5/6/08 Primaries Results thread

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2008-05-07 04:10pm

It's all over except the shouting. The superdelegates now have the political cover they need to declare for Obama en masse. They probably won't do so because they don't want to anger Clinton supporters ("Look at all these people trying to force Hillary out of the race!"), but if Clinton tries to torpedo Obama, they'll run her out of town--and probably ruin her political career, and she knows it. My guess is that the campaign plans to glide out of the race; stick it out until June, not compete very hard (unnecessary anyway since the remaining states/territories are easy wins for one or the other), and then "graciously" bow out after the last primary.

I'd expect the Obama campaign to cede West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. It makes no sense now to embarrass Obama by fighting for states he knows he'll lose badly. They'll have about as much impact on him as Vermont did on Clinton--smallish states with not a lot of delegates that he had no chance of winning anyway.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-05-07 04:14pm

Aw, I was really hoping to see them giving speeches in broken spanish to their Puerto-Rican constituents.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-05-07 04:14pm

I wonder if Howard Dean has tried talking to her about the fact that an Obama win is basically inevitable at this point, and asking if there's anything she can do to stop damaging the fucking Democratic party any more, which is what she's been doing lately.

Personally, I still have to wonder about the race factor. It's been said that two thirds of white voters with no college education are voting for Hillary; it has been painted in the media as "Hillary's appeal to white blue-collar voters". But how do we know it isn't actually due to uneducated people having a much higher tendency to be racist? Maybe those voters don't like Hillary at all, but their decision-making process sounds like "I ain't votin' for no nigger".

RIPP_n_WIPE · Post by **RIPP_n_WIPE** » 2008-05-07 04:15pm

RedImperator wrote:It's all over except the shouting. The superdelegates now have the political cover they need to declare for Obama en masse. They probably won't do so because they don't want to anger Clinton supporters ("Look at all these people trying to force Hillary out of the race!"), but if Clinton tries to torpedo Obama, they'll run her out of town--and probably ruin her political career, and she knows it. My guess is that the campaign plans to glide out of the race; stick it out until June, not compete very hard (unnecessary anyway since the remaining states/territories are easy wins for one or the other), and then "graciously" bow out after the last primary.

I'd expect the Obama campaign to cede West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. It makes no sense now to embarrass Obama by fighting for states he knows he'll lose badly. They'll have about as much impact on him as Vermont did on Clinton--smallish states with not a lot of delegates that he had no chance of winning anyway.

I'd much rather see him campaign heavily and lose by small margins or win and stick it to the bitch for being a moron.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2008-05-07 04:15pm

I just hope to hell that Hildabeast isn't able to bribe Obama into putting her on his ticket in exchange for giving up.

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2008-05-07 04:18pm

Galvatron wrote:I just hope to hell that Hildabeast isn't able to bribe Obama into putting her on his ticket in exchange for giving up.

That right there is my ultimate fear, that Billery will get the VP nod... I want her to get NOTHING from this, go home Hillary! No consolation pize for you!

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2008-05-07 04:20pm

Darth Wong wrote:Personally, I still have to wonder about the race factor. It's been said that two thirds of white voters with no college education are voting for Hillary; it has been painted in the media as "Hillary's appeal to white blue-collar voters". But how do we know it isn't actually due to uneducated people having a much higher tendency to be racist? Maybe those voters don't like Hillary at all, but their decision-making process sounds like "I ain't votin' for no nigger".

There's that mood whispered around WV... and there's the "Not votin' for no woman" mood as well.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-05-07 04:26pm

Galvatron wrote:I just hope to hell that Hildabeast isn't able to bribe Obama into putting her on his ticket in exchange for giving up.

I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't want some racist cracker trying to get hisself a white president.

LadyTevar wrote:There's that mood whispered around WV... and there's the "Not votin' for no woman" mood as well.

So... Kucinich will carry West Virginia then?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2008-05-07 04:54pm

Since Hillary is staying on, I think one of the possible reasons for her decision can be boiled down to, 'It's easier to run against McCain 2012 than Obama 20120.'

RIPP_n_WIPE · Post by **RIPP_n_WIPE** » 2008-05-07 05:19pm

Shinova wrote:Since Hillary is staying on, I think one of the possible reasons for her decision can be boiled down to, 'It's easier to run against McCain 2012 than Obama 20120.'

So they both intend on being cryogenically frozen?

Tanasinn · Post by **Tanasinn** » 2008-05-07 06:30pm

Crossroads Inc. wrote:
Galvatron wrote:I just hope to hell that Hildabeast isn't able to bribe Obama into putting her on his ticket in exchange for giving up.
That right there is my ultimate fear, that Billery will get the VP nod... I want her to get NOTHING from this, go home Hillary! No consolation pize for you!

As much as I hate that greedy, incompetent Republican-wannabe, why not? The VP only has as much power as the president gives him or her. I mean, sure, it'd be nice to have a VP worth a damn, but if putting Hillary on the ticket like human parsley increases Obama's chance of victory, I'd be willing to see it.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2008-05-07 06:38pm

Tanasinn wrote:As much as I hate that greedy, incompetent Republican-wannabe, why not? The VP only has as much power as the president gives him or her. I mean, sure, it'd be nice to have a VP worth a damn, but if putting Hillary on the ticket like human parsley increases Obama's chance of victory, I'd be willing to see it.

Before I say this, this is purely my personal opinion based on what I've observed of her thinking and tactics so far over the past few months.

However, if the "compromise" reached is that H. Clinton becomes B. Obama's VP and they get the election, I'd fully expect a poignant and moving speech at some point soon afterward where she tearfully assumes the position of President due to Obama's untimely demise. Such a move wouldn't surprise me in the least, and she'd still get her time in the limelight.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2008-05-07 06:40pm

Red already warned people about baseless bullshit alarmist conspiracy crap.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2008-05-07 06:54pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote: Red already warned people about baseless bullshit alarmist conspiracy crap.

If you're referring to this post of his, then yes, I read it. Very well - since I have no direct evidence to support my suspicion that she'd have him assassinated, and since this forum lacks an edit/delete post button, consider the comment withdrawn.

Even without taking into account my suspicion as to her motives if she becomes Obama's VP, given her behavior before now, and now on the campaign trail, I don't think they'd work well together at all. Though politically it might be viewed as a possible salve for any current open wounds, it would end up counterproductive at best. With most others I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt and let it go, but Hillary's behavior over the past few months makes me suspect otherwise in her case.

Post by **Simplicius** » 2008-05-07 08:09pm

Keeping Clinton in the system as VP would basically be handing Republicans ammunition to stir up opposition against an Obama administration and probably against Congressional Democrats as well. I'm not sure it would be a good move for that reason, regardless of whether or not it would 'heal' the Democratic Party.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2008-05-07 09:35pm

Darth Wong wrote:I wonder if Howard Dean has tried talking to her about the fact that an Obama win is basically inevitable at this point, and asking if there's anything she can do to stop damaging the fucking Democratic party any more, which is what she's been doing lately.

Personally, I still have to wonder about the race factor. It's been said that two thirds of white voters with no college education are voting for Hillary; it has been painted in the media as "Hillary's appeal to white blue-collar voters". But how do we know it isn't actually due to uneducated people having a much higher tendency to be racist? Maybe those voters don't like Hillary at all, but their decision-making process sounds like "I ain't votin' for no nigger".

Oh, that sort is definitely around - had one wander into work today - "Obama's going to win because black people now outnumber white people in this country. And some white people are voting for Obama, I don't understand why they'd do that."

What the first part of that statement means is that NW Indiana, which she has probably never set foot out of in her life, now has black people in it instead of being pristinely white as in her youth except for those one or two really nasty spots between the steel mills and the chemical plants. (The city of Gary itself is majority black, but the rest of Lake County is still predominantly white). The second part, of course, is just bigotry with a slight facade slapped over it.

There's a flip side to this, black women who vote for Hilary simply because she's a woman and for no other reason - another form of bigotry called sexism (distinct from women who vote for Hilary because they like what she says or believe what she says).

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2008-05-07 10:04pm

Darth Wong wrote:Personally, I still have to wonder about the race factor. It's been said that two thirds of white voters with no college education are voting for Hillary; it has been painted in the media as "Hillary's appeal to white blue-collar voters". But how do we know it isn't actually due to uneducated people having a much higher tendency to be racist? Maybe those voters don't like Hillary at all, but their decision-making process sounds like "I ain't votin' for no nigger".

I've been saying this since South Carolina. Of course the media will never say this, but that doesn't mean it isn't still true...

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-05-07 11:19pm

Galvatron wrote:I just hope to hell that Hildabeast isn't able to bribe Obama into putting her on his ticket in exchange for giving up.

More likely she would bribe him into paying off her campaign debt (now a cool 11.4mil).

Tanasinn wrote:As much as I hate that greedy, incompetent Republican-wannabe, why not? The VP only has as much power as the president gives him or her. I mean, sure, it'd be nice to have a VP worth a damn, but if putting Hillary on the ticket like human parsley increases Obama's chance of victory, I'd be willing to see it.

Positives of a Hillary VP nod:
1) Reporters get their wet dream
2) She might finally shut up

Negatives of a Hillary VP nod:
1) More time for Bill Clinton to be on the trail pissing people off and Obama WON'T be able to shut him down
2) More ammunition for Republicans to throw at Obama
3) It galvanizes Republican voters, wins him no new independents, and doesn't help secure the base
4) Hillary's biggest supporters now decide that if she is good enough for VP then they can wait 4 more years to get her on the top of the ticket
5) 6 more months of "if only, if only, if only..."
6) 6 months of "Lewinsky, Whitewater, Ken Starr, Impeachment, Vince Foster, Let OBL go free..." you name it every accusation leveled against Bill is now a knock on Obama
7) It adds no foreign policy credentials, no domestic credentials (maybe healthcare) and doesn't get any extra help from core constituencies.
8) It puts no new geography into play (well maybe Arkansas but Edwards couldn't carry SC so who knows)
9) More time for Hillary and her team to spend in the spotlight trying to upstage Obama. If you don't think she won't try and be the star then you haven't been paying attention the last 16 years.
10) Higher negatives than almost any other national Dem figure. Hell Pelosi fares better amongst Republican leaning independents than she does and they've tried to turn her into the new anti-christ.

I could go on but really do I need to? There is essentially ZERO upside and plenty of downside to Clinton on Obama's ticket.

Qwerty 42 · Post by **Qwerty 42** » 2008-05-07 11:30pm

I still say it wouldn't be an awful idea to stick Feingold in Cheney's old office, they'd do a pretty good combination as a "Mr. Clean" ticket.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2008-05-07 11:35pm

Hillary reminds me of a old pal's psychobitch ex-girlfriend. She seems personally offended that voters prefer someone else. I almost expect her to start leaving messages on delegates' answering machines:

"Is that Obama's car I see in your driveway?"

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2008-05-10 09:24am

RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:
RedImperator wrote:It's all over except the shouting. The superdelegates now have the political cover they need to declare for Obama en masse. They probably won't do so because they don't want to anger Clinton supporters ("Look at all these people trying to force Hillary out of the race!"), but if Clinton tries to torpedo Obama, they'll run her out of town--and probably ruin her political career, and she knows it. My guess is that the campaign plans to glide out of the race; stick it out until June, not compete very hard (unnecessary anyway since the remaining states/territories are easy wins for one or the other), and then "graciously" bow out after the last primary.

I'd expect the Obama campaign to cede West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. It makes no sense now to embarrass Obama by fighting for states he knows he'll lose badly. They'll have about as much impact on him as Vermont did on Clinton--smallish states with not a lot of delegates that he had no chance of winning anyway.
I'd much rather see him campaign heavily and lose by small margins or win and stick it to the bitch for being a moron.

And I'd rather have elves leave bags of money on my doorstep instead of having to go to work every day, but it isn't happening. Obama could blow his entire war chest in West Virginia and still lose by ten points. He'll make much better use of his time schmoozing for superdelegates and lobbing mortars at John McCain.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-05-10 09:41am

RedImperator wrote:And I'd rather have elves leave bags of money on my doorstep instead of having to go to work every day, but it isn't happening. Obama could blow his entire war chest in West Virginia and still lose by ten points. He'll make much better use of his time schmoozing for superdelegates and lobbing mortars at John McCain.

The only worry is thatif he loses by the current margin (30%) then Clinton gets wind back in her sails and will continue to go on about how "hard working white America loves me and hates the uppity black guy." Dropping the margin under 20% would be a moral victory and should help calm the media frenzy that makes each result so critical. The media consensus may be that Obama has finally won but that could change overnight and the more they keep saying its a race the longer she stays in.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2008-05-10 10:15am

CmdrWilkens wrote:
RedImperator wrote:And I'd rather have elves leave bags of money on my doorstep instead of having to go to work every day, but it isn't happening. Obama could blow his entire war chest in West Virginia and still lose by ten points. He'll make much better use of his time schmoozing for superdelegates and lobbing mortars at John McCain.
The only worry is thatif he loses by the current margin (30%) then Clinton gets wind back in her sails and will continue to go on about how "hard working white America loves me and hates the uppity black guy." Dropping the margin under 20% would be a moral victory and should help calm the media frenzy that makes each result so critical. The media consensus may be that Obama has finally won but that could change overnight and the more they keep saying its a race the longer she stays in.

Clinton is beyond the point where crowing about a single primary victory, even a big one, will be of any use whatsoever. Obama is now tied or slightly ahead in superdelegates, it's a mathematical certainty he will gain a majority of pledged delegates in Oregon, and his fundraising advantage has gone from huge to astronomical (if anyone is still donating to Hillary Clinton besides Hillary Clinton, I'll be stunned). Nobody is even listening to Hillary Clinton anymore, or else those white voter remarks she made to USAToday would be the top story everywhere. Not even the American media could claim the race is back on after WV, and even if they did, it would be over all over again a week later. Obama could drop dead tomorrow and still pick up enough votes in Oregon to go over the top in pledged delegates.

Meanwhile, I don't know if Obama could get the West Virgina margin down to 20 points. It took six weeks and millions upon millions of dollars to get his deficit in Pennsylvania down from 20 to 10. In West Virginia he has less time and the demographics are much worse. What's the advantage of campaigning there? You're really going to burn a week and millions of dollars to turn an enormous loss into a huge one?

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2008-05-10 11:17am

Depending upon the state of his finances, yeah, burn the time, and at least some money. It emphasizes the message that every state matters, and sets him up better for November.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2008-05-10 12:05pm

consequences wrote:Depending upon the state of his finances, yeah, burn the time, and at least some money. It emphasizes the message that every state matters, and sets him up better for November.

How does competing against Clinton in a state he knows he will lose badly better set him up for November than competing against John McCain? Contesting West Virginia makes the Democratic primary a front page story, keeping McCain's scandals and potential scandals off the national radar for another week. How does losing West Virginia now put him in a better position to win that state in November?

For that matter, how does contesting West Virginia help him more in the primary than what he actually did, which was aggressively pursue superdelegates? Not only does he potentially not get those endorsements, but he legitimizes Hillary's continuing campaign and invites another week of talk about his problems with blue collar voters (he may get them anyway, but he'd be guaranteed them if he contested and got his ass kicked).