Financial Times endorses Senator Obama

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Long bike races are done in legs. You don't win the bike race by wining the last leg. You win the bike race by having the lowest overall time.

Its the same case here. The demographics favor Hillary and she will likely win tommrrows "leg". But she will still be behind in the overall race. Performance in a single state doesnt get you the nomination, only your delegate count at the end of the race does. It will be incredibly difficult for her to make up the gap she currently has in the remaining races.

Excellent analogy. For the record, here is a chart that shows how the race has progressed. (It's Flash, so I can't post the graph here)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...nation-191.html

Hillary reached her peek back in November (approx 48%) when Obama was at around 22%. His rise has been remarkable and her decline has been steady.

Edited April 21, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[no name 1]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

The Financial Times argument sounds logical to me...

Mrs Clinton's campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate's fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise."

And yet, he is outspending HC 3-1 in PA & STILL NOT WINNING.

She has a debt of $10M & he has $45M & yet he is STILL NOT running away with it.

How is he able to outspend her? Where's he getting all this money?

From his rich white supporters!

Point is, it's still not enough.

You think it shows that he's less capable of managing a campaign than Hillary? Interesting.

Steven - It is as clear as the words on this page. She is still poised to win yet another state & it very much still in the race, despite being outspent 3-1!

Clearly she has a following , as evidenced by her big state (must wins for November) wins & the current dead heat for the nomination.

Long bike races are done in legs. You don't win the bike race by wining the last leg. You win the bike race by having the lowest overall time.

Its the same case here. The demographics favor Hillary and she will likely win tommrrows "leg". But she will still be behind in the overall race. Performance in a single state doesnt get you the nomination, only your delegate count at the end of the race does. It will be incredibly difficult for her to make up the gap she currently has in the remaining races.

Excellent analogy. For the record, here is a chart that shows how the race has progressed. (It's Flash, so I can't post the graph here)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...nation-191.html

Hillary reached her peek back in November (approx 48%) when Obama was at around 22%. His rise has been remarkable and her decline has been steady.

And yet, he is still losing states. Funny, that.

[Dan J 277]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

The Financial Times argument sounds logical to me...

Mrs Clinton's campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate's fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise."

And yet, he is outspending HC 3-1 in PA & STILL NOT WINNING.

She has a debt of $10M & he has $45M & yet he is STILL NOT running away with it.

How is he able to outspend her? Where's he getting all this money?

From his rich white supporters!

Point is, it's still not enough.

You think it shows that he's less capable of managing a campaign than Hillary? Interesting.

Steven - It is as clear as the words on this page. She is still poised to win yet another state & it very much still in the race, despite being outspent 3-1!

Clearly she has a following , as evidenced by her big state (must wins for November) wins & the current dead heat for the nomination.

Long bike races are done in legs. You don't win the bike race by wining the last leg. You win the bike race by having the lowest overall time.

Its the same case here. The demographics favor Hillary and she will likely win tommrrows "leg". But she will still be behind in the overall race. Performance in a single state doesnt get you the nomination, only your delegate count at the end of the race does. It will be incredibly difficult for her to make up the gap she currently has in the remaining races.

The only way she can win, is with superdelegates, but winning with such means will have a negative impact on her standing in the general election.

I feel like a broken record but Snobama supporters can't seem to grasp that he, too, CANNOT get 2025 delegates. So now what?

So in other words, you are saying the popular support and votes a candidate gets does not matter. Even if a candidate comes out of the primary season with more popular support, if they don't have 2025 delegates, then its fair to take the nomination away?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

The Financial Times argument sounds logical to me...

Mrs Clinton's campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate's fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise."

And yet, he is outspending HC 3-1 in PA & STILL NOT WINNING.

She has a debt of $10M & he has $45M & yet he is STILL NOT running away with it.

How is he able to outspend her? Where's he getting all this money?

From his rich white supporters!

Point is, it's still not enough.

You think it shows that he's less capable of managing a campaign than Hillary? Interesting.

Steven - It is as clear as the words on this page. She is still poised to win yet another state & it very much still in the race, despite being outspent 3-1!

Clearly she has a following , as evidenced by her big state (must wins for November) wins & the current dead heat for the nomination.

Long bike races are done in legs. You don't win the bike race by wining the last leg. You win the bike race by having the lowest overall time.

Its the same case here. The demographics favor Hillary and she will likely win tommrrows "leg". But she will still be behind in the overall race. Performance in a single state doesnt get you the nomination, only your delegate count at the end of the race does. It will be incredibly difficult for her to make up the gap she currently has in the remaining races.

The only way she can win, is with superdelegates, but winning with such means will have a negative impact on her standing in the general election.

You also don't win the bike race by skipping the mountain stage and heading straight to Paris because you think the guy in the yellow jersey is on steroids

[Dan J 277]

Not what you want to hear but it's actually yery simple: The party's elite respects and joins the vote of the people. Plain ans simple. Otherwise, why waste the time and effort on the primaries to begin with?

I expect most of the superdelegates to fall behind the person with the most pledged delegates. Had this been an average year, the story might be diffrent, but going against popular vote in a year with really high turnouts, is politcal suicide.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hillary, Obama, what's the difference? Their policies are very similar.

Hillary has better connections than Obama - therefore a better chance of making things happen.

The Financial Times argument sounds logical to me...

Mrs Clinton's campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles. She and her team expected to have it all sewn up long ago; they made no plans for a long struggle, ran short of money and had to reorganise on the run.

Her speaking style is pedestrian, when it is not actually grating. Those who dislike her tend to do so with a passion: her disapproval ratings started high and after months of campaigning are climbing still. It is a tribute to her tenacity and to the loyalty she commands in the party that her fate was not sealed weeks ago.

How much the way that a campaign is run tells you about a candidate's fitness to be president is debatable – but it does tell you something, especially if the candidate with the misfiring strategy is running on a claim of management expertise."

And yet, he is outspending HC 3-1 in PA & STILL NOT WINNING.

She has a debt of $10M & he has $45M & yet he is STILL NOT running away with it.

How is he able to outspend her? Where's he getting all this money?

From his rich white supporters!

Point is, it's still not enough.

You think it shows that he's less capable of managing a campaign than Hillary? Interesting.

Steven - It is as clear as the words on this page. She is still poised to win yet another state & it very much still in the race, despite being outspent 3-1!

Clearly she has a following , as evidenced by her big state (must wins for November) wins & the current dead heat for the nomination.

Long bike races are done in legs. You don't win the bike race by wining the last leg. You win the bike race by having the lowest overall time.

Its the same case here. The demographics favor Hillary and she will likely win tommrrows "leg". But she will still be behind in the overall race. Performance in a single state doesnt get you the nomination, only your delegate count at the end of the race does. It will be incredibly difficult for her to make up the gap she currently has in the remaining races.

The only way she can win, is with superdelegates, but winning with such means will have a negative impact on her standing in the general election.

You also don't win the bike race by skipping the mountain stage and heading straight to Paris because you think the guy in the yellow jersey is on steroids

That analogy makes no sense. None at all.

[Dan J 277]

[quote name='Dan + Gemvita' post='1775026' date='Apr 21 2008,

You also don't win the bike race by skipping the mountain stage and heading straight to Paris because you think the guy in the yellow jersey is on steroids

That analogy makes no sense. None at all.

I'm pretty sure she is refering to Florida and Michigan. But it doesnt really work. Obama nor Hillary had nothing to do with why those states were disqualified. It would be more accurate to say those stages had road construction.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

[quote name='Dan + Gemvita' post='1775026' date='Apr 21 2008,

You also don't win the bike race by skipping the mountain stage and heading straight to Paris because you think the guy in the yellow jersey is on steroids

That analogy makes no sense. None at all.

I'm pretty sure she is refering to Florida and Michigan. But it doesnt really work. Obama nor Hillary had nothing to do with why those states were disqualified. It would be more accurate to say those stages had road construction.

Dumb strategy though when it comes to picking a sure winner. if they held those races over again (which I think they should), most of the arguments that might be made here about superdelegates would be null and void.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Excellent analogy. For the record, here is a chart that shows how the race has progressed. (It's Flash, so I can't post the graph here)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...nation-191.html

Hillary reached her peek back in November (approx 48%) when Obama was at around 22%. His rise has been remarkable and her decline has been steady.

And yet, he is still losing states. Funny, that.

You don't agree with Dan's analogy?

[metta 0]

I feel like a broken record but Snobama supporters can't seem to grasp that he, too, CANNOT get 2025 delegates. So now what?

So in other words, you are saying the popular support and votes a candidate gets does not matter. Even if a candidate comes out of the primary season with more popular support, if they don't have 2025 delegates, then its fair to take the nomination away?

Talking about popular vote and fairness, Obama is ahead by 717086 or 2.6 % without Michigan and Florida.

With MI and Fl he is ahead by 94005 or 0.4 %.

Now, I understand due to technicalities, those states are not counted. But regardless of the reason, it does tantamount to disregard of the people in two large swing states. Yes, the DNC made that decision with greenlight from candidates but fundamentally, is it fair?

source

Edited April 21, 2008 by metta

[Dan J 277]

[quote name='Dan + Gemvita' post='1775026' date='Apr 21 2008,

You also don't win the bike race by skipping the mountain stage and heading straight to Paris because you think the guy in the yellow jersey is on steroids

That analogy makes no sense. None at all.

I'm pretty sure she is refering to Florida and Michigan. But it doesnt really work. Obama nor Hillary had nothing to do with why those states were disqualified. It would be more accurate to say those stages had road construction.

Dumb strategy though when it comes to picking a sure winner. if they held those races over again (which I think they should), most of the arguments that might be made here about superdelegates would be null and void.

While it may cause some issues in the general election, and its something that both candidates will have to deal with.

But the real responbility for this mess belongs to the states. Not the DNC or candidates as some people try to spin it. If Hillary pulled out a clear victory early on as was projected, this would never have been an issue. If the people in Florida and Michigan dont like it, well next time elect state leaders that follow the rules. Maybe I just feel taking personal responsbility for your actions, is more important than trying to shift the blame.

[Dan J 277]

Talking about popular vote and fairness, Obama is ahead by 717086 or 2.6 % without Michigan and Florida.

With MI and Fl he is ahead by 94005 or 0.4 %.

Now, I understand due to technicalities, those states are not counted. But regardless of the reason, it does tantamount to disregard of the people in two large swing states. Yes, the DNC made that decision with greenlight from candidates but fundamentally, is it fair?

source

Its a fallacy to assume that with a revote that Hillary would automatically keep the lead. In fact a revote could work against her giving more of a lead to Obama.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[quote name='Dan + Gemvita' post='1775026' date='Apr 21 2008,

You also don't win the bike race by skipping the mountain stage and heading straight to Paris because you think the guy in the yellow jersey is on steroids

That analogy makes no sense. None at all.

I'm pretty sure she is refering to Florida and Michigan.

Still doesn't make any sense. It's like contestants agree on a route, agree not to compete on two legs of the race and then one comes back later saying, oh since I did so well on that leg let's change the rules we agreed and count them anyways. Is that a preview of how she'd conduct herself in the White House? Not holding up her end of an agreement she entered into?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

[quote name='Dan + Gemvita' post='1775026' date='Apr 21 2008,

You also don't win the bike race by skipping the mountain stage and heading straight to Paris because you think the guy in the yellow jersey is on steroids

That analogy makes no sense. None at all.

I'm pretty sure she is refering to Florida and Michigan. But it doesnt really work. Obama nor Hillary had nothing to do with why those states were disqualified. It would be more accurate to say those stages had road construction.

Dumb strategy though when it comes to picking a sure winner. if they held those races over again (which I think they should), most of the arguments that might be made here about superdelegates would be null and void.

While it may cause some issues in the general election, and its something that both candidates will have to deal with.

But the real responbility for this mess belongs to the states. Not the DNC or candidates as some people try to spin it. If Hillary pulled out a clear victory early on as was projected, this would never have been an issue. If the people in Florida and Michigan dont like it, well next time elect state leaders that follow the rules. Maybe I just feel taking personal responsbility for your actions, is more important than trying to shift the blame.

These are not the actions of the voters, however- they have done nothing wrong

I don't know about fair, but the DNC's decision is stupid. Halve the delegate count, don't tell 2 important swing states they have no voice at all in picking their party's nominee because people in their state made a dumb decision to move the date up.

Edited April 21, 2008 by rkl57

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Halve the delegate count, don't tell 2 important swing states they have no voice at all in picking their party's nominee because people in their state made a dumb decision to move the date up.

You can't count a race that wasn't one. Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot in MI and still didn't manage to pull but 55% of the vote in. Obama honored the agreement they all entered into with the DNC and pulled his name off the ballot. Clinton didn't honor her agreement and should be rewarded for that? That's some messed up thinking.