I believe the Dem party is in a transistion phase from the old guard to the new. The San Fransisco hippies of 1968 are on their way out. This is their last shot. Hillary represents them. Obama represents the Gen X democrats and they will be THE force in the party after '08. It's just a matter if the hippies can hold the fort through this election or not.

I think that's exactly right. This is old guard versus new guard. The transtion is occurring no matter what - the question is, will the new guard have enough power THIS year to get the candidate they want in there.

 

I think that's exactly right. This is old guard versus new guard. The transtion is occurring no matter what - the question is, will the new guard have enough power THIS year to get the candidate they want in there.

 

Didn't I just say that?

Heck, the Edwards campaign has actually said pretty much that, in public. They have both made overtures.

I believe I posted the link to Trippi, a top Edwards advisor, saying so about 3 hours ago in this thread

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.

 

I believe the Dem party is in a transistion phase from the old guard to the new. The San Fransisco hippies of 1968 are on their way out. This is their last shot. Hillary represents them. Obama represents the Gen X democrats and they will be THE force in the party after '08. It's just a matter if the hippies can hold the fort through this election or not.

 

I think that is over simplifying things. What is also happening here is the old white guy guard, who has been pandering to women and minorities, face their first real test of faith. After decades of proclaiming, we're your party, old white guys have to actually share some of that power. That may be as big or bigger than the social, aged stratified groups.

I think that is over simplifying things. What is also happening here is the old white guy guard, who has been pandering to women and minorities, face their first real test of faith. After decades of proclaiming, we're your party, old white guys have to actually share some of that power. That may be as big or bigger than the social, aged stratified groups.

 

That, my friend, is a very good point.

I was just thinking, when Clinton was elected, I was thirty or so, and after 12 years of Reagan / Bush, a sax blowing, Fleetwood Mac playing, President "my age" was cool.

 

Now, we're getting tossed aside as old voting for his wife

Maybe there is something to the age thing.

I was just thinking, when Clinton was elected, I was thirty or so, and after 12 years of Reagan / Bush, a sax blowing, Fleetwood Mac playing, President "my age" was cool.

 

Now, we're getting tossed aside as old voting for his wife

Maybe there is something to the age thing.

 

You know, I don't really know if I can make my point here. It's just that the Haight/Ashbury culture has pretty much had it's chance, didn't really do anything with it. This is their last shot at relevence, imo. Sure, SanFran is still very liberal, but the SanFran type of liberism is not mainstream America. There is a level of liberism that could grab the heartstrings of mainstream America, but the SF version is not it. In other words, I believe their time has passed. They may sneak on this election, because of Bush's total disregard of the constitution. But if they don't do it now, they never will. Basically, it's s*** or get off the pot.

NY Post Endorses Barack Obama

 

Obama represents a fresh start.

His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.

Does America really want to go through all that once again?

The whole thing is basically a rip on Clinton. Tore her, and her husband, apart piece by piece.

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

 

His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.

 

Where have I heard this before.

Where have I heard this before.

this thread

this thread

The 2000 election...if you fix a few of the phrases (i.e. get rid of the co-presidency part, change the sex of the person it's directed at, etc.)

You know, I don't really know if I can make my point here. It's just that the Haight/Ashbury culture has pretty much had it's chance, didn't really do anything with it. This is their last shot at relevence, imo. Sure, SanFran is still very liberal, but the SanFran type of liberism is not mainstream America. There is a level of liberism that could grab the heartstrings of mainstream America, but the SF version is not it. In other words, I believe their time has passed. They may sneak on this election, because of Bush's total disregard of the constitution. But if they don't do it now, they never will. Basically, it's s*** or get off the pot.

 

 

You think the Haight/Ashbury culture will ever get off the pot?!?

The 2000 election...if you fix a few of the phrases (i.e. get rid of the co-presidency part, change the sex of the person it's directed at, etc.)

well that to.

So what's the impact if Edwards nominates Obama as his preferred candidate in terms of support and delegates?

 

And what difference does it make if he does it before or after Super Dooper Tuesday? If he does it before does it give Obama a lot more momentum, which translates into more votes across the states?

So what's the impact if Edwards nominates Obama as his preferred candidate in terms of support and delegates?

 

And what difference does it make if he does it before or after Super Dooper Tuesday? If he does it before does it give Obama a lot more momentum, which translates into more votes across the states?

Edwards has been polling at roughly 10-15% in most states. The LA Times a week or so ago did a bit of polling and asked Edwards supporters who they would be more likely to support if Edwards dropped out, and Clinton had a slight lead in that regard. Moving those voters in bulk to either one or the other would make a big difference. In the national tracking polls, Obama's moved within single digits of Hillary since South Carolina (Florida clearly not included yet) so that might be enough to put him over the top, and it'd clearly make Hillary's lead insurmountable in 6 days barring her repeating those remarks she made that one time about a gas station. Demographically, the Edwards supporters were often more white and more elderly than the average voter, which is the demographic set that would be expected to fall more towards Hillary.

 

Currently, Edwards has 62 delegates, 26 pledged and 36 superdelegates. I think the pledged delegates would probably consider following him if he endorsed. The Superdelegates would likely do so, but there might be some stragglers.

 

FWIW, Obama now totally dominates the online communities.

Edited January 30, 200818 yr by Balta1701

Edwards has been polling at roughly 10-15% in most states. The LA Times a week or so ago did a bit of polling and asked Edwards supporters who they would be more likely to support if Edwards dropped out, and Clinton had a slight lead in that regard. Moving those voters in bulk to either one or the other would make a big difference. In the national tracking polls, Obama's moved within single digits of Hillary since South Carolina (Florida clearly not included yet) so that might be enough to put him over the top, and it'd clearly make Hillary's lead insurmountable in 6 days barring her repeating those remarks she made that one time about a gas station.

 

Currently, Edwards has 62 delegates, 26 pledged and 36 superdelegates. I think the pledged delegates would probably consider following him if he endorsed. The Superdelegates would likely do so, but there might be some stragglers.

 

FWIW, Obama now totally dominates the online communities.

That's rigged. It's kinda like Ron Paul getting the GOP nomination based on blog activity. You notice these idiots have STFU now?

The LA Times a week or so ago did a bit of polling and asked Edwards supporters who they would be more likely to support if Edwards dropped out, and Clinton had a slight lead in that regard.

An interesting note is that 11% were for Edwards and 12% were undecided. Obama had better results than Hillary in people who decided "in the last 3 days".

So, Obama seems to be the pick of people who decided at the last second. That could be HUGE in the Feb 4th primaries.

 

Ok, did some research. Obama out did Hillary 46% to 38% of those deciding in the last 3 days in FL. Hillary out did Obama 34% to 30% deciding the day off. Simmilar or BETTER figures exist in SC, NV, NH and IA. So, Obama seems to be the choice of those who decide the week of. (Hillary seem sto have a slight advantage the day of for some reason).

 

In these close states where it is 5 points are less with Edwards now out of play. Obama could get VERY close if not win (especially in a caucus like CO).

Edited January 31, 200818 yr by Athomeboy_2000

*sigh*

 

When is everyone finally going to give up on this pipedream of Hillarity losing? It's not going to happen, folks.

*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.

 

The fact that there hasn't been a coronation yet at all is really a testament to the people power "crashing the gate" in the party. There's two huge forces in play....

 

Establishment v Grassroots.

 

Establishment is starting to crack. Will it hold together to crown its candidate? Yes, probably. But you're starting to see the seams split, so the possibility of Clinton not getting the nod is still there.

 

This is the last stab of the McGovernite/Clinton power base to dominate. Assuming Clinton wins the presidency, in eight years you will see a different party led by the Obamas, Webbs, Testers and Schweitzers. Not the Clintons.

Hmm....didn't Richardson say that he might endorse by the end of the week?

all the polls show momentum swinging his way.

I just looked at all the polls from the states so far (michigan not included). Obama wins in almost EVERY state in those who decided int he last month, week, 3 days (I can not explain Hillarys win on the day of vote). THAT is a trend. When all the states swing for Obama as it gets closer to their day.

 

Intersting note...

If it wasnt a HUGE swing for Obama, it was a HUGE loss bu Hillary. From what I saw... for those who decided in the last week or 3 days, Obama might not have gained, but Hillary LOST 8-10 points (often going to edwards) compared to those who decided more than a week prior. Interesting. Could it be anti-Hillary? not sure. Just an interesting fact. Hillary Lost votes as it got closer to vote.