Obama sets the expectation that he will lose Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania - Political Forum

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #1 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 07:50 PM

The Obama campaign "inadvertently" released a spreadsheet projection that it would lose those three states. Shit, I would be HAPPY if Obama only lost by 4 points in those states. The numbers coming out of Pennsylvania a month ago were pretty scary. Ohio is also Clinton country by a wide margin, I here. Obama seems to already be preparing the groundwork for a fight at the Democratic Convention. He is standing firm against the vote that was taken in Michigan and Florida.

Don't know if he favors or disfavors a new vote. I would favor a new vote in those states, and I believe he is at a disadvantage in those states if a new vote is held. However, we have to have some kind of unity in the party, even if that means that the Hildabeast wins. Fair is fair.

Is Obama Tough Enough to Win the Nomination? -- New York Magazine

Quote:

The implications of all this are firmly grasped in Obama-land. This week, the campaign inadvertently released a spreadsheet containing a detailed projection of the outcomes of the remaining primaries and caucuses. It predicted that Obama would win nineteen of them, but that he would lose by between four and seven points in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. The bottom line? After the final votes had been cast in Puerto Rico on June 7, Obama would emerge with 1,806 delegates and Clinton with 1,789-both a couple hundred short, that is, of the 2,025 necessary to nail down the nomination.

It's possible, to be sure, that the Obama spreadsheet was leaked intentionally in a bid to set expectations. But the assumptions undergirding the projection strike most political professionals as credible. More to the point, its overall thrust, that in all probability the race is headed toward deadlock, is accepted by the Clinton people. "It is likely that no side will gain an appreciable or significant advantage in overall delegate counts between now and March 4, past March 4, even past April," Wolfson says. "For all of those who, for cycle after cycle, wished for a battle that goes to the convention...you could be looking at such a contest here."

If the race does indeed unfold that way, the cards that Clinton intends to play are already face-up on the table. First, she plans to rely on her advantage among the nearly 800 party panjandrums—elected officials, state chairmen, national committee members—known as superdelegates, who can vote any way they choose. Clinton currently claims a 259-170 lead among these people, with the remainder still planted on the fence; the received wisdom holds that aggressive chit-calling by Clinton and her husband will keep her ahead among this crowd all the way until the end. But if that lead doesn't prove sufficient to put Clinton over the top, her campaign is already agitating loudly that the delegates from Michigan and Florida—two states that were penalized by the DNC for moving their primaries forward and that Clinton won handily in the absence of any real competition—be seated at the convention in August in Denver.

Obama's counteroffensive against the Clintonian Michigan-Florida maneuver is already under way. His campaign correctly argues that to seat those delegations would make a mockery of the DNC, the rules it set, and the entire process. In Michigan, only Clinton (along with Chris Dodd) left her name on the ballot—and thus to count the delegates chosen there would unfairly penalize Obama. As for the superdelegates, Obama began limbering up for that battle the morning after Super-Duper Tuesday, previewing the pitch that he intends to make should the occasion warrant it. "If this contest comes down to superdelegates, we are going to be able to say we have more pledged delegates, which means the Democratic voters have spoken," he explained. "Those superdelegates, those party insiders, would have to think long and hard how they would approach the nomination."

The trace of confrontation in Obama's tone suggests how ugly things could get in Denver if Clinton attempts to take possession of the nomination this way. It hints at the crisis of legitimacy that could explode, ripping the party in two. In these circumstances, the moral responsibility for avoiding such a crisis would lie squarely with Hillary and her husband, but the political challenge, and opportunity, would rest with Obama. The superdelegates are, it's true, the embodiment of the Democratic Establishment. But in case you haven't noticed, much of that Establishment has lately turned its back on the Clintons—or put the boot in them. Many, maybe most, of the superdelegates are open to persuasion. A surprising number may even be ready to "turn the page." What they want most of all is a Democratic nominee who can win. If Obama fails to bring enough of them over to his column, it should tell us something: That the man sure can give a hell of a speech, but he can't close the deal.

sdaniels · #2 (**permalink**) 03-12-2008, 02:38 PM

Let us assume that Obama wins the presidential election. Will Obama be willing to take the oath of office? Please do not forget that Obama has refused to wear an American Flag pin on his lapel. Also, while among a group of people pledging allegiance to our flag, he refused to join in with them. He just stood there with his hands by his side and his mouth silent. What does all of this mean? As President, with his mind so independent in thought and belief, is this the type of man that has the capacity to listen and understand the wishes and desires of The People?

He does have his own mind about how things should be or not be. What if he won the presidency and then tried to present a completely new and updated version of the swearing-in statements as designed by him. Even more shocking, how would you feel if he decided to accept the Presidency but not be sworn into office?

Here is a big question. Let us assume that he is willing to be sworn into office in the normal manner with the normal statements and words. Do you think he would place his hand on the Holy Bible or would he place his hand on the Koran? It would be his choice and he would have the perfect right to select the Koran rather than The Holy Bible.

Yes, absolutely, a Muslim should be able to be President of The United States just as Protestants were for most of American history. There is one very big problem with this right now. The Islamic religion has fostered a fanatic faction to itself. There are fanatic Muslims all over the world. Many of them are here in The United States. Let us not forget about all the anti-American bombings over the past dozen years. Let us not forget that when the Islamic religion brought down the Twin Towers, footage was shown on TV with joyous Muslims dancing in the streets and this was just here, in The United States.

I do not know if Obama is a Muslim or not. Nevertheless, it would be inappropriate, at this time, for a Muslim to hold residency in The White House. It might possibly be OK if a Muslim held the presidency in, let’s say, fifteen or twenty years but not right now. If we found ourselves with a Muslim in the White House in 2009, the entire world would laugh at us and we would look like fools. Is this what we want? Is this what you want?
Please talk to your friends and family about the possible scenarios presented above. Also, communicate these possibilities with various Internet political forums in as many States as you can contact; especially those States that have not yet voted. Also, contact various radio talk shows and raise these possible issues.

May The Lord be with us.

From Steve, in Lexington, MA, the birthplace of American liberty and freedom.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #3 (**permalink**) 03-12-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdaniels

Let us assume that Obama wins the presidential election. Will Obama be willing to take the oath of office? Please do not forget that Obama has refused to wear an American Flag pin on his lapel. Also, while among a group of people pledging allegiance to our flag, he refused to join in with them. He just stood there with his hands by his side and his mouth silent. What does all of this mean? As President, with his mind so independent in thought and belief, is this the type of man that has the capacity to listen and understand the wishes and desires of The People?

He does have his own mind about how things should be or not be. What if he won the presidency and then tried to present a completely new and updated version of the swearing-in statements as designed by him. Even more shocking, how would you feel if he decided to accept the Presidency but not be sworn into office?

Here is a big question. Let us assume that he is willing to be sworn into office in the normal manner with the normal statements and words. Do you think he would place his hand on the Holy Bible or would he place his hand on the Koran? It would be his choice and he would have the perfect right to select the Koran rather than The Holy Bible.

Yes, absolutely, a Muslim should be able to be President of The United States just as Protestants were for most of American history. There is one very big problem with this right now. The Islamic religion has fostered a fanatic faction to itself. There are fanatic Muslims all over the world. Many of them are here in The United States. Let us not forget about all the anti-American bombings over the past dozen years. Let us not forget that when the Islamic religion brought down the Twin Towers, footage was shown on TV with joyous Muslims dancing in the streets and this was just here, in The United States.

I do not know if Obama is a Muslim or not. Nevertheless, it would be inappropriate, at this time, for a Muslim to hold residency in The White House. It might possibly be OK if a Muslim held the presidency in, let’s say, fifteen or twenty years but not right now. If we found ourselves with a Muslim in the White House in 2009, the entire world would laugh at us and we would look like fools. Is this what we want? Is this what you want?
Please talk to your friends and family about the possible scenarios presented above. Also, communicate these possibilities with various Internet political forums in as many States as you can contact; especially those States that have not yet voted. Also, contact various radio talk shows and raise these possible issues.

May The Lord be with us.

From Steve, in Lexington, MA, the birthplace of American liberty and freedom.

Steve,

Obviously you have taken it upon yourself to spread lies about Barack Obama on the internet. You first posted a very similar post to this one more than a week ago on this forum. You said back then as you do now "I do not know if Obama is a Muslim or not. " So in an entire week, you have taken it upon yourself to write long comments about why a Muslim president is dangerous, yet you could not spare 30 seconds to do a Google search to see if a presidential candidate is a Muslim?

You obviously know that Obama is a Christian. It is not plausible that you did not look up Obama's religion for an entire week.

Lying is a banable offense as written in the forum rules, and you have lied to this forum. You are thus banned.

WEB

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #4 (**permalink**) 03-12-2008, 06:05 PM

Here's a great fact-based rebuttal for Clinton's big state electability argument.

First Read - msnbc.com

Quote:

The primary vs. general fallacy
From NBC’s Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro

The Clinton campaign put out a memo today asserting that “if Barack Obama can’t win [in Pennsylvania], how will he win the general election?”

The memo continues, ”Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.”

But, as one of us writes, there is a fallacy to this kind of argument that hasn’t received much attention: “Recent history shows that winning a state in the primary season -- no matter its importance on the map -- doesn’t guarantee success in the general election.

“In 2004, for example, John Kerry won early Democratic contests in Iowa, Arizona, and Missouri, but he fell short in all three states when pitted against George W. Bush. In 1992, Bill Clinton captured primaries in Florida and Texas, but lost those states in the general election.

"And in 1984 -- in a primary that has drawn parallels to the current Democratic race -- Walter Mondale secured the Democratic nomination over Gary Hart in part by winning large industrial states like Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. But in the end, he wound up winning just one state against Ronald Reagan: his home state of Minnesota.

“The opposite also is true. There are numerous examples of candidates losing states during the primaries but then going on to win them in the general election. Bill Clinton, for instance, captured Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire in his 1992 contest against George H.W. Bush. But he lost all three in the primaries.”

AzTeK · #5 (**permalink**) 03-13-2008, 05:19 AM

If we look at the polls - PollingReport.com - Public Opinion Online - it seems as if Obama is recovering form the heavy blow he took on march 4th. As of 8th of march, he is again in the lead when it comes to the national polls.

One poll over here (I can't pick it out individually but it's a bit less than half way down on the left side) also says that gender seems to be more of a problem than race.

"If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [see below], would you vote for that person?" - 5% said that they wouldn't vote for the candidate if he was black, while 12% said they wouldn't for the candidate if she was a woman. Also interesting thing to take into consideration when it comes to electability. It's a really old poll though, unfortunately.