard to figure out I was talking about a football team winning not having much consequence?

Honestly now. You people.

Do you honestly think that I don't know the fucking issues and cheer for Obama like a football team? How fucking literal do you take things?

I know it fucking matters. I have friends in fucking Iraq. OF COURSE IT FUCKING MATTERS.

But you're attacking people for being genuinely excited for Obama which just blows my mind. It's like you want people to not be excited.

 

[Tamanon]

Please go into depth, I have to hear this :lol

Dude, we've heard it before, remember the Muslim thing?

BTW, did anyone notice that for some reason CNN didn't really want to even talk about their own Compassion forum afterwards, how strange.

 

[CoolTrick]

But you're attacking people for being genuinely excited for Obama which just blows my mind.

I'm attacking people for being delusional and rabid in their arguments. There's a big difference.

Please go into depth, I have to hear this

Nothing in-depth, just a lot of advisors that aren't overly pro-Israel, and such. Infact I just read an article today that a lot of Jewish voters are just itching for a reason to leave the Democratic party since the Republicans have become so pro-Israel. (Not that I believe the Jewish vote will or would or wants to defect en masse, but I can personally attest to family members who fit this description.)

 

[theBishop]

Newsflash:

You going "www.republicansforobama.com" does not provide evidence that Obama's coalition can win the presidency. There's plenty of polls: The Pew and Gallup ones come to the forefront, that have directly shown Clinton's backers are much more likely to defect.

And yet Obama outperforms Clinton in the race against McCain. No need to reprise your "common sense" arguement. I got it.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Did you guys seriously think I was talking about the Presidency not mattering in the grand scheme of things?

Is it REALLY that hard to figure out I was talking about a football team winning not having much consequence?

Honestly now. You people.

you were making an analogy. thats... how.. analogies work. football teams = obama and hillary.

otherwise.. wtf does football have to do with anything.

 

[npm0925]

Annie Oakley. :lol

Obama's so smooth.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Please go into depth, I have to hear this :lol

you know.. bill ayers, farrakan, etc.. !!!

 

[CoolTrick]

And yet Obama outperforms Clinton in the race against McCain. No need to reprise your "common sense" arguement. I got it.

Almost all general election polls are within the margin of error and not helpful outside of very general trends at this early a stage.

Anyone will tell you that.

you were making an analogy. thats... how.. analogies work. football teams = obama and hillary.

otherwise.. wtf does football have to do with anything.

-_- I DIDN'T BRING UP FOOTBALL IN THE FIRST PLACE.

 

[FuturusX]

I want the electability argument of it to stick, sure, because I think it's totally valid.

As far as actually making out Obama to be an unpatriotic black nationalist with the help of those comments, no, I don't want that, but it is a personal concern I have come November if he's the nominee. Not just due to Rev. Wright, but I don't like the kind of people Obama surrounds himself with in general.

So you admit that your objectivity is clouded. You'd be better off just stating and sticking with the Clinton would be a better presidential candidate strategy, in keeping with your sporting analogy, its her last play. I guess Politics is sport by your own admissions.

Projecting what will hurt the future candidate, whom ever that will be, is a nonsense argument, when what you mean is "I hope Obama slips up so Hilary can win". Seems to me that GAF simply didn't fall for that.

 

[Xeke]

I'm attacking people for being delusional and rabid in their arguments. There's a big difference.

What would you have us say? Everybody here knows that Obama isn't without fault.

Does he make mistakes? Yes.
Do I hold him accountable for them? Yes.
Should I hold them against him? No.
Do I make mistakes? Yes.

The difference between you and me that will never be resolved is that I think Obama is a very sincere man who really wants to do the things that he says. Who wants to change the way politics work.

Now I guess you could call me delusional for that, but that isn't going to change because it is one of the things that I truly believe in. Call me naive or rabid. I call it hopeful and excited.

Maybe he will just be terrible and fuck everything up and dash my hope and excitement. I'll have learned the hard way. But I don't think he will let me down. I do think he believes what he says and will try to work for the things that he believes in. Call me what you will but that is how I feel.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Almost all general election polls are within the margin of error and not helpful outside of very general trends at this early a stage.

Anyone will tell you that.




-_- I DIDN'T BRING UP FOOTBALL IN THE FIRST PLACE.

okay. so you didnt make the analogy, but the analogy was.. football team A = obama, football team B = hillary.. superbowl = democratic primary (or general election) .. so yes.. whoever wins this theoretical football match does matter in the grand scheme of things.

thats how analogies fucken work.

 

[mashoutposse]

There's plenty of polls: The Pew and Gallup ones come to the forefront, that have directly shown Clinton's backers are much more likely to defect.

I think this finally needs to be challenged. Yes, the percentage of defectors is higher, but it is a higher percentage of an overall smaller piece of the pie -- the absolute numbers may end up being near the same for both candidates. Here's what those polls confirm: the losing side tends to have a higher composition of diehards than the winning side (which, along with the diehards, is composed of recent former undecideds and other not 110%-dependables).

 

[theBishop]

I think this finally needs to be challenged. Yes, the percentage of defectors is higher, but it is a higher percentage of an overall smaller piece of the pie -- the absolute numbers may end up being near the same for both candidates. Here's what those polls confirm: the losing side tends to have a higher composition of diehards than the winning side (which, along with the diehards, is composed of recent former undecideds and other not 110%-dependables).

not to mention the unique political ramifications of Democratic super delegates overturning Barack's democratically obtained lead. The people have spoken at this point. The picture isn't going to look different April 22 or August 22. The only thing that could change is if Democratic officials decide to go against the will of the people. And if that happens, I'm probably not the only one giving a serious look at these guys:

http://www.gp.org/