I agree. Obama supporters have been holding onto the belief that Obama is the underdog when after Iowa that hasn't been true. If anything Hillary is narrowly the underdog given how many endorsements and media attention that Obama has gotten since Iowa.
This is about delegates. I think it's clear you're not exactly looking at this objectively yourself...
I've heard that Idaho has so few Dems that no candidates go there during the primary season. As a result the Dems that are there are attention starved and very enthusiastic. Obama went there, and supposedly the crowds were going nuts for him. Early on the returns he has a huge lead there. He might when all 2 (joke) delegates.
You're correct and I didn't mean to generalize but Hillary's strategy was mostly one of focussing on CA and some of the big states. Whereas Obama went out and campaigned in places like KS that Clinton essentially conceded.
It's rare that the media wets itself over a candidate like it's done of late. Front page headlines that Maria Shriver supports Ba'raq? Who really gives a schit about her opinion??? Seriously.
You're insane if you think Clinton is the underdog. Michelle Obama wasn't president for eight years and beloved by Democrats for a decade and a half. Because Obama got an upset in Iowa doesn't wash away the power the Clintons have in the party.
Agreed. The view of this race is far, far too simplistic for a lot of folks. I think Obama supporters want to believe he's on a constant upward trajectory that will only continue to increase as he becomes better known. The reality, however, is that Obama's highest point in terms of being the favorite to win the nomination still came in the immediate days after Iowa, as you alluded to. Then Clinton stole the momentum back with New Hampshire... before Obama took command with South Carolina and the Kennedy endorsements. Now, with a solid debate last week and tonight's results, the pendulum seems to be swinging slightly toward Hillary again. Am I saying Hillary is a safe bet to win? Absolutely not. But it's not a matter of Hillary having a rapidly shrinking base and her having to win big and soon to have a chance. It's not a matter of Obama's momentum growing by the day. It's two strong candidates with two huge bases that are trading punches, and it'll go back and forth for some time. The only true winner... is who wins the most delegates. They're both in the heavyweight category now where results are the primary factor as opposed to results relative to expectations.
What's odd is that I haven't seen KS called for Obama yet even though with 50% of the votes accounted for he has 71%. From what I've heard, Hillary feels they outperformed in AK, NJ, and maybe TN. But Obama's group outperformed in Mass(even though Hillary won), Il, and GA. I think right now both candidates have things they can tout as positives. But neither of them seems to be finishing off the other.
It is about delegates, and whoever ends up with the majority of delegates tonight between Clinton and Obama will have had the better Super Tuesday. That's all I'm saying.
If Obama wins the nomination, of course that will be the reason he won. Clinton had huge advantages when this race started. She was the presumptive nominee. Her husband was President.
To be honest I don't believe either Clinton or Obama is the underdog but you have to ask yourself if Obama is the insurgent underdog why have so many of the Democratic establish lined up behind Obama and why has most of the polling been indicating big Obama wins coming into Super Tuesday?
CBS has called KS for Obama. I agree though that on the Democratic side there will likely be no clear winner from today.
Compared to two weeks ago, sure. But of course Obama was going to outperform where he was two weeks ago, given the Kennedy endorsement. If comparisons matter, it's comparisons to recent polls. Those show where the momentum is at today. A recent Massachusetts poll had Obama winning by two. The average of the most recent three had Clinton winning by seven. An exit poll today had Obama winning by two. It was expected to be a relatively close race by most standards. In reality, Hillary is up 17 points with 55 percent of the vote in, and that's with both of the state's Senators going against her. Look, I know Obama's campaign will somehow spin it as a positive. That's what campaign managers do. But the reality doesn't support it, and the media is stupid (or biased) if they buy it.
Obama just took ND and Utah. It looks like so far each candidate has taken 6 states(even though delegates are not given winner take all.)
Does anyone think there is something to the fact age may come into play...i.e. Hillary's time should be now, where Obama could wait?...Just wonder if that has crossed the mind.
Far, far too broad of a generalization. Yes, Hillary started with an edge based on name recognition in 2007. But Obama has more than matched that, and the advertising money brought in in January reflects that. Right now, they're on a level playing field, and either one can easily win. But it's far too simplistic to assume that Obama's numbers will only continue to rise with more exposure. If that were the case, why was his highest point in early January?
AWESOME showing by my man Huck. Rom is placing third in just about every state except a couple of them. Maybe Rom is the one who needs to get out of the race.
