Obama outspent Hillary 3 to 1 in Pennsylvania and still lost big time. The important lesson Kos takes from this: Wow! Look at how much money Obama has! This is great news for the general election!
I’m not thinking we’re going to hear anymore about Kos and the Kwazies after November.
FrankJ:
I think you made a mistake in writing this post.
I think you meant to write “I’m thinking we’re NOT going to hear anymore about Kos and the Kwazies after November.”
Which is also a bit awkward, but at least it makes sense.
Glad I could help.
Peace,
Monkey Faced Liberal
P.S. I am a little unclear on why you think Kos is wrong here. Are you saying his main point — that Obama was able to spend a lot of money because he was able to raise a lot of money, and that being able to raise a lot of money will prove useful to Obama in the general election — is wrong?
Are you saying Obama’s ability to raise money is not important? Or that this ability will not matter, because his loss to Clinton in the Pennsylvania primary demonstrates that he can not win the general election?
If you could clarify, I would appreciate it.
I sure will miss them if it happens. I would hope we could get a couple trolls to set up residence under the IMAO bridge so we can watch them shake their tiny fists in impotent rage.
Do you have any way to get in touch with The Limey?
Kos has been overwhelmingly slanted toward Obama. (who cares. No one takes them seriously anyway.) Instead of looking at facts and accepting changes in the dynamics of the race, they try to negate any positives that Hillary got from Pennsylvania with obscure reasoning.
They take a shallow point that Barak is a better choice solely on his ability to raise funds. If that had any merit the democrats would be facing Ron Paul this November.
Also their disarming points about Hillary having more of the popular vote if you include Michigan and Florida, is dismissed without any real concrete points to why Hillary’s wrong. How about Barak wasn’t on the ballot in Florida and Michigan, so therefore not a valid argument and Hillary’s point is moot. That didn’t take me long, and I’m an idiot. Just ask my wife.
But, why am I typing this. I’m not on George Soros’s payroll… yet. It’s not selling out it’s buying in.
I suppose it pleases Kos no end to believe that democracy is all about who can raise the most money from billionairheads, and who can threaten civil war unless their candidate gets in.
Also, the superdelegates are going to have a hard time ignoring that war chest (and spoiled babies threatening to riot) when deciding who to support. I don’t see how they can vote for Hillary, unless she raises a bucket load before the convention and reveals that she has a death ray.
He also doesn’t seem to realize that the more people hear about Barack Obama, the less likely they are to vote for him. So his best strategy is to buy up TV time and broadcast test patterns.
The Dems are so going to lose to McCain in November.
MFL…PUNCH!!!
I suppose it pleases Kos no end to believe that democracy is all about who can raise the most money from billionairheads, and who can threaten civil war unless their candidate gets in.
#4 – Posted by: Socrates on April 23, 2008 02:43 PM
I’ve been threatening civil war regardless of who wins in November, but I don’t have the backing of any billionairheads, so my threats aren’t really all that threatening…until I get some rich backers. I am officially anouncing here that I am looking for a rich sugar momma, better make it an even dozen. Need lots of money for war.
Semper Fi!
BigRichardSmall:
You state that kos is trying to “negate any positives that Hillary got from Pennsylvania with obscure reasoning.”
I thought his reasoning was clear. Obama spent a lot of money in Pennsylvania. He was able to do this because he can raise a lot of money. Being able to raise a lot of money will help Obama in the November election.
How is this reasoning “obscure?” Can you please explain?
Also, you were wrong when you stated that “Barak wasn’t on the ballot in Florida and Michigan.” Actually, he was on the ballot in Florida, though he did not campaign there.
Peace,
Monkey Faced Liberal
Socrates:
You wrote that it “pleases Kos [to] no end to believe that democracy is all about who can raise the most money from billionairheads.”
I imagine that when you write “billionairhead” you are describing a billionaire who is an airhead. Thus you seem to be saying that Kos likes Obama because he is able to raise a lot of money from stupid super-rich people. Correct?
However, the real reason Obama has been been able to raise a lot of money is not because a few billionaires are donating to his campaign, but because a lot of people (at last count, around 1.4 million) have donated money to his campaign.
This is the point I believe Kos was making — that given campaign finance rules, Obama will be able to raise a lot of money from people who are not billionaires, but who can make small contributions (currently the average donation to Obama is around $100).
Given this, could you please explain your “billionairhead” statement?
Also you state that “He [Kos] also doesn’t seem to realize that the more people hear about Barack Obama, the less likely they are to vote for him.”
Yet in Pennsylvania, as in many other states he has campaigned in, it seems that the more people hear about Obama, the MORE likely they are to vote for him.
Many polls had him down by 12-26 points in Pennsylvania at the start of March. But he ended up losing by less than 10%. Similar situations, where Obama gained more support the longer he campaigned in a state, occurred in Iowa, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin and several other states.
How do you explain this? Wouldn’t these facts indicate that, at least up to this point in the race, the more people hear about Obama, the more likely they are to vote for him?
Peace,
Monkey Faced Liberal
BigRichardSmall said: If that had any merit the democrats would be facing Ron Paul this November.
Not to hijack the thread but I have a serious question:
If there are three candidates in November,
(D) BHO/HRC
(R) McCain
(I) Ron Paul (he never dropped out officially did he?)
Given how much conservatives dislike McCain, would Ron Paul be a better vote choice than McCain, or would McCain still be “better” (relatively speaking of course)?
Would a vote for RP/3rd party be a wasted vote as usual, or are enough people on both sides disgusted enough with the Ds and Rs to literally force a revolution?
Is it wrong that I would rather have McCain OR 3rd party/Ron Paul as POTUS than either Dem?
And why isn’t there a Constitutional amendment to allow Fred! to just swoop in and declare himself POTUS Forever, saving us all from the entire process of camPAINS and elections?
Aaaaanyway…back to topic…
Nunya:
According to Ron Paul’s website, “there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties — just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.”
http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2008/02/message-from-ro.html
So it does not seem that you will have the option of voting for Ron Paul in the fall. Though, of course, you could vote for another third party candidate.
Peace,
Monkey Faced Liberal
Anybody want to take bets on whether Monkey Faced Liberal is really one of our previous Trolls?
Who do YOU think it really is?
MFL, saying that Obama’s money-raising ability is important is like watching two rounds of a prize fight where one of the fighters doesn’t throw a single punch and gets the crap kicked out of him, then marveling at his ability to take a punch. Sure, it’s important to take a punch well, but that asset alone doesn’t mean he can win.
Also, if I had to guess, I’d say Obama narrowed the margin in PA simply because he went into it looking like a shoe-in at the convention (he still has a near-insurmountable delegate lead), and people just want to get Hil out of the race and move on, even if they think she’d make the better nominee.
We saw the same thing with McCain after Romney dropped out. Huckabee wasn’t down by that much, but he came in lower than expected in pretty much all the primaries between when Romney quit and when McCain broke the barrier. I guess I don’t have any solid evidence, but I have a feeling it was because people came to see McCain as inevitable, and wanted to get the primary over with ASAP — and it worked.
#11
My guess is the Limey, except MFL tries too hard to make a semi-intelligent argument to be the return of our favorite left-tard.
James:
Sorry, but I am a bit confused by your reasoning.
Kos was not saying that “because Obama can raise money, he will win in November.” He was saying that raising money is important and that it will help him in November.
One could make the argument that, while being able to raise money is important, Obama has other liablities that make this advantage irrelevant. Further, one could argue that these liabilities were exposed in Pennslyvania, and that Kos is thereby missing the more important point of Pennsylvania, that it exposed Obama’s weakness.
I think this might have been the point that Frankj was trying to make with this post, though I do not think it was clearly articulated.
As far as the idea that Obama was able to gain support as he campaigned in Pennsylvania only because he was seen as the inevitable nominee, do you have any data that supports this thesis?
Remember that Obama has been able to narrow or overcome many Clinton leads in past races after spending a lot of time in a state, even before he was the “inevitable” nominee.
Peace,
Monkey Faced Liberal
Monkey Faced Liberal,
As I have mentioned before, Kos has a severe Obama slant. (They are entitled to it, 1ST AMMENDMENT ROCKS!!!). The point of this post is to marginalize Clinton the day after a substantial victory in Pennsylvania. It does so by taking one of her talking points, “Obama out spent us 3 to 1”, and negating it by “So what! That’s how we’re going to win against McCain.” The reasons given in the article are very weak, and show a very shallow analysis. My points are as follows:
1) Kos’s main point is that Barak’s ability to raise money is a major selling point for why he should be the nominee. It makes vague visualization of this. “Which campaign looks more electable on this front? The campaign that is flush with cash and can easily raise more, or the campaign that is scrambling to get out of debt?” This is wrong on many levels.
a. So far Hillary over all has been able to raise more money than McCain. So the general election either way the DNC is going to outspend McCain
b. There is no clear connection to having, or being able to raise more money means you will win. It’s a hypothetical belief. If that were true, Howard Dean would have been the 2004 nominee, Romney or Ron Paul would be the Republican nominee, and we would all have fond memories of President Perot.
c. This is not the first time Obama has out spent Hillary and lost. He spent twice as much in Ohio as Clinton, and it didn’t help him there. These are two recent times the writer fails to notice.
2) The article is so focused on this obscure point it misses real opportunities to debunk Clinton. The article states that “Clinton can’t win without throwing in a bunch of hypothetical what if’s”. Matt Lauer was the one that called her on her claim, since she was adding the results of Florida and Michigan to her total when she said she was in the lead on the popular vote this morning. (You were right about Florida, my bad). This is a real part of the argument that Kos failed to analyze. Both primaries were not attended by any other candidate. Clinton’s use of this is weak. This is where they should be going for, not their own “Hypothetical” ifs.
That is why it’s obscure.
Forgot my closing.
Peace through the threat and use of nuclear weapons
Big Richard Small
Thanks #10; I must have missed his bowing out announcement. RP was never my first choice, I just thought he had to be better than either Dem.
Guess it’s McCain for me unless a REAL Conservative runs as an Independent. If either Dem gets in, it won’t be from my vote.
Carry on.
Monkey Faced Liberal:
Then why does he need the billionairheads at all?
I will grant that Obama can raise money. Snake oil is generally a real revenue generator. And there is a sucker born every minute. But granting that the average donation is $100, it doesn’t tell us much about the typical donation. There could be 1.39 million one-dollar givers and a few fat cats stuffing Wan and Euros into dufflebags with “Soros, Inc.” emblazened proudly on the side.
You wingnuts sure are gullible.
And racist.
But that just goes without saying.
But I like saying it, so there!
I am the true Monkey Faced Liberal. All others are mere imitations.
Hail Satan,
Monkey Faced Liberal
Handicapped by a US public school edjamakayshun, I’m vague on the details but wasn’t there a political party in this country once upon a time called the ‘Whigs’? Once rivals of the Democratic party they disbanded when they couldn’t stand being teased about the silly name of their party anymore and were quickly replaced or reformed as the Republican party – Whose main party platform plank was the abolition of slavery. Abraham Lincoln was their first presidential canidate. How did the Republican party grow from 3rd party to leading party status so quickly? Maybe it was a popular and uncompromising platform and a charismatic leader? If conservatives bailed from the Republican party (who are becoming suspiciously Whiggy), There is no existing party to which we could transfer our allegiance. Let’s start one. What do we call it, what will our platform be and who will lead it? How do we persuade the Republicans to disband – to complete the historical parallel? Fred is tall. He should grow a beard. hmmm…
Who is “Kos”? Is he/she like that Ron Paul character we used to hear about, or is it that he/she is even less relevant…?
#20: How ’bout the Constitution Party?
Sorry, NunyaB, but we would want to join a party that is rational and sane, not a party that makes even Ron Paul look normal.
I’m think we could call the party the Sinister Icy Black Hand Of Death Party or something like that. We could have a secret handshake, a secret knock to get into our secret clubhouse, secret codes to communicate all our secret correspondence, and all kinds of secret technology to spy on everybody. Our secret headquarters would be located in a secret bunker somewhere in a hollowed out volcano. Our army would fly secret black helicopters and use secret ray guns and stuff to make people paranoid. We would secretly control the entire world market for lettuce, photographic paper, and Selenium and would finance our secret operations from the sale of weapons to Indonesia.
Oh, wait. We’re Republicans – we already do that stuff. Never mind.
#22 – Thanks.
#23 – Sinister Icy Black Hand of Death Party. Rational and Sane. Ok … (backs away slowly, maintains smile, fumbles in waist band for concealed weapon).