Ohio predictions

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
deep said:


I do recall watching Obama on television awhile back.

He said, "I know Hillary voters will support me in the general election. My voters will not support her."

Of the two statements, which one do you believe is more damaging?

His statement is accurate

Independents have gone for Obama over McCain and Clinton

If Hillary gets the nom, independents go for McCain

And she loses

If Obama gets the nom

Independents will go for him, so will Dems

Because McCain makes them both angry

I like typing

Like deep
 
2861U2 said:


I have to disagree. I don't think there's going to be any "crushing" result, no matter what the tickets look like.
You want to disagree. But he would definately be crushed, no doubt about it.

2861U2 said:

I'm in no way convinced that, if it came to this, Hillary would offer Obama the VP or that he would want it.

I agree with this...
 
Irvine511 said:


or how about a line like this:

GMA: “Could you see yourself working to support Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination?

Michelle Obama: “I would have to think about that. I would have to think about policies, her approach, her tone. . .”


:wink:
 
Yes, that was certainly worth coverage on the national news for 3 days, but I don't see a similar type of hysteria regarding Hillary's endorsement of McCain.

Frankly if Hillary thinks McCain is so fantastic and experience rules the day (he has more), then what the hell, everyone may as well vote for him over her.
 
Hillary's 35 years of experience card is just ridiculous. Why is nobody calling her out on this? She is saying that every single thing she did from the minute she graduated from Yale was presidentially-relevant experience? Give me a fucking break!
 
Irvine511 said:
you may be right that Jews and Latinos prefer Hillary to Obama, but i don't know that they would prefer McCain to Obama.

you are right about the elderly, though. there's enough residual racism amongst 60+ voters to argue against Obama.
I guess it all comes down to which states turn out to be battleground states in the general and how critical a component these electoral demographics are in those states. Are there any states where Obama has won with Hispanic voters? I know with Jewish voters, Hillary had a majority in NY (her home turf, and she spent lots of time wooing Jewish voters in her Senate races) as well as FL, Obama had a majority in MA and CT, they split the Jewish vote in CA. So there it depends on which state you're talking about.

Agree about elderly white voters though, sadly, and that probably extends to elderly Jewish voters, possibly elderly Hispanic voters as well.
 
Last edited:
Obama to sharpen criticism of Clinton

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday blamed his primary defeats in Ohio and Texas on rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's criticism and news coverage that he argued benefited her at his expense.

The presidential candidate said he planned to do more in the days ahead to raise doubts about his opponent's claims to foreign policy and other Washington experience. In a television ad that her campaign credits with helping her win, she portrayed herself as most prepared to handle an international crisis.

"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama asked mockingly. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

Clinton, who was asked in TV interviews Wednesday about her national security qualifications, ticked off a series events in which she played a role, including peace talks in Northern Ireland, the Kosovo refugee crisis and standing up for women's rights in China. She also cited her work on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Obama's campaign immediately delivered on his pledge to criticize Clinton. Aides distributed a memo and held a conference call to question why she won't release her tax returns. The Clinton campaign responded with a statement e-mailed to reporters while they were on the Obama call that said the Clintons' returns since they left the White House will be made public around April 15.

Obama reflected on the losses that broke a 12-contest winning streak in a talk with reporters aboard his campaign plane as he returned to his hometown of Chicago from San Antonio.

"There's no doubt that Senator Clinton went very negative over the last week," Obama said. He said the Clinton campaign's multiple attacks "had some impact" on the election results "particularly in the context where many of you in the press corps had been persuaded that you had been too hard on her and too soft on me."

"Complaining about the refs apparently worked a little bit this week," he said, equating members of the news media with referees in a sporting event.

"So hopefully in addition to my call to Lorne Michaels, hopefully now people feel like everything's evened out and we can start actually covering the campaign properly," he said.

Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the reference to Michaels, producer of the television comedy show "Saturday Night Live," was a joke. The show has recently featured skits in which actors portraying reporters lob softball questions at an Obama impersonator and hardball ones at a Clinton character. Clinton herself appeared on the show last weekend. Obama was on the show last November.

Obama also complained about what he said was "the notion that somehow all the states I win somehow are not bellwether states but the states that Senator Clinton wins, those are the critical ones."

He said it was "a strange way of keeping score and I don't think it makes much sense."

As to tactics ahead, Obama said that Clinton "made a series of arguments on why she should be a superior candidate. I think it's important to examine that argument."

"We're happy to join the debate, If that's the debate they want to have," Obama said, noting Clinton's efforts to portray him as lacking her level of experience. "In the coming weeks, we will join her in that argument."

Obama also brushed off a question about a joint ticket with Clinton. "We are just focused on winning this nomination," he said. "I think it is premature to start talking about a joint ticket."

Obama had nothing on his public schedule Wednesday and Thursday. Friday, he flies to Wyoming to campaign and was also expected to go to Mississippi over the weekend — sites of the next two Democratic contests.

Meanwhile, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe acknowledged that Clinton "had a good night last night in terms of the raw vote." But he said that she made such shallow gains in picking up new delegates that, proportionately, she was worse off in terms of overtaking Obama's delegate count than before.

"There were a lot of delegates at stake last night and she faced a big deficit," he said. Plouffe said she needed substantial pickups "to make the math work" and keep from falling farther behind. "That did not come to fruition," he said. The number needed to overtake Obama keeps rising, with only a dwindling number of delegates left.
 
anitram said:
Hillary's 35 years of experience card is just ridiculous. Why is nobody calling her out on this? She is saying that every single thing she did from the minute she graduated from Yale was presidentially-relevant experience? Give me a fucking break!

Obama's about to begin to, it seems, from the article Mrs. S just posted.
 
phillyfan26 said:


Obama's about to begin to, it seems, from the article Mrs. S just posted.

I've always wondered what experience she was referring to. She would've thrown a fit if Obama had brought up his 20 odd years of experience as a community organizer, Constitutional law professor, state senator, etc., because she always points out his lack of experience/years as as senator. She's only been a senator for 4 years more than he has and was not an elected official prior to that. If government experience is what should count, we should've elected Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms president years ago.:huh:
 
[q]"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama asked mockingly. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."[/q]



:sigh:

it's not that he's not right, because he is right, but these are McCain talking points. this is Republican ammunition.

so, maybe it's good that we get at this early in the season, maybe we won't have a wounded nominee but a hardened one who's been through all the attacks and survived.

but maybe not.
 
anitram said:
Hillary's 35 years of experience card is just ridiculous. Why is nobody calling her out on this? She is saying that every single thing she did from the minute she graduated from Yale was presidentially-relevant experience? Give me a fucking break!

Amen.

Why isn't anyone talking about her years on the Wal-Mart board? Goodness gracious if that isn't terrifying to Democrats I don't know what is.
 
Ohio claims to be about the economy this year. Why don't the Dems just plaster that quote from McCain about not understanding the economy all over the state?
 
It's about time he starts going for the throat of these two despots (Bill and Hillary Clinton) - I'm sick to death of the two of them (and I was a Clinton "fan" in the 90's). After learning more about Bill i.e. more people jailed for minor possession under Clinton than any other President, his ignoring of the Rwanda crisis (which, by the way pales in comparison to Iraq) , his "Welfare Reform" which destroyed many poor in America...not to mention his buddy buddy relationship with evil incarnate George H.W. Bush. The truth is simple The Clinton's CANNOT be trusted and should not be allowed to continue this absurd charade of BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH/CLINTON - somebody has to break this ridiculous cycle weather it be Obama or McCain.
 
Irvine511 said:
[q]"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama asked mockingly. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."[/q]



:sigh:

it's not that he's not right, because he is right, but these are McCain talking points. this is Republican ammunition.

so, maybe it's good that we get at this early in the season, maybe we won't have a wounded nominee but a hardened one who's been through all the attacks and survived.

but maybe not.

I'd love to imagine that we'll have the same Obama come November, but with the way this election year is shaping up, I'm sadly guessing we won't.
 
You just listed a bunch of criticisms of Bill Clinton.

The candidate is Hillary Clinton.
 
He's stuck between a rock and a hard place. As badly as he wants to stay above the fray, if he doesn't try and chip away at her base this will definitely continue to the convention.

I think he's doing the right thing by going after her so called "experience".
 
U2isthebest said:


If McCain is smart, he'll run like hell from that. Considering the animosity that most of Bush's own party has for him, I wouldn't consider his seal of approval a good thing.

The majority of Republicans(above 70%) approve of the way Bush is doing his job according to the latest Gallup polls.
 
Irvine511 said:
a Clinton/Obama ticket would, indeed, crush a McCain ticket ... unless he finds an appropriate female running mate which, if he's smart, he'll do.

i'm opposed to another 4-8 years of the Clintons for very different reasons, but i do agree that this would be a very powerful ticket.

It might be the Democrats best option, but there is certainly nothing to indicate at the moment that a ticket like that would "crush" McCain. The latest Gallup has McCain beating both Hillary and Obama in one on one match ups.
 
Strongbow said:
The majority of Republicans(above 70%) approve of the way Bush is doing his job according to the latest Gallup polls.

What about independents? He needs their votes to win.
 
Irvine511 said:




by the old rules, you are right.

and if you want the old rules, if you want an election where only three states -- OH, FL, and PA -- matter, then vote for Hillary. she might be able to pull them off.

but there is new thinking out there, the kind of thinking that decided that Denver would be a good place for the Democratic Convention. there are some candidates who put most of the inter-mountain west into play, as well as the sunbelt states, and even Virginia.

you may be right that Jews and Latinos prefer Hillary to Obama, but i don't know that they would prefer McCain to Obama.

you are right about the elderly, though. there's enough residual racism amongst 60+ voters to argue against Obama.

Denver is in a battleground state that the Democrats are attempting to pick up. Minneapolis Minnesota is where the Republicans are having their convention for some of the same reasons. Its a Battleground State that went to the otherside last time that they think they can pick up.

Virginia has only voted for the Democratic candidate once since the 1940s and that was in 1964 when Johnson was up against Barry Goldwater. You could argue the margin of victory for the Republicans might be smaller than it was in 2004, but that won't help the Democrats at all in November.

As long as McCain does as well or a little better than Bush did with the Latino vote in 2000 and 2004, it will not be a factor for him.
 
U2isthebest said:


How does that work when he has a less than 30% approval rating throughout the entire country?:scratch:

Actually he has a 34% approval rating. The country is roughly divided into 1/3 Republican, 1/3 Independent and 1/3 Democratic. So, not only does he have that level of approval among Republicans, but in order to get to 34%, he receives approval from some independents and even Democrats.
 
phillyfan26 said:


What about independents? He needs their votes to win.

Well, Bush already won that match in 2000 and 2004. The Democrats last chance to beat the "evil" Bush was in 2004 and they lost.
 
Strongbow said:


Actually he has a 34% approval rating. The country is roughly divided into 1/3 Republican, 1/3 Independent and 1/3 Democratic. So, not only does he have that level of approval among Republicans, but in order to get to 34%, he receives approval from some independents and even Democrats.

The math gets even fuzzier...:eyebrow:
 
Strongbow said:


Actually he has a 34% approval rating. The country is roughly divided into 1/3 Republican, 1/3 Independent and 1/3 Democratic. So, not only does he have that level of approval among Republicans, but in order to get to 34%, he receives approval from some independents and even Democrats.

That may be according to the polling of one website but go poll 1000 people at local supermarkets all across the country, and you'll likely get different results.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/22/opinion/polls/main2384943.shtml

Granted, his overall approval is a couple points higher right now, it's still low and the average American is deeply dissatisfied with this administration. Go search for Bush approval ratings, and you'll clearly see that.
 
Last edited:
what this thread needs is a prolonged discussion on Bush's approval rating, and how 30% (give or take a point in either direction) is really actually very good.

that's just what this thread needs.
 
U2isthebest said:


That may be according to the polling of one website but go poll 1000 people at local supermarkets all across the country, and you'll likely get different results.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/22/opinion/polls/main2384943.shtml

Granted, his overall approval is a couple points higher right now, it's still low and the average American is deeply dissatisfied with this administration. Go search for Bush approval ratings, and you'll clearly see that.

All I was doing was simply pointing out that a large majority of REPUBLICANS approve of the way Bush is doing his job. Thats a fact supported by most polling data.
 
Back
Top Bottom