Originally Posted by myboynoah (Post 176968)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

That debate last night was incredible; the animosity was so apparent. This after playing kissing face in Nevada. I don't think they can retreat from this and I suspect the Obama campaign, many of them former Clintonies, will come out swinging, particularly after Hillary's comments that Obama is "frustrated". This is going to be an entertaining two weeks.

Sadly, after the Clintons wrap up the nomination after Super Duper Tuesday, all this will die down.

Maybe McCain will be the best candidate for the Repubs; he'd be happy to put on the gloves and take on both Clintons at the same time.

Originally Posted by YOhio (Post 176979)

The more I'm reminded of why I hate the Clintons the more I want him to win the nomination. At core he seems like a good human being. I'm not certain the same can be said of Hillary.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 176973)

What makes you think she will wrap up the nomination after Super Tuesday? I think Obama wins the south and midwest, and is competitive in California (though he will lose there, delegates there and in NY are awarded proportionally for the Dems), and does favorably in western states.

I think Obama takes the nomination, particularly once Edwards' supporters move to him (as I think at least 80% of his supporters do).

Originally Posted by YOhio (Post 176979)

The more I'm reminded of why I hate the Clintons the more I want him to win the nomination. At core he seems like a good human being. I'm not certain the same can be said of Hillary.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 176981)

I think you've got Obama blinders on. I don't think grass roots can beat The Machine. Obama has trended upward lately, but I don't think he'll win Florida, nor win the narrative on Super Tuesday.



A good human being he may be, but he's also an empty suit. He needed a few years of seasoning before making this jump.

Spell-binding rhetoric does not necessarily a good President make.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 176982)

Who cares about Florida? It is worth 0 delegates (just like Michigan).

California gives you proportional delegates, and Obama isn't going to get creamed there either.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 176983)

Edwards playing the spoiler, giving Hillary the nomination.

The GOP nomination is probably dependent on who choose to play spoiler as well (Huckabee and Thompson).

Originally Posted by myboynoah (Post 176978)

These are the latest polls for Florida, California, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey:

Florida - Clinton 56% Obama 23%
California - Clinton 39% Obama 27%
Pennsylvania - Clinton 40% Obama 20%
New Jersey - Clinton 45% Obama 27%

I could be wrong, but that seems like an awful big hill to climb. I think people want closure and Super Tuesday should give them opportunity for that.

I know you like Obama a lot, but I think the Clintons are doing a good job of making him look like a lightweight. They goad and he responds, which is not the image he banks on; conclusion: politics is indeed a dirty, scrappy business. In a way, they are destroying the imagery that makes him so popular. Obama wants to stay above the fray, bringing people together for the common good. He can't do that if he's constantly swatting at the Clinton flies.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 176986)

As Romney and the state of Wyoming has learned, delegates are not always what counts at this stage. As you should know, perception in these early contests can have a big influence on later voters.

Rumor has it anyway that an arrangement will be made with excluded states come convention time. We'll see.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 176988)

Florida doesn't count, and Pennsylvania and New Jersey likely will go to Clinton as northeastern states. Obama can then take the midwest and south, and do well in the west. Luckily for Obama, NY is also a proportional delegate state, or he would be in trouble. For Republicans, NY and Cal. are winner take all.

Originally Posted by myboynoah (Post 176993)

Yeah, I noticed the Florida mistake after posting. You obviously know your party better than I do. I still think Clinton will get most of the the Super Tuesday states and wrap it up. Perhaps I'm giving into media hype. If not, then it will be odd for the Repubs to have their candidate after Super Tuesday while the Dems snipe at each other for weeks to come.

Should Clinton get the nomination, do you think Obama would be interested in the VP slot? That could be a pretty formidable team. Or is there too much water under the bridge?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 176989)

Democrats aren't paying any attention at all to Florida. Just like they didn't care at all about Michigan. Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot in Michigan. Did Hillary get a bump from Michigan? Nobody would argue that. The entire media focus for Florida will be on the Republicans (again, just as with Michigan).

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 176989)

And what "rumor" is it you are trying to claim with Michigan and Florida delegates? The party has made it pretty clear that if those delegates are seated at all, it will only be after a nominee has emerged (making their participation totally useless).

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 176996)

I don't see Clinton picking Obama (or him accepting), but who knows. It would be a very strong ticket.

Why do you think Republicans will have things sorted out after Super Tuesday? If anything, I think they will be more muddled than the Democrats. Romney will take several states (including Florida with half its delegates available due to the Republican penalty), and McCain will take several. Giuliani could take one or two. Huckabee will likely take a few in the south.

Originally Posted by myboynoah (Post 176968)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

That debate last night was incredible; the animosity was so apparent. This after playing kissing face in Nevada. I don't think they can retreat from this and I suspect the Obama campaign, many of them former Clintonies, will come out swinging, particularly after Hillary's comments that Obama is "frustrated". This is going to be an entertaining two weeks.

Sadly, after the Clintons wrap up the nomination after Super Duper Tuesday, all this will die down.

Maybe McCain will be the best candidate for the Repubs; he'd be happy to put on the gloves and take on both Clintons at the same time.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 177002)

If Romney loses, he has no one but himself to blame. He mislabeled himself and miscalculated. If he wins, it will be despite these poor decisions.

Originally Posted by myboynoah (Post 177007)

Perhaps you could tutor him about staying on message.

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 177004)

Mrs. Clinton just doesn't like it when her opponents use her tactics against her, does she?

Obama should not have been a wimp and really gone for her throat after her shot about a "slum lord" helping to raise money for Obama's campaign. One name is all it would take: Norman Hsu.

You are correct, it will be an interesting two weeks. Here's to Obama and Mrs. Clinton attacking each other to the point that they both lose focus of the objective and Edwards winning the nomination by coming through the back door.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 176998)

I disagree, and I think most Democrat commentators would as well. There were some very interesting narratives coming out of Michigan, and not really positive for Clinton, including the small 15% gap between her and "Uncommitted", and her poor showing among blacks. Imagine if she had lost.

Major network anchors may ho-hum, and the candidates themselves may not campaign there, but the vote still matters. If something other than "the expected" outcome happens ... expect it to get covered, expect it to have an influence.



It's not a "rumor." It's a rumor, and not one off Republican blogs. I'm not wagering any "karma points" on it, but it's out there and in more than one place. As I said, we'll see.

PS. I'm not claiming, by the way, that the Florida Democrat primary has the same implications as the Republican one. Just to be clear.

Originally Posted by myboynoah (Post 177009)

If Cali is correct, this could go on for another month or beyond. That would be real reality television. Riveting and entertaining. Not good for the writers out on strike.

Time to chuck Tom Brokhaw for Jerry Springer.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 177008)

Be yourself, and let the chips fall where they may. That's what he needs to learn.

Originally Posted by myboynoah (Post 177015)

What does that mean to a politician, "be yourself"? The better ones are able to project authenticity while doing the political thing. Let's watch this week as McCain, a stick in the mud on Bush tax cuts, suddenly becomes the tax cutting king in the face of economic woes. He learned something from Michigan.

They all do it Mike, so why hold Mitt's feet to the fire? Is that you just don't like to see fellow tribe members play that game, that it somehow reflects badly on your utopian view of things?

Mitt's miscalculation was not that he changed his views but that he pandered to a voting block that would never give him full loyalty. He thought they would be able to see through his Mormoness, that they could find common ground and religion wouldn't matter. Big gamble, he lost.

A faultering economy has given him his true voice. Will it be enough?

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 177002)

If Romney loses, he has no one but himself to blame. He mislabeled himself and miscalculated. If he wins, it will be despite these poor decisions.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 177011)

I am not understanding your point with regards to Florida. You indicated Obama would be in trouble because Hillary will win in Florida.You then note that it will be a factor only if something "other than the expected" occurs there. Well, she is heavily expected to win in Florida. So how will that help her, according to you, if she does? Can't Florida, with your line of argumentation, only help Obama (unless he receives almost NO votes)? Ironically, for support, you point to Michigan where Obama arguably received more publicity because Hillary only beat "uncommitted" by 16 points or so. Doesn't that support my argument that a loss in Florida won't hurt Obama at all?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 176982)

Who cares about Florida? It is worth 0 delegates (just like Michigan).

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 176986)

As Romney and the state of Wyoming has learned, delegates are not always what counts at this stage. As you should know, perception in these early contests can have a big influence on later voters.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 176989)

Democrats aren't paying any attention at all to Florida.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 177021)

Agreed. He does and says some really strange things. There was a video released of him yesterday that shows him with a bunch of African-American supporters in South Carolina. As he puts his arm around one of the girls for a picture, he says "Who let the dogs out, Who, Who Who...." Sooo very awkward.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 177023)

I said no such thing. *Sigh* These conversations with you never change. All I said was that it matters, in contrast to you who said it does NOT matter. This is not complicated.

If Hillary wins as expected it will boost her campaign's credentials, even if it gets only cursory media attention in the wake of the Republican contest. If Obama wins against expectations, it will likely get HUGE coverage.

It's a mystery to me how you've retreated under the "no delegates, no matter" tent.

Just for review and your short attention span:

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 177026)

Is it any more awkward than Mrs. Clinton and Obama and their fake southern accents when they were in Selma, Alabama?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 177036)

I really didn't think this would be complicated.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 177036)

Hillary is absolutely expected to win Florida. As you noted, that doesn't matter, unless something "unexpected" occurs. Since you brought all of this up in the context of Florida harming Obama by voting for Hillary, you must be of the opinion that Obama will do much worse in Florida than he is currently expected to do (which is to lose by double digits) (which sounds kind of crazy to me).

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 177042)

I'll be charitable and assume we're just talking past one another. I don't think Obama will be "in trouble" because of a loss in Florida. I think a loss in Florida will continue to underscore the trouble he's already in. Thus, I think it matters. It will matter more if he happens to win. But it still matters either way.



I never even alluded to either of these two bolded comments; in fact, I said the exact opposite of the first.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 177037)

Clinton's WAS quite awkward. Obama's sounded quite natural. But yes, I would say Romney's was even more awkward. It looked like a white dude trying to act like what he thought black people acted like (and missing horribly).

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 177050)

How would Florida underscore the trouble he's already in (which also assumes he is already in trouble)? He hasn't campaigned there at all. He hasn't spent any money there at all. He hasn't visited the state with any sort of regularity (if at all). How does losing there underscore the "trouble" you say he is in (let alone "continue" to underscore the trouble he is in)? In case you haven't noticed, Obama leads the actual delegate count right now. He is WINNING so far. And he should win in South Carolina as well. Florida doesn't matter (unless Hillary underperforms like in Michigan, in which case it is GREAT for Obama going into Super Tuesday).

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 177065)

Florida has a good cross-section of the US, and has become an unexpected close-call bellwether in recent elections. Obama's troubles there, especially sans campaigning, signals a larger problem to me. You're welcome to disagree, just don't put words in my mouth.

Below is a sample article making the point that Florida still matters, and interestingly enough, makes this observation:



http://www.ajc.com/services/content/...RIDA_0114.html

Kinda matches you, doesn't it. Although I think Clinton would be easier to beat, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I'm not blinded by an Obagasm.

As for the delegate count, I think you're falling into the pit that puts too much importance on such things. I'd love to say Romney is clear frontrunner based on the delegate count, but I think it's misleading. All it takes is one day (Feb 5) to turn that relative small margin on it's head. You're probably one of those who thinks Obama "really" won in Nevada, even though he lost the popular vote.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 177088)

Silly me. And to think I also thought Bush "really" won in the US, even though he lost the popular vote. I wouldn't dare to disagree with www.ajc.com (how in the world do you find these obscure references? I really need to peruse the Omaha Weekly Standard to find an article that agrees with me).

Good thing you were here to correct me on such nonsense.

And it's "Obamagasm." "Obagasm" still doesn't make any sense.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 177091)

A substanceless response. So typical.

AJC.com is the site for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the primary newspaper for the largest city of Florida's northern neighbor, which you would know if you'd bothered to click the link. You have heard of Atlanta out there in California, haven't you?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 177095)

I know what the AJC is. And I did click on the link. What I find amusing is your sudden acceptance of the AJC as the authority on such matters.

And my quote about Omaha was designed to make what I thought to be a fairly obvious point: you can find any position on any topic on the internet. So what? Excuse me for disagreeing with the primary newspaper of the largest city of Florida's northern neighbor on the impact of the Democratic primary in Florida. Maybe I should look to the Birmingham News for some support. That is, after all, the largest newspaper in the largest city in Florida's Northwestern neighbor. Would you be persuaded THEN?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 176989)

And what "rumor" is it you are trying to claim with Michigan and Florida delegates? The party has made it pretty clear that if those delegates are seated at all, it will only be after a nominee has emerged (making their participation totally useless).

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 177637)

Fox News reported again this morning that the Florida Democrat party is still trying to persuade the national party to seat its delegates.

And then there's this from a local Florida newspaper:



http://www.bakercountypress.com/inde...=1124&Itemid=2

Cue: Cali Coug attack on the credibility of Fox News and the Baker County Press newspaper. "Who the hell are THEY? Blah, blah, blah."