After Potomac, who's the "Underdog" ?

[1sokkermom]

<p>^ That could change if Obama goes 10-0 with Wisconsin and Hawaii.</p>

<p>It’s also bad news for Clinton, who needs to win with double digits in Texas in order to stay <em>viable</em>. She better keep eating those hot peppers. It may help.
([Hillarys</a> Health Plan: Hot Peppers - Well - Tara Parker-Pope - Health - New York Times Blog](<a href=“http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/hillarys-health-plan-hot-peppers/]Hillarys”>Hillary's Health Plan: Hot Peppers - The New York Times) )</p>

[janieblue]

<p>

Janieblue - I can’t remember where you are from. Is it a state with an upcoming primary?

</p>

<p>No, Kluge; my primary isn’t until May, which is another reason I think it might be significant. Again, the only contact I’ve ever received from anyone has been from the Edwards campaign-- throughout.</p>

<p>And the woman who called was specifically asking for contributions. Although she was most likely a volunteer who may not have known, I did ask where she got my name. She said the name was generated from the Democratic registered voter rolls. Again, if that’s the case, I just think it may be significant that no one else ever contacted me (with the exception of Edwards’ campaign) from day one.</p>

[kluge]

<p>Well, my primary is over - the only reason anyone calls me now is to ask for money!</p>

[Erewhon]

<p>You have a kid in college. What’s new! :)</p>

[1sokkermom]

<p>“Again, if that’s the case, I just think it may be significant that no one else ever contacted me (with the exception of Edwards’ campaign) from day one.”</p>

<p>janie, most political pundits thought that the nomination would be sealed by Super Tuesday. My guess is that your state primary is now very important because of the number of delgates that will still be at stake. You will probably be getting lots of calls from now until May…good luck.</p>

<p>There will be a push for the students in your state to vote too since they may still be there in May. Although, many have already voted in their home state primaries. ;)</p>

[janieblue]

<p>1sokkermom: You may be right. I just thought it might be significant, since Obama had just met with Edwards over the weekend. Still no calls from Clinton . . .</p>

[Hunt]

<p>I think it’s pretty silly to count donations from individual doctors and lawyers as coming from the “industry.” I’m a lawyer, and if I supported candidates based on my own financial interests, I’d be a Republican. I think that would be true of the vast majority of lawyers (and doctors, too).</p>

[Hanna]

<p>Hunt, I agree that this is a mischaracterization. My donations have zilch to do with my job.</p>

[poetsheart]

<p>

There is a lot of talk here in NY, in light of the irregularities with the democratic primary vote reporting (official, not media), that if Hillary takes the nomination by way of superdelegates and Obama was leading heavily in popular vote/states/pledged delegates that Bloomberg will pony up a great deal of money to fund a third party run by Obama with himself as the VP. Of course it’s not going to happen, but the speculation is buckets of fun.

</p>

<p>That’s about the most ridiculous bit of speculation I’ve read to date. (I’m not saying you’re being ridiculous, Zoosermom—you have my utmost respect—but that the rumor itself is absurd;)) Though Bloomberg is perennially blasted by his own party as being “too liberal”, he is a Republican. No way will he bankroll the Presidential candidacy of a Democrat labeled “the most liberal member of Congress”. If that ever were to happen, I might be tempted to start believing in those prophecies about the world ending in 2012:rolleyes:</p>

[poetsheart]

<p>

"A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll suggests the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination between Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois is a statistical dead heat in Texas, which holds primaries March 4.</p>

<p>In the survey, out Monday, 50 percent of likely Democratic primary voters support Clinton as their choice for the party’s nominee, with 48 percent backing Obama.</p>

<p>But taking into account the poll’s sampling error of plus or minus 4½ percentage points for Democratic respondents, the race is a virtual tie.</p>

<p>Two recent polls by other organizations also show the race statistically even."…

</p>

<p>Didn’t pre-election poles put Obama 12-15 pts ahead of Clinton in the days leading into New Hampshire? Until the chickens are hatched…</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>he is a Republican. No way will he bankroll the Presidential candidacy of a Democrat labeled “the most liberal member of Congress”. If that ever were to happen, I might be tempted to start believing in those prophecies about the world ending in 2012"</p>

<p>Actually, he’s not a republican. Changed his party affiliation. I just think the speculation is very, very fun.</p>

[vicariousparent]

<p>I would love to support an independent Obama candidacy but I doubt it will happen. Not this year.</p>

[mathmom]

<p>re: #211
Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat until he decided to run for mayor of NYC in 2001. He left the Republican party last year.</p>

[poetsheart]

<p>Oh…(insert sheepish embarrassment here)…never mind…;)</p>

[Hunt]

<p>I read a pretty good analysis of Bloomberg (in Time, maybe?) that said he really has no shot to run a third-party race this year, because he’s fairly moderate, and McCain already occupies the same ground.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>“I read a pretty good analysis of Bloomberg (in Time, maybe?) that said he really has no shot to run a third-party race this year, because he’s fairly moderate, and McCain already occupies the same ground.”</p>

<p>I think that’s true. What I find him to be is a pain in the backside. It annoys me to no end that he’s plotting to run the world while the city is sliding back into mess.</p>