US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #8

[deep]

Originally Posted by anitram

I think they are strange, but worse than that, they can be coercive in a sense.

That said, everyone knew that was the system, so if you chose to play it by ignoring those states, then you should be lambasted for running a poorly thought out campaign.

( I have said and I was only partly joking, that at the cauci
I would be partying with the Obama girls and not the Hillary blue hairs )


there is a term in baseball called

small ball


if you are the weaker team
and you can't swing for the fences and hit home runs

you concentrate on the small things
walks, singles, stolen bases, errors and hope that you will eek out a victory

it can and does happen
but the weaker team advances



( I really don't know shit about baseball, but I think I got this small ball concept mostly? right )

[anitram]

Originally Posted by deep

( I really don't know shit about baseball, but I think I got this small ball concept mostly? right )

What prevents the stronger team

from employing the same strategy?

[WildHoneyAlways]

Originally Posted by deep

there is a term in baseball called

small ball


if you are the weaker team
and you can't swing for the fences and hit home rums

you concentrate on the small things
walks, singles, stolen bases, errors and hope that you will eek out a victory

it can and does happen
but the weaker team advances



( I really don't know shit about baseball, but I think I got this small ball concept mostly? right )

Playing small ball has nothing to do with being a weaker team. In fact, teams that live and die by the home run aren't often successful consistently. Small ball teams are good, solid teams.
/baseball

[No spoken words]

Originally Posted by deep

( I have said and I was only partly joking, that at the cauci
I would be partying with the Obama girls and not the Hillary blue hairs )


there is a term in baseball called

small ball


if you are the weaker team
and you can't swing for the fences and hit home rums

you concentrate on the small things
walks, singles, stolen bases, errors and hope that you will eek out a victory

it can and does happen
but the weaker team advances



( I really don't know shit about baseball, but I think I got this small ball concept mostly? right )

I love this post. It's almost accurate.

[deep]

Originally Posted by melon

More than anything, though, they are undemocratic.

yes, Hillary won the election in Texas, she got the most votes from the voters that went to the polls on primary election day.

but because of a weird caucus thing, where people that voted had a chance to come back at night and caucus - for few hours, Obama got awarded more delegates. Working families, with children (Latinos) were less likely to be able to caucus.

So Texas, Florida and Michigan three of the largest states went for Hillary and they were not properly allocated in the delegate totals to represent the will of the people that took time to vote.



The process was very undeomocratic.

[deep]

Originally Posted by No spoken words

I love this post. It's almost accurate.

I did say I don't know shit about baseball

but looks like my hunch

was not way off the mark

In the sport of baseball, small-ball is an informal and colloquial term for an offensive strategy in which the batting team emphasizes placing runners on base and then advancing them into position to score a run in a deliberate, methodical way. This strategy places a high value on individual runs and attempts to score them without requiring extra base hits, or sometimes without base hits at all, instead using bases on balls, stolen bases, sacrifice bunt or sacrifice fly balls, the hit-and-run play, and aggressive baserunning. A commonly used term for a run produced playing small-ball is a "manufactured run." This style of play is more often found in National League game situations than in the American League due in large part to the absence of the designated hitter in the National League

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by deep

( I have said and I was only partly joking, that at the cauci
I would be partying with the Obama girls and not the Hillary blue hairs )


there is a term in baseball called

small ball


if you are the weaker team
and you can't swing for the fences and hit home runs

you concentrate on the small things
walks, singles, stolen bases, errors and hope that you will eek out a victory

it can and does happen
but the weaker team advances



( I really don't know shit about baseball, but I think I got this small ball concept mostly? right )

The best teams do both.

Oh, and pitching.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT

So which is it D???

One post you are saying, :"But he has numbers, anitram, NUMBERS

Now it is polls are meaningless. You are talking our of both sides of your mouth in this issue on posts just 30 minutes apart. I guess it all depends on how it shapes up for Obama. If his numbers are up....it is in the bag. Look look, see...Obama leads!!!! Yeah!!!!

If he falls, the numbers are meaningless and blah blah blah.

You crack me up!

My initial post went right over your head, apparently. My "he has numbers!" post was completely sarcastic. Did you think I was actually siding with Strongbow?

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT

So which is it D???

One post you are saying, :"But he has numbers, anitram, NUMBERS

Now it is polls are meaningless. You are talking our of both sides of your mouth in this issue on posts just 30 minutes apart. I guess it all depends on how it shapes up for Obama. If his numbers are up....it is in the bag. Look look, see...Obama leads!!!! Yeah!!!!

If he falls, the numbers are meaningless and blah blah blah.

You crack me up!

Actually, he was being sarcastic with the "numbers" thing.

As with any new thing you get into, it takes a while to get the flow of it. Especially with sarcasm and who employs it and when.

[No spoken words]

Originally Posted by deep

I did say I don't know shit about baseball

but looks like my hunch

was not way off the mark

You were......in the ballpark.

[melon]

Originally Posted by deep

So Texas, Florida and Michigan three of the largest states went for Hillary and they were not properly allocated in the delegate totals to represent the will of the people that took time to vote.

Just to note, we won't know how Michigan would have voted, because Hillary was the only Democratic candidate on the ballot, as the other candidates abode by the the party's rules that disqualified Michigan for moving up its primary date. That, in itself, made it unfair to attribute Michigan as a "Hillary victory."

Of course, we all know why Michigan et al. moved up their dates, because they were tired of elections being decided by such "diverse" and "populous" states as New Hampshire and Iowa. Yet another reason why we need to scrap these partisan primaries and caucuses in favor of a national runoff election.

[WildHoneyAlways]

Originally Posted by No spoken words

You were......in the ballpark.

I see what you did there.


________________________________________________

I detest the current primary system as well.

[deep]

Originally Posted by melon

Just to note, we won't know how Michigan would have voted, because Hillary was the only Democratic candidate on the ballot, as the other candidates abode by the the party's rules that disqualified Michigan for moving up its primary date. That, in itself, made it unfair to attribute Michigan as a "Hillary victory."

Of course, we all know why Michigan et al. moved up their dates, because they were tired of elections being decided by such "diverse" and "populous" states as New Hampshire and Iowa. Yet another reason why we need to scrap these partisan primaries and caucuses in favor of a national runoff election.

There were 8 Democrats initially on the Michigan Ballot.

On election day there were four.

The handwriting was on the wall, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and John Edwards did not want Hillary to take the symbolic win in Michigan so they colluded to pull their names off the ballot.

Why did they not pull their names off in Florida?

Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Christopher Dodd remained on the ballot.

There was no requirement by the DNC to come off the ballot. Only not to buy ads and campaign. Also there was a huge push to get people to go to the polls and vote "Uncommitted" or what ever that status was.
I recall Obama and Edwards pushing this real hard.

They were sure Uncommitted would beat the Hillary voters, and Hillary would look like a loser.

[No spoken words]

Originally Posted by WildHoneyAlways

I see what you did there.


________________________________________________

I detest the current primary system as well.

When a topic pops up in FYM that finds me more knowledgeable than the likes of Melon or Yolland, I have to at least show up. It's like a Haley's Comet sighting or something.

And because I believe in staying on topic, I too am not a huge fan of the primary system, for reasons already eloquently stated.

[Utoo]

Originally Posted by deep

yes, Hillary won the election in Texas, she got the most votes from the voters that went to the polls on primary election day.

but because of a weird caucus thing, where people that voted had a chance to come back at night and caucus - for few hours, Obama got awarded more delegates. .

Texas isn't a good example, though. It was one of the states where Republicans could vote in the Democratic primary, and it was the one where Rush Limbaugh encouraged them to do so just to fuck it up. I can't say for sure, but I seem to remember that most of the Republicans that voted in the Dem primary did, indeed, go for Hillary.

[GirlsAloudFan]

Defense is of the most importance in baseball. With pitching being the first line of defense, of course.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Ahh, it takes a few days for the bounce to register.

Here you go.

Enjoy.

Gallup Daily: McCain Moves Ahead, 48% to 45%

my goodness!

how coy you are!

oh, zing!

Rasmussen Reports: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

it's still all just noise.

[Utoo]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Rasmussen Reports: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

All that matters to me:

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator currently shows Obama leading in states with 193 Electoral College votes while McCain leads in states with 183 votes (see Quick Campaign Overview). When leaners are included, it’s Obama 264, McCain 247 (see 50-State Summary).

Data from Rasmussen Markets currently gives Obama a 57.4 % chance of winning in November. Other key stats of Election 2008 can still be seen at Obama-McCain: By the Numbers.

Looking to see that 57.4% steadily increase over the next two months....

[financeguy]

I must say, I am starting to feel SLIGHTLY more optimistic than I was about the Democrats.

Biden could eviscerate Palin in the debates.

Then again, he might not. The public seem to think of him as boring, which could be damaging.

[Irvine511]

truth be told, polls the past few weeks are totally meaningless. Obama got probably a bit more of a bump than expected, given that McCain did everything he could to make the bump as small as possible (VP announcement, timing of the RNC). the Palin pick was another act of desperation as well. she's by far the least qualified of his potential picks, but she's the most buzzworthy and gave him a much needed jolt of electricity.

let's see where things are in a week or two, and ultimately, it is the state by state polling that matters.

though all of the above is kind of boring when all you want to do is zing! another poster.