Maybe we should just elect Trump president

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#polls

For reference: Jan 3 was Iowa, Jan8 was NH, Jan 27 was SC. When do you think that race turned?

Julian, wrote:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#polls

For reference: Jan 3 was Iowa, Jan8 was NH, Jan 27 was SC. When do you think that race turned?

you don't think this poll was a result of a win in Iowa
Rasmussen 1/8 - 1/11 401 LV 21 22 – – – Clinton +1

before Jan 3rd she was + teens/20s

The Trump troll was bringin' the lolz last night.

Sidehatch wrote:

Julian, wrote:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#polls

For reference: Jan 3 was Iowa, Jan8 was NH, Jan 27 was SC. When do you think that race turned?

you don't think this poll was a result of a win in Iowa
Rasmussen 1/8 - 1/11 401 LV 21 22 – – – Clinton +1

before Jan 3rd she was + teens/20s

You are literally looking at a comprehensive list of polls and picking the outlier. I see 5 polls on each side of that with overlapping dates that have Hillary still comfortably ahead. There is a trend of Hillary leading by a large margin in 95% of the polls until the week after SC and Nevada when, on a dime, Obama starts leading in virtually every poll thereafter.

Julian, wrote:

Sidehatch wrote:

Julian, wrote:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#polls

For reference: Jan 3 was Iowa, Jan8 was NH, Jan 27 was SC. When do you think that race turned?

you don't think this poll was a result of a win in Iowa
Rasmussen 1/8 - 1/11 401 LV 21 22 – – – Clinton +1

before Jan 3rd she was + teens/20s

You are literally looking at a comprehensive list of polls and picking the outlier. I see 5 polls on each side of that with overlapping dates that have Hillary still comfortably ahead. I see no giant trend to Obama leading until the immediate aftermath of the SC and Nevada primaries.

Ok was a cherry pick…but this poll was done just days after Iowa

although…the original argument is when African American's turned…and these polls don't show that
The Clintons have historically done well in that community
I've a reporter friend who often says "Obama wasn't the first black president, Bill Clinton was the first Black president" 

Sidehatch wrote:
although…the original argument is when African American's turned…and these polls don't show that

I edited my "pure unadulterated horseshit" post with a link to an article that links in a footnote to several polls which have Obama with ~50% support among African-American voters close to a half a year before Iowa.

Julian, wrote:

Sidehatch wrote:
although…the original argument is when African American's turned…and these polls don't show that

I edited my "pure unadulterated horseshit" post with a link to an article that links in a footnote to several polls which have Obama with ~50% support among African-American voters close to a half a year before Iowa.

50% kinda sucks, you'd think he'd get 95% right off the bat

Sidehatch wrote:

Julian, wrote:

Sidehatch wrote:
although…the original argument is when African American's turned…and these polls don't show that

I edited my "pure unadulterated horseshit" post with a link to an article that links in a footnote to several polls which have Obama with ~50% support among African-American voters close to a half a year before Iowa.

50% kinda sucks, you'd think he'd get 95% right off the bat

He ended up at 82%, for some context.

Regardless, if Obama was ~50% that far out, it is absurd to argue that Hillary led with black voters at any time in that race much less debate what was the turning point.

Julian, wrote:

Sidehatch wrote:

Julian, wrote:

Sidehatch wrote:
although…the original argument is when African American's turned…and these polls don't show that

I edited my "pure unadulterated horseshit" post with a link to an article that links in a footnote to several polls which have Obama with ~50% support among African-American voters close to a half a year before Iowa.

50% kinda sucks, you'd think he'd get 95% right off the bat

He ended up at 82%, for some context.

Regardless, if Obama was ~50% that far out, it is absurd to argue that Hillary led with black voters at any time in that race much less debate what was the turning point.

The turning point in the Obama candidacy was when he won Iowa… you must have been out of the country or something.. everything happened very quickly after that.. the Yes We Can speech, video by Will I am, endorsement by Ted Kennedy, etc….

The point isn't that NO African Americans were supporting Obama before Iowa but the huge support came after Iowa… I guess you also don't remember when Oprah went down to South Carolina to rally support among the African American community..as in your imaginary world he didn't need that cause he already had 100% support among African Americans..

Really its sad I have to take time out of my busy schedule to spank your cherry pickin' ass…

hutch wrote:
The turning point in the Obama candidacy was when he won Iowa… you must have been out of the country or something.. everything happened very quickly after that.. the Yes We Can speech, video by Will I am, endorsement by Ted Kennedy, etc….

I don't remember it happening quickly. In fact, I remember the primary getting dragged out forever. Hillary didn't actually drop out until June, so while Obama had a lead, it was still very suspenseful and Hillary continued to win states into the spring.

hutch wrote:
The point isn't that NO African Americans were supporting Obama before Iowa but the huge support came after Iowa… I guess you also don't remember when Oprah went down to South Carolina to rally support among the African American community..as in your imaginary world he didn't need that cause he already had 100% support among African Americans..

The point is you specifically said Hillary Clinton led among African-Americans pre-Iowa. This is 100% false and there's no "I guess you don't remembers" in my argument, I gave you a fucking link to polls. Actual metrics and numbers with dates attached to them trump your recollection of Will.I.Am videos.

Julian, wrote:

hutch wrote:
The point isn't that NO African Americans were supporting Obama before Iowa but the huge support came after Iowa… I guess you also don't remember when Oprah went down to South Carolina to rally support among the African American community..as in your imaginary world he didn't need that cause he already had 100% support among African Americans..

The point is you specifically said Hillary Clinton led among African-Americans pre-Iowa. This is 100% false and there's no "I guess you don't remembers" in my argument, I gave you a fucking link to polls. Actual metrics and numbers with dates attached to them trump your recollection of Will.I.Am videos.

sorry.. again you are wrong.. Obama had some soft support in the african american community… most people didn't even know who obama was pre Iowa… sure political junkies takled about his great speech and all that.. .. when he won Iowa it upset the applecart and created a shock through the system when it became apparent that Obama could win the election.. african americans coalesced around him at that point en masse.. before that point not really.. obama was not some sort of jesse jackson with long ties in the african american community.. in fact he was a guy that many african americans thought was "too white"….I worked for and with african americans at the time and none of them thought much of him before that point (Iowa)… .. in fact they liked Hillary.. as Sidehatch remarked Hillary had a lot of support among african americans with the whole bill clinton was a black president thing..when Obama won Iowa, the state that does not matter according to Smackie, they realized "hey wait a minute.. its a longshot but this could happen!"

the NOTION that barack obama enjoyed some kind of monolithic support among african americans that would have manifested itself in south carolina even if he had lost iowa and new hampshire is patently false as is the narrative being put out by smackie that iowa and new hampshire don't matter.. guys, join us back in the real world.

Again, Hillary Clinton did not lead among black voters at the time of the Iowa caucus as you claim. This is irrefutable.

Julian, wrote:
Again, Hillary Clinton did not lead among black voters at the time of the Iowa caucus as you claim. This is irrefutable.

well maybe so.. who knows? just polls right..

the point is he did not have a hold of a monolithic black voting block merely because he was black.. the Clintons are very popular with african americans and many were voting for them

I love the way you nitpick a completely unimportant point just to argue..

My point was that Iowa - that winning Iowa- helped him consolidate the black vote around him.. prior to that it was not the case.

but of course you want to argue about some polls as evidence of what? a minor point of no consequence.. at the end of the day you would have to admit that Obama did not have a lock on SC prior to Iowa… go look up some polls of SC before Iowa or something…

argue argue argue…over nothing important

as far as the person that said that the election went on a long time.. believe me I know.. I was there at the meeting where the DNC decided how to apportion the MI and FL delegates at the end.. which sealed it for Obama.. my point wasn't that Iowa decided the election or even SC.. just that his win in Iowa set in motion a series of events that led to him being the nominee… therefore, I was arguing (for those not lost in Julian's polls) that Iowa had been very important for Obama.. this is a difference of opinion with Van Smack who seems to be arguing that Iowa and NH don't matter….didn't matter in the case of Obama apparently.. this is news to me.

Lastly, Julian made the point that Obama's speech after winning Iowa was not a big moment in US history… he/you can see it that way.. its a matter of opinion.. I think it was a big moment…some people agree..some don't…

hutch wrote:
well maybe so.. who knows? just polls right..

polls are the only way we know a candidate's performance, appeal, etc. (both opinion polls and election polls, AKA election results).

if you are saying we can't trust polls when discussing a candidate, there is no point debating with you.

sweetcell wrote:

hutch wrote:
well maybe so.. who knows? just polls right..

polls are the only way we know a candidate's performance, appeal, etc. (both opinion polls and election polls, AKA election results).

if you are saying we can't trust polls when discussing a candidate, there is no point debating with you.

polls do not support Julian's point but they do support mine

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/sc.obama.clinton/index.html?eref=rss_latest

key quote:
But the latest polls suggest support could be shifting. In July, 52 percent of black Democratic primary voters said they favored Clinton, compared to Obama's 33 percent. In December, Obama's support had risen to 45 percent while Clinton's dropped to 46.

———–
Obama did not have a lock on the black vote before Iowa.



but yeah, I don't come on this board to argue..sorry.. and yeah I don't think that much of polls…sorry.

and further, exactly what I wrote earlier which was dismissed as insane by Julian:

Obama supporter Damon Hardy said some blacks are still waffling because they are unsure of his long-term chances.

"It's like they want Obama to win, but they don't want their vote to be wasted on someone who they don't think is going to win. They don't really think Obama has a chance. So, they're voting Hillary Clinton because of her experience," he said.

Its like you people don't remember eight years ago.. another thing that helped Obama lock the SC black vote and win in such resounding fashion were some of the things that Bill Clinton said that ticked blacks off in SC (including Clyburn)

But hey if you want to think "Obama is black .. of course all the black people were planning to vote for him all along" that is fine.. the facts do not support that…

^war criminal

Hutch's campaign releases some touching family photos