• comment on a post Hillary Clinton Texas Townhall over 6 years ago

    This really is a great format for Hillary!  She is awesome!  And this format highlights her depth and breadth of knowledge.  She reminds me of Jim Cramer on Mad Money - not in terms of being insane - but just her level of knowledge.

  • on a comment on Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio over 6 years ago

    Look, if Obama wants to win - then win.  It is very simple - get the 2015 delegates or whatever.  Until then, nobody is going to hand you the nomination on a silver platter - sorry.

  • on a comment on Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio over 6 years ago

    Well, he had the better campaign strategy and demographics for post Super Tuesday... thus far.  And he understood that he could raise a lot of money online first.

    But I think Clinton has caught on pretty quickly.  She just had over 50k donors in the last 72 hours alone, and should this race go on, I would expect her to raise around $40-$50 million per month.  Before February, her campaign was not managed properly - I will give you that.  But unlike most, perhaps, I will also give her credit for changing course.  Whether it is too late is now the question.

  • comment on a post Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio over 6 years ago

    I think what Obama does show us, is that if you spend $15 million per state, people learn your name.  They also might even have positive impressions of you.  To me, that is not necessarily "momentum" - that is the advantage of a political upstart with $50 million to blow against someone with huge name recognition advantages.

    But if Clinton can still win in OH and maybe even TX, that would show us that the American people want to see more than commercials and speeches to decide this race.

    I live in the Houston area and from everything I have seen, we have been bombarded - I mean absolutely bombarded - by an all-out Obama ad blitz.  I have seen probably 20 Obama TV ads (thank you DVR, for letting me skip them), some well-placed online Obama ads (including the newspaper site), and received 6 very nice Obama mailers - compared to 1, count 'em - 1 mailer for Clinton.  I have not seen any Clinton ads.  And the mailer for Clinton was not even from the Clinton camp - it was from a "Vote Tejano" group.  Clinton has done a lot of appearances here - including Bill / Chelsea.

    I am a Clinton supporter but it is hard for me to see how Clinton could possibly improve from her initial 58-42 type of spread in these situations.  She gives up name recognition and does not have the money to match Obama - at least not everywhere.

    So, I agree - a victory in the popular vote in TX would be HUGE for her.  A victory of anything beyond a few percentage points in OH will also be impressive.

  • comment on a post March 4 Predictions over 6 years ago

    OH - Clinton 53, Obama 47
    TX - Clinton 50.5, Obama 49.5, but Obama wins more delegates due to caucus
    RI - Clinton 56, Obama 44
    VT - Obama 59, Clinton 41

    The results will be Richardson, Kerry, and Kennedy will call for Clinton to bow out on Wednesday.  Clinton, having just won 3 states, will kindly suggest that these guys STFU and vote for the candidate that actually wins the critical states.  She will claim Obama cannot knock her out, and the people don't want Obama.  At this point, Big MO will be Clinton's.

  • Who has won 40 states?  Nobody.

  • OH, PA, and FL are battlegrounds.  If Hillary wins OH and PA, that means she is stronger than Obama in those crucial states.  If they re-vote Florida and Hillary likewise wins there, then she has proven that she is the stronger candidate in the big, crucial battlegrounds.  I think that is absolutely important and relevant.

  • I think the most important thing coming out of Texas is actually the Latino vote.  This will not impact how Texas votes in November 2008, as it is still firmly in the hands of Republicans (2012 may be our time in Texas).  However, the Latino vote on March 4 will be a good indication of how the Southwest / Mountain West is likely to shape up in the general - Clinton won AZ, NM, and NV.  She lost in CO.  If she is still winning 70-30 among Hispanics, this could be significant to efforts to shore up the Southwest come November, against someone in John McCain who is from the area and can be expected to do reasonably well there.

    Since Feb 4, we have not had another significant showing of Hispanic voters.  This is it.

  • >>Your right this isn't the general election. It's not winner take all. It's the Democratic Primaries to select the nominee for the party.

    And part of the rules for the Democratic nomination are that super delegates can vote however they damn well want.  Sure, it might not be smart to go Clinton if the state was 70-30 for Obama, or for Obama if the state was 70-30 for Clinton... but last I checked Kennedy and Kerry were for Obama, despite his losing Massachusetts.

    If Clinton wins the big states, the nomination will be hers.  The supers aren't going to go for a guy solely on his ability to win yuppies and / or unfair caucuses (WA, WI, MN) and the African American vote (LA, VA, MD, GA).  If Hillary can win the truly diverse states in primaries, she will win the supers.  And THAT will be what is best for the party too.

  • Bill Richardson?  Now that would be awesome news... should help her get an even more commanding lead among TX Hispanics.

  • Red state / big state conflict does not matter.  What matters is Obama only has one big state - Illinois.  That could very well end up being his Achilles heel.  The Dems will not nominate someone who has won only 1 big, important state.  Missouri was probably his 2nd best win, on the basis of it being a great battleground state, and he won it 49-49... not exactly "nominate me now" material.

    If Hillary wins CA, TX, OH, PA, NJ, MA, versus Obama's IL, then I think there is no way he will "cruise to" the nomination.  They will have to re-vote FL and MI to see if he can actually carry a huge state, or if Hillary deserves the nomination.

  • This does not matter.  The super delegates will go to Hillary if she wins the remaining big states.

  • There is no way that Clinton needs to win by 20.

    Obama needs to prove he can win a big, important state.  So far, he has Illinois, his home state.

    At the end of Tuesday, if Clinton has NY, CA, NJ, OH, and TX, and looks like she is going to be competitive and probably favored in PA, then this race goes on.  The Democrats would have to be insane to nominate Obama in the face of this fact pattern, his delegate lead notwithstanding.

  • Oh give me a break.  Lots of people say Obama is "more electable" than Clinton because of lower negatives.  If that isn't "assuming a conclusion" then I don't know what is.

    Obama's points on Iraq are weak - Clinton gave her yes vote to authorization with hesitation and warnings to the Bush administration, which is just as good as a speech as an Illinois state senator to me.  And that is his only claim to "better judgement" than Clinton.  

    Meanwhile, I can look at Bill Clinton's 8 years of wonderful foreign policy to help inform my decision of how a likely Clinton foreign policy will look in the future - and I can look at that record all over the globe.  He is an unknown to me.  I cannot support him.

    I am a young, college-educated, life-long Dem.  But I think the decision to nominate Barack Obama would be a great tragedy.

  • I think this ad is great - it is not really negative at all if you watch it, and it does force you to think about the issue.  

    Somebody needs to start bringing this up, instead of letting our nominee just get steam-rolled by the Republicans in the fall - which Obama surely will be.  

    We have too much at stake domestically to nominate a political noob.


Advertise Blogads