The Queen Bee is not amusedFollow

How many times have I pointed out the "X after Y" fallacy (yeah. Correlation/Causation. You can keep your fancy-pancy words...)? Just because something happened "after" something else doesn't mean anything at all...


Never? On the other hand, I can link 50 times you've used it as substantive evidence that something was Clinton's fault.


Not only do I doubt it had anything to do with the results of those primaries/caucuses, it's also not really a surprise (the results, not the switch in personnel). Every single analysts has been saying for the last week and a half that Clinton's strategy for this phase is to basically let Obama have the smaller states and therefore small number of delegates and focus on the larger ones instead.

Right. Much like the nail's strategy is to be driven into the wood. The plan wasn't "let's loose 10 in a row to lull them into a sense of false security", idiot.

Oh wait, I forgot, she had this wrapped up after NH, right? The primaries were meaningless, there was no chance Obama could win. I remember it well.

I guess being behind in delegates was all part of the master plan. I mean she won California, right? Doesn't that mean she wins? Wait, what's that? There are other states? The hell you say!



While I'm sure she would have liked smaller margins, absolutely nothing about the results from this last weekend, nor the likely results this week are surprising or cause for alarm/celebration on either side.


I'd say they have to be shocking to you, particularity, considering your very out of character prognostication about how meaningless this primary cycle was when the nomination is no way in doubt. I'd go back to never stating an actual opinion on anything. Suits you better.

It's not surprising that Obama will win these races.

No, it's surprising they're so deep, though. Winning a state 51% to 44% because you carry 80% of the black vote isn't the same as winning a state 65% to 33% and winning virtually every demographic group.


Honestly, I'd love to see Obama win, so you guys keep cheering (and Smash needs to root for Clinton). Despite what the far right pundits say, I believe that Obama is a far more beatable candidate then Clinton.

I'd imagine a racist or a political neophyte would think so. You're likely ludicrously underestimating the increase in turn out from kids and black folks. You can forget about carrying Virginia if it's Obama, which means you need to win CA or NY. Good luck with that.

You obviously forgot that McCain is gonna turn CA red this November.

Assuming you meant the opposite of what you typed, damn near everyone says it. So do the polls thus far.

You're welcome to your opinion but it's a minority one and not just among the Limbaugh's and Hannity's of the world.

Edited, Feb 12th 2008 9:27pm by Jophiel

That's quite the vote of confidence. Way to lead, Hillary.

They may know, but they won't care. He'll take the majority of the moderates, engage thousands and thousands of new voters in each state, and carry the Democratic base. I think it'll still be a race, simply because I don't believe that the GOP base (religious fundamentalists and racists) will sit it out even if it's McCain and he does have crossover appeal with moderates, but Obama will win. And, he'll have a much easier time doing so than Clinton would have.

The same polls that show that most voters believe that Obama is more moderate then Clinton?

Most people haven't yet gotten past the "fresh face" of Obama to realize just how far left he is (other then his core supporters that is). Once that happens, support in the middle will run away pretty quickly. The polls all show skewed numbers because of this.



Of course it's a minority one. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. It just shows that most people don't know enough about Obama yet. Even the talk radio folks haven't figured this out quite yet (although some have, Medved had a pretty decent conversation about this very issue yesterday I believe). They are viewing the issue through the lens of "Clinton==Enemy", so Obama isn't seen in the same exact light. In fact, they seem to be making the mistake that "anyone who's not Clinton is better then Clinton". I suspect that as there's more discussion about Obama and his politics many of those guys will realize that Obama is worse in pretty much every single way then Clinton on every single issue they care about.


They just haven't gotten past bashing Clinton yet.

I haven't seen those...where at? I can't seem to find anything googling but I can't really think what to google for either.

Nexa

I'm the nice one, remember? Keep your **** fighting to the other thread please, I'm trying to figure out where Gbaji gets his "information".

No, I don't know why.

Nexa

Didn't we establish it was Hannity and Limbaugh?

Rasmussen poll from this week




See. This is the odd thing. When you count exit polls, you'll find that Democrat voters in the Primaries view Obama as more liberal and less moderate then Clinton (I could dig several of those up for you if you want, but they all say the same thing and you almost cant help but trip over them). But when you poll nationwide (and moreso if you poll just moderates or just Republicans), you'll find that Obama is viewed to be more liberal then Clinton.

Neither is viewed to be as moderate as McCain, of course, but the point I'm making is that those in the middle and on the right are currently making assessments and decisions based on a belief that Obama is more moderate then he actually is. If he wins the nomination, that will change as they become more familiar with who he really is and what his real agenda is. The result is that Republicans will be more strongly inclined to vote *against* him then they are today, and Moderates will be much more strongly inclined to vote McCain rather then him.

The reason for this is that to those voters, up to now Obama has just been "that other guy running against Clinton". They know Clinton and where she stands but they don't really know much about Obama. Not yet anyway. That will change and you can bet that Obamas numbers nationwide will sink as a result. They can't possibly get better then they are now among those two groups. The more they learn about him, the less they'll like him. Guaranteed.

Edited, Feb 13th 2008 6:10pm by gbaji

They think he's more moderate then Clinton.

Conservative Talk Show Hosts are uneducated voters not familiar with the candidates?

Huh. Got me there, big guy.

Cite?