HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Guys, I'm getting worried about Nevada.
I don't have any expectations for Obama to win the state. I think he could, but that doesn't mean he will. Which makes me nervous because I think Nevada may be a 'must-win' state.
Clinton could attempt to marginalize an Obama win in South Carolina by virtue of his support among blacks- further attempting to paint Obama as 'the black candidate.' Nevada, by contrast, would be a sign that Obama is competitive on a national level, not just in places where demographics favor him or where he can spend an inordinate amount of time campaigning (as in Iowa). Plus, there's the possibility of a lack of support from Hispanic voters for Obama; no telling whether the Culinary Union can give him the boost he needs.
Ugh, fuck this stupid front-loaded primary schedule. Clinton has had an advantage from the beginning because she has name recognition in places that Obama, and Edwards for that matter, have just now started campaigning in. This race has never been a fair fight, not that I'm asking it to be; but it's unfair by virtue of the layout of the race course.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
Meh, what states would you have considered 'fair?' Clinton has massive name recognition everywhere.
I'm saying that Obama and Edwards have not had the opportunity to make themselves known in some of the places she's been known in for years. They haven't had the time.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
Obama has been put in the underdog narrative, now, so him winning would fuck up the pundits once again (only much more slighly this time 'round) and likely lead to a much better national bid. Especially since you can paint New Hampshire as crotchety and frozen old white people. A Nevada win for Hillary would prove to hurt a good deal since Iowa becomes the fluke rather than a sign of potential. Try and tie Obama to Huckabee since he's likely to win SC but lose nationally. It's certainly going to be an important caucus. Especially going into a CNN debate with Wolf Blitzer as your final debut before Feb 5th.
Still, it's Vegas and he's got good odds. Who knows.
Obama has been put in the underdog narrative, now, so him winning would fuck up the pundits once again (only much more slighly this time 'round) and likely lead to a much better national bid. Especially since you can paint New Hampshire as crotchety and frozen old white people. A Nevada win for Hillary would prove to hurt a good deal since Iowa becomes the fluke rather than a sign of potential. Try and tie Obama to Huckabee since he's likely to win SC but lose nationally. It's certainly going to be an important caucus. Especially going into a CNN debate with Wolf Blitzer as your final debut before Feb 5th.
Still, it's Vegas and he's got good odds. Who knows.
God, is it wrong for me to maybe want the Culinary Union to strong-arm its people into voting for Obama? Just this once, maybe? For the greater good?
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
Meh, what states would you have considered 'fair?' Clinton has massive name recognition everywhere.
I'm saying that Obama and Edwards have not had the opportunity to make themselves known in some of the places she's been known in for years. They haven't had the time.
Name recognition isn't as important as political machinery. Especially for caucuses, given how retarded they are. She inherited much of the organization from Bill's run while Obama and Edwards had to start from scratch. That's where the real slant in the field comes from. Moreso than getting people to know who you are and what you stand for. I mean, most people don't vote for a general election, let alone a primary, so you're probably targeting people with some political acumen and who have looked into things at least slightly.
Obama has been put in the underdog narrative, now, so him winning would fuck up the pundits once again (only much more slighly this time 'round) and likely lead to a much better national bid. Especially since you can paint New Hampshire as crotchety and frozen old white people. A Nevada win for Hillary would prove to hurt a good deal since Iowa becomes the fluke rather than a sign of potential. Try and tie Obama to Huckabee since he's likely to win SC but lose nationally. It's certainly going to be an important caucus. Especially going into a CNN debate with Wolf Blitzer as your final debut before Feb 5th.
Still, it's Vegas and he's got good odds. Who knows.
God, is it wrong for me to maybe want the Culinary Union to strong-arm its people into voting for Obama? Just this once, maybe? For the greater good?
Yes. That's wrong. You can't have it both ways. I understand you really want your candidate of choice to win but it's still wrong.
The best bet is to hope that there are many, many pro-union people that believe in his politics as well as considering their union's endorsement. Strong-arm that ain't.
Obama has been put in the underdog narrative, now, so him winning would fuck up the pundits once again (only much more slighly this time 'round) and likely lead to a much better national bid. Especially since you can paint New Hampshire as crotchety and frozen old white people. A Nevada win for Hillary would prove to hurt a good deal since Iowa becomes the fluke rather than a sign of potential. Try and tie Obama to Huckabee since he's likely to win SC but lose nationally. It's certainly going to be an important caucus. Especially going into a CNN debate with Wolf Blitzer as your final debut before Feb 5th.
Still, it's Vegas and he's got good odds. Who knows.
God, is it wrong for me to maybe want the Culinary Union to strong-arm its people into voting for Obama? Just this once, maybe? For the greater good?
Yes. That's wrong. You can't have it both ways. I understand you really want your candidate of choice to win but it's still wrong.
The best bet is to hope that there are many, many pro-union people that believe in his politics as well as considering their union's endorsement. Strong-arm that ain't.
We only got JFK on the votes of a few dead people!
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
Obama has been put in the underdog narrative, now, so him winning would fuck up the pundits once again (only much more slighly this time 'round) and likely lead to a much better national bid. Especially since you can paint New Hampshire as crotchety and frozen old white people. A Nevada win for Hillary would prove to hurt a good deal since Iowa becomes the fluke rather than a sign of potential. Try and tie Obama to Huckabee since he's likely to win SC but lose nationally. It's certainly going to be an important caucus. Especially going into a CNN debate with Wolf Blitzer as your final debut before Feb 5th.
Still, it's Vegas and he's got good odds. Who knows.
God, is it wrong for me to maybe want the Culinary Union to strong-arm its people into voting for Obama? Just this once, maybe? For the greater good?
Yes. That's wrong. You can't have it both ways. I understand you really want your candidate of choice to win but it's still wrong.
The best bet is to hope that there are many, many pro-union people that believe in his politics as well as considering their union's endorsement. Strong-arm that ain't.
We only got JFK on the votes of a few dead people!
Obama has been put in the underdog narrative, now, so him winning would fuck up the pundits once again (only much more slighly this time 'round) and likely lead to a much better national bid. Especially since you can paint New Hampshire as crotchety and frozen old white people. A Nevada win for Hillary would prove to hurt a good deal since Iowa becomes the fluke rather than a sign of potential. Try and tie Obama to Huckabee since he's likely to win SC but lose nationally. It's certainly going to be an important caucus. Especially going into a CNN debate with Wolf Blitzer as your final debut before Feb 5th.
Still, it's Vegas and he's got good odds. Who knows.
God, is it wrong for me to maybe want the Culinary Union to strong-arm its people into voting for Obama? Just this once, maybe? For the greater good?
Yes. That's wrong. You can't have it both ways. I understand you really want your candidate of choice to win but it's still wrong.
The best bet is to hope that there are many, many pro-union people that believe in his politics as well as considering their union's endorsement. Strong-arm that ain't.
We only got JFK on the votes of a few dead people!
doesn't matter. i want to see Obama, above all other candidates, run the most honest, most clean campaign possible. there have already been allegations of the Culinary Union strongarming its members. fortunately they've been proven false so far. but i can easily imagine dozens of headlines following this Saturday hinting at voting shenanigans from all of the candidates, and that does not reflect well for any of them or for the Dems as a whole.
Anyone else find it hilarious that it's the Chicago democratic candidate that's the one seeking the ethical high ground and seemingly being pegged at that position by default? Not that Tammany Hall wasn't corrupt, but it's hard to top our political history.
Obama has been put in the underdog narrative, now, so him winning would fuck up the pundits once again (only much more slighly this time 'round) and likely lead to a much better national bid. Especially since you can paint New Hampshire as crotchety and frozen old white people. A Nevada win for Hillary would prove to hurt a good deal since Iowa becomes the fluke rather than a sign of potential. Try and tie Obama to Huckabee since he's likely to win SC but lose nationally. It's certainly going to be an important caucus. Especially going into a CNN debate with Wolf Blitzer as your final debut before Feb 5th.
Still, it's Vegas and he's got good odds. Who knows.
God, is it wrong for me to maybe want the Culinary Union to strong-arm its people into voting for Obama? Just this once, maybe? For the greater good?
Yes. That's wrong. You can't have it both ways. I understand you really want your candidate of choice to win but it's still wrong.
The best bet is to hope that there are many, many pro-union people that believe in his politics as well as considering their union's endorsement. Strong-arm that ain't.
We only got JFK on the votes of a few dead people!
doesn't matter. i want to see Obama, above all other candidates, run the most honest, most clean campaign possible. there have already been allegations of the Culinary Union strongarming its members. fortunately they've been proven false so far. but i can easily imagine dozens of headlines following this Saturday hinting at voting shenanigans from all of the candidates, and that does not reflect well for any of them or for the Dems as a whole.
Precisely this for me as well. A major personal draw to Obama's campaign is its authenticity, honesty, and purity, whether only perceived or not. Something like what you describe, Harrier, is a tremendous blow to his campaign's desirability, at least for me.
"Glowing endorsements from establishment liberals like Leahy and (Sen. John) Kerry are indicative of the sort of 'change' Obama would bring. It's no surprise that the liberal lions love Obama's plans to raise taxes and increase spending. On the other hand, the Democratic senators' rejection of Clinton is nothing short of stunning. Clinton is running on her record, but those that know it best –- her Senate colleagues -- are increasingly rejecting her candidacy."
As the room erupts in laughter, he continues: “If I had gone last I would have known what the game was. I could have said, ‘Well you know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don’t want to be helped. It’s terrible.’”
I am-a laughin'.
Hoz on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
"Glowing endorsements from establishment liberals like Leahy and (Sen. John) Kerry are indicative of the sort of 'change' Obama would bring. It's no surprise that the liberal lions love Obama's plans to raise taxes and increase spending. On the other hand, the Democratic senators' rejection of Clinton is nothing short of stunning. Clinton is running on her record, but those that know it best –- her Senate colleagues -- are increasingly rejecting her candidacy."
wow. just, wow.
Shouldn't Democrats take the RNC's preference for Hillary as a sign that they're scared of Obama, maybe b/c he'd pose the greatest threat to the Republican candidate, i.e. electability?
Obama's honest attempt to answer the "what's your greatest weakness" question summarizes why I love the guy. Man, everybody knows you're supposed to bullshit that question, but he was actually honest and answered when nobody else would have. Considering that question is like the fucking holy grail of bullshit questions, actually answering it shows at least a pretty solid commitment to honesty. Maybe that's even naive of him, but I still love it.
Talka on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Obama's honest attempt to answer the "what's your greatest weakness" question summarizes why I love the guy. Man, everybody knows you're supposed to bullshit that question, but he was actually honest and answered when nobody else would have. Considering that question is like the fucking holy grail of bullshit questions, actually answering it shows at least a pretty solid commitment to honesty. Maybe that's even naive of him, but I still love it.
Seriously - that's like the definitive bullshit question. When it's asked at job interviews both parties know that what's actually being asked is "How well can you spin words?" and maybe "Are you familiar enough with job interviews to know this is a bullshit question?" The fact that he continually rises above the bullshit that has become commonplace is just so fucking admirable. I barely even think of the guy as a "politician," b/c the word has so many negative connotations that just don't apply to him.
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
So Obama's got the largest ground operation in Nevada right now. That's got to count for something, right? His people know how to do caucuses. They could leave an effective impression on some of the first-time caucus-goers in Nevada.
Let's assume he can tie it up with Clinton across the state. The Culinary Union's representatives would probably be enough to put him over the top- even if some of their members scatter to Clinton or Edwards, they won't be the unit the union will represent.
At least this is a caucus, so the Latinos can't secretly decide they don't want to vote for a black man.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
Posts
I don't have any expectations for Obama to win the state. I think he could, but that doesn't mean he will. Which makes me nervous because I think Nevada may be a 'must-win' state.
Clinton could attempt to marginalize an Obama win in South Carolina by virtue of his support among blacks- further attempting to paint Obama as 'the black candidate.' Nevada, by contrast, would be a sign that Obama is competitive on a national level, not just in places where demographics favor him or where he can spend an inordinate amount of time campaigning (as in Iowa). Plus, there's the possibility of a lack of support from Hispanic voters for Obama; no telling whether the Culinary Union can give him the boost he needs.
Ugh, fuck this stupid front-loaded primary schedule. Clinton has had an advantage from the beginning because she has name recognition in places that Obama, and Edwards for that matter, have just now started campaigning in. This race has never been a fair fight, not that I'm asking it to be; but it's unfair by virtue of the layout of the race course.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Still, it's Vegas and he's got good odds. Who knows.
Name recognition isn't as important as political machinery. Especially for caucuses, given how retarded they are. She inherited much of the organization from Bill's run while Obama and Edwards had to start from scratch. That's where the real slant in the field comes from. Moreso than getting people to know who you are and what you stand for. I mean, most people don't vote for a general election, let alone a primary, so you're probably targeting people with some political acumen and who have looked into things at least slightly.
The best bet is to hope that there are many, many pro-union people that believe in his politics as well as considering their union's endorsement. Strong-arm that ain't.
doesn't matter. i want to see Obama, above all other candidates, run the most honest, most clean campaign possible. there have already been allegations of the Culinary Union strongarming its members. fortunately they've been proven false so far. but i can easily imagine dozens of headlines following this Saturday hinting at voting shenanigans from all of the candidates, and that does not reflect well for any of them or for the Dems as a whole.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Since Leahy is also appearing in a cameo role in "The Dark Knight," this is about as close as a candidate can get to a Batman endorsement.
Well, that or Christian Bale.
2) “You’ve never heard of the Millennium Falcon? … It’s the ship that made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs.”
I'll go so far as Adam West and/or Kevin Conroy, but that's it.
wow. just, wow.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/obama-skewers-critics-in-nevada/#more-3885
I am-a laughin'.
Shouldn't Democrats take the RNC's preference for Hillary as a sign that they're scared of Obama, maybe b/c he'd pose the greatest threat to the Republican candidate, i.e. electability?
Obama's honest attempt to answer the "what's your greatest weakness" question summarizes why I love the guy. Man, everybody knows you're supposed to bullshit that question, but he was actually honest and answered when nobody else would have. Considering that question is like the fucking holy grail of bullshit questions, actually answering it shows at least a pretty solid commitment to honesty. Maybe that's even naive of him, but I still love it.
Seriously - that's like the definitive bullshit question. When it's asked at job interviews both parties know that what's actually being asked is "How well can you spin words?" and maybe "Are you familiar enough with job interviews to know this is a bullshit question?" The fact that he continually rises above the bullshit that has become commonplace is just so fucking admirable. I barely even think of the guy as a "politician," b/c the word has so many negative connotations that just don't apply to him.
Let's assume he can tie it up with Clinton across the state. The Culinary Union's representatives would probably be enough to put him over the top- even if some of their members scatter to Clinton or Edwards, they won't be the unit the union will represent.
At least this is a caucus, so the Latinos can't secretly decide they don't want to vote for a black man.