Super-Everything must GO! Tuesday!

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2008-02-07 02:08am

Jadeite wrote:Honestly, I think things are going to be over for Clinton fairly soon. Obama has more delegates right now, far more money, and a much better organized and vocal base. The five million that she put into her campaign is already spent. Lack of funds is probably going to be the thing that does her campaign in.

He has more delegates now? Yesterday it seemed Hillary had the lead with 100 delegates or so.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-02-07 02:08am

Let's hope so. Every time Clinton seems near-death - like before the New Hampshire Primary - she has somehow managed to squeeze by . . . but of course, she had money then. And since this is a tight race, money tends to have a stronger influence.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-02-07 02:11am

Given what has happened with McCain, anything these days isn't given.

Hawkwings · Post by **Hawkwings** » 2008-02-07 02:15am

Obama has more pledged delegates that can't (in normal circumstances) change their vote. Clinton has more superdelegates that can change their vote.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2008-02-07 02:24am

His Divine Shadow wrote:He has more delegates now? Yesterday it seemed Hillary had the lead with 100 delegates or so.

Last I checked Hillary had a greater overall lead due to superdelegates (which are not bound and could change their mind at any time...) but Obama had more regular delegates.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-02-07 02:38am

Does anyone have any links or idea what's going on with the California Democratic Primary? All of the ballots are in - but for some reason, election centers like CNN's are only counting something like 70 delegates total for either Clinton or Obama. Are the rest of California's delegates awarded at a later time?

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2008-02-07 03:15am

I'm a bit cynical about the $5 million loan; why would she announce it now when she could just wait and announce it later? Her campaign is trying to paint her as the underdog against the "establishment" candidate, as Mark Penn has said. Call me a conspiracy nut, but I only see it as a political maneuver to prevent any voter depression and loss of confidence should she not do well in the upcoming states.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-02-07 04:12am

Fire Fly wrote:I'm a bit cynical about the $5 million loan; why would she announce it now when she could just wait and announce it later? Her campaign is trying to paint her as the underdog against the "establishment" candidate, as Mark Penn has said. Call me a conspiracy nut, but I only see it as a political maneuver to prevent any voter depression and loss of confidence should she not do well in the upcoming states.

Did she announce it or was it something that she had to disclose?

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2008-02-07 07:28am

Flagg wrote:
Fire Fly wrote:I'm a bit cynical about the $5 million loan; why would she announce it now when she could just wait and announce it later? Her campaign is trying to paint her as the underdog against the "establishment" candidate, as Mark Penn has said. Call me a conspiracy nut, but I only see it as a political maneuver to prevent any voter depression and loss of confidence should she not do well in the upcoming states.
Did she announce it or was it something that she had to disclose?

I'm sure she had to disclose, but Romney disclosed his numbers only at the last possible second. So I have to wonder why she would disclose now when it makes her look weak.

mingo · Post by **mingo** » 2008-02-07 08:56am

Fire Fly wrote:
Did she announce it or was it something that she had to disclose?

I'm sure she had to disclose, but Romney disclosed his numbers only at the last possible second. So I have to wonder why she would disclose now when it makes her look weak.[/quote]

I could be wrong about this but, I think, if you're taking federal matching funds, you have a lot more rules on disclosure than if you don't. Romney didn't take the federal money, so he doesn't have to tell us when he dips into his own money, and most of his HAS been his own, iI think.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-02-07 09:16am

Xisiqomelir wrote:
Mlenk wrote:I was just curious. How financially well-off are the Clintons? While 5 million is not a massive amount of money, it's still nothing to exactly sneeze at. I didn't realize she's that well-off that she could just loan herself that amount of money seemingly on a whim.
Candidate Net Worth
Code: Select all
Mitt and Ann Romney             $202 million
John and Elizabeth Edwards 	$54.7 million
Rudy Giuliani 	                $52.2 million
John and Cindy McCain           $40.4 million
Hillary and Bill Clinton        $34.9 million
Fred Thompson                   $8.1 million
Barack and Michelle Obama       $1.3 million

Where in the fuck did McCain get all that money from?
He's been in the military or a politician for almost his entire adult life.
Frankly unless he married the money, the idea of a Senator whose family (his Dad was an Admiral, not a multimillionaire) wasn't rich being worth $40 million raises a few suspicions in my mind.

Though it is interesting to note just how much Ghouliani managed to cash in on his 9/11 reputation.

acesand8s · Post by **acesand8s** » 2008-02-07 09:27am

Guardsman Bass wrote:Does anyone have any links or idea what's going on with the California Democratic Primary? All of the ballots are in - but for some reason, election centers like CNN's are only counting something like 70 delegates total for either Clinton or Obama. Are the rest of California's delegates awarded at a later time?

I'm not sure, they may be confirming the tallies or something. The WSJ is giving Clinton 191 from CA and Obama 150, with another 100 poorly labeled as "superdelegates or those yet to be determined". So, what exactly those 100 are is unclear. Still, it looks like the CA loss won't be too bad for Obama.

alexholker · Post by **alexholker** » 2008-02-07 09:31am

Glocksman wrote:Where in the fuck did McCain get all that money from?
He's been in the military or a politician for almost his entire adult life.
Frankly unless he married the money, the idea of a Senator whose family (his Dad was an Admiral, not a multimillionaire) wasn't rich being worth $40 million raises a few suspicions in my mind.

According to wikipedia, his wife is the chair of one of the largest distributors for the largest brewing company in the United States.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-02-07 09:33am

alexholker wrote:
Glocksman wrote:Where in the fuck did McCain get all that money from?
He's been in the military or a politician for almost his entire adult life.
Frankly unless he married the money, the idea of a Senator whose family (his Dad was an Admiral, not a multimillionaire) wasn't rich being worth $40 million raises a few suspicions in my mind.
According to wikipedia, his wife is the chair of one of the largest distributors for the largest brewing company in the United States.

So he did a Kerry and married it.

D.Turtle · Post by **D.Turtle** » 2008-02-07 09:35am

And the bad news for hillary Clinton continues:

Some Clinton staffers going without pay

alexholker · Post by **alexholker** » 2008-02-07 09:36am

Glocksman wrote:So he did a Kerry and married it.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2008-02-07 09:43am

Her campaign adviser admitted yesterday that they will be outspent in the next round of primaries. As much as I hope this is a real growing sign of weakness in her campaign - after all if the other guy is raising much more money and from grass roots sources on top of that isn't that an indication of wider broader range support - it bothers me that this can be turned around by her and manufactured into her being an "outsider" of all things and lord knows if the rhetoric turns ugly once again with insinuations that they're trying to keep a woman out of the White House. I swear there is nothing this woman will not do to win and that frightens me. Get ready for Bill to come out in hatchet mode again anytime now.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-02-07 09:43am

alexholker wrote:
Glocksman wrote:So he did a Kerry and married it.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

If the money wasn't a concern to him, no, of course not.
The irony is that a prominent Republican who in all probability will be their party's nominee did the same thing that so many in his party slammed the 2004 Democratic nominee for.

In the words of Motley Crue: "But boys, ya gotta laugh".

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-02-07 10:22am

Glocksman wrote:The irony is that a prominent Republican who in all probability will be their party's nominee did the same thing that so many in his party slammed the 2004 Democratic nominee for.

Right now they're too busy slamming him about other thing, like how "liberal" he is. I guess his stance on immigration and health care are just too much for them to bear.

Because as we all know, Ronald Reagan never offered 'amnesty' (cough*1983*cough)...

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-02-07 10:32am

Coyote wrote:
Glocksman wrote:The irony is that a prominent Republican who in all probability will be their party's nominee did the same thing that so many in his party slammed the 2004 Democratic nominee for.
Right now they're too busy slamming him about other thing, like how "liberal" he is. I guess his stance on immigration and health care are just too much for them to bear.

Because as we all know, Ronald Reagan never offered 'amnesty' (cough*1983*cough)...

Well, there is the old 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me' bit.
Reagan promised both border enforcement and agressive enforcement of the laws that make it illegal to employ an illegal alien after the amnesty, but it never materialized.

In other words, why in the fuck should we trust McCain on the issue?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2008-02-07 10:35am

Reagan also raised taxes in 1986 and Cut and Run in the Middle East when the Marine barracks were hit in Lebanon. He was almost acting like a Democrat. I'm so fucking sick and tired of the Reagan cock sucking. Its almost like these guys weren't around when Reagan was president.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-02-07 10:42am

I'm not a doctrinaire 'supply sider', so I don't automatically assume tax hikes are bad. I just insist the levy not impose the most on those who can least afford to pay it.

Not very Republican of me, is it?

IMHO, the reason so many Repubs invoke Reagan is because he was the last candidate that the party could unite behind without metaphorically holding their noses.

Even if the popular perception of Reagan differed from the reality.

It's kind of like Nixon.
People have an image of Nixon as a hard boiled conservative, yet it was Nixon who imposed wage and price controls in peacetime and who proposed that a guaranteed income be made available for every American.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-02-07 10:44am

I don't mind the Reagan cocksucking. I just wish they'd not be such goddamn hypocrites about it. Reagan fooled them, really-- he harvested the votes of hard-core conservatives but did little of real substance to act on their pet issues. He kept them parried with flag-waving rhetoric and misdirection. But, yeah, that's probably part of the problem-- McCain dropped by a couple years ago to visit the Bible-humpers, said a few nice words, and hasn't been back since-- didn't call, didn't write, and went on to become a RINO in their eyes.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-02-07 10:47am

Heh!

Obama has lots more money now and deeper pockets moving forward. He raised $32 million in the month of January compared to about $14 million for Clinton. Only 3 percent of Obama's hundreds of thousands of small donors have "maxed out," which means that the campaign can go back to them again and again for more. By contrast, roughly 70 percent of Hillary's donors have contributed the $2,300 maximum allowed by law. (On Wednesday, Obama raised $3 million, while Hillary lent her campign $5 million from her personal account.) She is already facing a money crunch, though she's hardly broke. Besides, money is not likely to make a huge difference at this point. So-called "free media" (news coverage) is more important than "paid media" (TV ads).

From Newsweek Online.

Hils is deploying Bill to work the crowd. I thought she wanted to win?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-02-07 10:54am

I've heard him allude to it already, but Obama can nail Hillary on the fact that his money comes from the average American instead of bigshots looking for favors.

Like I've said, I favor Obama at this point not because I agree with him on everything, but because I see him as one of the few honest candidates who wouldn't be either beholden to every special interest in DC or so venal that he'd throw principles under the bus at the drop of a hat.

HRC and McCain fail rather spectacularly under those standards.
Obama passes.

Go BHO.