May 6, 2008

Primary Update

Obama wins North Carolina, CNN projects.

Clinton is in the lead in Indiana, but it is still too close to call.

UPDATE 1:20am: Clinton wins Indiana, but the race was a lot closer than anticipated.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

maybe it's time to remove your "contribute to Hillary 08" link mads. Put up something more useful.

Anonymous said...

I hate our generation for so blindingly committing to Obama.

Anonymous said...

because clearly that's what they're doing 12:53

Anonymous said...

Don't you mean "we're", 2:21? After all, you must be an Obama supporter with that sarcastic tone of yours.

But in defense of what I said: Please, confront any of your fellow Obama supporters and ask them to explain the policy differences between Clinton and Obama, or even McCain and Obama, and have them explain why Obama's policies would be a better choice for this country.

I'm willing to bet that a majority of them would be unable to coherently and satisfyingly respond to your questions.

Obama's trendy, and our generation is easily lured into trendy things. I don't mind that you're an Obama supporter. All that I ask is that you be able to defend your position when prompted.

zack said...

How about a saner tax policy, a campaign focused more on rational discourse than sloganeering and negativity, a congressional history far less tainted by pork barrel spending, the capacity to run a campaign without blatantly lying (i.e. her comments about landing in Bosnia or claiming to never have supported NAFTA), and a voting record that reflects consistency and refusing to pander to political trends (such as voting for the Iraq war)? Are those good enough reasons to support one candidate over another? Because I could list plenty more. Maybe the people you think are "blindly committing" to Obama are more considerate of issues than you realize.

Anonymous said...

yea 2:21 you talk like Obama supporters are so IGNORANT about their reasons for supporting him, and yet you give NO reason why Hillary would be the stronger candidate... do i smell a hypocrite? think so!

Anonymous said...

Relax. I think 12:53/2:42 has a valid point - not to say that ALL obama supporters are blindly following a trend, and not to say that there can be no valid reason to support obama. I have no problem with informed people making the informed choice to support obama, like zack clearly has, for example. But I know A SHOCKINGLY LARGE AMOUNT of obama supporters who can not offer more reasoning for their decision to support him than that they have a "gut feeling" or they "like him better" etc. Really, a lot of obama supporters do say this. It is disconcerting and frankly frightening.

Anonymous said...

Whether you support Obama or Clinton, at this point Clinton really should drop out of the race and shift support to Obama. It's basically a statistical impossibility for her to win at this point, and her staying in it just hurts the democratic party

Anonymous said...

I don't get why Clinton didn't drop out following last night's results. Her only chance to get back in this race was to take advantage of the Wright controversy by winning Indiana by >10% and losing North Carolina by only a hair. But she didn't do either of those. I can't imagine why she's still in this when she would need to win 70% of the remaining votes just to tie Obama.

Anonymous said...

First of all, I think you need to look up the definition of IMPOSSIBILITY. While it may be statistically VERY UNLIKELY that Clinton wins the nomination at this point, it is not IMPOSSIBLE.

Also, it's not 70%. After the Pennsylvania primary, experts calculated 80%. And considering the results from last night, I can't imagine the statistics improving by 10%.

Finally, I think you need to take into consideration Clinton's future ambitions. If she plans to run in 2012, she'll want to make her best effort now so as to establish a point of reference. You can argue the selfishness that surrounds this all you like, but it really is a good strategical move for her, especially if she lowers Obama's chance of winning.

Anonymous said...

but by lowering Obama's chances of winning she's making it THAT much harder for the Democratic party to win the general election in November... whatever all hail Emperor McCain!
FOUR MORE YEARS OF HELL!!! WOOOOOO

Anonymous said...

While I am aware of aware of Clinton's strategy, the amount of money that goes into her campaign could be used in so many better ways.
I know campaining is important because it educates people and makes them excited about the future of our country, but i hate how most politicians put more effort into getting elected than they do in office.
sigh

Anonymous said...

Right 1:07, that's one of the reasons it's such a good strategical move for her. If Obama loses in November, she can come back in 2012 with an "I told you so" argument.

Anonymous said...

god i hate politics.
all these candidates don't actually care about what happens these next four years, they just want the power.
As seen by the drama around two, pretty similar candidates from the SAME PARTY!

julia said...

I have to agree with 10:49 and 11:07. At this point, all Clinton is doing is hurting the democratic party and feeding her own inflated ego. One of the reasons I am so anti-Hillary is that she seems to have no reason for running except that she believes she "deserves it." I am female and a feminist, but I believe that if Hillary Clinton is the first female president, it would be a true tragedy to feminism in this country. Hillary Clinton would not have a prayer in this race if she wasn't married to a former president, and she knows it- it's obvious when she makes comments such as "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush." The first female president should not be riding her husband's coat-tails. It's embarrassing to the feminist cause. True, as senator of New York and as the first lady she has gotten things accomplished, and it is undeniable that she is intelligent, but she is in no way a good presidential candidate. She has name recognition, and that's it. Plus, there is no way that she could beat McCain. Barack Obama is electable. Hillary Clinton is not. No moderates who are deciding between McCain and Hillary are likely to be swayed by anything she has to offer- and that is not necessarily the case with Obama. See Zack's comments (2:51) for more on that. I could go on, but I have work to do. Check out their websites to read more on their policies and beliefs. Watch YouTube videos of their debates. You will see why our generation has (not so blindly) committed itself to Obama.

Anonymous said...

I don't know why the superdelegates and party leaders haven't sat her down yet and told her to take one for the team.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g5K0ixrClx4MMHJ-UyiPrUnwaa5AD90GS75G0
http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/
Her chances of winning are diminishing with each primary.

Anonymous said...

Here here, 12:22!

Do you want to know why I support Obama? Not just because of his policies, with which I am familiar, but because I think he has a better chance of beating McCain. And right now, that's the most important thing. Imagine the supreme court justices McCain would appoint! Horrifying!

Anonymous said...

3:02, MY awareness of the candidates' policies from reading their websites and watching the debates says absolutely nothing about OTHER PEOPLE'S awareness. How exactly would this prove that a good portion of Obama's supporters are not simply jumping on the bandwagon without thinking for themselves? You're saying that by educating myself about the policies, I will realize that others are not blindly supporting Obama. This makes no sense.

Regarding Hillary's electability vs. Obama's electability, the statistics do not agree with you. In a poll conducted just before the Pennsylvania primary results, 53% of Hillary's supporters said they'd rather stay home on election day than vote for Obama. The percentage of Obama supporters who said they would do the same if Hillary is on the November ballot is significantly less.

But I think you have a compelling point about Hillary "riding on the coat-tails" of her husband. She definitely would not have gotten as much attention in the first place were it not for the fact that she is married to a former President. From a feminist's perspective, I can see why a female candidate who establishes herself independent of a male would be more worthy of the office and its historic implications.

Anonymous said...

While Obama is winning by a significant margin, it's not like he has this thing in the bag. He still needs about 200 delegates (including super) until he's got this thing won.

I'm not a feminist, but it I find it sexist. Hillary is "weak" for not backing out, and will certainly be "weak" if she does back out.

Imagine if the tables were turned and Hillary supporters were asking Obama to back down? It would be the most "racist" thing ever.

I agree that if she would have lost in Indiana she should have dropped out. But she didn't.

Anonymous said...

Not everything boils down to race or sex! Hilary looks WEAK for staying in the election because it only highlights her power hunger. I don't think she would look weak for backing off. I think she would actually look stronger for backing off; it would show that she cared about the good of the Democratic party and consequently the country.

Also, I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with how people keep suggesting that we do these thought experiments... "Imagine if the tables were turned and Hillary supporters were asking Obama to back down? It would be the most "racist" thing ever" -- um, no, it wouldn't.

Anonymous said...

3:50: It would be so strong of her to back down, she wants the nomination more than anything...enough to back her campaign with 11.4 million dollars of her own money. Dropping out would not be a "weak" action.
HRC was expected to have a 5-10% lead in Indiana, she did win it, but by 1.8%. And that is with all of the Rev. Wright crap that's been flying around for the past 2 weeks.

Anonymous said...

11.4 mil of her own cash??? for real? wow, i would be so damn pissed if i were bill or her daughter

Anonymous said...

Yeah, 11.4mil.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/07/clinton_lends_her_campaign_64.html?hpid=topnews
She loaned the campaign 5mil earlier this year, and $6,425,000 during the Indiana primary.
It's a loan though, so I guess she expects to be paid back. She raised 10mil after Penn.
Still, yeah, I'd be pretty pissed. And/or nervous.