NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 1, 2008 -> 01:11 PM) Oh for sure, that's why I reference the WTA format as McCain's best friend. He's not going to blow out Romney in any of these states (and if he does, it'll only be a state or two), but since winning by even just 1 vote in a lot of these states gets you all the delegates, I can't see how Romney will even be close by this time Wednesday. Its all about state strategy, like in the general. Romney won't campaign everywhere - just in the states where he has a good shot at pushing the vote to a win, if its WTA. There are a few states that are gimme wins for each candidate, and they won't campaign in those states. But also keep in mind, not all states are WTA. In fact, of all the states going on Tuesday, only New York (101 Delegates), Missouri (58), Arizona (53), New Jersey (52), Utah (36), Connecticut (30), and Montana (25). The other 14 states and their 729 delegates are non-WTA. California, by far the biggest prize, is not, and neither are GA or IL, the 3rd and 4th bigges prizes.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 1, 2008 -> 01:07 PM) The WTA format in most of the states on the republican side combined with the success McCain will have Tuesday means he's pretty much got this locked up barring some complete shocking turns next week. However, he's very fortunate because the lack of money in his campaign would otherwise be a major issue obviously. Then again, he's also fortunate that Mitt Romney has run a very poor campaign, as many of the wounds he's suffered in this campaign have been self induced IMO. As long as McCain wins in a big way on SDOGPEIT, then I agree, McCain probably can cruise to the nomination and not have to worry about the money (in terms of the primary campaign). But if Romney keeps it close next week, then McCain will have major problems.

And more polling... New York: Survey USA, 950 LV, 1/30-31 (change from mid-Jan, same poll, in parens) Clinton: 54% (-2) Obama: 38% (+8) UNDECIDED/OTHER: 8% So even in Clinton's home state, that 26 point lead has shrunk to 16. I doubt he has a chance to win NY, but, he may make it less than a blowout. That would be a victory for him. The poll says that Edwards' dropping out gave Obama a big boost. If he can work it in, I'd think a stop into Harlem or the Bronx might give Obama a further boost in NY.

I think its going to put a lot of pressure on Google.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 1, 2008 -> 10:27 AM) It's true. When's the last time McCain worked with the Republicans on ANYTHING? Tell the truth, that's why a lot of you people are looking at voting for him, because he acts more like a Democrat then the Democrats do. Well now that's just ridiculous. He's got prototypically GOP positions on probably 75% of the issues. That doesn't make him anything like "more democrat than the democracts".

Under the heading of BIG endorsements, The Atlantic suggests that Gore may endorse Obama. They note that Gore and Obama talk regularly, and Obama has oddly left Tennessee, a significant SDOGPEIT prize, off his current travel itinerary. --- Seperately, under the heading of UNWANTED endorsements... Ann Coulter says she would vote for Hillary over McCain because Hillary is "more conservative" and "would be stronger on the war on terror".

More new Dem polls... Alabama, which had been Clinton +15 a week or two ago, is now... AEA Capital, 377 LV, 1/28-30... Obama: 40% (+5) Clinton: 35% New Jersey, which most recently had been Clinton +17... Rasmussen, 785 LV, 1/30... Clinton: 49% (+12) Obama: 37% And finally, the two national tracking polls through Thursday... Rasmussen: Clinton +7 Gallup: Clinton +4

Watched the debate last night. Hillary is a slightly better debater, but, I'd call that particular debate a draw. Clinton started well, but as the debate went on, Obama's points got across more cleanly. Both were in top form though - that was fun to watch. Rex, about that Clinton 30 years of Bush/Clinton response... my first thought was, great line. Then it sat for a minute, and I saw the audience, and I think it may not have had a great effect after the initial applause. The fact of it sinking in with people. As I look at the candidates out there in both parties, I think to myself... ALL of these people are way better speakers and debaters than either Bush or Kerry from the '04 race.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 02:34 PM) That's a long questioning window too. I wonder when the bulk of polling was done, it would be interesting to see a day by day breakout of that. Yeah, I am a bit skeptical of it as well. But it gives some idea of the baseline earlier in the month. Hopefully someone does a MN poll starting this week.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 02:23 PM) How would both candidates being on a level playing field handicap McCain? Besides, I would much rather seem them out campaigning, versus fundraising. I for one would love to see a McCain v Obama race, and even better if they actually had to do it with minimal fundraising and a lot of grass-roots campaigning.

I don't understand this desire to go get Crisp, Pierre, Patterson or the like at this point. For one thing, does anyone really think its worth lowering the team OBP significantly (which is what would happen), just to have a more prototypical leadoff hitter? That makes zero sense. And second, at least in the case of Pierre and Patterson, we already have that guy on the team for a lot cheaper. This team really has only one big need at he major league level at this point - one more solid SP. Any other "needs" or issues, like not having a prototypical leadoff hitter, being weak at backup C, that sort of thing... is just not worth investing a lot in right now.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 11:37 AM) Well, let's put it this way...it's a wildcard. Absentee ballots went out 2-3 weeks ago, before Obama's big boost started. So we have a variety of factors in play that could push them strongly one way or another. Definitely. Same in other states too, that allow early voting to everyone. Illinois, for example - where Clinton is actually an underdog and may have that edge.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 11:32 AM) The biggest piece of the pie... Taken after Florida but before Edwards dropped out, according to Rasmussen. Problem to remember...something like 20% of California (including me) is going to have already voted before super tuesday comes around, and it's pretty likely Clinton's early lead will carry through to a lot of those. So Obama needs to be more than slightly ahead on the day of the election to win it, more than likely. I don't agree on that assessment of the absentee voting. For one thing, remember the demographics... people who vote early are usually more involved politically, and have higher-end daytime jobs - thus probably more educated on the whole. The former factor, involvement, tends towards those not leading the pack. The latter, education level, according to the polls, tends to favor Obama pretty consistently. I'd say the absentee thing would be pretty close to even, with a slight edge to Obama, all things considered.

First Minnesota poll is out, but it was actually taken pre-SC win for Obama, and pre-Edwards dropping out. Minnesota Public Radio, 478 R, 1/18-1/27 Clinton: 40% Obama: 33% Edwards: 12% UNDECIDED: 13% Yet another state where the gap was already narrow, and an SC victory for Obama plus him visiting there soon should bump his numbers up. This is really more of a "before" sample anyway.

More new Dem polls of interest... Georgia - Insider Advantage (1/30) Obama: 52% Clinton: 36% Tennessee - Insider Advantage (1/30: Clinton: 59% Obama: 26% Clinton spent a couple days in Tennesee recently, and got some major endorsements there. Looks like she'll probably cruise there and in AR to take the mid-South. But, Obama looks very strong in the deep south, having won SC big, having a big lead in GA and a previous poll lead in AL.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 07:41 AM) I think that endorsements don't mean s*** anymore... they just don't carry the weight they used to. Look further up in the thread at the Massachussetts poll results. 31 points in 4 days? Ted Kennedy says hello.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 10:11 PM) Obama just took a MASSIVE leap in massachcets... Obama moves to within 6 points. CLinton 43, Obama 37 RealClearPolitics Previous Polls... SurveyUSA.... 01/22 - 01/23....586 L....59-Clinton.... 22-Obama.... 11-Edwards.... Clinton +37.0 Closed the gap by 31 POINTS in less than week. You can thank Ted Kennedy's endorsement for that one. Here is a scary thought. Staying close on SDOGPEIT would be a win for Obama, but with the polls shifting so dramatically now, Obama may actually have a shot at truly WINNING SDOGPEIT. An outside shot mind you, but still a shot. If that happens, Obama becomes the clear front-runner. In order to pull that off though, I think Obama probably needs Richardson and/or Edwards to endorse him this week.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 07:35 PM) Latino Latino Latino. One word is all you need. Obama needs just a FRACTION of the Latino Clinton supports to gain ground. I believe the polls in CA say if the latino vote were removed, Clinton and Obama would be tied in CA. Obama needs a bump. A Richardson endorsement gets the media to talk about a slap to the face fo Hillary right before the primaries and before Hillary can respond. A Richardson endorsement of Obama would be pretty big, and very unexpected, given his history with the Clintons. It provides for Obama... --New Mexico - Richardson is very popular in his home state, and it would pretty much hand the state to the endorsee --Big boost with the Latino vote --Regional boost in AZ and CO --Probably a good help in CA, between the Latino vote and Richardson maybe doing some campaigning --For those in the know, that he'd endorse Obama after working for the Clintons, says a LOT He's no Gore or Edwards, but he'd definitely be a boost. All that said, even with the coincidences in schedule, and hints abounding, I kind of doubt Richardson endorses Obama. I hope I'm wrong.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 07:00 PM) *sigh* When is everyone finally going to give up on this pipedream of Hillarity losing? It's not going to happen, folks. Listen mister poopy-pants... for one thing, weren't you saying back in the fall we should all get used to the idea of it being Giuliani and Clinton? Second, this things is not anywhere near over, unless Edwards and Gore suddenly endorse Hillary - heck, Obama is in the lead in pledged delegates and all the polls show momentum swinging his way. Third, even if Obama's chances were almost zero (and they aren't that low yet), why on earth would we stop wanting it to happen? I know you are very familiar with history and all, but take a closer look - every so often, big things change. The torch gets passed off. And that might happen here.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 05:22 PM) Racism is still very alive and kicking in this country due to the socio-economic situation of the inner city. Many of the fears and hatred as result of crime and poverty are a direct result of race thus resulting an inert dislike for a race whether intentional or not. Jesse and Al do nothing to assist in disfusing this situation because it keeps them in the spotlight. There is no definitive voice for the minority race. Obama can be looked at a face for this cause. I find sexism funny. Sexism is an emotional process related to instinctual feelings that need to be repressed by the human mind which I feel is not even possible. Hillary being a women is not why I would not vote for her. If women really wanted sexism to go away and the objectivity of women to cease they would evaluate their status. I really think that at least average looking women geta pretty good shake. I am not advocating sexual harassment and am not tying it to this response as that is a different opinion. The black senator v. female senator is all you need to know. I like Obama and hope he wins. I loath Hillary. I also planned to vote for Giuliani............ Those two bolded sentences pretty much make my case. Thanks. Seriously, WTF difference does it make whether or not women are "at least average looking"? Unless you are planning on dating that woman, who cares? I don't care if a male job applicant is good looking or not, why should I care if a woman is? I'm not blind, I can see these things, but I think its complete B.S. that it should be used as a determinant of whether or not someone gets a "pretty good shake".

We don't yet have an independent candidates' thread yet, so here we go... Nader forms exploratory committee to run for President again.

Internet companies do it all the time. Look at the ad banner on this very page. Paid by the click, or the page show.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 02:33 PM) I believe I posted the link to Trippi, a top Edwards advisor, saying so about 3 hours ago in this thread Yes, that was what I was referring to you. Next time I'll cite with a footnote.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 02:29 PM) In the linguistics profession, just how often does the phrase "cunning linguist" get thrown around? I don't know, but I think it probably belonged better in the big boobs thread.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 02:21 PM) I'm not sure I would be that qualified for a post there. Isn't that more social/Industrial Psych than Cognitive? Yes, she had an emphasis in I/O. But the degree says Experimental Psych, which is the same as Cognitive, yes? Eh, I've derailed the thread. PM me if you want to talk more on this, I'd be happy to assist.