super tuesday 2: tuesday harder

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:30 pm

Its amazing what can change in just a week. it wasn't long ago that pundits and so called experts everywhere said that Hilary would need to win both ohio and texas today to stay in the game. But, the clinton machine has gone to work and the TV talk has changed to her only needing to win one of the two, and then move on to Penn in April. its a brilliant move that I am a little surprised has worked. with polls showing her above the margin of error in Ohio, the former first lady is poised to win at least one of the big two states up for grabs today, if not both.

so it seems that by the end of the night we won't have any real answers on the democratic side and we're in for at least another month of this drawn out drama.

on the republican side though, it could be officially over tonight. McCain is very close to clinching the delegate count he needs to make it official. Sadly, this means we all will have to say goodbye to the good humored, but bad brained candidate that goes by the name of Huckabee.

anyway, can't wait for the polls to close and for us to be pretty much in the same spot we're in now.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:04 pm

Values aside it's unbelievable how much better the Republicans are at running a campaign than the Democrats. Obama was beating Clinton by as much if not more than McCain was beating the Huckster, but now Mac is already running a general election campaign and the Democrats are still fighting it out.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:18 pm

Athletics wrote:Values aside it's unbelievable how much better the Republicans are at running a campaign than the Democrats. Obama was beating Clinton by as much if not more than McCain was beating the Huckster, but now Mac is already running a general election campaign and the Democrats are still fighting it out.

In what race was Obama ever beating Clinton? As far as I know, and I do follow politics more than the average citizen, Obama was always "catching up" to Clinton - the frontrunner.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:19 pm

However, I would agree with the rest of your statement. Republicans certainly know how to campaign and get their voters out.

RedSox · Post by **RedSox** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:23 pm

My election prediction: Obama wins more states, more delegates, the popular vote. Clinton argues she's more electable because if the delegates had been awarded electoral style she would have won the nomination because she won the 'big' states. She steals the nomination, splitting the party and driving a lot of the independents to McCain. McCain is forced to take some right wing A-hole as his VP to appease the extremists who think they're the core of the Rep. party. McCain wins, has a heart attack in the first year of his term and we get a Pat Buchanan style president.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:31 pm

DevilRays wrote:My election prediction: Obama wins more states, more delegates, the popular vote. Clinton argues she's more electable because if the delegates had been awarded electoral style she would have won the nomination because she won the 'big' states. She steals the nomination, splitting the party and driving a lot of the independents to McCain. McCain is forced to take some right wing A-hole as his VP to appease the extremists who think they're the core of the Rep. party. McCain wins, has a heart attack in the first year of his term and we get a Pat Buchanan style president.

Don't get my hopes up.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:58 pm

Democrats were doing a much better job of getting the voters out than Republicans were through Super Tuesday (when the republicans still had a race). The reason that the Republican race is over and the Democratic race isn't is the way the Democrats hand out delegates. The Republican party gives all delegates to the winning candidate (except in cauuses and a few other exceptions) regardless of margin of victory. The Democratic party apportions them according to percentage of vote received. Obama or Clinton can win a state like Texas and only gain a few delegates edge on the other.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:00 pm

DevilRays wrote:My election prediction: Obama wins more states, more delegates, the popular vote. Clinton argues she's more electable because if the delegates had been awarded electoral style she would have won the nomination because she won the 'big' states. She steals the nomination, splitting the party and driving a lot of the independents to McCain. McCain is forced to take some right wing A-hole as his VP to appease the extremists who think they're the core of the Rep. party. McCain wins, has a heart attack in the first year of his term and we get a Pat Buchanan style president.

FWIW, if the delegates were given out like the Republicans do, Obama would still be up on Clinton in Delegates, but only by 100-200...

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:22 pm

Reds wrote:
Athletics wrote:Values aside it's unbelievable how much better the Republicans are at running a campaign than the Democrats. Obama was beating Clinton by as much if not more than McCain was beating the Huckster, but now Mac is already running a general election campaign and the Democrats are still fighting it out.
In what race was Obama ever beating Clinton? As far as I know, and I do follow politics more than the average citizen, Obama was always "catching up" to Clinton - the frontrunner.

Ummm.... How about in every state since Super Tuesday? He was considered the solid front runner going into tonight's elections, seeing as how he had the delegate count lead, the popular vote lead, and an 11 vote winning streak. Of course that's all over now.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:34 pm

Funny thread title

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:46 am

Athletics wrote:Values aside it's unbelievable how much better the Republicans are at running a campaign than the Democrats. Obama was beating Clinton by as much if not more than McCain was beating the Huckster, but now Mac is already running a general election campaign and the Democrats are still fighting it out.

Ummm.... How about in every state since Super Tuesday? He was considered the solid front runner going into tonight's elections, seeing as how he had the delegate count lead, the popular vote lead, and an 11 vote winning streak. Of course that's all over now.

I guess it's just confusing because of the first thing you said. At no point was Obama ever up on Clinton the way Mc was up on Huckabee. Even the best estimates for Obama had him up on Clinton, before yesterday, by about 150 delegates. That's nothing compared to the 800 or so Mc has consistently been up on Huck.

And it doesn't have much to do with how good they are at running a campaign. No doubt the conservatives have run a well oiled machine the last decade or so, but democratic turnout is at an all time high and this year will be no cake walk for the GOP.

If the Dems can somehow manage to avoid fucking up this situation and pissing off half the party, the Republicans better bring their A game this fall.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:57 am

Here's a point someone brought up last night (God I'm having trouble remembering the station) - but would the Dems be better off having Hillary be the Pres nominee and Obama as the VP? All the Dems that have come out to support both would continue to jump out to vote, and, so long as Hilary wins, that could give the Dems 16 years of control (8 for Hillary, 8 for Obama). As much as I'm pulling for Barack at this point, I thought that was a pretty fantastic idea. Their candidacies are like 95% similar - wouldn't this be best case for the Dems?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:05 pm

I think a ticket with both of them (Either Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton) would be very strong, which is part of why I get pissed off at the sniping, particularly on Hillary's side as it makes it harder to reconcile and unite for a single ticket further down the line.
I think Hillary knows that Obama is the face of the future of the party and she could very well not have a choice on her VP candidate, the party leadership is going to want Obama to have that experience and positioning.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:10 pm

That's the so-called dream ticket, but it's not really a good fit. Someone wrote a really good article about it a few weeks ago that I can't seem to find, but there was a point by point about why it's bad (I think Michael Medved wrote the article). Basically his point was that Hillary wouldn't take him because she would risk being upstaged by her VP, who would have his own independent base of support and could work to undermine her. Also, he doesn't help her on National Security, which is going to be McCain's big strength. Also, Obama simply doesn't need the Vice Presidency, he'd be better off building his legislative record, and it's also been rumored he wants to run for governor in Illinois. Of course he's a Republican so take that with a grain of salt. I did find Roland Martin's commentary on the subject , and he cites Clinton not wanting to be overshadowed and Obama not wanting to be attached to the Clinton baggage (there would go that whole change thing he's so big on). Plus the elephant in the room is that everyone knows (whether its true or not is irrelevant at this point) that Hillary's de facto VP (or even co-president) is Bill, and who wants to be #3 behind those two?

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:19 pm

Oh, that's not a commentary by Roland Martin the professional fisherman that used to have a show on TNN Outdoors. I'm disappointed