Election 2008: So is Barrack Obama finished?

AND the people's economist Paul Krugman says that Clinton's health plan could work, and says Obama's would not. That's gotta mean something...

doctorj wrote: http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/California_s_Delegate_Count_An_Exercise_in_Futility__5338.html

That's really interesting. I haven't seen the odd/even perspective on the delegate battle before. I (like most Americans, I think) believe that the electoral college/delegate system is complete crap, and that the candidates should be selected based on popular vote. But if we're going to have a delegate system, they should increase the number of delegates to make the delegate count more closely approximate the popular vote.

So as the dust settles, it looks like Obama not only won more states last night than Clinton, but more delegates too!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

Campaign Manager David Plouffe wrote: “By winning a majority of delegates and a majority of the states, Barack Obama won an important Super Tuesday victory over Sen. Clinton in the closest thing we have to a national primary.”

“From Colorado and Utah in the West to Georgia and Alabama in the South to Sen. Clinton’s backyard in Connecticut, Obama showed that he can win the support of Americans of every race, gender and political party in every region of the country,” Plouffe said. “That’s why he’s on track to win Democratic nomination, and that’s why he’s the best candidate to defeat John McCain in November.”

And Obama is also crushing her in fundraising, meaning a big advantage as the race winds on.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8374.html

Pardon my ignorance, but what the hell is a super-delegate? And why do they have more say than regular delegates?

Carnivore wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-pearce/hillarys-looming-electab_b_84549.html

The latest polling on the subject appears to confirm this, at least at the present time:

lilbangladesh wrote: Pardon my ignorance, but what the hell is a super-delegate? And why do they have more say than regular delegates?

Super delegates are the establishment party bosses, just with Electrolytes!

....so that even if Obama gets more votes than Clinton, the party bosses errrr.... i mean super delegates can still anoint her over him

Obama, Clinton, Bubba, Spitzer, Kerry, Kennedy, etc... are all super-delegates. Whoever wins the Dem nod, needs to be able to unite the party after he/she is chosen

SevenOneEighty wrote:
Obama, who is vying to become the first black president in US history, "would certainly not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would murder him," Lessing, 88, told the Dagens Nyheter daily.

And what an 88-year old British Rhodesian Communist says to a cheap Swedish tabloid is gospel on this subject because... ?

Thank you, Q, for answering my question. Seems anti-democratic to me, but there ya go.

And all the previous postings have shown me is that people would rather have a black man rather than a white woman for president. Sexism trumps racism. Which doesn't surprise me.

But I'm not disappointed because while I would love to have a woman president in my lifetime, I would prefer one that isn't so compromised.

But the question I have is, why do people think Obama would be more likely to be assassinated than Clinton? While I think the perception is probably true, I think it has to do more with Obama's charisma than his race. Charismatic people inspire a lot of things, both good and bad, and it often comes back to bite them, like what happened to JFK. It's hard to imagine someone getting enough passion to assassinate the wonkette. It would seem that Hilary's opponents get more juice out of sliming her, which generally requires the target to be alive.

quijibo wrote: [quote=lilbangladesh]And all the previous postings have shown me is that people would rather have a black man rather than a white woman for president. Sexism trumps racism. Which doesn't surprise me.

ummm. no. if the race were between hillary and mccain, i'd vote for hillary
if the race were between obama and hillary, i'd vote for obama
penis or vagina are not the selectors, it's the individuals involved
Yup. It's insulting to suggest identity politics is the thing people are voting. It's just not true.

I was talking to an older independently registered person who liked Mitt. That vote (in the beltway primary, tuesday) is now going to Hillary. GO FIGURE!

quijibo wrote: if hillary wins the nod, the only way she can unite the democratic party is to have obama as her v.p.

It's been pointed out to me that Obama might not feel that it is in his best interests to VP, and I don't think the whole race is riding on that ticket. Even tho I'd like to see Clinton/Obama '08
They looked liked a chummy dream team in that last debate . . .

here's a bit of local political thought, as seen on the platform of the Prospect Park Q this afternoon:

quijibo wrote: [quote=lilbangladesh]And all the previous postings have shown me is that people would rather have a black man rather than a white woman for president. Sexism trumps racism. Which doesn't surprise me.

ummm. no. if the race were between hillary and mccain, i'd vote for hillary
if the race were between obama and hillary, i'd vote for obama
penis or vagina are not the selectors, it's the individuals involved

if hillary wins the nod, the only way she can unite the democratic party is to have obama as her v.p.

The difference is that there's a rather huge policy difference between Clinton and McCain, and people, hopefully, will use policy as a basis for selection of a candidate. When the differences are minor, people will vote for who they are comfortable with.

And unfortunately, people are voting quite a bit based on identity and encouraging others to do the same. Sad, but true. Not everyone, true, but a sizeable amount.

ince the question of who would vote for whom (grammar police, come get me!)
is hot on some of our minds . . .
Gallup finds that Americans are reluctant to vote for homos (or queers, if you prefer), atheists, and the elderly
a little reluctant to vote for Jews, but pretty okay with Catholics, women, Blacks . . .
Fascinating stuff. They don't break it out by who is doing the voting, so it's a little less *fun*

Quote:
A recent Gallup poll asked Americans whether they would vote for "a generally well-qualified" presidential candidate nominated by their
party with each of the following characteristics: Jewish, Catholic,
Mormon, an atheist, a woman, black, Hispanic, homosexual, 72 years of
age, and someone married for the third time.

A few highlights:
94% said they would be willing to vote for a Jew for president; 7%
would not vote for a Jew.

55% said they would be willing to vote for a homosexual for president;
43% would not vote for a homosexual.

45% said they would be willing to vote for an atheist for president; a
majority of 53% would not vote for an atheist.

Better tell that to Barney Frank's district. He came out as gay pretty early in his political career and they still keep voting him in, mostly because he's a damn good congressman.

I remember when he had that scandal where he helped out a young man who turned out to be a prostitute. I was in Indiana at the time and everyone was saying, "Well, his career is over! He's gay!"

I said, "Ummm... we already knew that and we voted for him anyway. It's a case of bad judgment. He's not going to lose his seat over it."

"YOU'RE WRONG!!! HE'S GAY!!!"

Ummm... yeah. I was proven right and they were wrong.

lilbangladesh wrote:

Better tell that to Barney Frank's district. He came out as gay pretty early in his political career and they still keep voting him in, mostly because he's a damn good congressman.

I remember when he had that scandal where he helped out a young man who turned out to be a prostitute. I was in Indiana at the time and everyone was saying, "Well, his career is over! He's gay!"

I said, "Ummm... we already knew that and we voted for him anyway. It's a case of bad judgment. He's not going to lose his seat over it."

"YOU'RE WRONG!!! HE'S GAY!!!"

Ummm... yeah. I was proven right and they were wrong.

Well, you're wrong here. Barney Frank hired a prostitute, Steve Gobie, paid him for sex and had a relationship with him while Gobie ran a prostitution ring out of Barney's house. Slightly different than" helping out a young man.

They keep voting in the Klansman and the Murderer too.

eggcream wrote: Well, you're wrong here. Barney Frank hired a prostitute, Steve Gobie, paid him for sex and had a relationship with him while Gobie ran a prostitution ring out of Barney's house. Slightly different than" helping out a young man.

They keep voting in the Klansman and the Murderer too.

That's funny, because what I heard is that Dick Cheney eats the still-beating heart of an eight year old boy for breakfast EVERY DAY. And that George W. Bush procures these young boys for Dick from Mexico and smuggles them in through his Texas ranch, where he runs a pedophile prostitution ring solely with the boys destined for Cheney's breakfast plate. But I guess you can make whatever outlandish claim you want, eggcream, to distract us from the truth.

doctorj wrote: I reckon futures contracts are more reliable than opinion polls. Intrade has Clinton dropping 6.0 points to 52.0/55.9, and Obama rising 3.6 points to 45.6/52.0 in California. Looks like Obama is off his high closing price of 57.6 tonight, and Clinton up from her low of 40.1.

http://www.intrade.com/index.jsp?request_operation=trade&request_type=action&selConID=538010

Obama now has a 71% chance of winning the nomination.

Link

Furthermore, he has a 49% chance of winning the Presidential election, more than any other candidate (McCain is second with 31%).

http://www.intrade.com/#