|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Would it hurt to include Kentucky and Oregon? |
Who?
I'm saying if Wisconsin next week gives Obama the kind of massive victory he got in Virginia, that Clinton will have to start thinking about dropping out. I don't believe the Clintons want to risk tearing the party apart, which is what could well happen if the thing goes to the Superdelegates at the convention. You don't disillusion what looks to be 2/3's of the party and then expect to win the general election.
On the other hand, Democrats in recent decades have become masters at seizing defeat from the jaws of victory, as the saying goes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta,
Yes, which is why Obama supporters should be wary of the outcome in Ohio and Texas. Those two states could put her back in the lead, regardless of what happens in Wisconsin and Hawaii.
I very much hope Oregon stays in play. I decided against voting in the Democrats Abroad primary strategically in favor of voting in my home state. The other reason is I believe Obama will do well there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand this is a chatboard, in which idle speculation is perfectly acceptable. Often it is encouraged.
But none of us can be sure of the outcome. Obama could say something completely untoward, or some nastiness could come out of the closet of his past.
As long as Clinton has money and energy and supporters, she needs to hold the light of strict scrutiny upon the man who might otherwise be President of the US. And, no doubt, Obama will make sure she cannot herself escape that glare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Untoward? Untoward? You said Obama, the next president of these United States, the man with the golden tongue, might say something untoward? Fie on you, Kuros. Fie! That is, at minimum, unDemocratic, O ye of little faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The only poll I could find at RealClearPolitics from Wisconsin has Obama at 45% and Clinton at 41%. I'm projecting that it won't be anywhere that close. I'll bet anyone a beer that Obama will take Wisconsin by 10% or more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I understand this is a chatboard, in which idle speculation is perfectly acceptable. Often it is encouraged.
But none of us can be sure of the outcome. Obama could say something completely untoward, or some nastiness could come out of the closet of his past.
As long as Clinton has money and energy and supporters, she needs to hold the light of strict scrutiny upon the man who might otherwise be President of the US. And, no doubt, Obama will make sure she cannot herself escape that glare. |
money: nope
energy: that of a 100 year old on a respirator
supporter: waving by the minute
Don't get me wrong, I didn't say anywhere this is over. Not by a longshot. The dynamics of the race have changed. Like I said, people would be dumb to underestimate her. I also said that Ohio and Texas could swing it back the other direction (toward Clinton) and I believe that is true.
A few month ago there Clinton supporters were making idle speculation about who Clinton would choose as a runningmate (as if the primaries were over). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm glad to see Obama pulling out, but I wish the media and the campaigns would focus less on personality and the backbiting and more on the actual policies of the candidates.
Don't forget to tune in to the Daily Show tomorrow. The writers are back at work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting bit here on how easy it's been for all the leading contenders so far:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14555.html#more-14555
| Quote: |
Three leading candidates � all of whom have had it pretty easy
Posted February 12th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Share This | Spotlight | Permalink
Hoping to instill doubt about Barack Obama�s general-election viability, Clinton pollster Mark Penn raised an interesting point yesterday.
| Quote: |
The Clinton team moved on Monday to shift the spotlight off the candidate�s short-term challenges and focus instead on �the long run,� in the words of her senior strategist, Mark Penn.
�She has consistently shown an electoral resiliency in difficult situations that have made her a winner,� Mr. Penn said. �Senator Obama has in fact never had a serious Republican challenger.� |
That�s certainly true. In 2000, he unsuccessfully ran in a tough primary against Rep. Bobby Rush, but Rush is a Democrat. In his various campaigns for the state Senate, Obama won fairly easily. In 2004, he ran in a tough multi-candidate Senate primary, but after securing the nomination, he ended up running against professional right-wing gadfly Alan Keyes. A �serious Republican challenger�? Hardly. Obama was supposed to face a tough campaign against Jack Ryan four years ago, but a sex scandal forced him from the race (I�d argue, unfairly).
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton�s campaigns haven�t exactly been barn-burners. Clinton�s first-ever campaign, the Senate race in 2000, was supposed to be a serious campaign against Rudy Giuliani, but she ended up facing a feckless Rick Lazio, beating him easily. In 2006, with very strong poll numbers in New York, Republicans struggled to find anyone to run against her, ultimately settling on former Yonkers mayor John Spencer. Clinton never had to break a sweat on route to her landslide victory � Spencer finished with just 31% of the vote.
But here�s a fun little twist � guess who else has never really gone up against a serious challenger from the other party? John McCain.
In 1982, McCain easily won election to the House in a heavily Republican district.
In 1984, he easily won re-election against token Democratic opposition.
In 1986, McCain launched his first Senate campaign, easily beating a young former state legislator best known for sleeping on his office floor. (Seriously.)
In 1992, McCain faced civil rights activist Claire Sargent (D), who many thought might give him a tough race in the wake of the Keating Five corruption scandal, but a former governor entered the race, made it a three-way contest, and McCain won by 24 points.
In 1998, McCain faced token Democratic opposition on route to a 42-point win.
In 2004, it was even easier for McCain, winning by 56 points.
Taken together, after a quarter-century in Congress, John McCain has faced no credible Democratic challengers ever.
November is bound to be interesting, isn�t it? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Huckabee made a very good point today on why he's staying in the race:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/12/huckabee-sees-obama-as-tougher-opponent-for-gop/?mod=googlenews_wsj
What's the point of having a Republican candidate who only does well in states where they always get their asses kicked by Democrats?
| Quote: |
As for his own race, he played down Sen. John McCain�s delegate advantage (which now stands at 729 to Huckabee�s 241, according to the Associated Press), saying that the Arizona senator has won states that are not going to be important to Republicans in November whereas his victories have come in places that a Republican will need.
�Republicans are not going to win because they carry Delaware, Connecticut, New York and California� � all states McCain won � �because Republicans aren�t going to carry those states,� Huckabee said. �And if they do it�s going to be a remarkable landslide for the Republicans. But let�s face it, that�s not how it happens. It happens when you carry West Virginia and Georgia and Alabama and Tennessee and Arkansas and Kansas and Iowa and Louisiana� � all states that Huckabee has won � �and hopefully places like Ohio and Texas,� which vote March 4. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
At the risk of seeming "untoward", I will confidently predict that Obama wins this thing. Clinton cannot win another state until March 4, and three weeks is far too long to expect a campaign to hold its breath. You know who else tried that? Rudy Giuliani.
More importantly, the super delegates who have endorsed Clinton are already making noises about jumping ship for Obama.
| Quote: |
"She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she�s out,� said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. �The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.� Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.
Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama�s momentum after victories in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend.
Some said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, might ultimately �go with the flow,� in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come. |
Bear in mind this was before Hillary got stomped like a grape in all three Potomac Primaries. The super delegates are not willing to play spoiler and split the party by undermining the outcome of the popular vote (i.e. the pledged delegates). They can change their minds any time, and they will. In all likelihood Hillary has already gotten more than a few depressing phone calls.
What will probably happen is that Hillary will stay in until March 4, and if she doesn't rack up big wins in those states, she will drop out. Her grip is as tenacious as anyone's alive, but if it becomes obvious to her that she cannot win, she will quit and prevent a divisive and damaging battle at the convention (which would hurt not only the party's chances, but her future in politics).
You heard it here first. March 5, this thing is over and Obama is the de facto nominee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ohio polls
Stillnotking,
Even if Obama eventually wins this thing, you're wrong simply because you called it this early. Maine and Virginia were big wins for Obama, but look at the delegate count. Its not over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
If I call it early and correctly, wouldn't that make me "prescient" rather than "wrong"?
Is this like the way people who opposed the Iraq war were "wrong" even though they were right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We don't have the dates for those polls, so it's hard to say how accurate they are about how Ohio Democrats feel following this string of Obama victories. It could be they are showing that the race is very fluid--Obama at 39% and 19%.
The nice thing for Democrats is that there is no philosophical difference between Clinton and Obama, as many people have noted. It's really just a matter of personality, judgements about winnability and if you would rather have the first woman or the first black as the candidate. Most Democrats like and respect Mrs. Clinton, but have been concerned about 'the negative' factor but saw no alternative. Obama's surprising strength in Iowa 5 weeks ago shook things up and created the sense that there could be another answer.
As a result of that, the race was very close in the first states to vote, but now Obama is getting massive 2-1 victories. As I said the other day, The People have chosen (it seems to me).
Polls that will be taken this week in Wisconsin, Ohio and Texas will show a major shift in Obama's direction. November 4 will see us voting for either Obama or McCain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Based on RCP's page the SurveyUSA is only 4 days old and has her up by +17. The one before that was late Jan and had her up by +23. Ya-ta is right though, the next one will show him closing the gap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
