Who had a Better night Obama or Clinton?

[Thomas Jackson]

....

[J. J.]

mypalmonkey?

I'll work on my banana jokes.

[Thomas Jackson]

.........

[J. J.]

The media is fawning of Obama that if his grandmother voted against him, they call it racism.

[Person Man]

The media is fawning of Obama that if his grandmother voted against him, they call it racism.

bitter...

[J. J.]

The media is fawning of Obama that if his grandmother voted against him, they call it racism.

bitter...

No, my first choice won. 

I have never seen anyone get the media hype like Obama has.  And it's not Obama doing it; it is the pundits.  It actually hurts Obama, long term, because he can't live up to expectations.

[perdedor]

I would say Obama, if only because he didn't get destroyed. In fact, he actually overperformed. I would be very nervous if I were Clinton, it's a very close race and the primaries to come strongly favor Obama.

I'm just glad that Texas actually matters in something related to the Democrats.

[Wakie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've lurked here quite a while. I find it telling that in typical Hillary! style, you seek to use ad hominem attacks rather than substance.

Ok ... you've been lurking but for some reason today seemed like a great day to post a bunch.  Ok.

And as for substance, you're spinning this as a huge Obama win.  Most people are saying it was a draw.  A WIN would have been if Obama had picked up more delegates than Clinton.  He didn't.

And I will agree with you that I would have expected a Hillary win in NY (where she is Senator), but you'd have thought that Obama would have won MA (both of the MA Senators endorsed Obama).  And you'd also have figured that CA would have been a toss-up but it wasn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary! was always going to win NY, MA and CA, Obama was only shooting at keeping it close. Obama won all across the country, in places he shouldn't have won. (DE, MO, and CT.)[/quote]

Again, why do you think Hillary was "always" going to win MA and CA?  That doesn't make any sense to me.

Also, I view DE and CT as toss-up states.  I see no reason why either state would have favored either candidate.  And as for MO ... ummm .... St Louis has a very large African-American community and Obama does very well with African-Americans.  I'm not shocked at all that he won MO, why are you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually in this forum, on Air America, and several other places the Obama supporters have been nonstop bashing Hillary.  They use terribly mature tactics such as name-calling and trying to shout-down anyone interested in engaging about the issues.  Their favorite discussion point is "she voted for the war".

Also, what is this CRAP about attacking Obama's race?  The only shread of evidence that would imply that is that Bill compared Obama's win in SC to Jesse Jackson's win in SC.  [sarcasm] OMG!  How dare he compare Obama to a famous black leader of the past!?!  This is almost as bad as when Bill compared Obama's initial lead after Iowa to Howard Dean's lead!  [/sarcasm]

Now, as I've said in many other places, I like Obama but I dislike his supporters who seem willing to split the party just to get their guy into office.  Obama supporters who say "I won't vote for Hillary in the general election" are just like the Naderites of 2000 who gave us George W Bush.

[Inmate Trump]

The media is fawning of Obama that if his grandmother voted against him, they call it racism.

bitter...

That's truth talking, not bitterness.  No one who has watched TV for even half a second can deny that Obama is the media's choice.  There is no negative media attached to him whatsoever, while on the opposite end Hillary gets nothing but negative media.

[J. J.]

This was the Obama situation on 2/4/08.
4.  He had his major weapon, which probably gave him Iowa, deployed:  Oprah.

What's fascinating to me is that the one area of the country he deployed Oprah (California), the black population didn't show up.  What's up with that?

Part of it is not the Black population; Oprah was good with white women in Iowa.

Some of it was that she could be on the ground for days in Iowa, retail politics.  She could have changed the results in NH.  Part of it is that there are many "celebrities" in California and she wasn't a huge attraction.

Possible putting on the trail in places like MA, NJ, NM would have been a better deployment, as would putting her in the neighborhood of LA.

[Sam Spade]

This was the Obama situation on 2/4/08.
4.  He had his major weapon, which probably gave him Iowa, deployed:  Oprah.

What's fascinating to me is that the one area of the country he deployed Oprah (California), the black population didn't show up.  What's up with that?

Part of it is not the Black population; Oprah was good with white women in Iowa.

Some of it was that she could be on the ground for days in Iowa, retail politics.  She could have changed the results in NH.  Part of it is that there are many "celebrities" in California and she wasn't a huge attraction.

Possible putting on the trail in places like MA, NJ, NM would have been a better deployment, as would putting her in the neighborhood of LA.

I don't know whether anything could have change MA or NJ that much.  Can she help with the NM dead voting population?

[Inmate Trump]

I would say Obama, if only because he didn't get destroyed. In fact, he actually overperformed. I would be very nervous if I were Clinton, it's a very close race and the primaries to come strongly favor Obama.

I'm just glad that Texas actually matters in something related to the Democrats.

I disagree.  Obama underperformed in the states he was trying to make a surprise upset over Hillary.  These are California (the biggest one, and a huge loss to Obama--the most recent polls showed him in the lead), New Jersey, Massachusetts...  Sure, he overperformed elsewhere, as in my own state of Georgia, but we all know which demographic he has to thank for that.

In fact, I would go so far to say that if Obama had the exact same message and political views, but was white, he would not have won here, and wouldn't have won a few other states either like Alabama; at the very least, the races would've run a lot closer here.  This just goes to show how helpful the black vote is, and how helpful they are to a black candidate.

[Sam Spade]

The media is fawning of Obama that if his grandmother voted against him, they call it racism.

bitter...

That's truth talking, not bitterness.  No one who has watched TV for even half a second can deny that Obama is the media's choice.  There is no negative media attached to him whatsoever, while on the opposite end Hillary gets nothing but negative media.

I agree about Obama and the media.  Way, way way too much hype - seems set for a fall when he doesn't achieve it fully in the future.  I worry about long-term in the primaries, frankly.

This is one of the reasons I voted for Hillary yesterday.

[J. J.]

I would say Obama, if only because he didn't get destroyed. In fact, he actually overperformed. I would be very nervous if I were Clinton, it's a very close race and the primaries to come strongly favor Obama.

I'm just glad that Texas actually matters in something related to the Democrats.

I would say that Obama has under performed twice.  In NH, he had a chance to destroy Clinton and be the nominee; he would have been unstoppable.  Yesterday, he had a chance to win and show broad based support, nationally; he could also have ended the day in first place with the delegate count.  He didn't and he had everything going for him.

The problem now is money.  People will contribute to the presumptive winner (John McCain for the GOP).  Obama is not the presumptive winner and, after yesterday, should begin to see money problems.  Hillary is married to the fund raiser in chief; money has never been a problem.  She can conduct an extended campaign better than Obama.  It won't be pretty, but she can pull it off.

As I told an old friend once, "That's why they call it a campaign."

[Kalimantan]

Obama underperformed compared to the huge hype, undoubtedly. And if he had taken one of CA, MA or NJ, that could have been the end of Clinton. Equally she could have finished Obama - but as it turned out, it was a tie.

Another way of looking at it, is that the polls average, as posted on this site, predicted Obama to win two states, Clinton 11 with nine toss-ups. Obama held both of his two, won four of Clinton's and won the toss-up states 7-1, with NM still to call. All-in-all, not a bad night for Obama! Its only the fact that the one toss-up she took just happened to be California, that keeps things even.

meanwhile, the big hispanic states are largely out of the way, as are Clinton's 'home states' in the NE. The two big exceptions are TX and PA, however, which means it will all come down to super-delegates at the convention ......

[Wiz in Wis]

The media is fawning of Obama that if his grandmother voted against him, they call it racism.

bitter...

No, my first choice won. 

I have never seen anyone get the media hype like Obama has.  And it's not Obama doing it; it is the pundits.  It actually hurts Obama, long term, because he can't live up to expectations.

I have, his name is John McCain... the bravest most moderate hero on the face of the friggin planet... Chris Matthews practically begged him to father his kids so they'd have purple hearts and maverick brains!

[Stranger in a strange land]

overall Obama: Hillary failed to knock him out, and this was her last, best chance to do so. Hillary won the big states, but Obama blew out the cacucus states, did well in the south, and won some pivotal states like Missouri. Hillary held California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, but she'd had 20-point leads in all three for months, so that's not as big an accomplishment as people are staying it is. If the delgate count ends up being roughly equal, then Obama has the advantage because he has more money and the map from here on out favors him for the most part.

However, it's far from over: both won the states they had to win and neither scored any big upsets.

Also, Obama's intrade score went up 11.5 points, while Hillary's went down 12.5. That's an Obama victory in my book, and a pretty good indication that the race has changed from a tossup with slight advantage to Hillary to a pure tossup.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I saw a picture of Jesse Jackson holding an Obama placard.....gotta be Clinton had the better night since he wasn't holding hers.

[SPQR]

Obama...he won the most states and almost tied the delegates.He did lose CA,which everyone expected him to win in the last days,but the delegates are going to be almost tied.Also,his loss in MA is not surprising at all,no matter what the Clinton campaign tries to say. 2 months ago no one would have bet a cent on such a good night for Obama happening.

[Angel of Death]

The problem now is money.  People will contribute to the presumptive winner (John McCain for the GOP).  Obama is not the presumptive winner and, after yesterday, should begin to see money problems.  Hillary is married to the fund raiser in chief; money has never been a problem.  She can conduct an extended campaign better than Obama.  It won't be pretty, but she can pull it off.

I'm sorry, but this is a very hackish statement to make. Obama just outraised Clinton more than 2 to 1. Why? Because due to the sheer difference in number of donors, Hillary is starting to get hurt badly by the per-donor fundraising limit!

[Lief 🗽]

January fund raising:
Obama: $32 million
Clinton: $13 million

Yeah...

[J. J.]

The problem now is money.  People will contribute to the presumptive winner (John McCain for the GOP).  Obama is not the presumptive winner and, after yesterday, should begin to see money problems.  Hillary is married to the fund raiser in chief; money has never been a problem.  She can conduct an extended campaign better than Obama.  It won't be pretty, but she can pull it off.

I'm sorry, but this is a very hackish statement to make. Obama just outraised Clinton more than 2 to 1. Why? Because due to the sheer difference in number of donors, Hillary is starting to get hurt badly by the per-donor fundraising limit!

Not hackish, but practical.  Obama had a huge win in SC, gigantically favorable press, and mega endorsements.  He looked like he could pull off a decisive Super Tuesday victory, for a while.  He didn't.

Clinton can now say, "Look, Obama had all the newspaper endorsements, Ted Kennedy, and most of the Kennedy Clan, mega good press, more money, and I am the one in the lead."  That raises funds. 

Nothing succeeds like success.  On Super Tuesday, Obama was not a failure, but he wasn't a success either.

I'll add that, from what I've seen Obama can pick off states, and is great in person, but he falters and the larger, more unified, campaign.  He can win a victory, but he can't follow up and exploit one. 

[AndrewTX]

Obama did very well down here in my area. In Norwalk we had pretty low voter turn out, but Clinton got 2,953 votes while Obama got 4,081. Kucinich got more votes than Edwards lol.

[Angel of Death]

The press is now whispering that the Clintons are starting to pull a Romney and campaign out of their own pockets. I find this hard to spin in their favor.

[elcorazon]

The problem now is money.  People will contribute to the presumptive winner (John McCain for the GOP).  Obama is not the presumptive winner and, after yesterday, should begin to see money problems.  Hillary is married to the fund raiser in chief; money has never been a problem.  She can conduct an extended campaign better than Obama.  It won't be pretty, but she can pull it off.

I'm sorry, but this is a very hackish statement to make. Obama just outraised Clinton more than 2 to 1. Why? Because due to the sheer difference in number of donors, Hillary is starting to get hurt badly by the per-donor fundraising limit!

Not hackish, but practical.  Obama had a huge win in SC, gigantically favorable press, and mega endorsements.  He looked like he could pull off a decisive Super Tuesday victory, for a while.  He didn't.

Clinton can now say, "Look, Obama had all the newspaper endorsements, Ted Kennedy, and most of the Kennedy Clan, mega good press, more money, and I am the one in the lead."  That raises funds. 

Nothing succeeds like success.  On Super Tuesday, Obama was not a failure, but he wasn't a success either.

I'll add that, from what I've seen Obama can pick off states, and is great in person, but he falters and the larger, more unified, campaign.  He can win a victory, but he can't follow up and exploit one. 

I'm not that big of a believer in the Intrade market meaning much BUT I think you overstate the Obama hype situation.  Hillary consistently traded in the 60's thruout January.  Why would the "bettors" on intrade be solidly behind Hillary's chances, but the campaign donors be behind Obama - kinda cuts against your theory that the money follows the winner (even though I think there's generally merit to that argument).

Not to mention, after NH, Hillary looked like she was practically home free, yet she still only raised 13 mil in the entire month (not all fundraising occurred post SC).