Comments on: Ponies http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/25/15/06/ponies/ Keeping a jaundiced eye on the corporate media. Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:11:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: memyself http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/25/15/06/ponies/#comment-141881 memyself Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:08:29 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24626#comment-141881 I actually think one of the biggest reasons he spent a lot of money was to make Clinton spend a lot to defend a state that was supposed to be hers from the beginning. Everything I heard from the Obama campaign made it clear they expected to lose. The hope was to keep the win to single digits but it didn't seem too important as long as her delegate pick up was small. She can't get back all of the time money and effort that went into PA and she goes into the remaining states considerably depleted. Her fund raising would have been there (maybe even bigger) if Obama hadn't tied her up in knots and kept her to a 9.1% win instead of the 20+ she needed to make up any meaningful ground in pledged delegates, so he has gained considerable advantage with the PA race. He's still ahead of her by 10's of millions in cash on hand and continues to rake in contributions at around twice her rate. One of the best way to make that a real advantage on the ground is to make her blow through her money in a series of "must win" contests. News stories about her being broke and paying vendors late are campaign gold for Obama. I actually think one of the biggest reasons he spent a lot of money was to make Clinton spend a lot to defend a state that was supposed to be hers from the beginning. Everything I heard from the Obama campaign made it clear they expected to lose. The hope was to keep the win to single digits but it didn’t seem too important as long as her delegate pick up was small.

She can’t get back all of the time money and effort that went into PA and she goes into the remaining states considerably depleted. Her fund raising would have been there (maybe even bigger) if Obama hadn’t tied her up in knots and kept her to a 9.1% win instead of the 20+ she needed to make up any meaningful ground in pledged delegates, so he has gained considerable advantage with the PA race.

He’s still ahead of her by 10’s of millions in cash on hand and continues to rake in contributions at around twice her rate. One of the best way to make that a real advantage on the ground is to make her blow through her money in a series of “must win” contests. News stories about her being broke and paying vendors late are campaign gold for Obama.

]]> By: k http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/25/15/06/ponies/#comment-141878 k Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:44:10 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24626#comment-141878 So, Clinton has nothing to recommend her except that she's white? So, black people won't vote if Obama doesn't get the nomination? And Denver will break out in riots? And McCain will win, and the whole planet will go up in flames. I guess I'll just give the fuck up now. Thanks. So, Clinton has nothing to recommend her except that she’s white?
So, black people won’t vote if Obama doesn’t get the nomination?
And Denver will break out in riots?
And McCain will win, and the whole planet will go up in flames.
I guess I’ll just give the fuck up now. Thanks.

]]> By: Soullite http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/25/15/06/ponies/#comment-141868 Soullite Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:27:46 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24626#comment-141868 furthermore, you are definately not winning without black people. Unless you can explain to me how you expect to get them to make up the 10-15% of the electorate we need them to make up to win after having Hillary awarded the nomination entirely because she is white, then your argument just isn't serious. You can pretend that SD's would be doing it for any other reason if you want to, but I'd suggest you take a look around the black blogosphere and figure out how likely you are to convince black folks of that. furthermore, you are definately not winning without black people. Unless you can explain to me how you expect to get them to make up the 10-15% of the electorate we need them to make up to win after having Hillary awarded the nomination entirely because she is white, then your argument just isn’t serious.

You can pretend that SD’s would be doing it for any other reason if you want to, but I’d suggest you take a look around the black blogosphere and figure out how likely you are to convince black folks of that.

]]> By: Soullite http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/25/15/06/ponies/#comment-141867 Soullite Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:26:01 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24626#comment-141867 Is it just now occuring to you that the entire 'electability' argument is based on the fact that Barack Obama is black? I hate to break it to you, but no Democrat has won white people in 40 years. I know that probably offends you as a white person, but white people aren't our base. They are not our future. We only need to hold the 34-38% of them that we always get and allow Demographics to do the rest. This isn't 1992, white people don't make up 90% of the electorate anymore. Is it just now occuring to you that the entire ‘electability’ argument is based on the fact that Barack Obama is black?

I hate to break it to you, but no Democrat has won white people in 40 years. I know that probably offends you as a white person, but white people aren’t our base. They are not our future. We only need to hold the 34-38% of them that we always get and allow Demographics to do the rest. This isn’t 1992, white people don’t make up 90% of the electorate anymore.

]]>