Obama 58% Clinton 41% -- Thats what you call owned - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

GatorB · 02-19-2008, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Young

I wish senile older people would realize that Barack Obama has amounted a INSURMOUNTABLE lead. Hillary Clinton needs 50% plus margin of victories in all of the remaining Primary's just to take the pledged delegate lead.

Barack Obama's campaign claimed this fact and MSNBC supported. "Even with the most creative math" Hillary is most likely going to lose the Pledged Delegates.

And if you think Super Delegates are going to highjack the election for the Clinton's you have another thing coming...it's not going to happen. Obama has energized the party. New voters, Independents, Republicans, and Democrats all amongst his coalition of supporters.

Blah...why do I even waste my time.

Ok first of all Mr Math Obama would need to win 70% of all the remaining pledged deleagtes to make the superdelegates moot. Even if you include his superdelegates and asusme he doesn't lose any of them, then he still needs 58% of the remaining delegates to clinch the nomination. Can he do that? Sure. Will he? Who knows? We'll know more after March 4th.

Gouge · 02-19-2008, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

Here's something a little more scary for the repubs to think about. Look at the vote totals. The combined dems have almost a million votes, the repubs around 300 k yikes.

Obama 584,000 with 58 % in McCain 205,000 55%

Over double the votes. This is gonna be wipeout for the dems if these numbers break this way in the general.

Democrats have historically voted more in primaries than general elections. The Federal Election Commission Reports show the trend.

GatorB · 02-19-2008, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gouge

Democrats have historically voted more in primaries than general elections. The Federal Election Commission Reports show the trend.

Not to mention in many primaries independants don't vote. It's also well known that the Dems were more excited about their candidates than the republcians so naturally they'd have higher turnout for the priamries. Whether republicans are going to be so turned off by McCain they won't vote and basically concede the election to the dems is hard to know right now.

spanky part 2 · 02-19-2008, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gouge

Democrats have historically voted more in primaries than general elections. The Federal Election Commission Reports show the trend.

ummmm triple the amount, I don't think so.

Gouge · 02-20-2008, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

ummmm triple the amount, I don't think so.

Go review the The Federal Election Commission Reports for the past 40-50 years, the trend is solid. The numbers fluctuate depending on the governors, whos running the senate and house and what candidate has the most appeal.

bcooter · 02-20-2008, 02:36 AM

ADL Colin · 02-20-2008, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Young

I thought every Ron Paul supporter was a completely fucking nut until I did my OWN research.

You did research and found out Ron Paul SUPPORTERS are not nuts? Where did you research that? 5th is 3rd is 1st = nuts.

tiger · 02-20-2008, 03:44 AM

Losing by 1% is ownage to me

will76 · 02-20-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

Here's something a little more scary for the repubs to think about. Look at the vote totals. The combined dems have almost a million votes, the repubs around 300 k yikes.

Obama 584,000 with 58 % in McCain 205,000 55%

Over double the votes. This is gonna be wipeout for the dems if these numbers break this way in the general.

thats like comparing apples and rocks. Not every state has primaries some just had democratic ones and not republican ones i would have to check to see how that worked out. Secondly the republican field had a lot more candidates in the beginning so the votes were split up more. Its been just clinton and obama for a while now so they have less other people to split the vote up with.

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

thats like comparing apples and rocks. Not every state has primaries some just had democratic ones and not republican ones i would have to check to see how that worked out. Secondly the republican field had a lot more candidates in the beginning so the votes were split up more. Its been just clinton and obama for a while now so they have less other people to split the vote up with.

They're not comparing just McCain's votes to Obama's votes or anything like that. They're speaking about the total number of votes cast in the republican primary versus the democratic primary. In that scenario, it doesn't matter if there are 2 candidates or 200.

The democrats are excited about this election and turnout will be huge in November.

02-20-2008, 02:36 AM	#56
bcooter Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Detroit Posts: 797	__________________ Where I make All My Non-Adult Money

02-20-2008, 03:44 AM	#58
tiger Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,986	Losing by 1% is ownage to me __________________