Support NeoGAF

[Seth C]

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3597/the_clinton_firewall/

So basically what he's saying is "remove any state that for any reason causes my theory not to work and my theory works." Classy. I mean for crying out loud, he had to fucking remove a full 14% of the states and territories that have voted.

 

[scorcho]

Ah, Governor Ed Rendell already calling for Michigan and Florida to count. And advancing the electoral math argument.

if superdelegates abide by Dean's words and decide their choices by the beginning of July, both Florida and Michigan's delegates could be seated no problem.

 

[pxleyes]

Cool graph that confirms the oft-floated theory regarding Obama and his reception in states with a relatively mixed AA and Caucasian population.

I think the graph speaks for itself.

What is that theory? That when there are 6-17% AAs in a given state he loses? I don't think the graph really proves anything beyond he didn't win the states where he didn't get the minority vote. Or am I reading that all wrong?

 

[Cheebs]

What is that theory? That when there are 6-17% AAs in a given state he loses? I don't think the graph really proves anything beyond he didn't win the states where he didn't get the minority vote. Or am I reading that all wrong?

Obama does well where there is no blacks or a ton of them. Never in the middle.

 

[ZealousD]

What is that theory? That when there are 6-17% AAs in a given state he loses? I don't think the graph really proves anything beyond he didn't win the states where he didn't get the minority vote. Or am I reading that all wrong?

I think the idea is that states with moderate black population have more racists than black people. When there's a real low percentage of blacks in some states, there's not really a significant black population for the whites to be racist against. When there's a real high percentage of blacks, the blacks that vote for Obama simply outnumber the number of racists who vote against him.

 

[pxleyes]

Obama does well where there is no blacks or a ton of them. Never in the middle.

Ya, I get that trend...but I don't know what kind of conclusions can be drawn from that in terms of how he can correct that or his opponents can exploit it.

 

[Tamanon]

Ya, I get that trend...but I don't know what kind of conclusions can be drawn from that in terms of how he can correct that or his opponents can exploit it.

I don't know if he can, there's more racial tension in states like that. In higher black population states, there's no real room for too much tension, and in lower ones you don't have the fear and competition for jobs.

 

[ZealousD]

I don't know if he can, there's more racial tension in states like that. In higher black population states, there's no real room for too much tension, and in lower ones you don't have the fear and competition for jobs.

.....No.

Do you remember how divided Mississippi was on race, even though Obama carried it easily? In higher black population states, the number of blacks in the Democratic party just simply overwhelmingly outnumber the racists.

 

[Hitokage]

Remember, these are Democratic party elections.

 

[siamesedreamer]

I think the idea is that states with moderate black population have more racists than black people. When there's a real low percentage of blacks in some states, there's not really a significant black population for the whites to be racist against. When there's a real high percentage of blacks, the blacks that vote for Obama simply outnumber the number of racists who vote against him.

All kinds of stoopit.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Obama speaks in Allentown, PA

Live stream:
http://www.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream2

 

[Cheebs]

Remember, these are Democratic party elections.

There are no racist democrats? Something like 15% of Clinton voters said race was an important factor in their decision to pick hillary iirc.

There are many democrats who are democrats due to economic policy, not social/moral policy.

 

[Captain Pants]

Cool graph that confirms the oft-floated theory regarding Obama and his reception in states with a relatively mixed AA and Caucasian population.

I think the graph speaks for itself.

This graph proves two things.

1. We Idahoans love Obama.

2. We are the most white-bread pasty state in the union.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Obama speaks in Allentown, PA

Live stream:
http://www.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream2

The crowd booed Fox News :lol

 

[Cheebs]

:lol :lol I bet Obama was thinking "oh....shit not this again" when the mayor said you needed a lapel pin before he found out he wasn't talking about flag lapels:

the Mayor Russell Pettyjohn, an older gent, ambles over. He studies Mr. Obama and offers: “You look a little naked.”

Mr. Obama tilted his head. Huh?

You need a pin, the mayor explains. As said mayor wore a flag pin, this seemed a promising bit of weirdness but, alas, he offered the candidate only a lapel pin for the town of Lititz

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

:lol :lol I bet Obama was thinking "oh....shit not this again" when the mayor said you needed a lapel pin before he found out he wasn't talking about flag lapels:

 

[Xisiqomelir]

Have Her Eminence's attempts to still carry on dicking w/ Tejas been posted yet?

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=120597

As I pointed out earlier this month, I was elected precinct chairman for not keeping my mouth shut when they tried to cram 107 people into a room that could only hold 36. That means I got to attend the district convention (where delegates are selected to attend the state convention in June, and delegates are picked for the national convention) Saturday.

This time, instead of packing 107 people into a small room, they brought >3000 people to the Gaylord Texan, a HUGE resort/hotel/convention hall about 30 miles away. The size of this monstrosity isn't apparent until you actually walk in, since so much is obscured by the trees and man-made hills surrounding it. When I say monstrosity, I mean it this way: Think of the Versaille Palace, only built by the same people who built your local Costco. Most of the interior was typical of high-priced hotels, including the bar that charges more for drinks than the strip clubs. The one interesting part was an enormous domed area in the center with a stream, waterfalls and rare trees from remote corners of the planet. I thought that was cool, and could have spent hours in that area.

Anyway, we were there to vote. But to do that meant standing in line for FOUR HOURS while morons ran the credential process. The main reason for the hold-up, aside from the fact that it was about as well-coordinated as an epileptic gang-bang, was the fact that Hillary's campaign in Texas decided to file a shitload of bogus challenges to 87 precincts. This means that each of the delegates from those challenged precincts had to show their IDs all over again, precinct-by-precinct. This brought everything to a halt since until delegates are seated, the convention can't begin formal business. It didn't help that the credentials committee was made up mostly of flunkies for the Clinton campaign. Then Hillary's campaign made their slimy offer: they would drop all challenges if the delegates from the contested precincts were divided 50/50. Since this was horseshit of the worst kind, and those precincts went for Obama by huge margins (that's why they were challenged), when the motion was brought up, it was shouted down by voice vote. So the Clinton campaign insisted on running those precincts through the wringer.

Then a few of us came up with an idea: Under the rules of order, we could propose a motion to suspend the rules. We told the chair of the convention and the parliamentarian that we would do so in order to consider a motion to seat ALL delegates present, regardless of any challenges or what the credentials committe had to say about it. When Clinton's people saw us running about the hall telling people what we were going to do, suddenly those bullshit challenges evaporated like a drop of water on a hot asphalt road.

The actual selection of delegates to the state convention went without problems, other than the sound system conking out several times. As I predicted, Obama's people came out in force. In my own precinct, Hillary won 13 while Obama won 7. However, only five of Clinton's supporters showed and five Obama supporters showed. In cases where the delegates are tied, you send one from each faction with a third as an alternate (as opposed to two from the majority, plus alternate). We agreed to flip a coin to see who would be the alternate and it was an Obama supporter. It got even better when the one Clinton supporter who showed any interest in going to the state convention (and was elected as their delegate) told everyone that it was 50/50 at best that he would be able to go to Austin. So not only did we tie, but there's a good chance of having two Obama votes from our precinct. Obama also cleaned up in the other precincts.

What this means is that Obama is going have even MORE delegates from Texas (he won more in Texas than Hillary already) by June. So next time you hear people saying that Hillary won the state, they are lying douchecocks.

also

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/30/15757/2729/63/477945

Unlike Kath, I was largely unable to take photos because my credentials were challenged. Along with the credentials of a large swath of the elected delegates.

After six or so extremely hot, crowded, confusing hours, many of us were unable to determine why, exactly, our credentials had been challenged. The Clinton camp had announced that they were targeting the 23rd district for credentials challenges and, by god, that's what they did.

By the end, the Clinton folks were willing -- hell, eager -- to throw out not just random individuals but the entire delegation of 2 precincts. (So much for voter enfranchisement, eh, Hills?)

The protest process was tailor-made for alienating committed voters, wearing them out to the point where they would drop out. By the end of the night, the convention floor was abuzz with tired, pissed-off voters who now hate Hillary with the fire of a thousand suns.

I'm one of them. Thanks for sucking those 10 or so hours away from me, Hills. Love ya. Mean it.

In the end, the Hillary camp did successfully win challenges on 22 delegates. Out of a total of 2,650. When the announcement came, we calculated that the 10-hour delay of the start of our convention averaged roughly a successful challenge only every 30 minutes.

 

[reilo]

Ed Rendell is such a shill. I feel sorry for you Amir.

His new argument is that electorate math is what's important now.

These guys are playing on a one mile long football field. Can't even see the damn goal posts anymore.

EDIT: Wow. Just said that the Obama camp killed the Michigan and Florida re-votes.

 

[Instigator]

Ok, let's take this topic in another direction and bring up Ron Paul. Any comments from him lately, pertaining to the financial crisis in particular?

 

[Jenga]

Ok, let's take this topic in another direction and bring up Ron Paul. Any comments from him lately, pertaining to the financial crisis in particular?

ron paul ron paul

 

[reilo]

:lol :lol

Rendell: "Let's say this was like a 40 minute long college game. We have played 32 minutes and one team is ahead 2pts. THAT'S IT! TWO POINTS!"

 

[Amir0x]

:lol :lol

Rendell: "Let's say this was like a 40 minute long college game. We have played 32 minutes and one team is ahead 2pts. THAT'S IT! TWO POINTS!"

The biggest story I've personally seen from these Rendell interviews was saying that he doesn't think Hillary is going to win by as much as polls suggest. And he said this unprovoked, by the way.

Now, campaigns are always going out of their way to lower expectations so they can say they won "bigger" than they actually did. But, a little under a month until the event, and completely unprovoked he says that.

I wonder if they have some interesting internal polling numbers.

 

[Slurpy]

Lou Dobbs hammering the 'media bias against Clinton' thing again, over and over. Fucking pathetic.

 

[GhaleonEB]

:lol :lol

Rendell: "Let's say this was like a 40 minute long college game. We have played 32 minutes and one team is ahead 2pts. THAT'S IT! TWO POINTS!"

I liked this sports analogy better:

But this is the essential silliness of this argument or perhaps its purpose, that it pulls you down into this rabbit hole of nonsense that momentarily distracts you from its essential ridiculousness. It's like the Patriots on their final drive against the Giants saying that if you went by just touchdowns they were actually tied.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/186162.php

 

[terrene]

Cool graph that confirms the oft-floated theory regarding Obama and his reception in states with a relatively mixed AA and Caucasian population.

I think the graph speaks for itself.

I tend to think it's a totally random fluctuation of data. The trend is hardly very strong, especially since there are two wins right in the middle of it. Arranging the data in a certain order produces a dramatic visual dropoff between KS and RI, but what else is going on in those states besides race? What if you arrange the X axis to track "% of pop who thinks the Iraq war is the most important issue this election." Or their local job market? Or the energy or health care crises? Or the ominous housing/finance situation?

A better tool would be a regression analysis that tracks all of these issues in one chart, and even then any statistician would tell you they'd be looking at correlation and not causality. Pretty worthless.

 

[reilo]

The biggest story I've personally seen from these Rendell interviews was saying that he doesn't think Hillary is going to win by as much as polls suggest. And he said this unprovoked, by the way.

Now, campaigns are always going out of their way to lower expectations so they can say they won "bigger" than they actually did. But, a little under a month until the event, and completely unprovoked he says that.

I wonder if they have some interesting internal polling numbers.

Yeah, I heard that, too. It's a bit like Microsoft coming out with PR the day before NPDs proclaiming they are having supply problems.

 

[ari]

Lou Dobbs hammering the 'media bias against Clinton' thing again, over and over. Fucking pathetic.

Why do that piss you off?

 

[APF]

but running a horrible, flat out horrible campaign that placed loyalty above results for so long (hi Patti Solis Doyle and Mark Penn) doesn't exactly give me hope that she'll move us away from one of the more damning traits of our current administration.

And surrounding yourself with a bunch of political idealists (and novices) will? Ugh, both of these candidates are complete crap in this regard.

Which reminds me of a point in the so called media bias to Obama. NYT said a month ago it wasn't that the press somehow favors Obama, its just that the story of the fall of the champion being beaten by a rookie just makes for a far more appealing narrative. It's the same logic in their push for McCain, the McCain comeback made a far more appealing story than the overly complex Romney and traditional Rudy campaigns.

Perhaps, but the press arguably favored Obama more when Hillary was the front-runner and not he.

 

[Slurpy]

Why do that piss you off?

Why? Because he keeps hammering on that insinuation, even though its bullshit. Because Clinton makes idiotic moves and the media calls her out on them, suddenly the media favors Obama? Its an accusation that crops up when she gets in trouble, and its BS.

 

[ari]

Why? Because he keeps hammering on that insinuation, even though its bullshit. Because Clinton makes idiotic moves and the media calls her out on them, suddenly the media favors Obama? Its an accusation that crops up when she gets in trouble, and its BS.

I have never pinpointed a clinton/mccain bias in the media like obama with msnbc, comedy central, youtube and other popular shows or media. The only one i can pick for clinton is snl and some magazines for each candidate including mccain. Like i said before, the most moderate news channel is CNN. So what if lou hates obama, turn on the many networks that beat off to him.

 

[scorcho]

And surrounding yourself with a bunch of political idealists (and novices) will? Ugh, both of these candidates are complete crap in this regard.

Obama has a pretty solid mix on the FP side from what i can tell, idealists, novices and old-hat realists (Brzezinski, for instance).

 

[scorcho]

I have never pinpointed a clinton/mccain bias in the media like obama with msnbc, comedy central, youtube and other popular shows or media. The only one i can pick for clinton is snl and some magazines for each candidate including mccain. Like i said before, the most moderate news channel is CNN. So what if lou hates obama, turn on the many networks that beat off to him.

you must not have followed the media much in the last, oh, decade.

since you're also putting on the Lou Dobbs defense hat, you should return to the other thread and tell us how Lou's comment was taken out of context.

 

[Slurpy]

I have never pinpointed a clinton/mccain bias in the media like obama with msnbc, comedy central, youtube and other popular shows or media. The only one i can pick for clinton is snl and some magazines for each candidate including mccain. Like i said before, the most moderate news channel is CNN. So what if lou hates obama, turn on the many networks that beat off to him.

What the hell is wrong with you? I never commented on the media bias. I commented on Lou Dobbs' running fetish about stating there's an Obama bias whenever the media calls out Clinton for anything. Since you state that most news network 'beat-off' to Obama, its clear what you believe, and I couldn't care less. And did you actually classify youtube and comedy central as news networks? GTFO with that shit and your brainless posts.

 

[thekad]

Comedy Central :lol Youtube :lol :lol

 

[StoOgE]

Have Her Eminence's attempts to still carry on dicking w/ Tejas been posted yet?

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=120597



also

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/30/15757/2729/63/477945

a few pages back i posted my thoughts and pics, similar bullshit tried to be pulled, but austin is obama country so they got nowhere.

 

[ari]

you must not have followed the media much in the last, oh, decade.

I would love for you to pinpoint me a complete, without a doubt, heads over heels media network that have shows that suck his cock and sound like his talking piece like msnbc do with obama and snl do for clinton.

Fox news and other news networks completely ignore him in favor of hillary and obama.

slurpy: So youtube and shows like the daily show and the colbert report isn't influencing any type of obama favoritism?

 

[APF]

Obama has a pretty solid mix on the FP side from what i can tell, idealists, novices and old-hat realists (Brzezinski, for instance).

Brzezinski isn't going to be in his cabinet; how strong an advisor is he, really? For what I recall, the rest are either academics or Clinton Admin dredges.


edit: youtube and comedy central don't publish media?

 

[ari]

edit: youtube and comedy central don't publish media?

i was implying the bias of the two.

 

[scorcho]

I would love for you to pinpoint me a complete, without a doubt, heads over heels media network that have shows that suck his cock and sound like his talking piece like msnbc do with obama and snl do for clinton.

Fox news and other news networks completely ignore him in favor of hillary and obama.

for starters, let's have the beloved Chuck Todd's view on this -
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/...qaeda-gaffe-and-would-have-attacked-the-dems/

 

[GhaleonEB]

for starters, let's have the beloved Chuck Todd's view on this -
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/...qaeda-gaffe-and-would-have-attacked-the-dems/

But he's from MSNBC, and they suck Obama's cock, so he doesn't count. Right?

 

[scorcho]

i was implying the bias of the two.

explain to me how youtube is 'biased' towards obama. there are a glut of pro/anti videos for all the candidates on that site. i've also seen little to show that either the Colbert Report or Daily Show are favoring Obama over Clinton. and, at least in Colbert's case, he gave a ton of free advertising to Huckabee during his campaign.

APF, you actually agree with what ari's implying?

 

[Slurpy]

slurpy: So youtube and shows like the daily show and the colbert report isn't influencing any type of obama favoritism?

Wow, you're THICK. I was talking about NEWS NETWORKS. You know? Youtube isn't part of the MEDIA, so I couldn't give 2 shits how they're slanted. Same with comedy shows- they're not classified as 'news'. Stop trying to charge the terms and muddy the issue. I'm not even claiming any bias, as you are. I had a problem with Lou Dobbs constant assertions of bias, which he brings up whenever Clinton gets in trouble.

Anyway, stop responding to me, and bringing up random shit. It seems like Im addressing a 7 year old, and if I am, then I apologize.

 

[APF]

explain to me how youtube is 'biased' towards obama. there are a glut of pro/anti videos for all the candidates on that site. i've also seen little to show that either the Colbert Report or Daily Show are favoring Obama over Clinton. and, at least in Colbert's case, he gave a ton of free advertising to Huckabee during his campaign.

APF, you actually agree with what ari's implying?

A little, but I don't have cable so I can't talk about Comedy Central. Also since Youtube is a free-for-all it's hard to call it biased on an "institutional" level.


Edit: Youtube is definitely part of the modern media landscape however. Get over yourself, Slurpy.

 

[ari]

Slurpy: the daily show and colbert is somewhat political shows aimed at a certain age group.

scorcho:APF doesn't agree with me and jon stewart could careless about a republican in office.

Edit: come to think about it, I was referring to youtube and comedy central as the same category i put snl in for hillary. Stop crying.

 

[scorcho]

Slurpy: the daily show and colbert is somewhat political shows aimed at a certain age group.

scorcho:APF doesn't agree with me, jon stewart could careless about a republican in office, And youtube have more mccain and hillary smear then they do on gaf.

dude. you're claiming a direct Obama bias on Comedy Central, as one example, with zero to back it up. and while Stewart and Colbert definitely lean liberal, they deserve a lot of kudos for keeping their shows free of blatant partisanship. they've been quick to call out hackery whether it comes from right to left.

as to youtube - any fucking site that dare hosts something as Raining McCain cannot be called pro-Obama. youtube is a user-driven site and there is little to substantiate any inference of an institutional bias that you make with the rest of the media.

 

[Atrus]

Is this slippery slope day, or April Fools day? I'm confused

There's nothing wrong with the bold. She's had numerous advantages heading into this and she has managed to turn huge margins into small victories or outright losses. In what sort of thinking does some people then say, well... she's a better leader than the one currently winning?

Is it the same sort of thinking that wants to give her a second chance to fail at Universal Health Care?

Or is it the same excuse that you've used that Obama has 'rockstar' status. Did that just pop out of nowhere? Or is that just a function of his ability to connect and build himself into such a person? These are nothing but empty excuses to ignore that the biggest failure of the Clinton campaign, is the candidate.

Next time, if there is one, may she should you know... lead her own campaign before she can think to lead a country, because setting your campaign manages on easy-automatic and expecting to coast by has been proven to be a terrible strategy for her.

 

[siamesedreamer]

and while Stewart and Colbert definitely lean liberal, they deserve a lot of kudos for keeping their shows free of blatant partisanship. they've been quick to call out hackery whether it comes from right to left.

Examples?

 

[scorcho]

Examples?

sure -

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

check the archive for shows starting since, i don't know, when Stewart took over.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=119479&title=headlines-one-week-anniversary

making fun? of the Clinton Administration's entrance into Kosovo?

forward to the modern-era -

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=164436&title=the-govs-must-be-horny

making fun? of Democratic governors' sexual weaknesses? shit?

 

[ari]

dude. you're claiming a direct Obama bias on Comedy Central, as one example, with zero to back it up. and while Stewart and Colbert definitely lean liberal, they deserve a lot of kudos for keeping their shows free of blatant partisanship. they've been quick to call out hackery whether it comes from right to left.

as to youtube - any fucking site that dare hosts something as Raining McCain cannot be called pro-Obama. youtube is a user-driven site and there is little to substantiate any inference of an institutional bias that you make with the rest of the media.

i understand the youtube thing clearly, its just that...like gaf....Its far and away controlled by obama fans. (Not a shot to anyone). thus in my eyes its completely bias...Especially when youtube is so fucking popular, but thats probably my views that got in the way.

 

[APF]

dude. you're claiming a direct Obama bias on Comedy Central, as one example, with zero to back it up. and while Stewart and Colbert definitely lean liberal, they deserve a lot of kudos for keeping their shows free of blatant partisanship. they've been quick to call out hackery whether it comes from right to left.

Not that I really want to get into this, but are you saying that if I went to TDS' site and looked at all the videos for each candidate (Hillary has about 2.5 the amount of videos tagged with her name vs Obama), the proportion of good : bad coverage would be equal?