Who is the more formidable candidate?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I agree McCain is weaker on the economy than I would like, which is why we might be surprised and see Romney get the V.P. nomination to bolster his economic credentials and maybe actually create a plan, but I disagree Obama is strong.

Let's see, raise taxes, regulate, create new bureaucracies in health care and other industries, and general strangle the economy through micromanagement. That sounds like a great plan.

Both of them are lost. Obama speaks better but he still doesn't have a clue.

time to cling to your gun to keep him from taking your money.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

time to cling to your gun to keep him from taking your money.

Among those voting in the PA Dem primary, Obama only carried 30% of Catholics, 40% of white Protestants, and 30% of gun rights activists. It seems the bitter are, well, bitter. He carried 90% of the black vote, but only 37% of the white. This does not bode well for Obama's argument that he transcends anything. (Though to his credit, I'm not sure Obama himself has ever claimed transcendence.)

At this point I'm not sure it matters who the Dems run. They have self-destructed in more spectacular fashion than I ever could have imagined.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Among those voting in the PA Dem primary, Obama only carried 30% of Catholics, 40% of white Protestants, and 30% of gun rights activists. It seems the bitter are, well, bitter. He carried 90% of the black vote, but only 37% of the white. This does not bode well for Obama's argument that he transcends anything. (Though to his credit, I'm not sure Obama himself has ever claimed transcendence.)

At this point I'm not sure it matters who the Dems run. They have self-destructed in more spectacular fashion than I ever could have imagined.

If I remember the Fox exit polling correctly, he lost by double-digits both gun owners and folks identifying themselves as religious. I don't know what numbers he would otherwise have gotten had he NOT made his "bitter" comment, but it clearly didn't help him.

Obama has now failed to win key demographics in key states, including CA, TX, OH, and now PA. It's foolishness for Dems to think that once they have a nominee they can just add Clinton and Obama's numbers in each of these states together and come up with general election turnout figures.

One other weird thing in the news reporting: they keep talking about how much more money Obama (and to a degree, Clinton) has raised than McCain. Can someone give me a "Duh!"? They're locked in a fierce battle with both sides laying claim to very passionately motivated voters. I think Obama would out-fundraise McCain even if he were already the nominee, but not by this margin. It's kind of silly to compare the two, given that McCain has no competition.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Obama, and it isn't even close. Putting aside whatever you feel about either candidate, the only way Clinton becomes the nominee is by getting the superdelegates to overturn the vote of the people, which in turn destroys the party completely. The convention would be a disaster with, I would imagine, hundreds of delegates boycotting. Fundraising would dry up (it already has for her with the exception of the brief bump she will enjoy from Penn). Her donors are already 100% tapped out. She can't win at this point. Obama can. So even if you think Obama has a 0.0000001% chance of winning, that makes him more electable.

The superdelegates overturning an Obama win would be a disaster for the party and the country, I think.

One of the pundits on CNN said it best on Tuesday, the Clintons aim for the middle of the curve and they get the support of the people who regularly vote, the seniors, the union members, the rural voters. Obama is WAY left; he is considered the most liberal Senator and he is not connecting at all with the moderates. The dems are about to put up another Dukakis and thus give away the election handed to them on a silver platter -- it'll be interesting to see if an Obama-Clinton ticket can save them, if Clinton is willing to do that.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

If I remember the Fox exit polling correctly, he lost by double-digits both gun owners and folks identifying themselves as religious. I don't know what numbers he would otherwise have gotten had he NOT made his "bitter" comment, but it clearly didn't help him.

Obama has now failed to win key demographics in key states, including CA, TX, OH, and now PA. It's foolishness for Dems to think that once they have a nominee they can just add Clinton and Obama's numbers in each of these states together and come up with general election turnout figures.

One other weird thing in the news reporting: they keep talking about how much more money Obama (and to a degree, Clinton) has raised than McCain. Can someone give me a "Duh!"? They're locked in a fierce battle with both sides laying claim to very passionately motivated voters. I think Obama would out-fundraise McCain even if he were already the nominee, but not by this margin. It's kind of silly to compare the two, given that McCain has no competition.

Tex, your fundraising comments are cute. Why don't you go ahead and compare the total dollars donated to either Clinton or Obama to those raised by McCain during the time in which McCain was contested in the primary? I eagerly await your results.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by hyrum

The superdelegates overturning an Obama win would be a disaster for the party and the country, I think.

One of the pundits on CNN said it best on Tuesday, the Clintons aim for the middle of the curve and they get the support of the people who regularly vote, the seniors, the union members, the rural voters. Obama is WAY left; he is considered the most liberal Senator and he is not connecting at all with the moderates. The dems are about to put up another Dukakis and thus give away the election handed to them on a silver platter -- it'll be interesting to see if an Obama-Clinton ticket can save them, if Clinton is willing to do that.

Obama-Clinton won't do anything positive as a ticket. Jim Webb or one of the other Virginians will (VA is stacked for the Dems right now).

Obama is getting lots of moderates. I don't know what the CNN guy was talking about that you were citing. He is pulling in all kinds of independents, most of whom are moderate. Republicans are switching parties in record numbers and voting for him. I would suggest those people are moderates too.

People will soon realize, once this primary is over, that most of the drama the media has been building up is nonsense.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Tex, your fundraising comments are cute. Why don't you go ahead and compare the total dollars donated to either Clinton or Obama to those raised by McCain during the time in which McCain was contested in the primary? I eagerly await your results.

Yes, yes. The Dems have raised more money overall. Go pat yourself on the back.

[Tex]

Via Powerline:

To understand how much Barack Obama's campaign has changed -- or how phony it was from the outset -- consider this statement by his campaign manager David Axelrod:

The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years.

In other words, as Bill Clinton correctly translates, "we don’t really need these working class people to win."

What happened to the Obama who wanted to get past the old divisions and categories, and to reject the politics of "getting to 51 percent" any way possible? I guess the American working class is just too bitter for such an approach to be sustainable.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../04/020367.php

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Via Powerline:



http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../04/020367.php

You really struggle with logic, don't you?

Axelrod makes a statement about voting demographics, and from that you conclude that Obama doesn't want to change those demographics or doesn't care and thus, his campaign is a fraud?

Hey Tex- McCain just said that there are terrorists in Iraq. I think we can fairly conclude that he doesn't care that there are terrorists in Iraq and plans on doing nothing about it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You really struggle with logic, don't you?

Axelrod makes a statement about voting demographics, and from that you conclude that Obama doesn't want to change those demographics or doesn't care and thus, his campaign is a fraud?

Actually it was the Powerline guys, but they make a good point. Alexrod sounded dismissive of those demographics, as though it didn't matter. "We don't need 'em."

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Hey Tex- McCain just said that there are terrorists in Iraq. I think we can fairly conclude that he doesn't care that there are terrorists in Iraq and plans on doing nothing about it.

Huh?