Who had a Better night Obama or Clinton?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:03:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Who had a Better night Obama or Clinton?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
Poll
Question: Who had a Better night on Feb. 5th Obama or Clinton?
#1
Obama
 
#2
Clinton
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 98

Author Topic: Who had a Better night Obama or Clinton?  (Read 9785 times)
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: February 06, 2008, 03:13:10 PM »

If I understand the figures correctly, Hillary had more cash on hand than Obama raised.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019

Obama needed a clear win.  He didn't get it.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: February 06, 2008, 03:23:42 PM »

To all those who said it was better for Clinton: Intrade disagrees.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: February 06, 2008, 03:24:38 PM »

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.

Good, it's easier to attack her for nepotism.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: February 06, 2008, 03:28:09 PM »

Did Clinton win what she was expected to win? Did Obama win what he was expected to win?

Simple as that.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: February 06, 2008, 03:29:17 PM »


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).



I've seen the Intrade numbers well below sixty.

Absolutely no way was anyone claiming Hillary was "home free" after NH.  Last two weeks of January, it was all about Obama, and how terrible Bill was.

I think Obama was in very good shape to walk out of Super Tuesday as the front runner; I'll even go so far as to say that, before Texas, he may emerge as the front runner for a while.  Hillary is better able to sustain a campaign.

Hillary will be the nominee, probably with the help of the Super Delegates and/or with the seating of the FL delegation.

It is a long term campaign and I don't think that the Obama campaign fully understood that.  Hillary does.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: February 06, 2008, 03:33:17 PM »

To all those who said it was better for Clinton: Intrade disagrees.

I seem to remember Intrade saying NH would go to Obama.  I seem to remember me saying, "Buy Clinton." Wink
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: February 06, 2008, 03:36:26 PM »
« Edited: February 06, 2008, 04:03:51 PM by J. J. »

BTW, here is the latest quote from Intrade that I have:

Pretty even on the Democratic side. McCain has mostly sewn things up on the Republican side.

DEMOCRATS

Nomination
Clinton 51.0
Obama 49.0
Gore 0.9
Edwards 0.2

All the outstanding states that are traded
New Mexico: Obama leads 50-45
Pennsylvania: Clinton leads 55-30

Logged
Inmate Trump
GWBFan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,022


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -7.30

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: February 06, 2008, 03:52:02 PM »

To all those who said it was better for Clinton: Intrade disagrees.

That doesn't mean anything at all, actually.

Did Clinton win what she was expected to win? Did Obama win what he was expected to win?

Simple as that.

You're right.  Clinton won everything she was expected to win except Missouri.  However, she also picked up California and New Jersey, both states she was not expected to perform too well in.  Even more unexpected for Hillary was the large lead she enjoyed in California.

Obama, on the other hand, won almost everything he was expected to win, plus Missouri.  He did, however, lose two states that should have gone his way--two states that were polling his way, and were expected to go his way:  California and New Jersey.  Those are two very big losses for him, while Hillary really didn't have any huge upsets (she didn't lose Missouri by more than a percentage point, and in fact carried the state the whole night up until the last few precincts came in.  (I might count Massachusetts as well, given his endorsements from the state's two senators and governor, but I'm not sure how polling was up to yesterday's vote.)

Hillary leads in the delegate race.  She leads in the popular vote, when combining the vote totals from each state so far.  That's what you call a winner.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,875


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: February 06, 2008, 03:54:46 PM »

To all those who said it was better for Clinton: Intrade disagrees.

That doesn't mean anything at all, actually.

Did Clinton win what she was expected to win? Did Obama win what he was expected to win?

Simple as that.

You're right.  Clinton won everything she was expected to win except Missouri.  However, she also picked up California and New Jersey, both states she was not expected to perform too well in.  Even more unexpected for Hillary was the large lead she enjoyed in California.

Obama, on the other hand, won almost everything he was expected to win, plus Missouri.  He did, however, lose two states that should have gone his way--two states that were polling his way, and were expected to go his way:  California and New Jersey.  Those are two very big losses for him, while Hillary really didn't have any huge upsets (she didn't lose Missouri by more than a percentage point, and in fact carried the state the whole night up until the last few precincts came in.  (I might count Massachusetts as well, given his endorsements from the state's two senators and governor, but I'm not sure how polling was up to yesterday's vote.)

Hillary leads in the delegate race.  She leads in the popular vote, when combining the vote totals from each state so far.  That's what you call a winner.
Obama was supposed to win in NJ? What? He never lead in New Jersey, New Jersey is in New York's backyard, the north of the state is effectively NYC's suburb/exurb.

Obama took CT, DE, MO and NM is still too close to call. She took the states she was supposed to take, he took the states he was supposed to take, and then he took a couple extra.
Logged
TheGlobalizer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,286
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: February 06, 2008, 03:57:18 PM »

Pretty much an even split.  Obama won more states, but lost CA.
Logged
Inmate Trump
GWBFan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,022


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -7.30

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: February 06, 2008, 03:58:54 PM »

Obama took CT, DE, MO and NM is still too close to call. She took the states she was supposed to take, he took the states he was supposed to take, and then he took a couple extra.

Define "a couple extra."

And Clinton was supposed to take California?  Hmm...I guess I was dreaming when all the media and polls showed Obama ahead in the state.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: February 06, 2008, 03:59:14 PM »

He did, however, lose two states that should have gone his way--two states that were polling his way, and were expected to go his way:  California and New Jersey.

Not a single poll in over a year had Obama winning New Jersey.  The average of every poll since February 1st was a 6 point lead for Clinton.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: February 06, 2008, 04:01:10 PM »

And Clinton was supposed to take California?  Hmm...I guess I was dreaming when all the media and polls showed Obama ahead in the state.

Six of the eleven polls in California since February 1st showed a Clinton lead.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,875


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: February 06, 2008, 04:01:54 PM »

Obama took CT, DE, MO and NM is still too close to call. She took the states she was supposed to take, he took the states he was supposed to take, and then he took a couple extra.

Define "a couple extra."

And Clinton was supposed to take California?  Hmm...I guess I was dreaming when all the media and polls showed Obama ahead in the state.
Some polls showed Obama ahead in California. Some showed Clinton ahead. Some showed it tied. None of the media said that Obama was ahead: they called it at best a toss-up, pointing out that Clinton had a huge lead a week ago.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: February 06, 2008, 04:03:31 PM »

Are we all...



...having fun?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: February 06, 2008, 04:04:08 PM »

California was considered a toss-up, and ended up a bit more solid for Clinton than expected.  Result: a small public victory for Clinton.

Elsewhere, a small public victory for Obama thanks to the overall state wins, the "we've surged in a few months" argument, Missouri and Connecticut.

Most importantly, all of the news coverage was of a tie.  Some news sources focused on Obama winning more states (and probably more delegates); others focused on Clinton's California win.  There were no big news stories either way, even from the sensationalist newspapers.  That says a lot.

This is really not a big public perception deal either way, and I'm amazed that the Clinton and Obama die-hards are spinning it that way.  Man, you guys are really true believers, both in the American public and your candidates.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: February 06, 2008, 04:05:46 PM »

Man, you guys are really true believers (...) in the American public (...).
That's a pretty harsh way of telling someone he's deranged.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: February 06, 2008, 04:06:13 PM »

He did, however, lose two states that should have gone his way--two states that were polling his way, and were expected to go his way:  California and New Jersey.

Not a single poll in over a year had Obama winning New Jersey.  The average of every poll since February 1st was a 6 point lead for Clinton.

There was that supposed last minute surge for Obama.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: February 06, 2008, 04:07:40 PM »

He did, however, lose two states that should have gone his way--two states that were polling his way, and were expected to go his way:  California and New Jersey.

Not a single poll in over a year had Obama winning New Jersey.  The average of every poll since February 1st was a 6 point lead for Clinton.

There was that supposed last minute surge for Obama.
Yeah well, "New Jersey for Clinton" was still of news value comparable to "DC for Kerry" in the 2004 general to the uninformed observer. Really, there'd be few states she has less business losing.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: February 06, 2008, 04:10:52 PM »

He did, however, lose two states that should have gone his way--two states that were polling his way, and were expected to go his way:  California and New Jersey.

Not a single poll in over a year had Obama winning New Jersey.  The average of every poll since February 1st was a 6 point lead for Clinton.

I was referring to California, not NJ.  Sorry for the confusion.

There was that supposed last minute surge for Obama.
Yeah well, "New Jersey for Clinton" was still of news value comparable to "DC for Kerry" in the 2004 general to the uninformed observer. Really, there'd be few states she has less business losing.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: February 06, 2008, 04:11:30 PM »

He did, however, lose two states that should have gone his way--two states that were polling his way, and were expected to go his way:  California and New Jersey.

Not a single poll in over a year had Obama winning New Jersey.  The average of every poll since February 1st was a 6 point lead for Clinton.

There was that supposed last minute surge for Obama.
Yeah well, "New Jersey for Clinton" was still of news value comparable to "DC for Kerry" in the 2004 general to the uninformed observer. Really, there'd be few states she has less business losing.

Worth noting that Clinton's poll numbers never really fell in New Jersey, even if her leads did.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: February 06, 2008, 04:12:01 PM »

He did, however, lose two states that should have gone his way--two states that were polling his way, and were expected to go his way:  California and New Jersey.

Not a single poll in over a year had Obama winning New Jersey.  The average of every poll since February 1st was a 6 point lead for Clinton.

I was referring to California, not NJ.  Sorry for the confusion.

There was that supposed last minute surge for Obama.
Yeah well, "New Jersey for Clinton" was still of news value comparable to "DC for Kerry" in the 2004 general to the uninformed observer. Really, there'd be few states she has less business losing.
Ah. Yeah, I was hoping for a surprise there, but I expected something closer in liner with what we got.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: February 06, 2008, 04:14:01 PM »

J. J., I have no real way of proving it, but I doubt the average American really heard more than an off-hand comment about California.  And then even, I bet the reaction was more "oh, gee, screwy polls.  I heard Obama won some other states though!" than "OMG Obama collapse."

People are generally stupid and poorly-informed, not just stupid.
Logged
elcorazon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: February 06, 2008, 04:26:20 PM »

obama's surge led to some unrealistic expectations among some of the pundits/public.  some felt he might win Mass, Cal and NJ, but most felt these were likely Clinton victories.

I don't think any of them going for Clinton was much of a surprise even to those who believed fully that Obama was surging, but I do think the margin surprised most, especially in Cal and Mass.  Obama did win CT and MO but both were thin margins, unlike Hillary's big wins. 

Just like NH, Hillary's wins were semi-comebacks that got more press base on the lowered expectations.  Not sure how much they fed into this thing intentionally, but for whatever reason, it did seem to work.
Logged
Thomas Jackson
ghostmonkey
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 710


Political Matrix
E: 8.77, S: 8.79

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: February 06, 2008, 04:40:56 PM »


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

When did you start?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong again. http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080206/cm_thenation/15281018

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary! Had huge leads in both MA and CA. Even the last SUSA poll had Hillary! +13 in CA. She was supposed to win Both. She did what she was supposed to do. That's not a "victory".

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary! had consistant leads in these States. Consistant. Like it or not, you can't change those facts.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary! had big leads in All of these States. Some of them were 20+ just two weeks ago.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense. Hillary! supporters have tried to play the gender card over and over again. Her supporters support her because of what is between her legs. They brand anyone who dares speak out against the machine as "anti-woman".

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact is, many Hillary! supporters have attacked Obama's race. They keep trying to paint him as the "Black Candidate" when he is anything but.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Under no circumstances would I EVER vote for Hillary! She could be running against Kermit the Frog, and Kermit would get my vote. Beyond that, Obama is inspiring, positive and hopeful. Hillary! is cruel, cunning, and manipulative.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 14 queries.