NationStates Jolt Archive

So Clinton's won her second in a row...

Can Obama still do it?

I mean, he just has to, right? The story can't have an unhappy ending, can it?

I don't know. I got a terrible feeling he'll come in a close second on Super Tuesday. Unless he wins South Carolina, I think we're doomed.

Your thoughts (and hopefully reassurances)?

I think so. Good Lord, I hope so, or we're all doomed.

I hope he wins the nomination too, I mean Hillary, she just reminds me of a Sith Lord.

http://www.sasane.com/blog/wp-content/SithLord.jpg

If Hillary wins the Democratic Nomination, then the Democratic Party is going to lose '08, they just are. She is too polarizing to get 50%. I know, I know the polls show her beating all but one Republican (I forgot who that Republican is) but the polls also said that Kerry would win '04.

I think so. Good Lord, I hope so, or we're all doomed.

I hear you.

It's good to know I'm not alone..

I hope he doesn't end up her running mate. :(

Obama was my preference but I think he's out now.

Exactly. Ain't it great? :p

Why would you want to re-elect a party that has driven America into the ground over the last 7 years?

Obama's not out yet, no. Soon, though. :)

If Hillary wins the Democratic Nomination, then the Democratic Party is going to lose '08, they just are. She is too polarizing to get 50%.

Exactly. Ain't it great? :p

Uh, lol wut.



How about Ron Paul? ;/ (http://ronpaul2008.com)

Why would you want to re-elect a party that has driven America into the ground over the last 7 years?

There's no place to go but up!

Uh, lol wut.



How about Ron Paul? ;/ (http://ronpaul2008.com)

I don't recall him relating in any way to the questions raised by the OP. And he will fail no matter what he tries to do.

Haha. Very nice. :p

Did you misunderstand me? I was talking about the Republicans. Hillary will lose an election and the resultant win for the GOP will shaft the US.

Why would you want to re-elect a party that has driven America into the ground over the last 7 years?

Haha. Very nice. :p

Why would you want to re-elect a party that has driven America into the ground over the last 7 years?

Because we don't need a two family Dynasty?

We don't need someone who actually supports the Patriot Act or the mess that is No Child Left Behind?

a person who supported the Iraq War before she was against it?

How about her stance of no marriage for homosexuals but a "Strong" Civil Union?

Let's not also forget that she's friend with Jack Thompson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)). A guy who wages war on Video Games.

Trust me, she'll do just as bad as Bush, if not worse.

How about Ron Paul? ;/ (http://ronpaul2008.com)

Now he, on the other hand, is out of the race, even if not officially. Not that he was ever really "in," but you get the idea. ;)

Uh, lol wut.



How about Ron Paul? ;/ (http://ronpaul2008.com)

It probably would be bad to have someone reminiscent of Jackson in the White House. But that's just me.

Because we don't need a two family Dynasty?

We don't need someone who actually supports the Patriot Act or the mess that is No Child Left Behind?

a person who supported the Iraq War before she was against it?

How about her stance of no marriage for homosexuals but a "Strong" Civil Union?

Let's not also forget that she's friend with Jack Thompson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)). A guy who wages war on Video Games.

Trust me, she'll do just as bad as Bush, if not worse.

So support Obama.

obama isnt out yet. his 2nd place finishes are very close.

but he does need to start winning and SOON.

Nah, I got what you meant. I just disagree, that's all. ;)

Based on what? The last 7 years have been a disaster for the US by any standard, especially by the economic standard the the conservatives seem to pride themselves on.

Did you misunderstand me? I was talking about the Republicans. Hillary will lose an election and the resultant win for the GOP will shaft the US.

Nah, I got what you meant. I just disagree, that's all. ;)

Shit, you lot throw in the towel at the slightest provocation. I'd hate to be on a sports team with you.

Uh, lol wut.



How about Ron Paul? ;/ (http://ronpaul2008.com)
**** Ron Paul, he's just a crazier Huckabee.

Ron Paul will:

1. get us out of Iraq
2. end special interest control of the White House
3. enact policies that will restore the economy
4. return power to the states and thus give power back to WE THE PEOPLE.

not too sure about his policy of ending birthright citizenship, though.

I'm a bit curious about the other democrat candidates, though. Anyone have info about dems who AREN'T named Clinton, Obama, or Edwards?

Ron Paul will:

1. get us out of Iraq
2. end special interest control of the White House
3. enact policies that will restore the economy
4. return power to the states and thus give power back to WE THE PEOPLE.
Will convince a bunch of people that they think they know anything about government and Ron Paul when they don't.

Obama is actually ahead in terms of delegates won--38 to 36. In fact, he won Nevada 13 to 12. If this neck to neck thing keeps up, Edwards will probably hand Obama the nomination in exchange for the VP slot. Obama is far from out. It's Hillary who needs to worry

Obama is actually ahead in terms of delegates won--38 to 36. In fact, he won Nevada 13 to 12. If this neck to neck thing keeps up, Edwards will probably hand Obama the nomination in exchange for the VP slot. Obama is far from out. It's Hillary who needs to worry

Indeed, in terms of delegates, Obama won Nevada and tied New Hampshire...

but "delegates" are too complicated for the American public. They only understand who got more voters.

I would really love to see Edwards trade his delegates for the VP slot, as I've been saying for some time that an Obama/Edwards ticket would be very strong indeed.

Ron Paul will:

1. get us out of Iraq
2. end special interest control of the White House
3. enact policies that will restore the economy
4. return power to the states and thus give power back to WE THE PEOPLE.

He is also:
Virulently anti-choice, to the point of trying — multiple times — to amend the Constitution to ban it,
Doesn't believe in the theory of evolution (anti-science),
Has a spotty civil rights record,
Would divide the country more profoundly, possibly to the point of Civil War II,
Abolish the Departments of Education, Agriculture and Commerce.

Remember Kansas a few years ago? They'd pitch Evolution and go back to teaching Creationism as a fact, and they wouldn't be the only states doing that.
Ron Paul really would create the Jesusland vs. United States of Canada scenario.
As a side-benefit, his young white male constituency would think that spamming online and crashing rallies is an effective campaigning strategy. It would get worse. In twelve years, the campaigning profile in this country would devolve to fist-fighting, shouting contests and riots.

Thanks, I'd rather see the country get off the Third Worldization slide we're on now.

I hope he wins the nomination too, I mean Hillary, she just reminds me of a Sith Lord.

If Hillary wins the Democratic Nomination, then the Democratic Party is going to lose '08, they just are. She is too polarizing to get 50%. I know, I know the polls show her beating all but one Republican (I forgot who that Republican is) but the polls also said that Kerry would win '04.
So then, you should be pulling for a Hilary win???

Obama is actually ahead in terms of delegates won--38 to 36. In fact, he won Nevada 13 to 12. If this neck to neck thing keeps up, Edwards will probably hand Obama the nomination in exchange for the VP slot. Obama is far from out. It's Hillary who needs to worry

Clinton is ahead in superdelegates, but there are still more of them undecided than decided.

Indeed, in terms of delegates, Obama won Nevada and tied New Hampshire...

but "delegates" are too complicated for the American public. They only understand who got more voters.

I would really love to see Edwards trade his delegates for the VP slot, as I've been saying for some time that an Obama/Edwards ticket would be very strong indeed.

This is what I'm expecting.

Ron Paul will:

1. get us out of Iraq
2. end special interest control of the White House
3. enact policies that will restore the economy
4. return power to the states and thus give power back to WE THE PEOPLE.

not too sure about his policy of ending birthright citizenship, though.

I'm a bit curious about the other democrat candidates, though. Anyone have info about dems who AREN'T named Clinton, Obama, or Edwards?

5. atempt to cover up his bigorty with on the spot bullshit he makes up.

Because we don't need a two family Dynasty?

We don't need someone who actually supports the Patriot Act or the mess that is No Child Left Behind?

a person who supported the Iraq War before she was against it?

How about her stance of no marriage for homosexuals but a "Strong" Civil Union?

Let's not also forget that she's friend with Jack Thompson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)). A guy who wages war on Video Games.

Trust me, she'll do just as bad as Bush, if not worse.

Why would anyone 'trust you' on that?

A president isn't isolated, there is a connection to a party. Bush has been evidence not JUST of a corrupt presidency, but of a corrupt Republican party. Clinton or Obama, either one has to be an improvement over the status quo, because at least they change the balance of power. Slightly.

And the US just isn't ready to elect anyone that would actually make a difference.

(Like my current fave: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2zkh6ZOGE)

He is also:
Virulently anti-choice, to the point of trying — multiple times — to amend the Constitution to ban it...


That one always confuses me... people talking about how important the constitution is... but they apparently only mean certain parts and amendments. Anything they don't like - fair game.

Yeah seriously, obey the Consitution... Just remove the parts I don't like first.



And is it just me or is 90% of Lord Tothe's posts on General Pro Ron Paul or pro-anarchy?

at this point, just about any of them can. its still a flip of the coin whether our next president will be hillary or obama, with edwards almost a virtual shoe in for v.p.

as long as we don't get another damd retardlican, i can live with that.

i'm backing cynthia mckinney for the greens in the primary, but when it comes to the general election, much as none of the front runners would be my first choice, i'll have no problem endorsing whoever gets the nod for the dems.

=^^=
.../\...

So Clinton's won her second in a row...

Can Obama still do it?

I mean, he just has to, right? The story can't have an unhappy ending, can it?

I don't know. I got a terrible feeling he'll come in a close second on Super Tuesday. Unless he wins South Carolina, I think we're doomed.

Your thoughts (and hopefully reassurances)?

Yes, he can. It's ridiculous to give up on someone with only 3 contests out of 49 done - especially when he's placed 1st or 2nd in all of them.

4. return power to the states and thus give power back to WE THE PEOPLE.

Those two things are contradictory. Either the power remains with the people, or it goes to the states.

I'm a bit curious about the other democrat candidates, though. Anyone have info about dems who AREN'T named Clinton, Obama, or Edwards?

If you like the Ron Paul propaganda, you might want to look into Mike Gravel.

So Clinton's won her second in a row...

Can Obama still do it?

I mean, he just has to, right? The story can't have an unhappy ending, can it?

I don't know. I got a terrible feeling he'll come in a close second on Super Tuesday. Unless he wins South Carolina, I think we're doomed.

Your thoughts (and hopefully reassurances)?

Of course he does.

Remember Obama is actually likely to win more delegates in the nevada caucus due to the weird rules (he won most of the state as opposed to Clinton's win in Las Vegas)

Obama also has a large lead in South Carolina.

He also has strong showings in the south overall and the Midwest. Even in states where he's losing, he has enough to win delegates due to the 15% rule.

Then factor in John edwards who is much more supportive of Obama and will likely throw his support behind him at the convention if it's deadlocked.

Then factor in John edwards who is much more supportive of Edwards and will likely throw his support behind him at the convention if it's deadlocked.

He's his own biggest fan, no doubt. :p

He's his own biggest fan, no doubt. :p

my mistake, I meant to say Obama

Indeed, in terms of delegates, Obama won Nevada and tied New Hampshire...

but "delegates" are too complicated for the American public. They only understand who got more voters.

I would really love to see Edwards trade his delegates for the VP slot, as I've been saying for some time that an Obama/Edwards ticket would be very strong indeed.

The Lesson of 2000: More Votes Don't Matter.

Yes, Obama can.

Its still early yet, and "most number of primaries" isnt all it takes to get the party nomination.

Edwards is probably screwed, but as I said, its early.

Yes. He can. Its 2 to 1 right now. And Obama will win South Carolina.

I have a sneaking suspicion no matter how well Obama does, Clinton'll steal the nomination somehow. She just will. She's desperate to get into that Oval Office.

Obama is far from out. He actually got more delegates in SC than Hillary, who "won" the primary. Super Tuesday could be very close. It's entirely possible that neither candidate will come to the DNC with enough votes to win, setting up Edwards as "kingmaker".

Obama is far from out. He actually got more delegates in SC than Hillary, who "won" the primary. Super Tuesday could be very close. It's entirely possible that neither candidate will come to the DNC with enough votes to win, setting up Edwards as "kingmaker".

I think you mean Nevada, but you're otherwise right. Obama won more delegates there and is currently leading in overall pledged delegates.

SC is this coming Saturday, and I believe he's currently leading there.

I have a sneaking suspicion no matter how well Obama does, Clinton'll steal the nomination somehow. She just will. She's desperate to get into that Oval Office.

Can you say superdelegates? If Obama keeps winning like he did in in Iowa and Nevada, it may come down to the superdelegates. Most are still unpleged, but that'd be how she'd do it.

Obama is far from out. He actually got more delegates in SC than Hillary, who "won" the primary. Super Tuesday could be very close. It's entirely possible that neither candidate will come to the DNC with enough votes to win, setting up Edwards as "kingmaker".

Nevada, not SC. SC's on the 26th. ;)

Otherwise, exactly so.

The question is: where do Edwards' votes go to, my guess is that they'd more naturally go to Clinton than Obama - if Edwards is perceived as a dead duck, I'd say it favours Clinton more but then I have absolutely no idea whether my supposition is correct.

I actually don't mind Hillary.

I actually don't mind Hillary.

Of course you wouldn't. She's more authoritarian, which suits your aims perfectly.

I have a sneaking suspicion no matter how well Obama does, Clinton'll steal the nomination somehow. She just will. She's desperate to get into that Oval Office.

Yep. And all the oher politicians in the primaries have been forced to compete, against their wills.

If you like the Ron Paul propaganda, you might want to look into Mike Gravel.

Yay! Mike Gravel rocks.

Shame he stands no chance... shame also, that that matters in primaries. :(

Of course you wouldn't. She's more authoritarian, which suits your aims perfectly.

Burn...

Burn...

Hey, when all you have is a flamethrower, every problem looks like it can be burnt away.

The question is: where do Edwards' votes go to, my guess is that they'd more naturally go to Clinton than Obama - if Edwards is perceived as a dead duck, I'd say it favours Clinton more but then I have absolutely no idea whether my supposition is correct.

I'm not so sure. I think Edwards would most likely throw his weight behind Obama if he leaves the race. I could be wrong, though.

I'm not so sure. I think Edwards would most likely throw his weight behind Obama if he leaves the race. I could be wrong, though.

I think he'd be most likely to go with whomever will give him the VP seat. In a race this tight, he has to know his support/delegates could be the deciding factor and he doesn't seem likely to throw away an opportunity like that.

Can Obama still do it?

In short, no.

He's been trailing in the polls for a long time, and after the benefits of victory in Iowa disappeared with his surprise loss in New Hampshire....

In short, no.

He's been trailing in the polls for a long time, and after the benefits of victory in Iowa disappeared with his surprise loss in New Hampshire....

What? Soheran, don't tell me you believe that. He's still neck and neck with delegates(which is what counts, no matter how the media acts), especially since Hillary's lead in superdelegates is only because most have yet to decide who to back.

In short, no.

He's been trailing in the polls for a long time, and after the benefits of victory in Iowa disappeared with his surprise loss in New Hampshire....

Tie, not loss.

What? Soheran, don't tell me you believe that. He's still neck and neck with delegates(which is what counts, no matter how the media acts), especially since Hillary's lead in superdelegates is only because most have yet to decide who to back.

Exactly so.

What? Soheran, don't tell me you believe that. He's still neck and neck with delegates(which is what counts, no matter how the media acts), especially since Hillary's lead in superdelegates is only because most have yet to decide who to back.

Not to mention the fact that his support has gone up in some polls. He's come from 10-20 percentage points behind in most states to being neck-and-neck with Clinton in every state that has yet voted. And his supporters damn sure aren't giving up.

Wow, Hillary Clinton is not THAT bad you guys. She doesn't spit fire and eat babies and she will do a decent job as president. Besides, Obama is FAR from out of the race. I personally think he will win South Carolina and then everyone will be wondering if Clinton is done for because the media is on crack. Someone is in trouble the moment they lose a state.

I don't understand why people are so afraid of her winning though. She's not very different from Obama and Edwards, despite the massive campaign to make everyone believe she is Bush Jr. I personally believe she is capable of doing a better job as president than Obama, although I feel that Edwards is the best option. I'm starting to doubt Edwards' ability to get elected though due to the 4% showing in Nevada. Those are Richardson kind of numbers! That's when you panic people, not when your guy is behind by 5%!

So anyway, Obama still has a great shot. If you support him, why the hell are you being so pessimistic when he is either in first or a strong second in all the very small number of contests so far? Also, don't hate on Hillary so much. She's still on the side of good, unlike any Republican candidate.

Wow, Hillary Clinton is not THAT bad you guys. She doesn't spit fire and eat babies and she will do a decent job as president.

I'm tired of "not that bad", of the "lesser evil." Clinton might be better than any of the Republican candidates, but that really isn't saying much.

And she is very different from Obama. She changes her tune with each new speech - each new audience - each new poll. Obama has been spreading the same message from the very beginning of his run - and even before that. She is a member of the Washington elite - the political families who have run things for decades and, while some have done better than others, none have done particularly good jobs. She is part of the problem in a polarized Washington - and us vs. them mentality. She is all-too-willing to be authoritarian when it suits her. And she point-blank stated that national security comes before human rights - and seemed proud of it.

I hope so. If Hillary wins, she'll never be able to anything bipartisan.

I don't understand why people are so afraid of her winning though. She's not very different from Obama and Edwards, despite the massive campaign to make everyone believe she is Bush Jr. I personally believe she is capable of doing a better job as president than Obama, although I feel that Edwards is the best option.

It's not her policies that make me nervous about her being the Dem Nom, it's just the miserably bitter campaign I'm not looking forward to, the kind of monstrously expensive, hugely divisive campaign like Bill's re-election -- that thing bled over right through the first year of his second term, it felt like nothing got done.

Not that that's her fault. It's just what's probably going to happen. (Does anybody really believe the Republicans are going to throw away all their unsold 1993 Stupid-Things-Hillary-Has-Said calendars?)

Anybody hear the South Carolina debate tonight? Hillary was sure spitting fire and sounding ugly. She may have sunk herself-- or maybe not, if not too many people were watching.

I'm tired of "not that bad", of the "lesser evil." Clinton might be better than any of the Republican candidates, but that really isn't saying much.

And she is very different from Obama. She changes her tune with each new speech - each new audience - each new poll. Obama has been spreading the same message from the very beginning of his run - and even before that. She is a member of the Washington elite - the political families who have run things for decades and, while some have done better than others, none have done particularly good jobs. She is part of the problem in a polarized Washington - and us vs. them mentality. She is all-too-willing to be authoritarian when it suits her. And she point-blank stated that national security comes before human rights - and seemed proud of it.
I think the biggest problems for Obama becoming the next President are:

1. Colour of his skin.

2. His relative inexperience.

3. Having been partially raised outside the US, and partly raised in the Muslim religion.

And of course, the numbers are all over the place!!

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/logo3.gif (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm)

Yep. And all the oher politicians in the primaries have been forced to compete, against their wills.

Well by steal the nomination, I mean in an underhanded, possibly illegal way.

Well by steal the nomination, I mean in an underhanded, possibly illegal way.

Like campaigning on the smoking ruins of the WTC? No... wrong election.

Politicians usually want one thing - to be politicians. And it's fairly safe to assume they'll do whatever it takes to keep the job, and whatever it takes to get a 'promotion'.

Hillary wants the presidency. But she's hardly the only politician that that accusation can be levelled at.

Personally, I kinda hope she gets it... I always wondered what they'll call Bill if she does... First Man?

Yes of course he still has a chance. Though unforunately, so does Hillary. Of the top three the only one is dead is Edwards. That guy doesn't have a shot in hell.

I agree that Obama is the least polarizing of the two. Far more likely to get elected in the general election that Clinton. Anybody watch Meet the Press this weekend? If that doesn't convince you which of the two you should vote for, I don't know what will.

Besides, the Republicans will have NO idea how to campaign against Obama and he will be able to win, whereas they no EXACTLY how to campaign against Hillary, and they are itching to mobilize their base to do so. Republicans want Hillary as the nominee, because they know they can beat her.

Can you imagine a Hillary presidency. Republicans will reclaim the house and the senate and their will be gridlock worse than in the Bill Clinton/Newt Gingrich era.

Obama represents real change, not a continuing political dynasty.

I hope so. If Hillary wins, she'll never be able to anything bipartisan.
Correction, she'll never be able to do anything without the conservanuts making loud noises.

I hope he can't still do it- never thought it he could. After all, I do want to live. He's too socialist to be elected, and I hope people see that. But his platitudes are too loud and overshadow his actual stances. Please refer to his 97.5% liberal rating in Congress- by a liberal institution.

Don't bother posting personal stuff (attacks), I'm not going to check up on this post.

Have a nice day.

P.S. One president, no matter who, cannot single-handedly ruin this country.
No, Bush didn't. No, the next one won't either. It's collective.

It pisses me off that so many people support Hillary Clinton. Aren't we about due for a president who's not a compulsive liar? Or that didn't rise to power on somebody else's coattails?

I think the biggest problems for Obama becoming the next President are:

1. Colour of his skin.Hey, at least he's half-white! Also, having spent a great deal of time around Republicans, I can vouch for the fact that they hate Hillary Clinton a lot more than they hate black people.

2. His relative inexperience.He's held elected office for longer than any of the major democratic candidates, and has accomplished more in terms of politically substantive change.

3. Having been partially raised outside the US, and partly raised in the Muslim religion.I think this one's not true. He was raised more or less as an atheist and converted to Christianity in Chi-town.

Hey, at least he's half-white! Also, having spent a great deal of time around Republicans, I can vouch for the fact that they hate Hillary Clinton a lot more than they hate black people.
And how many Republicans will be voting for either Hilary or Obama? Your poll is limited to Republicans you know?

He's held elected office for longer than any of the major democratic candidates, and has accomplished more in terms of politically substantive change.
You are discounting Hilary's 8 years in the White House? Also, Obama loss an election bid to the House or Representatives earlier.

I think this one's not true. He was raised more or less as an atheist and converted to Christianity in Chi-town.
Well according to the following (http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/the-obama-muslim-shell-game-catholic-school-docs-show-obama-registered-as-muslim/):

Associated Press has revealed that Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Democratic candidate for President of the United States, attend a Catholic school in Indonesia registered as a Muslim, further clouding the issue of where Obama was schooled in Indonesia and when. Obama, by his own admission in books that he has written, has said that he attended a Catholic school and a Muslim school while living in Indonesia with his atheist mother and Muslim stepfather. But now that Fox News reported that Obama may have been indoctrinated in Islamic teachings while attending the Muslim school in Indonesia , he and his handlers have gone spinning the story to the news media, and their stories do not match up.

Obama is claiming that the allegations by Fox are “scurrilous” and that he believes people “recognize that the notion that me going to school in Indonesia for two years at a public school there at the age of 7 and 8 is probably not going to be endangering in some way the people of America.” Associated Press is reporting that the Muslim school Obama attended is a public school, open to people of all faiths—this according to the spokesman for Indonesia’s Ministry of Religious affairs who goes only by the name of “Sutopo.” Records show that Obama attended a Catholic school first and then the Muslim school. When he was ten years old, he moved to Hawaii and attended a private secular school.

There are many holes in Obama’s story. First, if he attended the Muslim school when he was seven and eight, which school did he attend when he was nine and ten, if he first attended the Catholic school? There appears to be a gap in his education or a miscommunication about what school he attended and when he attended it. Associated Press reports that Obama’s mother relocated to Indonesia from 1967-71 after marrying Obama’s Muslim step-father—who Obama claims was no longer Muslim, but an atheist. The Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where Obama first attended school, enrollment documents, however, show Obama enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather.

Obama’s spokesman Robert Gibbs says he isn’t sure why the Catholic school document had Obama listed as a Muslim. Gibbs told AP, “Senator Obama has never been a Muslim.” While the spokesman is denying that Obama was never a Muslim, Obama, himself, has not publicly said he was never and is not now a Muslim.
Most of that is validated by Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp).

I think that the Republicans will play that out in any election campaign, just like they swift boated John Kerry in 2004.

And how many Republicans will be voting for either Hilary or Obama? Your poll is limited to Republicans you know?I'm talking about Republicans because the broader issue is electability in the general election, unless you think that some Hillary and Edwards supporters might be affected by racial prejudice. Actually, now that I think about it, some of them might be.

You are discounting Hilary's 8 years in the White House? Also, Obama loss an election bid to the House or Representatives earlier.Hillary wasn't president. Her husband was. If we get to count First Lady experience, then we first have to count community organizing experience for Barack Obama and attorney experience for both Edwards and Obama. For a comparison of Obama and Clinton's, experience, check out http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Paul+B.+Hertneky%3a+Let%27s+compare+the+public+accomplishments+of+Clinton+and+ Obama&articleId=11dc4bb6-bc19-4f73-97a4-400fbd3dad27

As for the Muslim thing, if that's the best Swift-boat target to come up with, then he's substantially cleaner than Clinton.

I think the biggest problems for Obama becoming the next President are:

1. Colour of his skin.

2. His relative inexperience.

3. Having been partially raised outside the US, and partly raised in the Muslim religion.

Personally, I see 2 and 3 as advantages. Obama isn't inexperienced in general - he's inexperienced in Washington in particular. I don't see that as a bad thing.

And having been raised partially outside the US - particularly in a predominantly Muslim region (he wasn't raised in any particular religion) - is also an advantage. Some of our biggest diplomatic hurdles are with predominantly Muslim nations. Having that understanding can only be a good thing.

I agree that Obama is the least polarizing of the two. Far more likely to get elected in the general election that Clinton. Anybody watch Meet the Press this weekend? If that doesn't convince you which of the two you should vote for, I don't know what will.

And he pulls in lots of Independent voters - even in the primary process. That ability will likely be important in the general election as well.


Most of that is validated by Snopes.

So he went to a Muslim school for a period of time and a Catholic school for a period of time and spent the vast majority of his education in secular schools. I don't really see what that proves.

Well according to the following (http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/the-obama-muslim-shell-game-catholic-school-docs-show-obama-registered-as-muslim/):

According to a blog that prominently displays the words "Fred for President" and is entitled "Thoughts of a Conservative Christian"? Yeah that'll be unbiased and well researched. :rolleyes: And here's what Snopes "validated":


Claim: Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a
radical Muslim while admitting that he was once a Muslim, mitigating
that damning information by saying that, for two years, he also
attended a Catholic school.


Barack Obama has not "admitted" to being a Muslim, nor has any
evidence been produced demonstrating that he is, or ever was, a
"radical Muslim." (As with everything else in the e-mail quoted at the
head of the page, this is asserted as "fact" despite a complete lack
of supporting evidence.) "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim,"
Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said. "As a six-year-old in
Catholic school, he studied the catechism." Barack Obama has been
associated with the United Church of Christ since the mid-1980s,
describes himself as a Christian, and says that he is "rooted in the
Christian tradition."


When he was a child in Indonesia, Obama spent a couple of years at a
Catholic school and another couple of years at a school that was
predominantly Muslim (because Indonesia itself is predominantly
Muslim). In his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama elaborated on
his early schooling, explaining that he attended both Catholic and
Muslim schools in Indonesia - not out of any particular religious
affiliation, but because his mother wanted him to obtain the best
education possible under the circumstances:
During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in
Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then
to a predominantly Muslim school; in both cases, my mother was less
concerned with me learning the catechism or puzzling out the meaning
of the muezzin's call to evening prayer than she was with whether I
was properly learning my multiplication tables.
Claim: Obama's father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a radical
Muslim who migrated from Kenya to Jakarta, Indonesia. He met Obama's
mother, Ann Dunham, a white atheist from Wichita, Kansas at the
University of Hawaii at Manoa. Obama, Sr. and Dunham divorced when
Barack, Jr. was two.


Barack Obama's father (also named Barack Obama) was born on the shores
of Lake Victoria in Alego, Kenya. Although the elder Obama was raised
as a Muslim, no evidence supports the claim that he was ever a
"radical Muslim," and Senator Obama's family histories note that his
father was an atheist or agnostic (i.e., no longer a practicing
Muslim) by the time he married the younger Obama's mother.


Claim: Obama's spinmeisters are now attempting to make it appear that
Obama's introduction to Islam came from his father and that influence
was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya
immediately following the divorce and never again had any direct
influence over his son's education.


The notion that "Obama's spinmeisters are now attempting to make it
appear that Obama's introduction to Islam came from his father" and
deliberately obscuring the "reality" that his father had little
"influence over his son's education" is just silly in light of the
fact that Barack Obama himself has repeatedly acknowledged that his
parents split up when he was two years old and that he scarcely knew
his father:
My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been
divorced from my mother when I was two years old.


At the time of his death, my father remained a myth to me, both more
and less than a man. He had left Hawaii back in 1963, when I was only
two years old, so that as a child I knew him only through the stories
that my mother and grandparents told.
(Barack's only other childhood contact with his father occurred when
he was eleven years old, and his father came to visit Hawaii for a
month at Christmastime.)


Claim: Dunham married another Muslim, Lolo Soetoro who educated his
stepson as a good Muslim by enrolling him in one of Jakarta's Wahabbi
schools. Wahabbism is the radical teaching that created the Muslim
terrorists who are now waging Jihad on the industrialized world.


The claim that Obama attended a radical Wahabbist school in Indonesia
in the 1960s is exceedingly far-fetched, given that:
The large Indonesian community resident in Mecca was a medium through
which knowledge about Wahhabism reached Indonesia, but the community
itself appears to have remained virtually immune to Wahhabi
influences. In reality there was little direct influence of Wahhabism
on Indonesian reformist thought until the 1970s.
Insight magazine claimed in a January 2007 article that Barack Obama
spent at least four years attending what is variously described as a
"madrassa," a "radical Muslim religious school," or a "Muslim
seminary" in Indonesia, but CNN has more recently reported that its
own investigation found those claims to be false:
[R]eporting by CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C., shows
the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false. CNN
dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to
investigate.


He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971.


"This is a public school. We don't focus on religion," Hardi Priyono,
deputy headmaster of the Basuki school, told Vause. "In our daily
lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential
treatment."

Just a bit different than what you claimed.

It pisses me off that so many people support Hillary Clinton. Aren't we about due for a president who's not a compulsive liar? Or that didn't rise to power on somebody else's coattails?

I thought that was the preferred description of US presidents?

It's been gospel since 2000, at least.

We have to remember this is an American election we're talking about. Half of voters use the eenie-meenie-minee-mo method.

In short, no.

He's been trailing in the polls for a long time, and after the benefits of victory in Iowa disappeared with his surprise loss in New Hampshire....

He's been up by 10 points in SC so I think he'll win that. He'll also win Florida or it'll be very close. We all must realize that Obama was down by 10 points in New Hampshire a week before the contest. After winning Iowa he was prematurely thrown ahead. His "lead" was more imagined and a product of media thumping. He ran a close 2nd in a primarily Republican state which would side more with Clinton. He also had independents voting for McCain and Edwards which made it more difficult for him to climb past Hillary. Don't count him out as he still has plenty of juice, money, and time. If he takes a pounding on Super Tuesday then we can call it trouble. It is my belief that Edwards bows out after Super Tuesday and formally endorses no one. His supporters will flock to Obama rather than Clinton.

And how many Republicans will be voting for either Hilary or Obama? Your poll is limited to Republicans you know?


You are discounting Hilary's 8 years in the White House? Also, Obama loss an election bid to the House or Representatives earlier.


Well according to the following (http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/the-obama-muslim-shell-game-catholic-school-docs-show-obama-registered-as-muslim/):


Most of that is validated by Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp).

I think that the Republicans will play that out in any election campaign, just like they swift boated John Kerry in 2004.

Actually most of that snopes thing was refuted by Snopes themselves. 8 years as first lady does not a strong leader make.

We have to remember this is an American election we're talking about. Half of voters use the eenie-meenie-minee-mo method.

And the other half don't even vote.

And the other half don't even vote.

True.

Anyway, I hope Obama wins. Hillary sucks. There are many reasons why, but I'm in a hurry right now.

Unfortunately, even if you bring up those reasons, her supporters (and some who don't even support her) will claim it's just because she's a woman.

Another aspect would be, if Obama did get the nomination, would former members of the hostile Hillary camp vote for him (or vice-versa)?

Uh, lol wut.



How about Ron Paul? ;/ (http://ronpaul2008.com)

We don't have to worry. The Illuminati will take care of Ron Paul, and all of the Freemasons (including Hillary and Obama) will TAKE IT ALL.


----------

Anyway, I hope Obama wins. Hillary sucks. There are many reasons why, but I'm in a hurry right now.

Hillary sucks.
No she doesn't. Otherwise, that whole Monica scandal would have been avoided :D

Obama is actually ahead in terms of delegates won--38 to 36. In fact, he won Nevada 13 to 12. If this neck to neck thing keeps up, Edwards will probably hand Obama the nomination in exchange for the VP slot. Obama is far from out. It's Hillary who needs to worry

That would be awesome...Obama/Edwards 08

Another aspect would be, if Obama did get the nomination, would former members of the hostile Hillary camp vote for him (or vice-versa)?

Hard to say. Given the Republican field, I might vote for Clinton to avoid them. But it would be the "lesser evil" kind of vote, instead of actually voting for someone I thought was a good candidate.

Can you say superdelegates? If Obama keeps winning like he did in in Iowa and Nevada, it may come down to the superdelegates. Most are still unpleged, but that'd be how she'd do it.

i know it is wrong of me tactically, but part of me really wants to see how they would handle a brokered convention given how scripted conventions are at this point.

Another aspect would be, if Obama did get the nomination, would former members of the hostile Hillary camp vote for him (or vice-versa)?

yes for the vast majority

i know it is wrong of me tactically, but part of me really wants to see how they would handle a brokered convention given how scripted conventions are at this point.
Especially since it is politically incorrect to have "smoke-filled rooms" anymore :D

Unfortunately, even if you bring up those reasons, her supporters (and some who don't even support her) will claim it's just because she's a woman.

You just say that because they're supporting a woman ;)

It's true, though. It seems like the first question asked any time anyone says they don't support Clinton is "So you wouldn't vote for a woman?"

It's kind of sad that rather than assume the person you're talking to is intelligent and has made an informed decision on which candidate to support, we'd just rather assume they're sexist morons.

Especially since it is politically incorrect to have "smoke-filled rooms" anymore :D

they'll have to use a fog machine or something.

Unfortunately, even if you bring up those reasons, her supporters (and some who don't even support her) will claim it's just because she's a woman.

well, it will depend on what the reasons are - if its something like the ever popular "when she comes on television, i involuntarily cross my legs" or some clearly insane rantings about communism, i think the fear of a strong woman with power rather neatly sums it up.

Wow, Hillary Clinton is not THAT bad you guys. She doesn't spit fire and eat babies and she will do a decent job as president. Besides, Obama is FAR from out of the race. I personally think he will win South Carolina and then everyone will be wondering if Clinton is done for because the media is on crack. Someone is in trouble the moment they lose a state.

I don't understand why people are so afraid of her winning though. She's not very different from Obama and Edwards, despite the massive campaign to make everyone believe she is Bush Jr. I personally believe she is capable of doing a better job as president than Obama, although I feel that Edwards is the best option. I'm starting to doubt Edwards' ability to get elected though due to the 4% showing in Nevada. Those are Richardson kind of numbers! That's when you panic people, not when your guy is behind by 5%!

So anyway, Obama still has a great shot. If you support him, why the hell are you being so pessimistic when he is either in first or a strong second in all the very small number of contests so far? Also, don't hate on Hillary so much. She's still on the side of good, unlike any Republican candidate.

Edwards suffered from a systemic undercount because of the nature of the caucus: in order to have your vote count at all, you had to be grouped with at least 15% of the other attendees to be considered "viable". If you were not part of such a group, you could change your vote to a "viable" candidate, or you could go home. Obama did a better job of getting viability in each precinct than Edwards, which meant that when it came time for those supporting non-viable candidates, most went to Obama, some went to Hillary, and a few went home. I should know: I was the only "non-viable" person in my precinct because I held out for Dodd. The end result was exactly what the caucus is designed to do: it winnows the field to two or three supercandidates and presents the minor candidates as completely unrepresented.

I will say though that I was absolutely staggered by the level of support for Hillary; I haven't seen that many white middle-aged women in one place since Phish stopped touring. She's got a huge level of support in the suburbs, and there's the additional fact that she's got a huge level of support among Hispanics who simply don't support a black candidate. And keep in mind, this is in a place that in 2000 had about 5% of registered Democrats show up for the primary; the guess is that about 30-40% showed up for the caucus. This is massive. I for one do hope that, given the choice between Obama and Hillary, Obama wins. I voted for what they made Gore into, and I voted for Kerry, and I will never again settle for the machine candidate because he or she is better than the Republican alternative. By settling, I've only convinced the Democratic Party that it doesn't have to listen to me because I have nowhere else to turn; I will now do my best to convince them otherwise. But we should also recognize that there are huge amounts of people in this country who simply do not see it this way; why I don't know yet.

I don't really know. What I do know is that people should stop making such a fuss over the primaries. It's not the "real" election for heaven's sake. Wake me up on November Sixth.

but the polls also said that Kerry would win '04.
Kerry did win. Just not the electoral vote (and even that was about five votes off). A sort of "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment for the US, I guess.


4. return power to the states and thus give power back to WE THE PEOPLE.

So wait, states are people now?

He is also:
Virulently anti-choice, to the point of trying — multiple times — to amend the Constitution to ban it,
to ban choice? seriously, be more clear with your language. "Anti-choice" and "pro-choice" both apply to a whole lot more than abortion.

I thought that was the preferred description of US presidents?

It's been gospel since 2000, at least.
Since much before then, I'll reckon (although I don't think I paid much attention to politics before, say, 1998).

I don't really know. What I do know is that people should stop making such a fuss over the primaries. It's not the "real" election for heaven's sake. Wake me up on November Sixth.

But what happens in the next few weeks will have a massive effect on what happens in November.

Kerry did win. Just not the electoral vote (and even that was about five votes off). A sort of "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment for the US, I guess.



I think you're talking about Gore in 2000, not Kerry in 2004...

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6138/obamapicht1.jpg

:D

I think you're talking about Gore in 2000, not Kerry in 2004...
It is by no means clear that the votes were counted honestly in 2004. The concerns about that have never been satisfactorily laid to rest: I don't necessarily believe that election was stolen (as I do believe about 2000), but I don't dismiss the concerns as conspiracy-theorist-ranting either.

Personally, I see 2 and 3 as advantages. Obama isn't inexperienced in general - he's inexperienced in Washington in particular. I don't see that as a bad thing.

And having been raised partially outside the US - particularly in a predominantly Muslim region (he wasn't raised in any particular religion) - is also an advantage. Some of our biggest diplomatic hurdles are with predominantly Muslim nations. Having that understanding can only be a good thing.

And he pulls in lots of Independent voters - even in the primary process. That ability will likely be important in the general election as well.

So he went to a Muslim school for a period of time and a Catholic school for a period of time and spent the vast majority of his education in secular schools. I don't really see what that proves.
Assuming that Obama will hold all the Blue States, which of the Red States can he turn Blue to seal a win?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/ElectoralCollege2004-Large.PNG

I think you're talking about Gore in 2000, not Kerry in 2004...

I could be mixing 'em up. So many elections going on, you know, they come and go. *shrugs* :D

In all seriousness, yeah, you're right. I probably look pretty stupid now. Nonetheless, the election was also particularly close in 2004; and there were also the odd allegations of fraud and tampering; anyway, some guy named Bush was running in both cases. It's possible to mix them up if you're really politically apathetic, I guess.

Assuming that Obama will hold all the Blue States, which of the Red States can he turn Blue to seal a win?

Ohio, Florida, or both.

Assuming that Obama will hold all the Blue States, which of the Red States can he turn Blue to seal a win?


The first that blurt into my mind are Indiana and Ohio. Both went to Bush by very narrow margins in 2004. With deteriorating economic conditions, both could go Blue. I also think he had a decent shot at Missouri.

Assuming that Obama will hold all the Blue States, which of the Red States can he turn Blue to seal a win?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/ElectoralCollege2004-Large.PNG
Florida + Louisiana to begin with.

Assuming that Obama will hold all the Blue States, which of the Red States can he turn Blue to seal a win?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/ElectoralCollege2004-Large.PNG



He would get Iowa solidly, according to http://electoral-vote.com/
There are strong cultural ties between the more populous areas of Iowa and Illinois/Chicago. Colorado, Nevada, and Missouri are strong possibilities. I doubt he would get Florida or Indiana, due to the prevalence of racism I think.

Actually most of that snopes thing was refuted by Snopes themselves. 8 years as first lady does not a strong leader make.

Bingo and BINGO!

i know it is wrong of me tactically, but part of me really wants to see how they would handle a brokered convention given how scripted conventions are at this point.

First time in ages that both major parties are headed that way it seems. :D Just imagine two conventions up in the air plus Bloomberg....

Especially since it is politically incorrect to have "smoke-filled rooms" anymore :D
they'll have to use a fog machine or something.


Hehe.


I don't really know. What I do know is that people should stop making such a fuss over the primaries. It's not the "real" election for heaven's sake. Wake me up on November Sixth.

Well, the election in Novbember will hinge on who the parties nominate. The big questions are 1) Will the dems give the GOP 4 more years by nomninating Billary and 2) Will the GOP give the Dems a run for their money by nominating McCain.


http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6138/obamapicht1.jpg

:D

Awsome indeed. :D

Assuming that Obama will hold all the Blue States, which of the Red States can he turn Blue to seal a win?

The US is pretty purple in reality.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/2004_US_elections_purple_counties.png

A lot of those you gave Red are swing states that Obama can swing (he's pulling the Indies and ever GOP votes) and Clinton will lose hard.

CH, I really have to ask you now why you have such a hard on for
Billary? Honestly I cannot see her winning the general election at all.

It also depends on who the Republicans nominate. If they nominate Huckabee, I could definately see the Repubertarians defect to the Democrats. The republicans are much less a united front from last election. There are major splits within the party, mostly concerning Evangelicals. The Democrats must exploit this by nominating someone that can draw support from the fringes of the Republican party. The only one that can do that, as I see it, is an Obama campaign with an (american) centrist as his running mate. Again, I think Richardson would be good here.

If Clinton wins they're handing the elections to republicans.

Hillary Clinton is a strong woman which is a big no no to an average god fearing American

(note: if you don't fear god this doesn't concern you :p)

It also depends on who the Republicans nominate. If they nominate Huckabee, I could definately see the Repubertarians defect to the Democrats. The republicans are much less a united front from last election. There are major splits within the party, mostly concerning Evangelicals. The Democrats must exploit this by nominating someone that can draw support from the fringes of the Republican party. The only one that can do that, as I see it, is an Obama campaign with an (american) centrist as his running mate. Again, I think Richardson would be good here.

Exactly so. Much as I hate to say it, I've had to abandon the GOP to the Christofacists. :mad: And it's not just the CFs - the whole GOP coalition of the past 30 years is now a nonsenseical monstrosity.

RE Richardson, I'll point out once again that I oppose that la Raza racists being on the ticket. Sec. State I'll take, but hell no to VP.

If Clinton wins they're handing the elections to republicans.

Agreed.

Hillary Clinton is a strong woman which is a big no no to an average god fearing American

Not agreed. Gender is a minimal isssue here. Billary is a widly reviled neocon in sheep 's clothes sleazeball who will loose the general election. The problem is whether the Democratic party can get over it's Boomer hard on for Billary. If not, 4 more years of GOP.

Assuming that Obama will hold all the Blue States, which of the Red States can he turn Blue to seal a win?


Thinking of it in that terms is precisely the problem and it is those who are sick of being labeled into neat little "red" or "blue" state packages that are looking for a change.

I don't know exactly what states would go for Obama. I do know he's probably got more support in GA than I've ever seen for a Democrat candidate, but we'll see how that pans out. Very few of those states went to the Republicans by more than a few percent last election. They really could go either way.

Gender is a minimal isssue here. Billary is a widly reviled neocon in sheep 's clothes sleazeball who will loose the general election. The problem is whether the Democratic party can get over it's Boomer hard on for Billary. If not, 4 more years of GOP.

Definitly. Thus far the only group I've seen pushing her gender as an issue is, oddly enough, her own camp. It makes for a very effective shield and fits in nicely with Clinton's campaign tactics: if you can't beat them, smear them.

Assuming that Obama will hold all the Blue States, which of the Red States can he turn Blue to seal a win?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/ElectoralCollege2004-Large.PNG

NM and IA, almost certainly. NV, OH and WV, maybe. IN, possibly but not likely (it might depend on the GOP candidate). FL, no (the white and Cuban vote is too strongly GOP). LA, no. Most of the people who fled after Katrina and haven't returned were black Democrats.

Obama cant win because young people dont vote. That is why their is so much talk and buzz about his campaign but he doesnt win. Its great to have the young vote and much of the black vote and whoever else, but the fact is that white people over the age of 25, especially males, actually vote where as most from other demographics dont.

Obama cant win because young people dont vote. That is why their is so much talk and buzz about his campaign but he doesnt win. Its great to have the young vote and much of the black vote and whoever else, but the fact is that white people over the age of 25, especially males, actually vote where as most from other demographics dont.


Oddly enough, it's just recently that I've been seeing this contest as a generational one.

Obama has the "Gen Y"s pat. Billary has the boomers. It is the Xers that are the battleground, and Obama, being an Xer, has the advantage....

Obama cant win because young people dont vote. That is why their is so much talk and buzz about his campaign but he doesnt win. Its great to have the young vote and much of the black vote and whoever else, but the fact is that white people over the age of 25, especially males, actually vote where as most from other demographics dont.

Funnily enough, young people are getting out to vote this time, in record numbers! If you watched the results come in from caucuses and primaries, there's reports of students filling the polls to make their voices heard! Barack's inspiring a generation in a way that nobody has been able to since JFK. He's got Democrats, Independents, and even a few Republicans flocking to his banner. His message transcends ideology; it transcends petty politics.

I know that my campus chapter of Students for Barack Obama is hoping to get as many professors as possible to cancel classes on Super Tuesday to encourage people to get out and vote, and we're hoping that some do.

And remember, Barack still has more pledged delegates than Bil... er... Hillary does. He tied NH and actually won Nevada (as far as delegates go-- and, no matter how the media spins it, that's what matters.). He's getting ready to win South Carolina, and that momentum should carry him for a good position into Super Tuesday.

Obama cant win because young people dont vote.

The fact that they haven't in the past doesn't mean that they won't. There was an amazing number of young voters at the Iowa caucus - and nearly 50% of the total attendees at the Democrat caucus had never caucused before. This election is pulling out people who have never bothered to vote before, so I don't think we can completely discount any group.

Correction, she'll never be able to do anything without the conservanuts making loud noises.

Indeed. With Obama, there's a possibility, but a tiny one, definitely.

Hopefully not. Civi rights lawyers are amongst the most vile, vacuous and unworthy of modern professionals; why on earth would anybody seek to elect one as president?

Hopefully not. Politicians are amongst the most vile, vacuous and unworthy of modern professionals; why on earth would anybody seek to elect one as president?

Fixed. :)

Hopefully not. Civi rights lawyers are amongst the most vile, vacuous and unworthy of modern professionals; why on earth would anybody seek to elect one as president?

Oh man, the reasoning behind this ought to be a hoot...

Oh man, the reasoning behind this ought to be a hoot...

My dad uses this kind of argument against John Edwards all the time. (snickers)

My dad uses this kind of argument against John Edwards all the time. (snickers)

ya but edwards was a personal injury lawyer.

which i suppose isnt that much removed from a civil rights lawyer. they both get people the redress they deserve, one just makes a hellofa lot more money than the other.

Oh man, the reasoning behind this ought to be a hoot...

IIRC, TBC is an self-proclaimed fascist and thinks civil liberties are foolish.

Those two things are contradictory. Either the power remains with the people, or it goes to the states.

Technically, the power lies either with the national government or the states--the people are incidental.

Well, he just won South Carolina. I think he is well on his way to the nomination.

70% too, thus far...

Shit, you lot throw in the towel at the slightest provocation. I'd hate to be on a sports team with you.

I laugh again.

Hurray, my worries may have been completely unjustified!

I've been thinking about it: Obama might grab the nomination at the last- Edwards has been positioning himself more with Obama than with Billary, and if Edwards drops out at the end of the race and gives his support to Obama, he's got the nomination easily. I think...

Can one candidate give his delegates to an other in the National Convention?

Hurray, my worries may have been completely unjustified!

I've been thinking about it: Obama might grab the nomination at the last- Edwards has been positioning himself more with Obama than with Billary, and if Edwards drops out at the end of the race and gives his support to Obama, he's got the nomination easily. I think...

Can one candidate give his delegates to an other in the National Convention?

Yes, it was quite common once upon a time. The most common scenario was the one they've been discussing since Iowa: no candidate comes into the convention with enough delgates to secure the nomination. Another candidate with enough delegates to put one or another candidate over the top pledges his delegates to the other in return for a political favor (usually being named as the winner's running mate).

Yes, it was quite common once upon a time. The most common scenario was the one they've been discussing since Iowa: no candidate comes into the convention with enough delgates to secure the nomination. Another candidate with enough delegates to put one or another candidate over the top pledges his delegates to the other in return for a political favor (usually being named as the winner's running mate).
Are those delegates that are turned over to the other candidate completely bound to that candidate or can they freely choose another candidate?

Hopefully not. Civi rights lawyers are amongst the most vile, vacuous and unworthy of modern professionals; why on earth would anybody seek to elect one as president?

To be honest, this is the greatest argument against Obama.

And that's saying a lot since this argument sucks more than a vacuum...

Anyway, big South Carolina Victory. Congrats to Obama.

Are those delegates that are turned over to the other candidate completely bound to that candidate or can they freely choose another candidate?

I think they can technically vote however they want, but usually vote the way they're "supposed to" vote. I'm not certain of that, though.

I think they can technically vote however they want, but usually vote the way they're "supposed to" vote. I'm not certain of that, though.
I think it would be extremely undemocratic if those delegates were not allowed to choose freely who they supported after "their" pledged candidate was out of the running.

Here in Canada, a candidate might throw their support to another candidate, but their supporters are not bound to follow that direction.

On NPR they were asking that question and it seems that when a delegates candidate drops out of the race, that delegate can put their vote for whomever they want.

To be honest, this is the greatest argument against Obama.

I thought the greatest arguments against him were that A) he's inexperienced and possibly unelectable; B) he's a Democrat. The civil rights lawyer argument would come in third.

On NPR they were asking that question and it seems that when a delegates candidate drops out of the race, that delegate can put their vote for whomever they want.

thats what i was thinking. they are bound for the first ballot at the convention IF their guy is still in the race. i dont think they are "slaves" of the candidate. if he drops out, they vote as they think best.

On NPR they were asking that question and it seems that when a delegates candidate drops out of the race, that delegate can put their vote for whomever they want.
That makes the most sense....thanks!!

Hurray, my worries may have been completely unjustified!

Give that man a gold star. ;)

I've been thinking about it: Obama might grab the nomination at the last- Edwards has been positioning himself more with Obama than with Billary, and if Edwards drops out at the end of the race and gives his support to Obama, he's got the nomination easily. I think...

Indeed so. This is the most likely scenario at the moment. It's the "brokered convention" Free Soviets mentioned above. Edwards will stay in until Super Tuesday. On that day, the whole election is most likely going to be decided something like this:

If Obama win's big, he'll most likely be the next president.

If Clinton wins big, she'll get the nomination and loose the race. Bloomberg will probably jump in. Then the race will go one of two ways, depending on the GOP's candidate. If the GOP nominates McCain, he'll beat Clinton, no question. And if they nominate another candidate, it'll be 1992 all over again, but with the roles switched. The race will be close, but Bloomberg will pull the needed votes from the Dems and the GOP will win.

And if it's a toss up, Edwards will be offered the VP spot in exchange for his delegates. I expect he'll go with Obama, winning both the nomination and the election.


Can one candidate give his delegates to an other in the National Convention?

Already answered well, but here's some pertinant info:

Eighty percent of the total delegates, known as pledged delegates, are elected to represent a particular presidential candidate through caucuses and primaries in each state.
So far, Hillary Clinton has amassed 36 pledged delegates (0.8 percent of the total), Barack Obama has 38 (0.9 percent), and John Edwards has 18 (0.4 percent). A pledged delegate is theoretically bound to vote for the candidate he or she is pledged to and each campaign has input in who is chosen as its delegates. (Voters also get to vote on who some of the delegates are.) However, while the DNC rules state that "delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them," there is no actual requirement that they vote for the candidate they are pledged to.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_convention_delegate_process_explained


Are those delegates that are turned over to the other candidate completely bound to that candidate or can they freely choose another candidate?

Technically no, they're not compelled to do so, but traditionally and in practical terms yes. Here's a good overview I found: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/convention-delegates-not-bound-to.html

I think they can technically vote however they want, but usually vote the way they're "supposed to" vote. I'm not certain of that, though.

Exactly so.

On NPR they were asking that question and it seems that when a delegates candidate drops out of the race, that delegate can put their vote for whomever they want.

I thought the greatest arguments against him were that A) he's inexperienced and possibly unelectable; B) he's a Democrat. The civil rights lawyer argument would come in third.

Here's some interesting stuff about Billary's "experience". (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18391632)

thats what i was thinking. they are bound for the first ballot at the convention IF their guy is still in the race. i dont think they are "slaves" of the candidate. if he drops out, they vote as they think best.

According the the overview I posted for CH, that rule was changed after the 1980 convention, and now they're supposed to do so but not required to do so.

ya but edwards was a personal injury lawyer.

which i suppose isnt that much removed from a civil rights lawyer. they both get people the redress they deserve, one just makes a hellofa lot more money than the other.

Hmph, true. Dad also has the annoying habit of never listening in arguments.

If Obama win's big, he'll most likely be the next president.
I don't see Obama winning the nomination, and if he does, I certainly don't see him winning the Presidency, unless Hillary is his running mate, and I only rate that as an outside chance.

BTW, these (at this time) polls do not truly support your supposition.

White House 2008: General Election (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm)

If Clinton wins big, she'll get the nomination
Which I think she will.

and loose the race.
I think she has a better shot at the Presidency, especially if Obama is her running mate.

Bloomberg will probably jump in. Then the race will go one of two ways, depending on the GOP's candidate. If the GOP nominates McCain, he'll beat Clinton, no question. And if they nominate another candidate, it'll be 1992 all over again, but with the roles switched. The race will be close, but Bloomberg will pull the needed votes from the Dems and the GOP will win.
But probably he won't?

Why Bloomberg May Not Want to Run (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1635537,00.html)

And if he did run, who knows where his votes will come from?

And if it's a toss up, Edwards will be offered the VP spot in exchange for his delegates. I expect he'll go with Obama, winning both the nomination and the election.
I think this proposition is made of fail.

Technically no, they're not compelled to do so, but traditionally and in practical terms yes. Here's a good overview I found: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/convention-delegates-not-bound-to.html
In a free and democratic society, it is nice to know that the delegates will be free to vote their own conscience if their main candidate goes down to defeat.

I don't see Obama winning the nomination, and if he does, I certainly don't see him winning the Presidency, unless Hillary is his running mate, and I only rate that as an outside chance.

[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven]BTW, these (at this time) polls do not truly support your supposition.

White House 2008: General Election (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm)

Errr... no.

Those polls show Obama would solidly beat every GOP candidate. As for Clinton, they show she'd loose to McCain, the most likely GOP candidate, and none account for Bloomberg.

Which I think she will.


I think she has a better shot at the Presidency, especially if Obama is her running mate.

At this point, I see no way she'll do either.

But probably he won't?

Why Bloomberg May Not Want to Run (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1635537,00.html)

All his coyness indicates to me is he's waiting on Super Tuesday.

And if he did run, who knows where his votes will come from?

All one has to do is look at his record. It is easy to see he'll pull the Clinton hating Dems.

I think this proposition is made of fail.

Not at all. The only viable candidacy witrh any chance of winning made of fail is Billary. Do not underestimate how utterly hated they are by a fair segment in the US - one large enough to swing the election. A Billary nomination will mean 4 more years of GOP. Hopefully it will be McCain's GOP.

Those polls show Obama would solidly beat every GOP candidate. As for Clinton, they show she'd loose to McCain, the most likely GOP candidate, and none account for Bloomberg.
You didn't look at ALL the polls? Several showed Clinton beating McCain. Several showed Obama losing to McCain.

At this point, I see no way she'll do either.
I think that Clinton will do very well on Super Tuesday, certainly much better than Obama.

All his coyness indicates to me is he's waiting on Super Tuesday.
Bloomberg can't win and he knows that. I don't think he will bother.

All one has to do is look at his record. It is easy to see he'll pull the Clinton hating Dems.
Or the pissed off Hillary supporters, if Obama wins the nomination?

Not at all. The only viable candidacy witrh any chance of winning made of fail is Billary. Do not underestimate how utterly hated they are by a fair segment in the US - one large enough to swing the election. A Billary nomination will mean 4 more years of GOP. Hopefully it will be McCain's GOP.
A Clinton/Obama run would have all the right stuff to win the White House.

A Clinton/Obama run would have all the right stuff to win the White House.

That can't really happen, those two are/will be sworn unspoken enemies by the time of the convention. I think Obama was expecting to be her running mate earlier on in the run, but that died when he surged in popularity and Clinton got... scared.

You didn't look at ALL the polls? Several showed Clinton beating McCain. Several showed Obama losing to McCain.


You might want to check that link. The page it leads us to has Obama tied to McCain and beating everyone else and Clinton losing to McCain. The other polls are just later polls and still don't reflect what you said. Perhaps you can link to what you're referring to instead of linking to a page that essentially says the opposite of what you're asserting?

You might want to check that link. The page it leads us to has Obama tied to McCain and beating everyone else and Clinton losing to McCain. The other polls are just later polls and still don't reflect what you said. Perhaps you can link to what you're referring to instead of linking to a page that essentially says the opposite of what you're asserting?

that might prove difficult, what with reality being the way it is and all

On NPR they were asking that question and it seems that when a delegates candidate drops out of the race, that delegate can put their vote for whomever they want.

yeah - though typically "whoever they want" is just whoever has the nomination locked up already or whoever their original candidate endorses (usually the same person).

You might want to check that link. The page it leads us to has Obama tied to McCain and beating everyone else and Clinton losing to McCain. The other polls are just later polls and still don't reflect what you said. Perhaps you can link to what you're referring to instead of linking to a page that essentially says the opposite of what you're asserting?
The scroll wheel is your friend?

that might prove difficult, what with reality being the way it is and all
Reality is reality? I can't help it if people don't know how to read the data that is on the page?

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

:D

The scroll wheel is your friend?

Pfff, I only have one click button on my mouse, you what a scroll wheel?

Anyway, scrolling down doesn't reveal what you state it does, either. It has Hillary losing to McCain in a number of the polls, Obama in a few, but really doesn't reflect the analysis that you assign to it, so you'll have to be more specific.

The scroll wheel is your friend?

Hi. I went through all of them.

The only one that shows Obama losing to anyone is to McCain, and only by one percentage point, which would presumably be within a margin of error.

I'm sorry but the polls just do not support your assertion, no matter how much you insist on it.

Really, CanuckHeaven, this is a tactic worthy of Cornelieu, not you.

On that CH chart, I'll try and condense so we can get at the meat of it-

NBC/Wall Street Journal
This one has Hillary beating McCain barely (46-44%) and Obama tied (42-42%) with McCain. This hardly seems compelling. This intervals are way too close to call anything on.

LA Times/Bloomberg
This one Hillary takes McCain (46-42%) and Obama loses slightly to McCain (41-42%)

Point for Canuck, but really-barely.

USA Today/Gallup

This one has Clinton losing to McCain (50-47%) and Obama also losing to McCain (50-45%)

We could award this point to Canuck if we acknowledge that Obama lost by more. Half point.

Diageo/Hotline Poll
Obama takes a win in this one over McCain, (42-43%). This time 'barely' comes out in Obama's favor. Clinton also gains (48-45%)

Reuters/Zogby Poll
Clinton takes a dive here against McCain (47-42%), Barrack does better, but still loses (45-43%)

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll
Hillary again leads McCain (50-48%) and Barrack in a closer fight wins (49-48%)

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll
Ah Fox...
McCain beats Clinton (47-42%) and Obama loses (44-40%)

But that's Fox...

These numbers aren't as decisive as you're presenting them. In fact, they're all too close to qualify a result thats 10 months of campaigning away.

Really, CanuckHeaven, this is a tactic worthy of Cornelieu, not you.

*dies of laughter*

This made my day.

And yes. Obama can do it. In fact, if he gets the nomination, I just might vote for him.

*dies of laughter*

This made my day.

And yes. Obama can do it. In fact, if he gets the nomination, I just might vote for him.



Thats exactly why he will probably win. He can bring Reps in too.

Thats exactly why he will probably win. He can bring Reps in too.

Well if McCain gets the nomination, I'd trust Obama with the title than that asshat.

Well if McCain gets the nomination, I'd trust Obama with the title than that asshat.

What if Rommney wins? I believe it was you I Rommney bashed with on a different thread.

What if Rommney wins? I believe it was you I Rommney bashed with on a different thread.

I'd probably still vote for Obama. I'm just going to sit back and watch how the campaign unfolds before I cast my ballot. Speaking of which, I probably should change my address for voting purposes.

Hi. I went through all of them.

The only one that shows Obama losing to anyone is to McCain, and only by one percentage point, which would presumably be within a margin of error.
Look again? USA Today (1/10-13/08) poll shows Obama losing by 5 points, and in the same poll, Hillary beating McCain by 5.

Los Angeles Times (1/18-22/08) poll shows Obama losing by 1 point to McCain and Hilary beating McCain by 4 points. The previous poll (10/19-22/07) had Obama winning by 8 points, and Hillary winning by 10 points.

CNN (1/9-10/08) poll, shows Obama beating McCain by 1 point, and Hillary beating McCain by 2 points.


I'm sorry but the polls just do not support your assertion, no matter how much you insist on it.

Really, CanuckHeaven, this is a tactic worthy of Cornelieu, not you.
Such a low blow!!

Those polls do show your assertion to be incorrect?

I won't insist upon an apology. :D

On that CH chart, I'll try and condense so we can get at the meat of it-

NBC/Wall Street Journal
This one has Hillary beating McCain barely (46-44%) and Obama tied (42-42%) with McCain. This hardly seems compelling. This intervals are way too close to call anything on.

LA Times/Bloomberg
This one Hillary takes McCain (46-42%) and Obama loses slightly to McCain (41-42%)

Point for Canuck, but really-barely.

USA Today/Gallup

This one has Clinton losing to McCain (50-47%) and Obama also losing to McCain (50-45%)

We could award this point to Canuck if we acknowledge that Obama lost by more. Half point.

Diageo/Hotline Poll
Obama takes a win in this one over McCain, (42-43%). This time 'barely' comes out in Obama's favor. Clinton also gains (48-45%)

Reuters/Zogby Poll
Clinton takes a dive here against McCain (47-42%), Barrack does better, but still loses (45-43%)

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll
Hillary again leads McCain (50-48%) and Barrack in a closer fight wins (49-48%)

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll
Ah Fox...
McCain beats Clinton (47-42%) and Obama loses (44-40%)

But that's Fox...

These numbers aren't as decisive as you're presenting them. In fact, they're all too close to qualify a result thats 10 months of campaigning away.

I must agree with CH on this one. When it comes to national numbers on the nomination Clinton is pretty stable. This site does the job of averaging for you on head to heads. Obama doing very well head to head.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

Obama +3

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Clinton trounces Romney

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_clinton-230.html

But Obama has better numbers
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-231.html

Clinton looks good against Huckabee here

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_huckabee_vs_clinton-515.html

Obama?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html

Clinton V. Rudy

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html

Lastly, Obama?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_obama-228.html

Edit: It's close but as you notice Obama has bigger leads.

What? Soheran, don't tell me you believe that. He's still neck and neck with delegates(which is what counts, no matter how the media acts), especially since Hillary's lead in superdelegates is only because most have yet to decide who to back.

Tie, not loss.

It's unfair of me to reply to this so late (I forgot about this thread), but for the record, "how the media acts" is precisely what matters when it comes to the early primaries. The delegate totals are irrelevant at this point.

I must agree with CH on this one. When it comes to national numbers on the nomination Clinton is pretty stable. This site does the job of averaging for you on head to heads. Obama doing very well head to head.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

Obama +3

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Clinton trounces Romney

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_clinton-230.html

But Obama has better numbers
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-231.html

Clinton looks good against Huckabee here

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_huckabee_vs_clinton-515.html

Obama?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html

Clinton V. Rudy

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html

Lastly, Obama?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_obama-228.html

Edit: It's close but as you notice Obama has bigger leads.

Wait, how are you reading all of that and coming out for Clinton...I'm not getting this.

Wait, how are you reading all of that and coming out for Clinton...I'm not getting this.

No I agree, national numbers look great for Clinton. I'm not for her in the slightest. However Barack's numbers look better head to head. So I agree with CH in one way and disagree on how they match head to head. Barack's numbers are better than Hillary's.

No I agree, national numbers look great for Clinton. I'm not for her in the slightest. However Barack's numbers look better head to head. So I agree with CH in one way and disagree on how they match head to head. Barack's numbers are better than Hillary's.

You're making my head swim. CH is saying that Clinton is more of a lock. You're saying Obama's numbers are better but that you agree with CH. This makes me want to poke kittens with sharp things.

And I like kittens.

Please end the confusion.