Averaging out the polls in the OP gives Hillary a 5.4 point victory. Of course, there are a lot of undecideds, and undecideds will break strongly for Hillary, because they're just the people who haven't bothered paying attention for the entire goddamned campaign and will choose Clinton in the polling booth because they don't recognize that funny-looking O-word, except maybe it sorta sounds like that Osama guy, you know?
Anyway, if you assume the undecideds in each case will break for Hillary by a 30-point margin, and you re-average the results, you wind up with Hillary winning by 8. I'm still going to go conservative and predict a 10-point win, and I still think double digits for Hillary is basically a coin-flip.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I would like to bring to everyone's attention that at my workplace the other night, I was surrounded by 3-4 young men, between the ages of 20 and 30, who insist that voting for Obama OR Clinton, will turn the US into a third-world country and open our borders to anyone who wants to show up.
I feel lucky that my brain neither shut down nor insisted that I murder them in public view.
Also, Clinton's campaign has spoken and says it's a positive ad, and it's totally valid. Which is the same thing Penn said after the 3am ad.
Can't do Youtube at work. Mind telling me the gist of it?
Relatively tame, never mentions Obama, the Osama bit is a picture of him and the phrase "who do you think has what it takes"
Obama's response, amusingly, was to link people to a youtube video of Bill Clinton talking about voting for the person who wants you to think rather than the one who wants you to fear.
kildy on
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
Also, Clinton's campaign has spoken and says it's a positive ad, and it's totally valid. Which is the same thing Penn said after the 3am ad.
Can't do Youtube at work. Mind telling me the gist of it?
Narrator: It's the toughest job in the world.
A bunch of historic news clips: FDR, Pearl Harbor, JFK, Cuban missile crisis, gas lines, stagflation, Berlin Wall, Bin Laden.
Then a bunch of current news clips: Inflation, unemployment, recession, etc.
Narrator: Harry Truman said, 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.' Who do you think has what it takes?
Voice-Over: Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President.
I actually don't find that Osama ad very bad. She's running through a laundry list of problems our nation has right now - gas prices, Iraq, mortgage crisis, terrorism. Each issue is marked by a half-second flash of some image. Now, if you're going to pick a single image to get across the idea of "terrorism", what do you use? Your choices are either the WTC burning or Osama bin Laden.
It's not as stupid as the 3AM ads, and it's not as offensive as her comments that McCain is better than Obama. Maybe I'm just not as easily shocked anymore.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Also, Clinton's campaign has spoken and says it's a positive ad, and it's totally valid. Which is the same thing Penn said after the 3am ad.
Can't do Youtube at work. Mind telling me the gist of it?
Relatively tame, never mentions Obama, the Osama bit is a picture of him and the phrase "who do you think has what it takes"
Obama's response, amusingly, was to link people to a youtube video of Bill Clinton talking about voting for the person who wants you to think rather than the one who wants you to fear.
I think Bill Clinton will probably go back to being awesome once his wife isn't running for president anymore.
I actually don't find that Osama ad very bad. She's running through a laundry list of problems our nation has right now - gas prices, Iraq, mortgage crisis, terrorism. Each issue is marked by a half-second flash of some image. Now, if you're going to pick a single image to get across the idea of "terrorism", what do you use? Your choices are either the WTC burning or Osama bin Laden.
It's not as stupid as the 3AM ads, and it's not as offensive as her comments that McCain is better than Obama. Maybe I'm just not as easily shocked anymore.
It's not horrible, it's just a tad pale to have a Dem candidate using terrorism as a campaign point, especially when her record on it's pretty weak, and in the last debate she brought up 9/11 multiple times.
I actually don't find that Osama ad very bad. She's running through a laundry list of problems our nation has right now - gas prices, Iraq, mortgage crisis, terrorism. Each issue is marked by a half-second flash of some image. Now, if you're going to pick a single image to get across the idea of "terrorism", what do you use? Your choices are either the WTC burning or Osama bin Laden.
It's not as stupid as the 3AM ads, and it's not as offensive as her comments that McCain is better than Obama. Maybe I'm just not as easily shocked anymore.
I tend to agree. I don't think she has much of a leg to stand on, there, because she's been a Washington insider through all of those issues, and never seemed to do much to fixthem, but I don't think it's some kind of attack on Obama.
Also, Clinton's campaign has spoken and says it's a positive ad, and it's totally valid. Which is the same thing Penn said after the 3am ad.
Can't do Youtube at work. Mind telling me the gist of it?
Relatively tame, never mentions Obama, the Osama bit is a picture of him and the phrase "who do you think has what it takes"
Obama's response, amusingly, was to link people to a youtube video of Bill Clinton talking about voting for the person who wants you to think rather than the one who wants you to fear.
I think Bill Clinton will probably go back to being awesome once his wife isn't running for president anymore.
I will never be able to respect him as much as I used to.
See, there is a factor you guys are missing with your predictions: turn out. The last day undecideds tend to break for Clinton, but this could easily be offset by high turnout of Obama supporters and suppressed outcome of Clinton supporters. Even with the backing of local political machines Clinton has very weak logistics compared to Obama. Add into that some of the demoralizers against her, such as all the "she can't win" talk and Tuzla, and some of her softer supporters may just decide to stay home.
This is different from Ohio because Obama has had more time to strengthen and narrow the focus of his ground game, and Clinton has been taking fire directly from Obama too. Before Ohio Obama was mostly holding back against her.
So is it fair to assume that everyone who comes out in support of Hilary tomorrow is under the impression that she can win, either because they don't understand that she can't compensate for Obama's lead or because they expect super-delegates to pee in the eye of the democratic process itself?
I don't understand how a majority of Pennsylvanian votes could hold either view.
So is it fair to assume that everyone who comes out in support of Hilary tomorrow is under the impression that she can win, either because they don't understand that she can't compensate for Obama's lead or because they expect super-delegates to pee in the eye of the democratic process itself?
But it's not subverting Democracy if it's their candidate who wins, right? Right?
I'm sticking with my Clinton +9 prediction I made in the previous thread. Polling consensus seems to be somewhere around 50-44 and the people discussed in the split will go Clinton at a high level, so 54-45.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
I'm thinking he pulls it out. Because I am dumb with hope.
So is it fair to assume that everyone who comes out in support of Hilary tomorrow is under the impression that she can win, either because they don't understand that she can't compensate for Obama's lead or because they expect super-delegates to pee in the eye of the democratic process itself?
I don't understand how a majority of Pennsylvanian votes could hold either view.
I think most of them probably just want their vote to count.
So is it fair to assume that everyone who comes out in support of Hilary tomorrow is under the impression that she can win, either because they don't understand that she can't compensate for Obama's lead or because they expect super-delegates to pee in the eye of the democratic process itself?
I don't understand how a majority of Pennsylvanian votes could hold either view.
I think most of them probably just want their vote to count.
Yeah, I can't understand that at all. I mean, a vote for Clinton may count, but if it does then it'll count towards something horrible.
I think Clinton's goal now is to hope to win a lot of the later states and then trick the superdelegates into thinking that they matter more than the earlier states.
Anyway lately I have been pondering Clinton's motives. Why does she think it's worth it to tear down Obama to try and steal the nomination from him? I think there are several possibilities. Listed in order of most probable to least:
1) She's simply deluded and thinks she would be a better candidate in the general.
2) She's selfish and will do whatever it takes to make herself the president.
3) She thinks having a woman as president is more important than having a black man as president.
I've been leaning toward #1, but I can entertain the possibility that she just really wants to be president. #3 might tie into it a bit.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
John McCain is abandoning any hope of catching the Democrats in fundraising.
Based on new financial disclosure reports released Sunday, and interviews with his finance team, the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee will instead accept taxpayer money to finance his general election and share other costs with the Republican National Committee.
The strategy will allow McCain to stretch his campaign dollars by splitting the cost of television advertising and other campaign activity with the RNC.
But the decision also puts the Arizona senator at risk of being badly outspent – even with RNC help – by a Democratic nominee who will be allowed to spend as much as he or she can raise on the November race.
This is the best part to me:
With the RNC focused now almost exclusively on protecting the party’s nominee, House and Senate candidates who don’t happen to be competing in presidential battleground states may be on their own.
Posts
Well yeah.
No sense in giving up.
Averaging out the polls in the OP gives Hillary a 5.4 point victory. Of course, there are a lot of undecideds, and undecideds will break strongly for Hillary, because they're just the people who haven't bothered paying attention for the entire goddamned campaign and will choose Clinton in the polling booth because they don't recognize that funny-looking O-word, except maybe it sorta sounds like that Osama guy, you know?
Anyway, if you assume the undecideds in each case will break for Hillary by a 30-point margin, and you re-average the results, you wind up with Hillary winning by 8. I'm still going to go conservative and predict a 10-point win, and I still think double digits for Hillary is basically a coin-flip.
Really?
You haven't seen the travesty?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDap46WOCmA&eurl=http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Also, Clinton's campaign has spoken and says it's a positive ad, and it's totally valid. Which is the same thing Penn said after the 3am ad.
I feel lucky that my brain neither shut down nor insisted that I murder them in public view.
Can't do Youtube at work. Mind telling me the gist of it?
+/- 1.
Yes.
*strokes British beard*
Relatively tame, never mentions Obama, the Osama bit is a picture of him and the phrase "who do you think has what it takes"
Obama's response, amusingly, was to link people to a youtube video of Bill Clinton talking about voting for the person who wants you to think rather than the one who wants you to fear.
Narrator: It's the toughest job in the world.
A bunch of historic news clips: FDR, Pearl Harbor, JFK, Cuban missile crisis, gas lines, stagflation, Berlin Wall, Bin Laden.
Then a bunch of current news clips: Inflation, unemployment, recession, etc.
Narrator: Harry Truman said, 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.' Who do you think has what it takes?
Voice-Over: Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President.
It's not as stupid as the 3AM ads, and it's not as offensive as her comments that McCain is better than Obama. Maybe I'm just not as easily shocked anymore.
It's not horrible, it's just a tad pale to have a Dem candidate using terrorism as a campaign point, especially when her record on it's pretty weak, and in the last debate she brought up 9/11 multiple times.
I tend to agree. I don't think she has much of a leg to stand on, there, because she's been a Washington insider through all of those issues, and never seemed to do much to fixthem, but I don't think it's some kind of attack on Obama.
I will never be able to respect him as much as I used to.
Yeah I fuck that up a lot. Public ought to be the default.
You are a terrible, terrible state, PA.
also i don't know how in the hell the PPP poll comes up with obama winning PA, but that'd be hilarious if it happened
You can split this into a "Elki is a whore" thread.
This is different from Ohio because Obama has had more time to strengthen and narrow the focus of his ground game, and Clinton has been taking fire directly from Obama too. Before Ohio Obama was mostly holding back against her.
Maybe they polled people from the future.
I hope, I hope!
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I don't understand how a majority of Pennsylvanian votes could hold either view.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
But it's not subverting Democracy if it's their candidate who wins, right? Right?
The Terrible Thirteens!
Yeah, I can't understand that at all. I mean, a vote for Clinton may count, but if it does then it'll count towards something horrible.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
HAHAHAHA!!
Anyway lately I have been pondering Clinton's motives. Why does she think it's worth it to tear down Obama to try and steal the nomination from him? I think there are several possibilities. Listed in order of most probable to least:
1) She's simply deluded and thinks she would be a better candidate in the general.
2) She's selfish and will do whatever it takes to make herself the president.
3) She thinks having a woman as president is more important than having a black man as president.
I've been leaning toward #1, but I can entertain the possibility that she just really wants to be president. #3 might tie into it a bit.
This is the best part to me: