Now that the penalties on FL and MI are the same as the GOP penalty....

[J. J.]

Will the Republican/Hillary hacks quit their whining considering they didn't make a peep about what their own party did?

No, it should have been handled months ago and Hillary gets to challenge at the credentials committee.  Of the there was Obama hack, Li'l Zack who kept on saying the wouldn't be seated and we should ignore it.  LOL.

This is an I-told-you-so.

Unfortunately, those were not coherent sentences.

It should make too much of a difference, as Li'l Zach the Barak Hack has been spinning incoherent sentences on the subject since February.

Seriously, had I been advising either Obama or Dean, I would have advised them to settle this months ago.  It has probably damaged Obama a bit in the potential swing state of MI.

[Joe Republic]

... Li'l Zach the Barak Hack ...

Okay, I don't like BRTD either, but dude, you're 46.

[J. J.]

... Li'l Zach the Barak Hack ...

Okay, I don't like BRTD either, but dude, you're 46.

It's not a question of liking him.  It is a question of Li'l Zach the Barak Hack's blatant, and false, spinning on this issue.

[Alcon]

... Li'l Zach the Barak Hack ...

Okay, I don't like BRTD either, but dude, you're 46.

It's not a question of liking him.  It is a question of Li'l Zach the Barak Hack's blatant, and false, spinning on this issue.

Am I allowed to ask why you remove the "C" from "Barack" when there's a "C" in "Zach"?

[Joe Republic]

... Li'l Zach the Barak Hack ...

Okay, I don't like BRTD either, but dude, you're 46.

It's not a question of liking him.  It is a question of Li'l Zach the Barak Hack's blatant, and false, spinning on this issue.

... and you just missed my point entirely.

[exopolitician]

Will the Republican/Hillary hacks quit their whining considering they didn't make a peep about what their own party did?

2.  Poll numbers.  Hillary, nationally, has been doing better than Obama.  If she should improve to the point where she is consistently beating McCain and Obama is consistently losing, you may see a shift in the super delegates.  That means Obama losing some he already has.

True...but hes actually ahead of McCain now nationally....and Hillary's numbers have been deflating. So you kinda have a hole in your arguement.

So far, only in today's Gallup and not Rasmussen.  One thing to look for is the result when the nomination is "declared."  If Obama doesn't get a bump, that will show dissatisfaction with Obama as the nominee.

It possibly isn't over yet.

I guess....but waiting on this "bump" once the convention happens to actually see whats going to happen is kinda silly imho. I think its pretty obvious [even in the Rasmussen poll] that the numbers are moving. Id say for Clinton [barring some epic collapse of Obama]...its over.

If I channel the thoughts of the super delegates, I might agree with you.  The real question is when Clinton says "It's over," what do her supporters do.  Transfer to Obama, transfer to McCain, or stay home?

Her supporters are going to do whatever they want. I think some are going to be disappointed yeah...and there will be some that wont vote for Obama and will vote for McCain. But in the end I think a majority will come to the side of whoever the eventual democratic nominee is....when we will be able to clearly differentiate the two candidates policies and which former Clinton supporters like best.

[J. J.]

Will the Republican/Hillary hacks quit their whining considering they didn't make a peep about what their own party did?

2.  Poll numbers.  Hillary, nationally, has been doing better than Obama.  If she should improve to the point where she is consistently beating McCain and Obama is consistently losing, you may see a shift in the super delegates.  That means Obama losing some he already has.

True...but hes actually ahead of McCain now nationally....and Hillary's numbers have been deflating. So you kinda have a hole in your arguement.

So far, only in today's Gallup and not Rasmussen.  One thing to look for is the result when the nomination is "declared."  If Obama doesn't get a bump, that will show dissatisfaction with Obama as the nominee.

It possibly isn't over yet.

I guess....but waiting on this "bump" once the convention happens to actually see whats going to happen is kinda silly imho. I think its pretty obvious [even in the Rasmussen poll] that the numbers are moving. Id say for Clinton [barring some epic collapse of Obama]...its over.

If I channel the thoughts of the super delegates, I might agree with you.  The real question is when Clinton says "It's over," what do her supporters do.  Transfer to Obama, transfer to McCain, or stay home?

Her supporters are going to do whatever they want. I think some are going to be disappointed yeah...and there will be some that wont vote for Obama and will vote for McCain. But in the end I think a majority will come to the side of whoever the eventual democratic nominee is....when we will be able to clearly differentiate the two candidates policies and which former Clinton supporters like best.

The question is, how many will that be.  How many shift; how many will stay home?

You can look at it this way.  Both Obama and Clinton have about half of the Democratic electorate.  I'll be generous to Obama and say Clinton has about 45%.  Maybe half jump to Obama (22.5% of the total).  Of the remaining half, half stay home and the other half (12.25%) go to McCain.  That's now 12.25% of the Democrats voting for McCain and a lower Democratic turnout.

I think that Democrats (and those independents that could vote in a Democratic primary) make up more than 50% of the electorate, so you are basically, in this scenario, looking at a greater than 6 point increase for McCain.

Hillary on the ticket might eliminate that, but numbers like that, even with most Hillary voters that vote going to Obama, will create a problem.

[J. J.]

... Li'l Zach the Barak Hack ...

Okay, I don't like BRTD either, but dude, you're 46.

It's not a question of liking him.  It is a question of Li'l Zach the Barak Hack's blatant, and false, spinning on this issue.

... and you just missed my point entirely.

No, I recognize it, but I don't agree with it.

Evey person reading the Li'l Zach the Barak Hack's post should realize the lengths he's gone to to spin and the lack of accuracy in it.

[Alcon]

You know, J. J., BRTD certainly has an Obama lean to his predictions, but you seem to have gone out of your way to have an even stronger Clinton lean.  And in the end, BRTD was right in his predictions and you were generally wrong.  You took credit for your luck in New Hampshire, in a prediction mostly based on "don't underestimate the Clintons," so it's time you took your hard knocks.  BRTD beat you as an analyst in this primary season.  He may be a hack, but he actually isn't that bad as an analyst.  He's less fair than he is informed, but he's not ridiculously unfair.

But Joe's point is well-taken.  You're engaging in schoolyard taunting.  You're stooping to his level.  And "Barack" still has a "C" in it.

[Joe Republic]

No, I recognize it, but I don't agree with it.

Evey person reading the Li'l Zach the Barak Hack's post should realize the lengths he's gone to to spin and the lack of accuracy in it.

Right, right.  You don't see a problem with a 46 year-old man resorting to name-calling.  Okay.

[J. J.]

You know, J. J., BRTD certainly has an Obama lean to his predictions, but you seem to have gone out of your way to have an even stronger Clinton lean.  And in the end, BRTD was right in his predictions and you were generally wrong.  You took credit for your luck in New Hampshire, in a prediction mostly based on "don't underestimate the Clintons," so it's time you took your hard knocks.  BRTD beat you as an analyst in this primary season.  He may be a hack, but he actually isn't that bad as an analyst.  He's less fair than he is informed, but he's not ridiculously unfair.

But Joe's point is well-taken.  You're engaging in schoolyard taunting.  And "Barack" still has a "C" in it.

Except, I'm not supporting the Clintons, by a long shot.  When I predicted NH, I had a substantially higher opinion of Obama than I do now (to the point of saying in a Romney/Obama race that I might vote for Obama).

In this particular case, "Li'l Zack the Barack Hack," has spent months, literally, saying how unimportant this would be, and actually started this thread.  Yet, more than a few of us spent Saturday watching the BRC meeting.

From me, you heard that there was going to be this problem from late February or early March.  Ironically, some of the comments before the committee of the Democratic state chair of MI, could have been lifted from posts.

The thing is, unless the super delegates move in, in force, to Obama, it might still be a problem.  The Republican in me loves that, but the more objective analyst in me does not think it's it is really in the best interest of the Democratic Party.

When it comes to BRTD, let's call a spade a spade on this one.

[J. J.]

No, I recognize it, but I don't agree with it.

Evey person reading the Li'l Zach the Barak Hack's post should realize the lengths he's gone to to spin and the lack of accuracy in it.

Right, right.  You don't see a problem with a 46 year-old man resorting to name-calling.  Okay.

As I just said, let's call a spade a spade on this one.

[Alcon]

BRTD's argument was that the RBC would not seat Michigan and Florida if they made a difference.  And I still think he was right about that, in fact.  Sure, BRTD may have seen it through rose-colored glasses.  But for whatever reason, you chronically (at least before the mid-season) under-predicted Obama in primaries, constantly posted how certain news items were "bad for Obama," and - as far as I remember - never really said anything optimistic about Obama's chances until it became overwhelmingly clear that he would likely be the nominee.

You're not supporting them.  I don't care if you were.  Bias is bias.  You have had a chronically Clinton-tilted analysis.  I'm calling a spade a spade here too.  You're a spade.

[J. J.]

BRTD's argument was that the RBC would not seat Michigan and Florida if they made a difference.  And I still think he was right about that, in fact.  Sure, BRTD may have seen it through rose-colored glasses.  But for whatever reason, you chronically (at least before the mid-season) under-predicted Obama in primaries, constantly posted how certain news items were "bad for Obama," and - as far as I remember - never really said anything optimistic about Obama's chances until it became overwhelmingly clear that he would likely be the nominee.

You're not supporting them.  I don't care if you were.  Bias is bias.  You have had a chronically Clinton-tilted analysis.  I'm calling a spade a spade here too.  You're a spade.

Actually, BRTD said that we shouldn't worry about it and that I shouldn't bring it up.  It obviously was an issue (and still could end up being one). 

Ah, while I don't hold the same opinion now, I actually said before Super Tuesday, that I thought Obama would be a stronger candidate in the Fall  (I think I predicted Obama in Iowa as well).  I also called his SC speech the best public speech in English since "I Have a Dream."

Something did happen after that, and still don't know the trigger, but Obama's demographic tanked with working class white voters; I think since then he's the white vote .  My posts have been reflecting that.  Since then, I've become very pessimistic about Obama's candidacy (though I was way off on WI).  Yes, since that time there has been a lot of bad news that is long term.  The delegates had no immediate effect, but would have a long term one (and this has possibly damaged Obama slightly in MI).

I have not changed, the campaign of Obama has.

[Alcon]

Actually, BRTD said that we shouldn't worry about it and that I shouldn't bring it up.  It obviously was an issue (and still could end up being one). 

Again, his argument was that he didn't feel that the RBC would change the outcome based on Florida + Michigan but would appease them if it didn't matter.  That is what happened.  It was identical to your prediction in this situation, IIRC.

You both have unprovable positions on the issue, since the theoretical situation under which they disagreed didn't happen.  You can't use this to prove that BRTD was being hackish.

Ah, while I don't hold the same opinion now, I actually said before Super Tuesday, that I thought Obama would be a stronger candidate in the Fall  (I think I predicted Obama in Iowa as well).  I also called his SC speech the best public speech in English since "I Have a Dream."

Something did happen after that, and still don't know the trigger, but Obama's demographic tanked with working class white voters; I think since then he's the white vote .  My posts have been reflecting that.  Since then, I've become very pessimistic about Obama's candidacy (though I was way off on WI).  Yes, since that time there has been a lot of bad news that is long term.  The delegates had no immediate effect, but would have a long term one (and this has possibly damaged Obama slightly in MI).

You haven't been a 24/7 hack...and you've said nice things about Obama.  But saying that you praised an Obama speech is unrelated to your political analysis, which I haven't observed as being any less Clinton-leaning than BRTD's has been Obama-leaning.  BRTD has under-predicted Obama too.  He still has a decisive "Obama defense" tone to his posts.  You have a decisive "Clinton defense" to yours.

This is unrelated, but I've yet to see substantiative quantitative proof that Obama he has "tanked" among working-class whites.  Remember that Iowa was a caucus, and that Clinton solidly won the working-class in New Hampshire.  Clinton has always done better among the working-class and Obama, worse.  It's galvanized some, but that's oftentimes the natural process of elections.  It's the same thing we've seen in General polls--blue states tend to get bluer, and red states redder, relatively speaking.

I think I've made my point, though.  You can reject it if you like

[Nym90]

Actually, BRTD said that we shouldn't worry about it and that I shouldn't bring it up.  It obviously was an issue (and still could end up being one). 

Again, his argument was that he didn't feel that the RBC would change the outcome based on Florida + Michigan but would appease them if it didn't matter.  That is what happened.  It was identical to your prediction in this situation, IIRC.

You both have unprovable positions on the issue, since the theoretical situation under which they disagreed didn't happen.  You can't use this to prove that BRTD was being hackish.

Ah, while I don't hold the same opinion now, I actually said before Super Tuesday, that I thought Obama would be a stronger candidate in the Fall  (I think I predicted Obama in Iowa as well).  I also called his SC speech the best public speech in English since "I Have a Dream."

Something did happen after that, and still don't know the trigger, but Obama's demographic tanked with working class white voters; I think since then he's the white vote .  My posts have been reflecting that.  Since then, I've become very pessimistic about Obama's candidacy (though I was way off on WI).  Yes, since that time there has been a lot of bad news that is long term.  The delegates had no immediate effect, but would have a long term one (and this has possibly damaged Obama slightly in MI).

You haven't been a 24/7 hack...and you've said nice things about Obama.  But saying that you praised an Obama speech is unrelated to your political analysis, which I haven't observed as being any less Clinton-leaning than BRTD's has been Obama-leaning.  BRTD has under-predicted Obama too.  He still has a decisive "Obama defense" tone to his posts.  You have a decisive "Clinton defense" to yours.

This is unrelated, but I've yet to see substantiative quantitative proof that Obama he has "tanked" among working-class whites.  Remember that Iowa was a caucus, and that Clinton solidly won the working-class in New Hampshire.  Clinton has always done better among the working-class and Obama, worse.  It's galvanized some, but that's oftentimes the natural process of elections.  It's the same thing we've seen in General polls--blue states tend to get bluer, and red states redder, relatively speaking.

I think I've made my point, though.  You can reject it if you like

Good point about the working class vote galvanizing.....the same thing has happened to the black vote. Even in South Carolina, Obama only won 79 percent of the black vote and Clinton 18 percent. And of course in polls pre-Iowa, Clinton led with blacks nationally.

BRTD and J.J. are both hacks, no doubt, but BRTD's predictions have been more accurate so far. No guarantee that'll continue into the general, of course.

[J. J.]

Actually, BRTD said that we shouldn't worry about it and that I shouldn't bring it up.  It obviously was an issue (and still could end up being one). 

Again, his argument was that he didn't feel that the RBC would change the outcome based on Florida + Michigan but would appease them if it didn't matter.  That is what happened.  It was identical to your prediction in this situation, IIRC.

You both have unprovable positions on the issue, since the theoretical situation under which they disagreed didn't happen.  You can't use this to prove that BRTD was being hackish.

I said several things, first of which was, you really couldn't use the "elected delegate" standard without counting the elected delegates from two states (which the Obama campaign was trying to use at the time).  Second, was to solve the problem sooner, before it festered (at it has).

[Just for the record, I've said the "most votes" argument is a load of bull as well.]

The thing is, full seating is still out there is still a possibility if there is some problem.  (And to prevent it, Obama needs about 110 more delegates.)

You haven't been a 24/7 hack...and you've said nice things about Obama.  But saying that you praised an Obama speech is unrelated to your political analysis, which I haven't observed as being any less Clinton-leaning than BRTD's has been Obama-leaning.  BRTD has under-predicted Obama too.  He still has a decisive "Obama defense" tone to his posts.  You have a decisive "Clinton defense" to yours.

To quote Reagan, "There you go again."  I was possibly the only Republican on this forum to defends Obama's membership in Trinity  (Obama sabotaged that defense yesterday, but that is beyond my doing) and was even willing to him a pass on putting Wright on his advisory board.  I've also defended him on the "Professor" issue, at least until he said it himself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've been seeing it, since WI.  I think the two states, since March, where it hasn't occurred were VT and WA.  It started in March, and I still don't know why it happened.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since you've not shown your point, and I've given concrete counterexamples, I reject it.

[Verily]

Alcon's point was that Obama has not substantially lost support among the "white working class" since the beginning of the primary season, which is pretty much empirically true. Whether he had it on January 2 is a completely different issue.

[J. J.]

Alcon's point was that Obama has not substantially lost support among the "white working class" since the beginning of the primary season, which is pretty much empirically true. Whether he had it on January 2 is a completely different issue.

As far as I can tell, he wasn't having a problem prior to March.  I have asked Gustav if he has the data, because he's raised the point on another thread.

I still don't know why it happened.

[Verily]

Alcon's point was that Obama has not substantially lost support among the "white working class" since the beginning of the primary season, which is pretty much empirically true. Whether he had it on January 2 is a completely different issue.

As far as I can tell, he wasn't having a problem prior to March.  I have asked Gustav if he has the data, because he's raised the point on another thread.

I still don't know why it happened.

"Prior to March" includes Virginia. Look at Buchanan County. "Prior to March" includes New Hampshire. Look at the results, and learn what sets Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties apart. The press meme started in March. The phenomenon did not.

[J. J.]

Alcon's point was that Obama has not substantially lost support among the "white working class" since the beginning of the primary season, which is pretty much empirically true. Whether he had it on January 2 is a completely different issue.

As far as I can tell, he wasn't having a problem prior to March.  I have asked Gustav if he has the data, because he's raised the point on another thread.

I still don't know why it happened.

"Prior to March" includes Virginia. Look at Buchanan County. "Prior to March" includes New Hampshire. Look at the results, and learn what sets Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties apart. The press meme started in March. The phenomenon did not.

The only place where I saw it, strongly, was beginning in March.  NH is always interesting, but I hadn't seen it statewide until March.  We also had a lot of Super Tuesday states where I was expecting it, and didn't see it.

I expected Obama to run lower in some of these areas, but nothing like I've seen recently.

[Alcon]

The only place where I saw it, strongly, was beginning in March.

Then you were only looking in newspaper editorials.  This is where you should have been looking:



As Verily mentions, Buchanan County was 9.09% Obama...in early February.

Things have not really changed.  Roles just got a little clearer, as the press picked up on them.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Will the Republican/Hillary hacks quit their whining considering they didn't make a peep about what their own party did?

No, it should have been handled months ago and Hillary gets to challenge at the credentials committee.  Of the there was Obama hack, Li'l Zack who kept on saying the wouldn't be seated and we should ignore it.  LOL.

This is an I-told-you-so.

The credentials committee will be controlled by Obama based on how it's seated. Hillary's not winning anything there.

You were the one talking about Obama having to grab as many of the uncomitted as possible. LOL. It's a moot issue. I said the 69-59 would be enacted if Michigan was seated and you scoffed.

1.  Ending the process soon.  The supposed strategy for Obama is to release a block at nearly one time and clinch the nomination.  If that does not happen, it will signal serious uncertainty regarding the viability of an Obama campaign in the Fall.  It could happen as soon as tomorrow or as late 6/15.  Any later, there will be a problem for Obama getting the nomination.

There's a problem for Obama getting the nomination...but thus no problem for Hillary getting the nomination?

It has to be someone, and anyone can easily see Obama has the better chance (to put it mildly). All Obama needs is around 30 or so more superdelegates. It doesn't matter when they declare for him, and it's obvious he'll get that many eventually. Hell he's likely to pick up around 8 add-ons this weekend alone.

2.  Poll numbers.  Hillary, nationally, has been doing better than Obama.  If she should improve to the point where she is consistently beating McCain and Obama is consistently losing, you may see a shift in the super delegates.  That means Obama losing some he already has.

Let's talk about this once a single Obama delegate declares for Hillary (something that has never happened but the reverse has frequently.) Until then it's just another meaningless "what-if".

[J. J.]

The only place where I saw it, strongly, was beginning in March.

Then you were only looking in newspaper editorials.  This is where you should have been looking:



As Verily mentions, Buchanan County was 9.09% Obama...in early February.

Things have not really changed.  Roles just got a little clearer, as the press picked up on them.

No, the state results.  I wasn't seeing this before March, certainly not statewide (WI for example).  I was expecting Obama's support to more heterogeneous as time wore on.  It hasn't, and that is not good.

As I've seen I have not seen anything that Obama did to cause it at the time.  This was pre-Wright.

[Alcon]

No, the state results.

What kind of random distinction is that?

Did you just think that western Virginia was some blip?  Why do results like that need to be statewide for them to matter?

Obama is still doing fine among the working-class in states like Wisconsin.  Obama has improved some among liberals and lost some among conservatives, but other than that, he hasn't "tanked" and you still haven't proven he has.