To expand on what I said, I think Clinton has always been ahead, and she used to be ahead by much more. She has the overwhelming support of the "old guard." As much as Feb 5's numbers can be spun, I think the day was genuinely a big day for Obama, but I also think it was disappointing to both camps. Clinton obviously would have liked it if she had done far better, and if the primary were held a month ago she would have. Obama obviously would have preferred to do much better as well, but I think a big reason for that is the emotion generated from his momentum. That kind of momentum makes you feel like
anything is possible.
Objectively, though, I think Obama did
very well. A few weeks ago, Clinton would have won overwhelmingly. Instead, Obama only lost by about 10% in CA, and he won more states overall than Clinton did. He also may, according to some estimates, gain more total delegates from the day than Clinton does.
Clinton is still ahead: she's still the frontrunner, and she still has some serious support out there. And she'll likely win Texas, thanks to the Latino vote. Obama, on the other hand, has some great momentum to keep building upon, and he now has the opportunity to return to campaigning with a more personal touch, which is a great strength of his. These next few weeks will be
very interesting.
I wouldn't be surprised if this goes all the way to the convention, in which case that'll be a whole new mess, with Clinton insisting on seating Florida and Michigan and Obama insisting that they play by the agreed upon rules.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
This is because the name Clinton is more ambiguous as people don't know which you are talking about. Where as with Obama you know you are talking about Barak as people wouldn't assume it to be his wife that you are talking about.
|
I didn't realize Bill Clinton was on any ballots
I find that argument to be really flimsy. Just look at my post: who in their right mind would think I'm ever referring to Bill Clinton?