NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah,but 4 delegates is like a last second buzzer beater in overtime to tie. Seriously 4 delgates is almost nothing. Yeah you can win by 1 but still with this many delegates left 4 might as well be 0.
More like a last-second buzzer beater at halftime. Sure it's nicer to go into the locker room a point up than a point down, but really....

Canuck, Liuzzo: because Michigan and Florida broke the rules, the candidates were not supposed to campaign there. Kucinich defied the campaigning ban in Michigan; Clinton in Florida.

Getting back to the point of the post you responded to. Mich and Fla were deemed to have broken the party rules.
I was aware of that.

They were stripped of their delegates and that's that.
However, they have been offered a make up.

Hillary trying to gain delegates from states where she was the only one who remained on the ballot (due to the aforementioned rules thing) is f?cking weak.
Hillary was not the only one on the ballot in Michigan and Florida. Hillary believes that the voters in Michigan and Florida, should not be disenfranchised. I agree with her. Hillary also stated that the votes in Florida should count, before the ballots were cast. If the tables had been turned and Obama was the candidate to be the biggest loser from the votes not being counted, I am sure that he would have done exactly what Hillary did.

Others have already posted her transgressions so go back and read.
What transgressions?

My original intent was to remind you that Hillary going back and trying for a power grab she is not entitled to is BS.
In regards to Florida, it wouldn't have been going back. A power grab? What were her exact words? Do you not think that if Obama stood to gain from those lost delegates, that he would have also come out in favour of those votes being counted?

Now there is a middle ground for these two states. They've discussed having caucuses for the states if the DNC agrees. This would be the only way to make it fair as there's no way the state would be able to set up for another primary election in time.
I do agree that something should be done.

I also like that these contests favor Obama.
How do they favour Obama?

Canuck, Liuzzo: because Michigan and Florida broke the rules, the candidates were not supposed to campaign there. Kucinich defied the campaigning ban in Michigan; Clinton in Florida.
Proof that Clinton defied the campaigning ban in Florida?

Haven't seen any proof so far.

From MSNBC: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/)

Obama: 861
Clinton: 855
Well, which one is accurate?

CNN is showing that Hillary clearly won Super Tuesday (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/):

Democrats »

Feb 5 DelTotal

Clinton 790 (total delegates 1,033)

Obama 767 (total delegates 937)

Yet again Obama wins but the media wants Billary. :mad:

Oh I get it, it's like Bill and Hillary but in one name.

hahaha

IHowever, they have been offered a make up.

And Michigan said no. Now what?

Well, which one is accurate?

CNN is showing that Hillary clearly won Super Tuesday (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/):

Democrats »

Feb 5 DelTotal

Clinton 790 (total delegates 1,033)

Obama 767 (total delegates 937)

*yawns*

You are not getting it are you? No I can see that you are not. CNN is including SUPERDELEGATES THEY MAY OR MAY NOT VOTE FOR HER!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

*yawns*

You are not getting it are you? No I can see that you are not. CNN is including SUPERDELEGATES THEY MAY OR MAY NOT VOTE FOR HER!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Dude, calm yourself down. The number in the parentheses is the total including the super delegates, the one outside is what presumably is the 'committed' delegates.

EDIT:
AAaaaannnd, that would be me being wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/20008.matchups.schneider/index.html

Dude, calm yourself down. The number in the parentheses is the total including the super delegates, the one outside is what presumably is the 'committed' delegates.

Its CH. The problem is is that everyone is reporting numbers and indicating it is the right numbers. Why is MSNBC have both candidates and the 800 range while CNN has them both in the 700 range. Its stupid to say who is leading whom at the moment.

Also CH is proclaiming a big win for Clinton on Super Tuesday when all the analysis says that Super Tuesday was inconclusive.

Its CH. The problem is is that everyone is reporting numbers and indicating it is the right numbers. Why is MSNBC have both candidates and the 800 range while CNN has them both in the 700 range. Its stupid to say who is leading whom at the moment.

Also CH is proclaiming a big win for Clinton on Super Tuesday when all the analysis says that Super Tuesday was inconclusive.

Let's not get carried away with this whole 'strange bedfellows' thing. Just because we're sort of on the same side of this and even though I've been tragically dissapointed with CH's intellectual dishonesty throughout this, "It's Corny" will still mean more to me than "It's CH"...

I read it that way
Of course you would. Quite often "facts" and "logic" are rare commodities for you. :D

Let's not get carried away with this whole 'strange bedfellows' thing. Just because we're sort of on the same side of this and even though I've been tragically dissapointed with CH's intellectual dishonesty throughout this, "It's Corny" will still mean more to me than "It's CH"...

I do not care if "its corny" means more than "its ch". I honestly do not. Its meaningless in reality.

As to this, no one knows what is going to happen and its high time EVERYONE realizes it. Everyone knows that there was no real winner from Super Tuesday but yet, both sides are claiming it.

Dude, calm yourself down. The number in the parentheses is the total including the super delegates, the one outside is what presumably is the 'committed' delegates.

EDIT:
AAaaaannnd, that would be me being wrong.
The number outside the parentheses is the total delegates that each party won on Super Tuesday only.

The number outside the parentheses is the total delegates that each party won on Super Tuesday only.

You don't read edits?

The thread title claims that Obama won on Super Tuesday.

I appear to be the only one challenging that by suggesting and posting numbers that show Clinton as the winner.

And yet every single analysis of Super Tuesday says that no one was the winner.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/07/delegates/

Feb. 7, 2008 | Which Democrat really won on Super Tuesday? The simplest answer, if also the most unsatisfying, is that neither did. Hillary Clinton won the largest states, but Barack Obama won the most states. Clinton, by a very slim margin, probably won more votes, but Obama, by a similarly narrow margin, may have won more delegates to the Democratic Party's convention.

As I said...indecisive.

As to this, no one knows what is going to happen and its high time EVERYONE realizes it. Everyone knows that there was no real winner from Super Tuesday but yet, both sides are claiming it.
The thread title claims that Obama won on Super Tuesday.

I appear to be the only one challenging that by suggesting and posting numbers that show Clinton as the winner.

Let's not get carried away with this whole 'strange bedfellows' thing. Just because we're sort of on the same side of this and even though I've been tragically dissapointed with CH's intellectual dishonesty throughout this, "It's Corny" will still mean more to me than "It's CH"...
Come on CTOAN......."intellectual dishonesty"? How do you figure that?

You don't read edits?
OOOpppss. Sorry man. ;)

The thread title claims that Obama won on Super Tuesday.

I appear to be the only one challenging that by suggesting and posting numbers that show Clinton as the winner.

Actually, since it uses question marks it asks the question with the implied "Did" in there, making it "(Did) Obama win Super Tuesday, not Billary[sic]?" The conclusion that most of us have reached after that question as more information has become available is that it is inconclusive. Certainly, depending on which set of numbers you use (and again, for fucks sake, why are there different numbers??? It's been four fucking days...) Clinton has closed the gap. Depending on the 'spread' you give the expectations of pre-Super Tuesday you can rate that as a defeat, win, or draw.

It is closer now that it has been, and Obama went in with a lead. Four days prior to Super Tuesday the prevailing sentiment was that Super Tuesday was going to be Clinton's day. You yourself even said, "Watch Hillary soar on Super Tuesday." Now it's up to discussion if by 'soar' one can mean 'pull even.' That seems like a flimsy definition of soar, but that's me. If it is, then yes, Clinton won Super Tuesday because by 'soar' you meant 'pull even.'

If, however, the expectation was for her to take strong states definitively and pull ahead, she didn't do that. That would be a defeat.

Or, since no advantage was really gained and different measures reveal different things-for instance Obama beating the early polls and 'surging' towards the end to keep the race even going into what's considered a good calender for him as well as winning more states-that can be considered a win. For Clinton bringing the delegate count closer, or even edging into the lead after trailing (depending on who has the proper numbers) that could be a win-but I think we can say that even though it's 'win' technically it is far less than what was expected and not nearly enough to put this to bed.

Most people have been answering the question (albeit a leading one) of the OP by saying that Tuesday was more or less inconclusive with good news to be spun by either camp as they head towards the next contest tomorrow. You're right in being the sole person trying to present it as a win for Clinton, but also a small minority of perhaps one who thinks much of a victory can be claimed at all (as more results come clearer).

Come on CTOAN......."intellectual dishonesty"? How do you figure that?
I don't want to dig through the debate to find it again. I used that term when I thought it applied, you can read it's context there.

Onto the now-the premise you've provided for your dogged support for Clinton was that you believed that she was the only one that could beat McCain. Now that we are at least closer to half of your premise being valid, McCain is now in the role of 'presumptive nominee', the second half of your premise looks less true, from Corny's link-
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/20008.matchups.schneider/index.html
A CNN poll, conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation February 1-3, shows Clinton three points ahead of McCain, 50 percent to 47 percent. That's within the poll's margin of error of 3 percentage points, meaning that the race is statistically tied..

A Time magazine poll, conducted February 1-4, also shows a dead heat between Clinton and McCain. Each was backed by 46 percent of those polled.

Sen. Barack Obama believes he can do better, arguing "I've got appeal that goes beyond our party."

In the CNN poll, Obama leads McCain by 8 points, 52 percent to 44 percent. That's outside the margin of error, meaning that Obama has the lead.

And in the Time poll, Obama leads McCain by 7 points, 48 percent to 41 percent -- a lead also outside of the poll's margin of error of 3 percentage points.

In both polls, Obama looks stronger than Clinton

This does challenge your stated basis for support.

There are good(-ish) reasons:
Obama's explanation: "I think there is no doubt that she has higher negatives than any of the remaining Democratic candidates. That's just a fact, and there are some who will not vote for her."

That was three weeks ago. Now, only two Democratic candidates remain.

Clinton does have higher negatives than Obama -- and McCain. Forty-four percent of the public say they don't like Clinton, compared with 36 percent who don't like McCain and 31 percent who don't like Obama, according to the CNN poll conducted February 1-3.

Why does Obama do better against McCain than Clinton? Obama does do a little better than Clinton with independents and Republicans.

and reasons that make me want to kick potted plants over-
ut the big difference is men: Men give McCain an 18-point lead over Clinton, 57 percent to 39 percent, according to the CNN poll. The margin of error for that question was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

But if McCain and Obama went head to head, McCain's lead among men shrinks to three, 49 percent to 46 percent -- statistically a tie.

Women, on the other hand, vote for either Clinton or Obama by similar margins.

Some Democrats may be worried about how Obama will fare with white voters. Whites give McCain a 15-point lead over Clinton, (56 percent for McCain, 41 percent for Clinton).

But Obama actually fares better than Clinton with white voters. McCain still leads, but by a smaller margin, (52 to 43 percent).

Obama argues that he can reach across party lines. And he does do a little better than Clinton with Independents and Republicans, at least in these polls.

But the big difference is that Clinton doesn't draw very well with men. Obama does.

I'd like to hold out hope that it's deeper than that. I like hope.

This does challenge your stated basis for support.

There are good(-ish) reasons:


and reasons that make me want to kick potted plants over-


I'd like to hold out hope that it's deeper than that. I like hope.
The real problem is hispanics - Obama gets the black people to the polls and voting for him so that gives him a shot in Southern Republican strongholds, but Hispanics, especially Cuban expatriates, are likely to go Republican and they hold the largest states.

Well, which one is accurate?

CNN is showing that Hillary clearly won Super Tuesday (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/):

Democrats »

Feb 5 DelTotal

Clinton 790 (total delegates 1,033)

Obama 767 (total delegates 937)

I already addressed this. CNN doesn't even agree with itself and the delegates for some of the states don't actually add up the number of delegates (non-Super) for that state. Check California if you don't believe me. If you look at the break down on CNN they have two different breakdowns and neither add up to 370, even though they have the same number of votes cast in CA for each candidate.

MSNBC consistently matches with any number of other reports for that state, as I've shown. Look around and you'll find it's CNN that is not reliable. They clearly have not updated to the actual results.

"Washington has a lot of affluent, highly educated liberal voters, a demographic that has tilted toward Obama over Clinton in recent weeks," LeLoup said. "He is also energizing voters, and there is little doubt that there will be record turnout Saturday."

Very interesting! Highly Educated liberal voters in Washington State tilting towards Obama. I find that interesting.

Oh and apparently Washington's governor has endoresed Obama:

But Governor Christine Gregoire came out Friday for Obama in a surprising, potentially crucial endorsement.

The real problem is hispanics - Obama gets the black people to the polls and voting for him so that gives him a shot in Southern Republican strongholds, but Hispanics, especially Cuban expatriates, are likely to go Republican and they hold the largest states.

I've heard the Hispanic thing before. It will have to be something whatever candidate will have to work on. Ultimately the candidate should be reaching out to everybody, not just 'groups.' But such is the nature of the beast, I guess.

I don't know but CNN is counting the smoke rings from their crack pipes. They disagree with themselves.

For example.

MSNBC -
Clinton 2,132,166 52% 207
Obama 1,735,105 42% 163

That's 370 delegates, the total number of delegates going to CA.

CNN on the main page -
Clinton 217
Obama 164

Which of course adds up to 381, 11 more delegates than CA has.

But it gets better.

From the link for CA on CNN -
Clinton 2,132,166 52% 195
Obama 1,735,105 42% 152
Notice the votes add up the same, and now they don't have all the delegates allotted.

Since you missed here is the direct analysis. I can go state-by-state if you like, but the fact is that CNN doesn't even reliably agree with itself.

Very interesting! Highly Educated liberal voters in Washington State tilting towards Obama. I find that interesting.

Oh and apparently Washington's governor has endoresed Obama:

Yeah, Last Week, that was being talked about before Super Tuesday and it's been pretty consistant that Obama's been getting the more educated and affluent Democrats. It's part of why the rest of the calender (makes it sound like a sports match) favors Obama. The issue is whether a) he can actually deliver that edge and b) will it be enough.

And then there's what the Super Delegates will do or how Florida and Michigan's appeals go.

EDIT: Endorsement from the Governor and both senators of Mass. didn't win Obama Mass., so there's only so much we can make of that.

I already addressed this. CNN doesn't even agree with itself and the delegates for some of the states don't actually add up the number of delegates (non-Super) for that state. Check California if you don't believe me. If you look at the break down on CNN they have two different breakdowns and neither add up to 370, even though they have the same number of votes cast in CA for each candidate.

MSNBC consistently matches with any number of other reports for that state, as I've shown. Look around and you'll find it's CNN that is not reliable. They clearly have not updated to the actual results.

And then there is this

Obama leads Clinton by only 2 delegates (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_el_pr/super_tuesday_delegates)

WASHINGTON - Three days after the voting ended, the race for Democratic delegates in Super Tuesday's contests was still too close to call. With nearly 1,600 delegates from Tuesday contests awarded, Sen. Barack Obama led by two delegates Friday night, with 91 delegates still to be awarded. Obama won 796 delegates in Tuesday's contests, to 794 for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to an analysis of voting results by The Associated Press.

And then there is this

Obama leads Clinton by only 2 delegates (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_el_pr/super_tuesday_delegates)

Well, at least I got an answer to the question as to why we have a bunch of different numbers-
Many delegates were outstanding because some states have been unable to provide all the votes in some congressional districts. The problems arose in states with counties that are split into multiple congressional districts.

The states have provided results in each county. But in some cases, they are still working to assign the votes in the appropriate congressional district.

Those votes are important because both parties award delegates based on statewide votes and on results in individual congressional districts. Democrats award them proportionally, meaning precise counts can be necessary, even when the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate.

In California, officials were still counting absentee ballots Friday. Officials had estimated that more than 1 million absentee ballots may have been submitted.



Now I can stop kicking puppies...

Now I can stop kicking puppies...

What did the poor puppies to that warranted being kicked? :(

EDIT: Endorsement from the Governor and both senators of Mass. didn't win Obama Mass., so there's only so much we can make of that.

Mass. loves Hillary! nothing else to say but that.

What did the poor puppies to that warranted being kicked? :(

Conflicting reports on what I thought should be a concrete number made me lash out at juvenile canines. Besides, puppies grow up to be dogs and that can't go unpunished...

Conflicting reports on what I thought should be a concrete number made me lash out at juvenile canines. Besides, puppies grow up to be dogs and that can't go unpunished...

:(

:(

I don't actually kick puppies...that might be obvious already, but just in case...


but dogs do suck...

I don't actually kick puppies...that might be obvious already, but just in case...


but dogs do suck...

Mostly they just lick, but it depends on whether the peanut butter is chucky or smooth.

I don't actually kick puppies...that might be obvious already, but just in case...


I know. ;)

but dogs do suck...

:eek:

Mostly they just lick, but it depends on whether the peanut butter is chucky or smooth.
Remeber to tip your waitress, folks! (http://www.ilovewavs.com/Effects/Music/RimShot.wav)

Actually, since it uses question marks it asks the question with the implied "Did" in there, making it "(Did) Obama win Super Tuesday, not Billary[sic]?"
No, that is not what the OP implied, he was quite explicit:

Yet again Obama wins but the media wants Billary. :mad:

The conclusion that most of us have reached after that question as more information has become available is that it is inconclusive. Certainly, depending on which set of numbers you use (and again, for fucks sake, why are there different numbers??? It's been four fucking days...) Clinton has closed the gap. Depending on the 'spread' you give the expectations of pre-Super Tuesday you can rate that as a defeat, win, or draw.
I can't believe that accurate numbers are not available.

BTW, in another thread, I challenged the numbers citing the fact that ALL of the California delegates had not been accounted for. Obviously when they were, that gave Hillary the most delegates on the night. At least that is what I can see. I believe that CNN's numbers are most accurate. also Fox's numbers are closer to CNN's.

It is closer now that it has been, and Obama went in with a lead. Four days prior to Super Tuesday the prevailing sentiment was that Super Tuesday was going to be Clinton's day. You yourself even said, "Watch Hillary soar on Super Tuesday." Now it's up to discussion if by 'soar' one can mean 'pull even.' That seems like a flimsy definition of soar, but that's me. If it is, then yes, Clinton won Super Tuesday because by 'soar' you meant 'pull even.'
Yes I think that Clinton did soar. She handily won most of the traditional Blue States. Obama won mostly the Red States, and let's face facts, those Red states that Obama won are very unlikely to vote Democrat in the general election?

If, however, the expectation was for her to take strong states definitively and pull ahead, she didn't do that. That would be a defeat.
Let's also face another fact, in that Clinton won the primaries in Michigan and Florida, even though she has not received any delegates for those States. Had she been awarded those delegates, she would be comfortably in the lead.

I believe that in a general election, Clinton could very well win Florida. I don't believe that Obama would.

You're right in being the sole person trying to present it as a win for Clinton, but also a small minority of perhaps one who thinks much of a victory can be claimed at all (as more results come clearer).
I like sneaking up from behind and saying "gotcha"!! :D

Remeber to tip your waitress, folks! (http://www.ilovewavs.com/Effects/Music/RimShot.wav)

You better have laughed, because that joke made me feel all ooky, and I was hoping it was just too good to pass up.

No, that is not what the OP implied, he was quite explicit:
I will grant that is post is more definitive, but few have taken his premise either.




I can't believe that accurate numbers are not available.
I had the same problem, but in my puppy-kicking post you'll see why.

BTW, in another thread, I challenged the numbers citing the fact that ALL of the California delegates had not been accounted for. Obviously when they were, that gave Hillary the most delegates on the night. At least that is what I can see. I believe that CNN's numbers are most accurate. also Fox's numbers are closer to CNN's.
All of California's delegates haven't been accounted for actually, again according to the puppy kicking post, but as they are going over absentee ballots I don't doubt that those final results will favor Clinton as Obama didn't close the gap until right before Super Tuesday.

As for CNN's accuracy, take it up with Jocabia. While I haven't checked his work, he makes a compelling argument as to why they might be out of date. "I wanna believe" is not a compelling counterpoint.


Yes I think that Clinton did soar. She handily won most of the traditional Blue States. Obama won mostly the Red States, and let's face facts, those Red states that Obama won are very unlikely to vote Democrat in the general election?
So you think that traditional Blue states will go Red if it's Obama but Red states won't go Blue regardless? In spite of polling cited earlier that Obama is garnering more cross over votes? I have to say that this logic doesn't unpack well.


Let's also face another fact, in that Clinton won the primaries in Michigan and Florida, even though she has not received any delegates for those States. Had she been awarded those delegates, she would be comfortably in the lead.
Not this shit again. I'm not going to retread this nonsense. Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot.

I believe that in a general election, Clinton could very well win Florida. I don't believe that Obama would.
Current polling shows Clinton tied with McCain while Obama is ahead. Before you dismiss this, remember this was the basis for your support for Clinton earlier.


I like sneaking up from behind and saying "gotcha"!! :D
You have to actually be right for that to work.

Hillary was not the only one on the ballot in Michigan and Florida.

One way or another, all of the candidates were not on the ballots. Also, without being able to campaign, the candidates weren't able to get their message out. This, of course, automatically favors the person with the most name recognition...

Hillary believes that the voters in Michigan and Florida, should not be disenfranchised.

Yeah, right. Hillary believes that she should win, and she's pushing for those contests to count now because of that.

If the tables were turned, she'd never suggest that they should be counted.

Hillary also stated that the votes in Florida should count, before the ballots were cast.

In a race stacked in her favor...

If the tables had been turned and Obama was the candidate to be the biggest loser from the votes not being counted, I am sure that he would have done exactly what Hillary did.

Perhaps. And she'd be screaming bloody murder not to have them counted.

But it doesn't really matter who is on what side. Changing the rules midstream isn't fair to anyone.

One way or another, all of the candidates were not on the ballots. Also, without being able to campaign, the candidates weren't able to get their message out. This, of course, automatically favors the person with the most name recognition...



Yeah, right. Hillary believes that she should win, and she's pushing for those contests to count now because of that.

If the tables were turned, she'd never suggest that they should be counted.



In a race stacked in her favor...



Perhaps. And she'd be screaming bloody murder not to have them counted.

But it doesn't really matter who is on what side. Changing the rules midstream isn't fair to anyone.
I would continue that speculating on what Obama 'would' have done is completely irrelevant. This is not about what Obama 'would' do, but what Clinton is doing. He is not responsible for CH's hypothetical creation.

And, we've covered this line of bullshit long fucking ago. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13429251&postcount=137) And since you were wondering CH, this is what I was talking about when I said 'intellectual dishonesty.'

You say, "Hillary believes that the voters in Michigan and Florida, should not be disenfranchised." but that's not what Clinton's camp said- (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2007/09/top-democrats-s.html)
"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

Not to mention your needling point about names on the ballot. The only person left in the race opposing her with any real chance is Obama, and he was not on the ballot in Michigan. If you allow Michigan's votes you disenfranchise the voters who would have voted for Obama (or anyone else for that matter) had they known going in that the vote counted. Since the decision to remove the delegates was made in October. Michigan and Florida have an opportunity to have their votes count, the race is still close and isn't likely to break loose. They can ask for a 'do over' before June 10th, the ball is in their court. Handing uncontested delegates over because poor Clinton is struggling and suddenly needs them even though she was willing to discard them in September is not the answer and it will not prevent disenfranchisement.

No, that is not what the OP implied, he was quite explicit:

And, with the numbers he had at the time, that's what it looked like.

I can't believe that accurate numbers are not available.

If all the votes aren't counted, accurate numbers aren't available.

BTW, in another thread, I challenged the numbers citing the fact that ALL of the California delegates had not been accounted for. Obviously when they were, that gave Hillary the most delegates on the night. At least that is what I can see. I believe that CNN's numbers are most accurate. also Fox's numbers are closer to CNN's.

As already shown, CNN's numbers don't even add up to the right number of delegates.

Yes I think that Clinton did soar.

...which is why they're still essentially tied in pledged delegates?

She handily won most of the traditional Blue States. Obama won mostly the Red States, and let's face facts, those Red states that Obama won are very unlikely to vote Democrat in the general election?

Are they? He's been pulling in quite a few independents and crossover Republicans.

And, as much as people like to split the US up into "red states" and "blue states", a closer look at voting makes it clear that most of the country is purple. Most of those "red states" were won by "majorities" in the low 50's in the last presidential election. Give them a Democrat they want to vote for and they could easily tip.

Let's also face another fact, in that Clinton won the primaries in Michigan and Florida, even though she has not received any delegates for those States. Had she been awarded those delegates, she would be comfortably in the lead.

Had they been real primaries, with campaigning and everyone on the ballot, she likely would have won them by less - if she won them at all. The record has been clear. Obama has only been gaining support. He's come from behind in states that were supposed to be foregone conclusions to win or basically tie with Clinton multiple times.

I already addressed this. CNN doesn't even agree with itself and the delegates for some of the states don't actually add up the number of delegates (non-Super) for that state. Check California if you don't believe me. If you look at the break down on CNN they have two different breakdowns and neither add up to 370, even though they have the same number of votes cast in CA for each candidate.

MSNBC consistently matches with any number of other reports for that state, as I've shown. Look around and you'll find it's CNN that is not reliable. They clearly have not updated to the actual results.
Perhaps this will help clarify the whole picture?

Election 2008 Primary, Caucus, and Convention Phase (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/)

California Democrat (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/CA-D.phtml)

Florida Democrat (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/FL-D.phtml)

Michigan Democrat (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/MI-D.phtml)

Perhaps this will help clarify the whole picture?

Election 2008 Primary, Caucus, and Convention Phase (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/)

Florida Democrat (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/FL-D.phtml)

Michigan Democrat (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/MI-D.phtml)

What part of your links is supposed to address anything that Jocabia said?

What part of your links is supposed to address anything that Jocabia said?
Actually the first one. It has all the States that have voted so far.

I edited my post and added California.

The numbers are:

Clinton, Hillary Rodham 2,132,166 51.96% 207 55.95% 25 35.21% 232 52.61%
Obama, Barack 1,735,105 42.29% 163 44.05% 9 12.68% 172 39.00%

Obama won mostly the Red States, and let's face facts, those Red states that Obama won are very unlikely to vote Democrat in the general election?
Uh, if the Democratic candidate does not carry some of the Red States in the general election, the Republicans automatically win. Therefore, the Dems want to nominate someone who can carry at least some of them.

Let's also face another fact, in that Clinton won the primaries in Michigan and Florida, even though she has not received any delegates for those States. Had she been awarded those delegates, she would be comfortably in the lead.
If Michigan and Florida had been awarded delegates, Clinton would not necessarily have won them. I don't know about Florida, but her chances in Michigan would have been rather poor with Edwards and Obama on the ballot, and the voters told that the results would count.

Actually the first one. It has all the States that have voted so far.

I edited my post and added California.

The numbers are:

Clinton, Hillary Rodham 2,132,166 51.96% 207 55.95% 25 35.21% 232 52.61%
Obama, Barack 1,735,105 42.29% 163 44.05% 9 12.68% 172 39.00%

As a third party to the you/Jocabia discussion I have to say that you haven't made any goddamn sense. Maybe you should just directly address what he said and use links to bolster your argument instead of hoping the links do your job. Here's the thing, I'm prepared for the CNN numbers to be reliable, but he's made a convincing argument as to why they are not. I don't care if it's CNN or MSNBC or some fucking hobo-and it's more important that they are reliable than it show one person ahead of the other. Unexplained links and a listing without any fucking context, that doesn't do fucking shit for me.

Further, looking at the first chart that has the totals doesn't seem to correlate to whatever the hell you posted, nor does it explain what the colors mean or why you even bothered.

What it does have is this:
Pledged delegates-
Hilary Clinton: 840
Barrack Obama: 825

Now, again, you'd have to give me some sort of context or reason why I'm believing this, I think it's fifth set of numbers over the other four.

Uh, if the Democratic candidate does not carry some of the Red States in the general election, the Republicans automatically win. Therefore, the Dems want to nominate someone who can carry at least some of them.
If you would notice, I said the Red States won by Obama are very likely to stay Red.

I think Hillary could easily win the Red States of Florida, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Nevada. I am only going by the States that have voted thus far.

If Michigan and Florida had been awarded delegates, Clinton would not necessarily have won them. I don't know about Florida, but her chances in Michigan would have been rather poor with Edwards and Obama on the ballot, and the voters told that the results would count.
Michigan is certainly more hazy than Florida, where all the candidates were on the ballot and Hillary scored a 50% to 33% win over Obama.

Perhaps this will help clarify the whole picture?

Election 2008 Primary, Caucus, and Convention Phase (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/)

California Democrat (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/CA-D.phtml)

Florida Democrat (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/FL-D.phtml)

Michigan Democrat (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/MI-D.phtml)

How does that help anything? CNN does not agree with ITSELF. It shows two different counts neight of which represent the actual number of delegates.

Meanwhild, i could care less what happened in FL. They don't count. If they'd like to count, they can follow the rules. They have that opportunity, but refuse. Instead, we have people crying sour grapes over having someone set the rules, and the consequences for breaking them, and then giving exactly those consequences when the rules were broken.

So far, you're the little kid crying about how little Timmy should be allowed to come out and play even though he's flunking math. Sorry, Timmy played too much already and can't come out until he learns how to do what he's told first.

Actually the first one. It has all the States that have voted so far.

I edited my post and added California.

The numbers are:

Clinton, Hillary Rodham 2,132,166 51.96% 207 55.95% 25 35.21% 232 52.61%
Obama, Barack 1,735,105 42.29% 163 44.05% 9 12.68% 172 39.00%

207 and 163? You mean the numbers that MSNBC has had all along. What do you know? Who pointed that out early this morning? Why, it was me, wasn't it? And who pointed it out way before that? Why, Corny, that's who?

I hope you realize you just came full circle back to agree with everyone you were arguing with.

If you would notice, I said the Red States won by Obama are very likely to stay Red.

I think Hillary could easily win the Red States of Florida, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Nevada. I am only going by the States that have voted thus far.


Michigan is certainly more hazy than Florida, where all the candidates were on the ballot and Hillary scored a 50% to 33% win over Obama.

I'm not sure why this is so complicated for you, but in an election with no campaigning, the candidate with name recognition wins. Ignoring reason, really just makes you look like a fanatic.

You could argue that the Florida results show that she starts with an advantage there, but you can't argue further than that, since campaigning is for the purpose of getting your name and your message out there. Without his name and his message out and without all the voters who would have voted if the election counted, Obama lost FL. Since a fair election would have none of those things, and since we'd really like for the message of the candidates to affect the decisions of where the delegates go, no one should be campaigning to include delegates assigned soley on the basis of name recognition. Well, no one, unless you are willing to win at all costs.

For anybody still vomiting up apologetics for Hillary's blatantly opportunistic pandering to Michigan and Florida while ignoring her campaign's Rovean voter suppression tactics in Nevada... For anybody still parroting the Clinton talking points that we should vote for her because she's "experienced" and "vetted", please watch this video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=EdDzvmY1XPo) from Lawrence Lessig that breaks down the clearest and most important reasons to support Barack Obama.

I would continue that speculating on what Obama 'would' have done is completely irrelevant. This is not about what Obama 'would' do, but what Clinton is doing. He is not responsible for CH's hypothetical creation.


Indeed, saying Obama might do it, too, sounds very similar to the "b-b-but... Clinton!" whenever Bush screws up.

Indeed, saying Obama might do it, too, sounds very similar to the "b-b-but... Clinton!" whenever Bush screws up.

I would argue that it's worse since it's an infraction he has not committed but rather one someone has assigned him to excuse another's activities. At least with the 'B-b-b-but Clinton...' crowd had to restrict themselves to things Clinton actually did. (whether they were honest about the details or context is another matter, but alas...)

Ultimately it smacks of one of the things that I dislike most about this administration, that being better-holding oneself to a higher standard was replaced with a race to the bottom 'not as bad...' mentality.

There does, in fact, appear to be a plea for a reasonable solution to the Michigan/Florida (http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080206/NEWS01/302060036) problem.

The Democratic National Committee is pressuring Michigan and Florida to hold Democratic presidential caucuses so the delegates they’ve lost for holding January primaries can be seated at the national convention, a top Michigan Democrat said today.
...
LaVera said the Michigan or Florida primaries didn’t count under DNC rules, so they can’t be used to allocate delegates. He added that the only way to get delegates seated is to submit a revised delegate selection plan — such as holding a later election — that meets DNC rules or to appeal to the convention Credentials Committee, which will meet this summer before the Aug. 24-27 Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Of course, the state's party heads are stamping their feet in the dirt with a 'I don't wanna!'-
Florida Democratic Party spokesman Mark Bubriski said the party has no intention of holding another election and has not had any discussions in recent months with the DNC about a caucus.

“We’ve said all along that we’re going forward with our delegate selection program using the vote on January 29,” he said. “We’ve got more delegate applications than ever.”

Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said the DNC isn’t saying anything it hasn’t said before to Michigan and Florida.

“Everybody involved, the candidates, the DNC and we, need to remain open-minded. So if someone comes up with a creative way that meets everyone’s interests, we can do that” and get the delegates seated, he said.

The article wanders into what we just talked about unfortunately-
It’s unlikely that Clinton would favor holding caucuses, which could open the door to Obama victories in two states she has won. But there also is pressure to hold some kind of alternative election that meets DNC rules so the states don’t have to wait to find out if the delegates will be seated.

Though at least in this instance she hasn't yet joined the call for that. But as far as I know neither has Obama. Clinton has, though, called for the delegates to simply be seated. But it's still slamming her for what the author thinks she will (or in this case won't) do.

I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, and I live in California, so my pressure means jack/shit, but if you are a member and/or live in one of those states, that's where pressure should be applied.

I can tell you my family are big Obama supporters (despite being completely split on Bush). They currently live in FL and did not vote in the primaries but would have, had they counted. That the turnout was less as a result of this issue is a fact. That the results are skewed due to this issue is a fact.

If they simply seat their delegates then they don't actually care about looking out for the voters. My family will remain disenfranchised, as I would assume anyone who wanted a fair election would be.

I can tell you my family are big Obama supporters (despite being completely split on Bush). They currently live in FL and did not vote in the primaries but would have, had they counted. That the turnout was less as a result of this issue is a fact. That the results are skewed due to this issue is a fact.

If they simply seat their delegates then they don't actually care about looking out for the voters. My family will remain disenfranchised, as I would assume anyone who wanted a fair election would be.

I had mentioned this in relation to Michigan earlier in the thread, where the situation was even worse since not all of the candidates were even on the ballot.

Perhaps this will help clarify the whole picture?

Election 2008 Primary, Caucus, and Convention Phase (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/)

California Democrat (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/CA-D.phtml)

Florida Democrat (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/FL-D.phtml)

Michigan Democrat (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/MI-D.phtml)

This tells me nothing in reality. CH, give it up. You got your ass handed to you. Now you are just acting like how I used to act. Sad really.

207 and 163? You mean the numbers that MSNBC has had all along. What do you know? Who pointed that out early this morning? Why, it was me, wasn't it? And who pointed it out way before that? Why, Corny, that's who?

Maybe I should have a link at the bottom of my sig that says popping CH :D

I hope you realize you just came full circle back to agree with everyone you were arguing with.

Hear Hear

For anybody still vomiting up apologetics for Hillary's blatantly opportunistic pandering to Michigan and Florida while ignoring her campaign's Rovean voter suppression tactics in Nevada... For anybody still parroting the Clinton talking points that we should vote for her because she's "experienced" and "vetted", please watch this video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=EdDzvmY1XPo) from Lawrence Lessig that breaks down the clearest and most important reasons to support Barack Obama.
The title of the video would be more apty named "20 minutes or so about why I am against Clinton". :p

And to end with the message that he is the next coming of the President of peace, well, that would be well and fine IF one could believe that.

Obama talks tough on Pakistan (http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=62500&newsChannel=domesticNews)

Aug 1 - Presidential hopeful Obama said if he had intelligence about al Qaeda in Pakistan he would take action with or without Pakistan's blessing.

The Illinois senator's stance comes amid a debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control.
I remember what happened the last time the US violated a country's sovereignity. We call that mistake Iraq.

Edit: when I first heard this....way back then, it did set me back, because up until such time, I had not heard too much about the guy, other than he was a somewhat popular figure.

And Hillary Clinton stated that all options would be on the table in regards to Iran. That's ALL OPTIONS!

And Hillary Clinton stated that all options would be on the table in regards to Iran. That's ALL OPTIONS!

Actually I don't know that that is entirely accurate. I believe, and I don't feel like looking it up right now so I'm ready to be proved wrong, she said that she would not meet with the Iranian president, but both her and Obama had not ruled out military action.

The difference was that Obama would not rule out meeting with the Iranian president (that's how lazy I am right now, rather than spell his name wrong or look it up I just keep saying "the Iranian President." Understand I mean the current one.) He may have said that he would do it in the first year, but I might be confusing that with something else.

The key difference is not who will rule out the most military action, but rather the one who will first use the most diplomacy. Something that has been sorely lacking in the last 7 years. Diplomacy is a key issue for me in this election.

Actually I don't know that that is entirely accurate. I believe, and I don't feel like looking it up right now so I'm ready to be proved wrong, she said that she would not meet with the Iranian president, but both her and Obama had not ruled out military action.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1544119320071015

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Hillary Clinton, under fire from rivals for a muscular attitude toward Iran, said on Monday "all options must remain on the table" if Tehran does not comply with nuclear nonproliferation requirements.

This was October 15, 2007

http://www.forward.com/articles/hillary-to-aipac-talk-to-tehran-but-keep-all-opt/

“U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal,” Clinton told the crowd. “We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.”

At a speech Feb 1, 2007

I'm trying to find something more current.

207 and 163? You mean the numbers that MSNBC has had all along. What do you know? Who pointed that out early this morning? Why, it was me, wasn't it? And who pointed it out way before that? Why, Corny, that's who?

I hope you realize you just came full circle back to agree with everyone you were arguing with.
How do you figure that I was agreeing with you or Corny? If you take MSNBC's numbers to be right, as linked to by Corny (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13433062&postcount=238), then they were clearly wrong, and so are you if you believe that link to be correct.

Obama does not have the lead. Hillary scored more delegates on Super Tuesday than did Obama.

And Corny made no reference to the California numbers at all.

Only you and I posted those (California) and we are in agreement with those numbers only, even if they are from two different sources.

Bottom line is that I am not in agreement "with everyone I was arguing with".

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1544119320071015



This was October 15, 2007

You suck at this. What you should have quoted, since it would have directly refuted what I said, was this:

In the article, Clinton made a case for diplomatic talks with Tehran, saying "true statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is prerequisite to achieving our aims."

How do you figure that I was agreeing with you or Corny? If you take MSNBC's numbers to be right, as linked to by Corny (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13433062&postcount=238), then they were clearly wrong, and so are you if you believe that link to be correct.

You haven't outlined why your numbers are true other than you wishing it were so.

And again, this is coming from someone who just wants reliable numbers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1544119320071015

This was October 15, 2007

http://www.forward.com/articles/hillary-to-aipac-talk-to-tehran-but-keep-all-opt/

At a speech Feb 1, 2007

I'm trying to find something more current.
But it is what she said before that, that is most important:

In the article, Clinton made a case for diplomatic talks with Tehran, saying "true statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is prerequisite to achieving our aims."
That is not how the current administration views dealing with Iran.

How do you figure that I was agreeing with you or Corny? If you take MSNBC's numbers to be right, as linked to by Corny (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13433062&postcount=238), then they were clearly wrong, and so are you if you believe that link to be correct.

Obama does not have the lead. Hillary scored more delegates on Super Tuesday than did Obama.

Obama leads Clinton by only 2 delegates (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_el_pr/super_tuesday_delegates;_ylt=AgLv0eukGBWZuk4hvHoP6gyyFz4D)

WASHINGTON - Three days after the voting ended, the race for Democratic delegates in Super Tuesday's contests was still too close to call. With nearly 1,600 delegates from Tuesday contests awarded, Sen. Barack Obama led by two delegates Friday night, with 91 delegates still to be awarded. Obama won 796 delegates in Tuesday's contests, to 794 for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to an analysis of voting results by The Associated Press.

You were saying?

And Corny made no reference to the California numbers at all.

California, a state that Clinton carried, had 20 Democratic delegates still to be awarded. Neither state expected to have complete results before next week.

This tells me nothing in reality. CH, give it up. You got your ass handed to you. Now you are just acting like how I used to act. Sad really.
I realize that it tells you nothing.

And yes, it would be really sad for me to act like you, so I won't bother. :p

But it is what she said before that, that is most important:


That is not how the current administration views dealing with Iran.

Except that it is part of the same speech she gave at those two locations. You cannot brush that off CH. No matter how you try to spin it.

Okay, fine, I looked it up. Here's (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/07/24/candidates_in_chief.html) what I was talking about-

The first: whether the candidates would meet with leaders of rogue states within a year of becoming president.
Sen. Barack Obama said during the debate that he would. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would not. "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse,' Clinton said.

That's the row I was talking about. So she'll use diplomatic avenues, just not in the first year. Or something.

You suck at this. What you should have quoted, since it would have directly refuted what I said, was this:

I see I'm the only one that reads everything. I told you and I quote that she believes that all options are on the table. I have showed you two links with her stating as such. I never mentioned anywhere in there about talking with Iran.

Please show me where I denied that she would talk with Iran?

Obama leads Clinton by only 2 delegates (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_el_pr/super_tuesday_delegates;_ylt=AgLv0eukGBWZuk4hvHoP6gyyFz4D)

You were saying?
Now you are disagreeing with your earlier post. These numbers are even less than the ones you first posted. The key is:

Sen. Barack Obama led by two delegates Friday night, with 91 delegates still to be awarded.

When you account for those 91, please get back to me.

I see I'm the only one that reads everything. I told you and I quote that she believes that all options are on the table. I have showed you two links with her stating as such. I never mentioned anywhere in there about talking with Iran.

Please show me where I denied that she would talk with Iran?
You didn't, I did. And you answered my post where I stated that she had said she wouldn't talk to the president of Iran with an empty quote instead of the one that directly contradicted what I said. If you weren't addressing my post then you hit the wrong fucking button.

Now you are disagreeing with your earlier post. These numbers are even less than the ones you first posted. The key is:



When you account for those 91, please get back to me.

Actually...it disproves this:

Hillary scored more delegates on Super Tuesday than did Obama.

So um...no. According to the article I linked (twice) 20 delegates have yet to be awarded in California and nearly a 1/3rd of those left over are from Colorado, a state that Obama won.

So no. Hillary did not score more delegates as of now and to say she did is intellectual dishonesty.

I see I'm the only one that reads everything. I told you and I quote that she believes that all options are on the table. I have showed you two links with her stating as such. I never mentioned anywhere in there about talking with Iran.

Please show me where I denied that she would talk with Iran?
I don't think you get it. Do you?

Now you are disagreeing with your earlier post. These numbers are even less than the ones you first posted. The key is:



When you account for those 91, please get back to me.

You know that it's Saturday morning, right?

And Hillary Clinton stated that all options would be on the table in regards to Iran. That's ALL OPTIONS!

Actually I don't know that that is entirely accurate. I believe, and I don't feel like looking it up right now so I'm ready to be proved wrong, she said that she would not meet with the Iranian president, but both her and Obama had not ruled out military action.

The difference was that Obama would not rule out meeting with the Iranian president (that's how lazy I am right now, rather than spell his name wrong or look it up I just keep saying "the Iranian President." Understand I mean the current one.) He may have said that he would do it in the first year, but I might be confusing that with something else.

The key difference is not who will rule out the most military action, but rather the one who will first use the most diplomacy. Something that has been sorely lacking in the last 7 years. Diplomacy is a key issue for me in this election.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1544119320071015



This was October 15, 2007

http://www.forward.com/articles/hillary-to-aipac-talk-to-tehran-but-keep-all-opt/



At a speech Feb 1, 2007

I'm trying to find something more current.

The posts quoted above are in sequence of events. I just stated that Hillary said that all options are on the table which prompted you say that's not entirely accurate hence the links I quoted that prompted this argument.

Actually...it disproves this:

So um...no. According to the article I linked (twice) 20 delegates have yet to be awarded in California and nearly a 1/3rd of those left over are from Colorado, a state that Obama won.

So no. Hillary did not score more delegates as of now and to say she did is intellectual dishonesty.
Ummm, take your incomplete numbers and claims of "intellectual dishonesty" and shove them where the sun don't shine. :D

Ummm, take your incomplete numbers and claims of "intellectual dishonesty" and shove them where the sun don't shine. :D

SO are you retracting the statement that CLinton earned more delegates than Obama?

You know that it's Saturday morning, right?
Okay, I'll bite....yes it is Saturday morning...and?

The posts quoted above are in sequence of events. I just stated that Hillary said that all options are on the table which prompted you say that's not entirely accurate hence the links I quoted that prompted this argument.

Sure Champ. There's only so hard I'm going to try to let you in on how to defeat my argument. You want to suck, that's your call.

SO are you retracting the statement that CLinton earned more delegates than Obama?
Ummmm NO!!

Okay, I'll bite....yes it is Saturday morning...and?

And what day does Saturday follow...? (I guess I have to lead everyone by the hand...)

And what day does Saturday follow...? (I guess I have to lead everyone by the hand...)
Ummmm Friday....

Well I guess we are going for a trip...


* extends hand :)

Sure Champ. There's only so hard I'm going to try to let you in on how to defeat my argument. You want to suck, that's your call.

:confused:

Ok...so if we are in agreement that I never denied that CLinton would talk and that if we are in agreement that she stated all options are on the table...what are we arguing about?

Ummmm Friday....

Well I guess we are going for a trip...


* extends hand :)

Saturday follows Friday. What do you think? He probably has a hangover :D

Ummmm NO!!

Figures. Despite having your arguments disproven.

Ummmm Friday....

Well I guess we are going for a trip...


* extends hand :)
Good boy! You get a gold star!
http://bksschoolhouse.com/cart-imgs/prod13608_lg.jpg

Now, go back and read the quote and see if you can find what Friday and Saturday might have to do with it all.

How do you figure that I was agreeing with you or Corny? If you take MSNBC's numbers to be right, as linked to by Corny (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13433062&postcount=238), then they were clearly wrong, and so are you if you believe that link to be correct.

Obama does not have the lead. Hillary scored more delegates on Super Tuesday than did Obama.

And Corny made no reference to the California numbers at all.

Only you and I posted those (California) and we are in agreement with those numbers only, even if they are from two different sources.

Bottom line is that I am not in agreement "with everyone I was arguing with".

Um, you realize that CNN which you said you believe to be right has different numbers for CA than you just gave. The only source from this thread that matches the numbers you just gave is... dun, dun, dun... MSNBC. Corny's source. It's also the only source that actually shows the correct number of delegates.

Meanwhile, you've still not dealt with the fact you say you believe CNN but you've haven't said WHICH set of numbers, because as I've demonstrated that the numbers in their summary and the numbers on the individual states don't match and the numbers in their summary, the numbers YOU used exceed the number of delegates in CA. CNN HAS to be wrong. You can't have two DIFFERENT sets of numbers and be right.

If you'd like to do all 50 states, I'll show you exactly what's wrong with CNN. It's numbers don't add up. At all. MSNBC matches up with several other sources, has the correct number of delegates and adds up to their totals with no inconsistencies. CA is just the state I used to demonstrate the differences between your source and his. You disagreed with your source and agreed with his.

I notice you keep avoiding this obvious point. That's why people are suggesting you're being intellectually dishonest. Now you can deal with my numbers and that you've already agreed with MSNBC's numbers OR you can tell me to stick it like you do every time you're trapped and wrong. Choose.

Good boy! You get a gold star!

Now, go back and read the quote and see if you can find what Friday and Saturday might have to do with it all.
Okay.....clear as mud now!! :D

I believe that the Yahoo News article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_el_pr/super_tuesday_delegates;_ylt=AgLv0eukGBWZuk4hvHoP6gyyFz4D) posted by Corny is totally out to lunch.

Okay.....clear as mud now!! :D

I believe that the Yahoo News article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_el_pr/super_tuesday_delegates;_ylt=AgLv0eukGBWZuk4hvHoP6gyyFz4D) posted by Corny is totally out to lunch.

Prove that it is out to lunch CH!

Prove that it is out to lunch CH!
To be honest with you, I can't be bothered. :D

Okay.....clear as mud now!! :D

I believe that the Yahoo News article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_el_pr/super_tuesday_delegates;_ylt=AgLv0eukGBWZuk4hvHoP6gyyFz4D) posted by Corny is totally out to lunch.

You're arguing final numbers and attacked the source because it states that as of Friday night (a mere 12 hours ago) 91 delegates had yet to be assigned. Now, unless you've got an empty toilet paper roll that allows you to see into next week, 91 delegates unassigned are 91 delegates unassigned and the fact that an article acknowledges that doesn't invalidate its current numbers or validate yours.

At this point I'm prepared to ring the bell for Jocabia since he's at least made an effort to justify his source. All we got from you is that you think the article is out to lunch because you wish it so. If I bought that kind of logic I'd be going to church on Sunday.

To be honest with you, I can't be bothered. :D

Which means you can't.

And on a related a topic, a superdelegate for Clinton has switched to being undecided.

And on a related a topic, a superdelegate for Clinton has switched to being undecided.

Link? I did a news search for superdelegate switch and got nothing. And considering her SD lead, Obama's going to need a lot more than one.

Link? I did a news search for superdelegate switch and got nothing. And considering her SD lead, Obama's going to need a lot more than one.

It was reported on a news station i'm watching. I doubt it would actually be reported in a news article.

It was reported on a news station i'm watching. I doubt it would actually be reported in a news article.

Are you kidding? At this point they'd report a fucking sneeze.

What channel, maybe it'll be on their website.

Are you kidding? At this point they'd report a fucking sneeze.

What channel, maybe it'll be on their website.

If I told you, people will bash me. :D

If I told you, people will bash me. :D

I had written 'Oh wait, who am I talking to, it's FOX' then I erased it. I should have kept it. Consider a grain of salt taken.

If I told you, people will bash me. :D*groan* *sigh* Ok... Somebody check FOX... I'm not gonna do it... (I always feel dirty afterward)...

I had written 'Oh wait, who am I talking to, it's FOX' then I erased it. I should have kept it. Consider a grain of salt taken.

It was fleeting. I should have added the word apparently in the statement I made.

*groan* *sigh* Ok... Somebody check FOX... I'm not gonna do it... (I always feel dirty afterward)...

I did. I felt dirty. (one of their top stories was a landlord complaining about Clinton's campaign...seriously? That's a top story? Sheesh...) I didn't find anything and eventually felt like I didn't want to poke around there anymore.

I did. I felt dirty. (one of their top stories was a landlord complaining about Clinton's campaign...seriously? That's a top story? Sheesh...) I didn't find anything and eventually felt like I didn't want to poke around there anymore.It's kind of like walking into Wal-mart isn't it? I swear I can feel my IQ drop just entering...

You're arguing final numbers and attacked the source because it states that as of Friday night (a mere 12 hours ago) 91 delegates had yet to be assigned. Now, unless you've got an empty toilet paper roll that allows you to see into next week, 91 delegates unassigned are 91 delegates unassigned and the fact that an article acknowledges that doesn't invalidate its current numbers or validate yours.

At this point I'm prepared to ring the bell for Jocabia since he's at least made an effort to justify his source. All we got from you is that you think the article is out to lunch because you wish it so. If I bought that kind of logic I'd be going to church on Sunday.
Well, you can ring all the bells you want. I stand by my claim that Clinton currently leads Obama by both pledged delegates and total delegates after Super Tuesday.

I find it amusing that with all the tech tools available today that all of these so called reputable news sources are all over the map with these numbers.

I definitely believe that MSNBC is wrong (showing Obama in the lead) and that at least CNN showed accurately that Clinton leads Obama.....the exact numbers might be off a bit, but the lead is definitely Clinton's.

I think the source (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/)I posted earlier is more accurate.

Well, you can ring all the bells you want. I stand by my claim that Clinton currently leads Obama by both pledged delegates and total delegates after Super Tuesday.

I find it amusing that with all the tech tools available today that all of these so called reputable news sources are all over the map with these numbers.

I definitely believe that MSNBC is wrong (showing Obama in the lead) and that at least CNN showed accurately that Clinton leads Obama.....the exact numbers might be off a bit, but the lead is definitely Clinton's.

I think the source (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/)I posted earlier is more accurate.

You have yet to come up with a compelling, or in fact any reason why these numbers are more accurate than others. This is why an observer might decide that the person who has come up with reasons why a particular set is incorrect and another is is right has the correct numbers and you're talking out of your ass.

I've asked, I've begged, I down right pleaded. You've given nothing. You can take your "Clinton won" numbers and skip off with Zombie Jesus and the Easter Bunny and have a picnic in Neverneverland for all the reason you've given to believe the numbers you've chosen.

Well, you can ring all the bells you want. I stand by my claim that Clinton currently leads Obama by both pledged delegates and total delegates after Super Tuesday.

Even though the total delegates can and probably will change?

I find it amusing that with all the tech tools available today that all of these so called reputable news sources are all over the map with these numbers.

Amazing that the democrats have a system that they are complying with which has these numbers all over the charts.

I definitely believe that MSNBC is wrong (showing Obama in the lead) and that at least CNN showed accurately that Clinton leads Obama.....the exact numbers might be off a bit, but the lead is definitely Clinton's.

I think the source (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/)I posted earlier is more accurate.

CNN is including superdelegates which can and probably will change their minds anyway. MSNBC has delegates pledged from the actual primaries and that means Obama has the lead there. Even demconwatch has Obama with pledged delegate lead but Clinton in the lead with the super delegates.

Its still very much a toss up.

It's kind of like walking into Wal-mart isn't it? I swear I can feel my IQ drop just entering...

Every big show I do I dread that moment when the production coordinator turns to me and says, "I need you to go to Wal-Mart," and a little part of me dies.

I don't know but CNN is counting the smoke rings from their crack pipes. They disagree with themselves.

For example.

MSNBC -
Clinton 2,132,166 52% 207
Obama 1,735,105 42% 163

That's 370 delegates, the total number of delegates going to CA.

CNN on the main page -
Clinton 217
Obama 164

Which of course adds up to 381, 11 more delegates than CA has.

But it gets better.

From the link for CA on CNN -
Clinton 2,132,166 52% 195
Obama 1,735,105 42% 152
Notice the votes add up the same, and now they don't have all the delegates allotted.

If you run the numbers there were a total of 3,867,271 votes for the two candidates.
By percentage that 55% Clinton votes out of the votes for the two of them and 204 delegates.
166 Obama delegates.

I can't see how either one of them could be right.
Okay, I've actually figured this out. On the main page that includes a summary of all the states it's including superdelgates with the total, which is why California's total on that page is larger than the 370. However, 20 of California's delegates have yet to be assigned, so when you go on the details page it gives you the pledged delegates, which is going to be under the 370 since not all of California's delegates have been assigned.

It all stems from the astrix (Firefox refuses to give me a spelling) next to the "Total Delegates" on the main chart.
• Total Delegates* - This number includes pledged delegates and superdelegates

So that's why the numbers don't agree, on the summary page they include super delegates, on the individual pages it's just pledged delegates.

Okay, I've actually figured this out. On the main page that includes a summary of all the states it's including superdelgates with the total, which is why California's total on that page is larger than the 370. However, 20 of California's delegates have yet to be assigned, so when you go on the details page it gives you the pledged delegates, which is going to be under the 370 since not all of California's delegates have been assigned.

It all stems from the astrix (Firefox refuses to give me a spelling) next to the "Total Delegates" on the main chart.


So that's why the numbers don't agree, on the summary page they include super delegates, on the individual pages it's just pledged delegates.

It still doesn't add up right. Not to mention it's ludicrous to approach it the way they are. Especially by applying superdelegates that are under NO obligation whatsoever. Everyone knows the super delegates are all over the place right now. If some of Edwards endorsements go to Obama, he will CRUSH Hillary on the supers. If they go to Hillary, it will be the other way around. However, they've not all committed yet, so the whole thing is silly. However, given that 99% of the votes are counted according to both sites, it's perfectly reasonably to assign the 370.

By the way, CH, here is the way you should argue if you actually want your arguments to be credible. *points to CTOAN* He chooses whether he agrees with an argument based on its merits, not based on whether it's on his "side". You can pretend that your arguments only coincidentally benefit Hillary every time, but it's intellectual dishonesty.

It still doesn't add up right. Not to mention it's ludicrous to approach it the way they are. Especially by applying superdelegates that are under NO obligation whatsoever. Everyone knows the super delegates are all over the place right now. If some of Edwards endorsements go to Obama, he will CRUSH Hillary on the supers. If they go to Hillary, it will be the other way around. However, they've not all committed yet, so the whole thing is silly. However, given that 99% of the votes are counted according to both sites, it's perfectly reasonably to assign the 370.

If you look at it the way I outlined it only leaves 3 delegate votes unaccounted for, but of course to arrive at that number you have to acknowledge the Yahoo! article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_el_pr/super_tuesday_delegates;_ylt=AgLv0eukGBWZuk4hvHoP6gyyFz4D) that CH is dismissing out of hand. The totals on the details page add up to 347, 23 short of the 370 pledged delegates that California offers.

According to the article-
Nearly a third of the outstanding delegates are from Colorado, a state where Obama won the popular vote. California, a state that Clinton carried, had 20 Democratic delegates still to be awarded. Neither state expected to have complete results before next week

The reason for the delay is-

Many delegates were outstanding because some states have been unable to provide all the votes in some congressional districts. The problems arose in states with counties that are split into multiple congressional districts.

The states have provided results in each county. But in some cases, they are still working to assign the votes in the appropriate congressional district.

Those votes are important because both parties award delegates based on statewide votes and on results in individual congressional districts. Democrats award them proportionally, meaning precise counts can be necessary, even when the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate.

Of course, CH dismisses this article even though it more or less helps verify the numbers he's married to.

It seems like a wash to me. CNN's 'sin' is its mix of what it believes or what the superdelegates have said they'll do and MSNBC's sin is projecting winners of delegates who have not yet been assigned.

I agree that blending superdelegates with pledged delegates is a dishonest and misleading way to list the count, and it's been annoying the hell out of me because CNN isn't the only one doing it. It's fine to include what direction the superdelegates have stated they're going, but until they cast that vote they should be listed separately and clearly. It gives a false picture otherwise and can create a sense of inevitability which undermines voting.

However, we're still left with a three vote deficit. Either the Yahoo! article was rounding or CNN isn't counting three delegates that have been decided. This, then, still leads to the conclusion that the CNN numbers are incomplete without a way of knowing how or why and the MSNBC numbers are predictive. And puppies are in line for some more kicking.

As a side and only vaguely related note, did Kansas (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23068044/) not get the message that McCain is the presumptive nominee?

And to end with the message that he is the next coming of the President of peace, well, that would be well and fine IF one could believe that.

Obama talks tough on Pakistan (http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=62500&newsChannel=domesticNews)


I remember what happened the last time the US violated a country's sovereignity. We call that mistake Iraq.Oh please. Firstly, remember that the Iraq mistake was opposed by Obama and supported by Clinton for a long time. Secondly, a refusal to strike against Al Qaeda is arguably AGAINST peace. Thirdly, don't believe for a second that Hillary wouldn't do the same with Pakistan. The difference, that she has ADMITTED to, is that she thinks that it SHOULDN'T BE DISCUSSED. She supports the kind of opacity of government that enabled the Bush administration to commit its attrocities. If you still have doubts about the relative hawkishness of the two candidates, remember that she has criticized Obama for saying that he wouldn't use NUKES in such situations. FUCKING NUKES. There's no rational application of nuclear weapons against a guerilla terrorist organization. It's a completely inappropriate weapon for the nature of the target.

Oh please. Firstly, remember that the Iraq mistake was opposed by Obama and supported by Clinton for a long time. Secondly, a refusal to strike against Al Qaeda is arguably AGAINST peace. Thirdly, don't believe for a second that Hillary wouldn't do the same with Pakistan. The difference, that she has ADMITTED to, is that she thinks that it SHOULDN'T BE DISCUSSED. She supports the kind of opacity of government that enabled the Bush administration to commit its attrocities. If you still have doubts about the relative hawkishness of the two candidates, remember that she has criticized Obama for saying that he wouldn't use NUKES in such situations. FUCKING NUKES. There's no rational application of nuclear weapons against a guerilla terrorist organization. It's a completely inappropriate weapon for the nature of the target.
I haven't heard the nukes thing, do you have a source?

This tells me nothing in reality. CH, give it up. You got your ass handed to you. Now you are just acting like how I used to act. Sad really.

And now you're just a cheerleader who reiterates what other people have said. Sad, really.

Come on, people. CanuckHeaven is being intellectually dishonest, but there's no reason to go on insulting him.

I don't see an issue with the Pakistan thing. Some people can't seem to see a difference between focusing your military might on direct and imminent threats (or, in this case, a threat that has ALREADY attacked) and focusing your military might on a non-threat that's completely unrelated to the stated goals.

Obama isn't talking about ousting the leadership of Pakistan. In fact, he's talking about supporting them and using diplomatic means to get their help dealing with the terrorists. To compare that to Iraq is to demonstrate that one is more interested in attacking Obama than excercising reason. Is that really the position CH wants to put himself in? Why not just compare Obama wanting to capture or kill the Al Queda terrorists with Nazi concentration camps and make the full leap and get it over with? The support for either is equivalent.

I haven't heard the nukes thing, do you have a source?
It's what she means when she says she'll leave "all options on the table"
Apparently she wasn't always like this though:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/09/311439.aspx

Sweet crap- (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/09/feb.9.contests/index.html)

In Nebraska, Obama led rival Hillary Clinton 69-31 percent, with 74 percent of precincts reporting.

He held a similar edge in Washington, where he was ahead 67-32 percent with 37 percent of precincts reporting.

I know they said that the rest of the calender favored Obama, but holy hell...apparently he is really able to work the caucus system.

EDIT: Also, the CNN debate is sort of moot now, as they list different numbers:
Obama:855
Clinton: 848

What a difference a day makes.

Sweet crap- (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/09/feb.9.contests/index.html)

I know they said that the rest of the calender favored Obama, but holy hell...apparently he is really able to work the caucus system.

yeah, that shit is just embarrassing. CH, what's the pro-clinton spin for the evening?

yeah, that shit is just embarrassing. CH, what's the pro-clinton spin for the evening?

He's already laid the groundwork for that, it's Obama winning Red States (though Washington isn't), and apparently it only matters if you can win Blue States. I'm unclear as to how that logic works, but that's not a short list for what he's put forth so far.

yeah, that shit is just embarrassing. CH, what's the pro-clinton spin for the evening?

That as awesome as those stats are, it might change once the dust has settled and all the precincts have reported in.

I doubt it, personally, but it's still possible.

Edit: And before I get pounced on, I meant specifically for Washington, since 74% pretty much seals the deal.

That as awesome as those stats are, it might change once the dust has settled and all the precincts have reported in.

I doubt it, personally, but it's still possible.

Caucuses tend to be a little more cut and dry and quicker to report.

Caucuses tend to be a little more cut and dry and quicker to report.

Fair enough.

I had no idea there were caucuses today. Who will win?

I had no idea there were caucuses today. Who will win?

Well, unless Louisiana cuts really hard for Clinton, Obama.

EDIT: Which doesn't seem likely. I just flipped over from the race I'm watching and CNN has Obama leading in LA 52% to 38%. It's far from over, but even if the trend suddenly reverses I don't see her making up too much ground from the other two states.

EDIT the II: Well, CNN is calling it Obama in Louisiana 53% to 38% Who knows what the other 8% voted for...

Well, unless Louisiana cuts really hard for Clinton, Obama.

EDIT: Which doesn't seem likely. I just flipped over from the race I'm watching and CNN has Obama leading in LA 52% to 38%. It's far from over, but even if the trend suddenly reverses I don't see her making up too much ground from the other two states.

EDIT the II: Well, CNN is calling it Obama in Louisiana 53% to 38% Who knows what the other 8% voted for...

YAYAY!!! And CTOAN? Your math is off. Its 9% :D

YAYAY!!! And CTOAN? Your math is off. Its 9% :D

No one gives a shit about that last 1% though. They're the 5th dentist of the '4 out of 5.'


I don't need your class to graduate.






Leave me alone!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080210/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp

so, obama rather convincingly kicked ass tonight. i mean, fuck, 90% in the virgin islands?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080210/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp

so, obama rather convincingly kicked ass tonight. i mean, fuck, 90% in the virgin islands?

Two things amuse me right off the bat and I haven't even finished reading...

As in his earlier Southern triumphs in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, Obama, a black man, rode a wave of African-American support to victory in Louisiana.
For those of you just tuning in...

and-
Clinton made no mention of the night's contests as she appeared at a Democratic Party dinner in Virginia, site of one of three primaries this Tuesday.
Gosh, why?

Awesome. I'm watching the Obama speech, where he zinged the following (talking about who won't be on the ballot)

"My cousin Dick Chenney won't be on the ballot. That was disappointing when that made news. When they do these geniological studies you want to be related to someone cool."

I wish they wouldn't harp on the 100 year war thing, it's a distortion and kind of a cheap shot when there are so many better ones to make. (he commented on it while I was typing)

He's already laid the groundwork for that, it's Obama winning Red States (though Washington isn't), and apparently it only matters if you can win Blue States.
Actually that is not what I said at all and it appears that you are putting your own spin on what I stated earlier.

What I stated to you was (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13434469&postcount=288):

Yes I think that Clinton did soar. She handily won most of the traditional Blue States. Obama won mostly the Red States, and let's face facts, those Red states that Obama won are very unlikely to vote Democrat in the general election?


Let's also face another fact, in that Clinton won the primaries in Michigan and Florida, even though she has not received any delegates for those States. Had she been awarded those delegates, she would be comfortably in the lead.

I believe that in a general election, Clinton could very well win Florida. I don't believe that Obama would.
When challenged by Tmutarakhan (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13434912&postcount=297), my reply was:

If you would notice, I said the Red States won by Obama are very likely to stay Red.

I think Hillary could easily win the Red States of Florida, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Nevada. I am only going by the States that have voted thus far.


I'm unclear as to how that logic works, but that's not a short list for what he's put forth so far.
It would appear that there is no shortage of "intellectual dishonesty" on this forum?

Actually that is not what I said at all and it appears that you are putting your own spin on what I stated earlier.

What I stated to you was (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13434469&postcount=288):


When challenged by Tmutarakhan (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13434912&postcount=297), my reply was:




It would appear that there is no shortage of "intellectual dishonesty" on this forum?
You know what, dude? If that's the best you got I'll just go ahead and give it to you. You're in bad need of a win at this point.

You know what, dude? If that's the best you got I'll just go ahead and give it to you. You're in bad need of a win at this point.
I was just making a point.....I really don't need a win. :D

Maybe CNN is out to lunch after all?

I think their information is a tad off on the Virgin Islands!!!

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#VI

I was just making a point.....I really don't need a win. :D

Yeah, you really do.

But mostly it's just because at this point I know better than to ask you for any sort of support for your assertion and I'm having a hard time finding a list of traditional swing states to check how the candidates have done in them so far except Connecticut, which Obama won. Likely you'll cite Florida and then we'll have to through that stupid merry-go-round again. For some reason Ohio isn't on CNN's summary sight, nor Pennsylvania.

Alright, so while I was typing this and trying to figure out why I was still watching The Dukes of Hazzard, I found a list. Granted, it's on Wikipedia, but whatever.

So it lists the swing states as follows-
New Hampshire (4-D): Once very reliably Republican, New Hampshire became a swing state in the 1990s. Republicans still have somewhat of an edge in statewide elections, however the Democrats took control of the state legislature and both Congressional seats in 2006. The New Hampshire Republican Party tends to be more socially liberal than the national party, and as a result their behavior in national elections is harder to determine.
That one goes to Clinton in a near statistical tie. A difference of @8,000 votes doesn't overwhelm, or the delegate tie. But granting your premise its best shot, we'll give it to you.

* Pennsylvania (21-D): Pennsylvania is famously described by Democratic strategist James Carville as "you’ve got Philadelphia at one end of the state, Pittsburgh at the other end, and Alabama in the middle.”[5] Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortés stated on March 17, 2007, that "The commonwealth’s large number of electoral college votes and diverse population make Pennsylvania a key battleground state." [6] Pennsylvania has leaned Democratic since 1992, giving its electoral votes to Bill Clinton (1992 and 1996), Al Gore (2000) and John Kerry (2004). President George W. Bush visited the state more than 40 times during his 2004 campaign.[7]
They don't have a primary until April 22nd, but Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html) has Clinton polling ahead of Obama. Granted the last poll was taken Jan 14th, but again, giving as much justice to your premise, we'll give it to you, with the caveat that things can change, as we saw last Tuesday when Clinton was supposed to wrap this thing up.

Arkansas (6-R): Although a conservative state in the heart of the Bible Belt, the Democratic Party is a powerful force in Arkansas and Democrats tend to have a comfortable advantage in statewide races. Presently, the Governor, both U.S. Senators, and 3 out of 4 of the Arkansas' House members are Democrats, and Democrats control the state legislature by a large margin. The Arkansas Democratic Party tends to be more conservative than the national party, however, and as a result voters there tend to be open to Republican Presidential candidates. Though favorite son Bill Clinton won Arkansas easily both times he ran, Arkansas gave their electoral votes to George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 by a fairly large margin.
Here you point is the strongest, with Clinton in a big lead. I will not dismiss this lead as it being a 'home' state because that doesn't make the votes count any less in the end. But keep that in mind.

Florida (27-R): The outcome of the 2000 Presidential Election hung on a margin of roughly 500 votes in this state, and the fierce legal battles that ensued. Florida's electorate is balanced by heavily Democratic large cities like Miami and sparser, more Republican areas (the Florida Panhandle in this case). Republicans have been winning handily in statewide elections lately; however, the large Hispanic vote near Tampa and Orlando (particularly Puerto Ricans who tend to be the Democrats and have a significant presence in the Orlando area) provide Democrats an edge, but the Cuban-American vote is crucial near Miami; their votes gave an edge to George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000.
We've gone over this so much it makes me want to cry. When they have a real primary we'll assign the state one way or the other. Moving on.

Virginia (13-R): No Democratic presidential candidate has won Virginia since Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory in 1964, and it was the only Southern state that went Republican in 1976. Virginia is no longer as reliably Republican as it once was, as evidenced by two successive Democratic gubernatorial victories in 2001 and 2005 and Jim Webb's narrow victory in the 2006 Senate race against incumbent Republican George Allen. Also, Northern Virginia, the rapidly growing region of the state tends to lean Democratic.
Ah, Virginy...we'll see on Tuesday. Virginia looks to be leaning Obama (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/obama_leads_in.html). Since we gave Clinton one based on polling, it's only fair to give this one to Obama. Perhaps that will change on Tuesday, but for now, one for Obama.

Iowa (7-R): Al Gore won Iowa in 2000 by a razor-thin margin, and George W. Bush did the same four years later. The state's highly influential caucus makes Iowa the political holy grail of Republicans and Democrats alike.
Iowa went to Obama in a bit of a squeaker. But more of a margin than the one we granted to Clinton earlier, so for consistencies sake, this one is Obama, too.

Michigan (17-D): Michigan has generally tended to lean Democratic. One of the country's biggest centers of manufacturing, labor unions inevitably come into play, and the economic hard times the state has fallen on recently will no doubt be a major issue for the Great Lakes State in 2008. Republican strength tends to be primarily in the western portion of the lower peninsula of the state, particularly in the Grand Rapids Metropolitan area, which is also one of the fastest growing regions in the Midwest. The Democrats are strong in the Southeastern region of the state around the Metro Detroit area in particular and also around the Ann Arbor, Flint, and Saginaw areas as well.
Don't even start with me on this. Obama wasn't even on the ballot and as it is 40% of the voters turned out just to not vote for Clinton. No, no one gets this until they come to their senses and have a real primary.

Minnesota (10-D): Minnesota's transformation into a swing state is a surprising one, given how fervently Democratic the North Star State once was - it was the only state in the country that did not vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984. A strong tradition of populism and labor unions made it difficult for Republicans to have any real success there until recently; the recent competitiveness is due to the ever expanding suburbs of the Twin Cities and exurbs outside of the Twin Cities area. Republicans picked Saint Paul as the site for the 2008 Republican National Convention in September 2008.
Obama takes this one in a slammer, 67% to 32%.

Missouri (11-R): Missouri is geographically situated where the South, the Midwest, and the Great Plains meet, and is in many ways a microcosm of the entire country. Missouri has voted for the winner of every Presidential election since 1904 except in the year 1956, and voters there have proven themselves to be an effective gauge of the national mood. The "coastal" urban areas of St Louis and Kansas City, like urban areas elsewhere in the U.S., tend to lean strongly to the Democrats while the rural and suburban/exurban areas tend to lean to the Republicans.
Obama in another squeaker. A delegate dead heat. But again, we granted Clinton the delegate dead heat for popular vote advantage, consistency.

Ohio (20-R): "I think 2008 is very likely to be a hotly contested race in Ohio," stated Eric Rademacher, director of the University of Cincinnati's Ohio Poll, for the Cincinnati Enquirer. [8] Its 20 electoral votes were critical to President Bush's reelection in 2004. In 2006, however, Ohio voters elected Democrats Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown for Governor and U.S. Senator. The industrial urban areas of Cleveland, Dayton, Akron, and Youngstown tend to lean to the Democrats while the rural areas and the suburbs and exurbs (in particular around the ever growing Greater Cincinnati and Columbus areas) lean to the Republicans.
Ohio does it's deal the first week of March, the first poll Google gave me (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/ohio.html) has Clinton in a handy lead there. One for Clinton.

Wisconsin (10-D): Wisconsin has narrowly gone to Democratic candidates since 1988, which is somewhat ironic considering that the Republican Party was founded there. The Republicans lost their advantage in Wisconsin in the late 19th century when perceived nativist sentiments - particularly the Bennett Law - alienated the state's large German-American population. Southern Wisconsin has a strong progressive tradition, and elected the country's only current openly lesbian U.S. Congresswoman, Tammy Baldwin.
Same place (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/wisconsin.html) give it to Clinton. Just noticed you can scroll down for multiple polls. This is taking forever so I'm not going to amend the last one, if someone scrolls down and finds the results inconclusive I'm happy to be corrected.

Colorado (9-R): Once a reliable GOP stronghold, Colorado has moved towards the center during the last decade. With the victories of Ken Salazar to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Bill Ritter to the Governor's Mansion in 2006, and an additional U.S. House seat pick-up that same year, Democrats are finding themselves in a better position than before. Large Hispanic populations with strong penchant for populist themes makes this a true battleground state; nevertheless, Republicans still have a 100,000 registration edge against the Democrats. Democrats selected Denver as the site for the 2008 Democratic National Convention
Another drubbing here, Obama takes 67% compared to 32%.

Nevada (5-R): Long considered a "fly-over" state due to its proximity to the populous state of California, the Silver State is once again looking like a strong swing state. Nevada's large Mormon population favors the GOP, but the presence of strong labor unions and Hispanic voters in Las Vegas and Reno sway those districts towards the Democrats. Populism plays well in this long-standing bastion of the GOP.
Ah, Nevada. A bit sticky as Obama took it in terms of delegates but Clinton took it for popular vote. We've already established a preference for popular vote, so this goes to Clinton in the squeaker to beat all squeakers.

New Mexico (5-R): Personalities trump party affiliation in this classic swing state. New Mexico is truly politically divided, with registration amongst Democrats and Republicans nearly equal and the existence of a strong Independent voting bloc. The state went to Al Gore in 2000 by a mere 400 votes while George W. Bush carried it by a margin of 6000 votes in 2004.
They're still counting this state, apparently. Dead heat. Right now Clinton is ahead, so to give your premise the greatest chance we'll give it to Clinton, but this could change as well.

Oregon (7-D): Intense beliefs in civil liberties and liberal stances on social issues such as abortion and gay rights make Oregon a Democratic-leaning state. On the other hand, Republican candidates are enthusiastic about the state's hostility to big government and federal control. The state has gone to the Democrats from the 1988 election onward.
Oregon does it's thing in May, and again same place (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/oregon.html) gives it to Clinton.

Sweet crap that took forever. I shouldn't even have to do it, it's your fucking premise, but rather than waste four pages asking for it it was easier for me to just do your work for you.

So, let me see if I can collect this up into a tally of some sort.

Clinton
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Arkansas
Ohio
Wisconsin
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon

Obama
Virginia
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
Colorado

Bold are states that have already had their primaries/caucuses.

Taken as a whole your premise technically stands. Of the swing states that have had or will have actual primaries, Clinton leads 8-5. However, you did say won, and you're a stickler for what you actually said. You give her Nevada, Arkansas and New Mexico. (and Florida, but we've covered that). Of those three, she's only definitively won one of them and still hasn't officially won New Mexico. Of the four swing states she's won, three have been squeakers and one slam dunk.

Of the dead tie in won swing states Obama has has two slam dunks and two squeakers.

What we see is that your premise is on the shakiest of grounds. Of the eight swing states that have had legitimate primaries it's split 50/50, and of those wins Obama has the more definitive wins. Hell, one of Clinton's could actually turn out to be an Obama state, though it seems that that is not the way the wind is going.

Now, I think I can say I've been as fair as I can be to your premise and it doesn't seem to wash. Obama is carrying swing states the same as Clinton and more definitively.

Between that and the fact that Obama is polling better than Clinton against McCain, the foundations of your support are shakier and shakier. Perhaps you should have chose who to back based on positions instead of vote mongering.

Fuck, that took almost as long to post as it did to write...you fucking owe me.

I should have mentioned that the results i used were from CNN since that's the only one CH seems to trust.

I've been quite busy for a few days and I waited to see how today wound up. I remember saying something to CH about Obama having advantages in caucuses. Please take note of the states who held caucuses and who has won those states. So bring on two more of those as "make up" votes in FL and MI. Obama is an economic superpower in this election and that is certainly helping him. He's not just the better politician for the job, he's the better person for the job.

http://www.rob-clarkson.com/duff-brewery/martin/01.jpg
"My geode must be acknowledged!"


Seriously, that took too long to just let it fade away...

http://www.rob-clarkson.com/duff-brewery/martin/01.jpg
"My geode must be acknowledged!"


Seriously, that took too long to just let it fade away...

My silence was that I had absolutely nothing to add; any attempt to do so would pale in comparison to that winning post.

My silence was that I had absolutely nothing to add; any attempt to do so would pale in comparison to that winning post.

Well, I'm kinda waiting for CH, who will likely just bring up the two states with invalid primaries again. Or bug out of the conversation all together. But I want to give him a fair chance.

"My geode must be acknowledged!"

Seriously, that took too long to just let it fade away...
I acknowledge all your hard work and effort, but alas, it did not address the point that I had raised. Certainly in the election coming up the swing States will ultimately determine if a Democrat or a Republican will be given the keys to the White House.

Who is better poised to win those swing States in a general election? I believe that it would be Clinton, especially if it is a Clinton/Obama ticket. I rate that a Clinton/Edwards ticket would also have a chance at success. I don't believe that an Obama/Clinton will materialize.

I will detail my thoughts on those issues later.

I acknowledge all your hard work and effort, but alas, it did not address the point that I had raised. Certainly in the election coming up the swing States will ultimately determine if a Democrat or a Republican will be given the keys to the White House.

Who is better poised to win those swing States in a general election? I believe that it would be Clinton, especially if it is a Clinton/Obama ticket. I rate that a Clinton/Edwards ticket would also have a chance at success. I don't believe that an Obama/Clinton will materialize.

I will detail my thoughts on those issues later.

Yeah, you see, Obama fares better than Clinton not only in the swing states, but also in the entire USA. Furthermore, Obama is just plain better than Clinton, especially on the issue of not being a cursed warmonger.

I acknowledge all your hard work and effort, but alas, it did not address the point that I had raised. Certainly in the election coming up the swing States will ultimately determine if a Democrat or a Republican will be given the keys to the White House.

Who is better poised to win those swing States in a general election? I believe that it would be Clinton, especially if it is a Clinton/Obama ticket. I rate that a Clinton/Edwards ticket would also have a chance at success. I don't believe that an Obama/Clinton will materialize.

I will detail my thoughts on those issues later.
You said that the red states that Obama was carrying weren't likely to change. I proved that that was no more true than it was for Clinton.

I hope when you detail your thoughts later it will be based on something other than 'wishing it were so.'

You got some time. I got to go shower and watch a bunch of yay-hoos protest an even bigger bunch of yay-hoos.

Yeah, you see, Obama fares better than Clinton not only in the swing states, but also in the entire USA.
Well, that is simply not true.

Furthermore, Obama is just plain better than Clinton,
Certainly a matter of opinion.

especially on the issue of not being a cursed warmonger.
The jury is still out on that one, especially since Obama raised the prospect of invading Pakistan territory.

Well, that is simply not true.

I'm betting there's lots of pollsters who would beg to differ.

The jury is still out on that one, especially since Obama raised the prospect of invading Pakistan territory.

He did? When? With what words? Under what circumstances? Need I remind you that Hillary didn't discard NUKING IRAN?

provided that the superdelegates don't change their minds - all of her endorsements there were from ages ago, when she was a shoo-in.

btw,
states obama won with more than 60% of the vote:
Alaska (75%)
Colorado (67%)
Georgia (67%)
Idaho (79%)
Illinois (65%)
Kansas (74%)
Minnesota (67%)
North Dakota (61%)

states Clinton won with more than 60% of the vote:
Arkansas (70%)
I was looking for something else (CH's list of polls he used initially to assert that Clinton was better than Obama against McCain).

EDIT: Ooops! I didn't finish that sentence! The end of it was, "but I thought I'd bump this for relevance."

Real quick before I leave, here's RCP's (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html#polls) polls showing that McCain is leading Clinton nationally, but that's not what I want to call attention to but rather expand on the last comment on the big post.

What's important is to look at the graph underneath that tracks the gaps between the two candidates. Notice how many peaks and valleys there are.

It's fucking February, the election isn't until November. To pick a candidate on 'this weeks' polls about how they're doing against someone else is ridiculous. Around primary time Dukakis had a double digit lead against Bush I, and we all remember how that turned out.

The truth of the matter is that vote mongering is an inexact science at best and a foolish way to chose your candidate.

Right now the national polls favor Obama over Clinon vs. McCain. Two weeks ago they favored Clinton. In two weeks time they'll say something else.

Come up with a better reason.

I was looking for something else (CH's list of polls he used initially to assert that Clinton was better than Obama against McCain).

EDIT: Ooops! I didn't finish that sentence! The end of it was, "but I thought I'd bump this for relevance."

need to add washington (68%), nebraska (68%), and the virgin islands (90%) to the list, too.

I'm betting there's lots of pollsters who would beg to differ.



He did? When? With what words? Under what circumstances? Need I remind you that Hillary didn't discard NUKING IRAN?

Did she say 'use nuclear weapons against Iran' or is this an extension of the 'no options off the table?'

Because if it's the latter, then really unless the candidate is saying that s/he will dismantle our nuclear arsenal they all leave nuclear strikes of some kind or another 'on the table.'

It's argued that a large part of what kept Iran 'in check' was the threat of retaliation if it did anything too out of hand. When we found ourselves over-extended in Iraq that threat was vastly diminished and has emboldened Iran. This isn't my analysis, but one I've heard a few times (and no, not on FOX). Now, you can debate that analysis and I invite you to since I would love to hear the other side of it. However, military action is a tool in negotiations. Threating to nuke them is not a productive line, I will agree to that, but letting them know that invading them isn't out of the question isn't entirely unreasonable when negotiating with a hostile entity.

Both candidates have said that they would use diplomacy as their primary tool, but Bush said that about Iraq, too. I had linked earlier a difference in the debates a row between Obama and Clinton where Obama said he would meet with Tehran within his first year as president and Clinton called it naive and said she wouldn't, citing that she didn't want to be used for someone elses propaganda.

This important difference in the interpretation of what 'diplomacy' means between the two carries more weight than extrapolating "no options are off the table" into "She want's to nuke Tehran."

need to add washington (68%), nebraska (68%), and the virgin islands (90%) to the list, too.

Maine is a caucus, too. Which so far has been a Obama strong suit.

Fuck, I'm missing the yay-hoos. If I don't show up and they do I'll be an ass...

Well. Obama's surprised me. I thought he was finished.

*hopes we get an actual convention for once*

I acknowledge all your hard work and effort, but alas, it did not address the point that I had raised. Certainly in the election coming up the swing States will ultimately determine if a Democrat or a Republican will be given the keys to the White House.

Who is better poised to win those swing States in a general election? I believe that it would be Clinton, especially if it is a Clinton/Obama ticket. I rate that a Clinton/Edwards ticket would also have a chance at success. I don't believe that an Obama/Clinton will materialize.

I will detail my thoughts on those issues later.

I notice these arguments get less and less supported as we go. Now we're getting down to the nuts of it. YOU don't believe. It's not about facts or numbers or positions. Just you really want Hillary to win so you made up a reason why she's better than Obama. Cuz she can win. Even though every bit of information we can find leans toward Obama being the stronger candidate in every way.

Well, that is simply not true.




Yes, it is.

Yes, it is.
You have the right to be wrong. :)

*snip long and thorough analysis*

I would add that even some of the traditional outright red states only went Republican by a very slim margin in the last presidential election, so I don't think dismissing the traditional red states out of hand is a good idea. GA, for instance, was really close in the 2004 election. With so much support for Obama here, I honestly think he could take the state in a general election.


He did? When? With what words? Under what circumstances? Need I remind you that Hillary didn't discard NUKING IRAN?

She didn't rule out using nukes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. either because she slammed him for daring to say that he wouldn't nuke terrorist camps.

You have the right to be wrong. :)

Just as you have the right to be so blinded by Hillary love that you cannot see reason or simple polls.

Shake up in the Clinton camp after the weekend. Obama swept the weekend. So much for the spurious claims of CH. Doesn't particularly support that claim about him not being able to get the swing red states. I'm sure you've got some ridiculous spin for the weekend, right, CH?

Oh look, another Obama Caucus win. Oh I feel so good if they would let FL and MI have caucuses as make-ups.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#ME

Real quick before I leave, here's RCP's (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html#polls) polls showing that McCain is leading Clinton nationally, but that's not what I want to call attention to but rather expand on the last comment on the big post.

What's important is to look at the graph underneath that tracks the gaps between the two candidates. Notice how many peaks and valleys there are.

It's fucking February, the election isn't until November. To pick a candidate on 'this weeks' polls about how they're doing against someone else is ridiculous. Around primary time Dukakis had a double digit lead against Bush I, and we all remember how that turned out.

The truth of the matter is that vote mongering is an inexact science at best and a foolish way to chose your candidate.
Right now, I tend to agree with you on that matter. Polling is all over the map the past few months and the more meaningful polls will start once the parties have nominated their candidate.

Okay, to pick up where I left off. This report (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22494)somewhat details exactly what I was talking about, although he mentions many States that I mentioned, he does have some that differ from mine.

I am sure Bill Clinton -- the next “Strategist in Chief” -- has a similar system. And it’s not the national polls or the Iowa or New Hampshire polls that worry me. It’s putting those states on one side or the other of a yellow pad that bothers me. We are now a divided nation ideologically and geographically. Republicans are now a southern party and that is our base. Hillary is not going to erode that base no matter who we nominate. But on the other side, Hillary is not going to lose a state Al Gore carried or John Kerry won.

Gore carried 21 states and Kerry 20 .

That gives her more than 250 electoral votes and within striking distance of the magic 270.We all know that a change of 537 votes in Florida in 2000, and Texans wouldn't be raising money for a George W. Bush Library. Less than 60,000 votes in Ohio kept John Kerry from being Commander in Chief, a frightening thought. What you might not know is that 18,777 vote shift in 3 states Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada and a electoral college tie would have occurred and the House would have decided the election. Florida, Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada are in play again along with some other states like Virginia, Colorado and many of the swing states of the last 2 elections.

Hillary is not just a contender, I rate her a favorite. But she can be beaten by the right candidate with a unified party.

It’s like a game of “Texas Hold Em.” Your pair of two’s don't look like much but it beats one of a kind in the other players hand. Today I would say Hillary’s got 3 of a kind with aces and we need to draw to an inside straight.

The good news is there is a long ways to go. And Hillary is a Clinton. And as we know with the Clinton’s anything can happen and usually does.

Shake up in the Clinton camp after the weekend. Obama swept the weekend. So much for the spurious claims of CH.
I am wounded by your words. :rolleyes:

Doesn't particularly support that claim about him not being able to get the swing red states.
Perhaps you should re-read what I said before making another incorrect statement?

I'm sure you've got some ridiculous spin for the weekend, right, CH?
I don't care what labels you want to use. :)

Stats relevant to this thread:

In Alaska, one of the reddest states (if not the reddest state) of the union, here is the cross-party vote breakdown comparison.

Barack Obama --- 6,471
Mitt Romney --- 5,378
Mike Huckabee --- 2,672
Hillary Clinton --- 2,138
Ron Paul --- 2,050
John McCain --- 1,894

Sources:
http://www.alaskademocrats.org/
http://www.alaskarepublicans.com/

It would be interesting to see similar stats for other presumed red states

Obama won here in Maine. Good. He needs to start winning bigger states, though.

Obama won here in Maine. Good. He needs to start winning bigger states, though.

He won Alaska...






Oh, wait... You meant population-wise didn't you?

Stats relevant to this thread:

In Alaska, one of the reddest states (if not the reddest state) of the union, here is the cross-party vote breakdown comparison.

Barack Obama --- 6,471
Mitt Romney --- 5,378
Mike Huckabee --- 2,672
Hillary Clinton --- 2,138
Ron Paul --- 2,050
John McCain --- 1,894

Sources:
http://www.alaskademocrats.org/
http://www.alaskarepublicans.com/

It would be interesting to see similar stats for other presumed red states
Yup, Obama will turn Alaska Blue in a general election. :rolleyes:

Alaska (2004)

KERRY / EDWARDS DEM 111025 35.52%
BUSH / CHENEY REP 190889 61.07%


Alaska (2000)

BUSH/CHENEY REP 167398 58.62%
GORE/LIEBERMAN DEM 79004 27.67%

Alaska 1996 (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1996&f=0)

Alaska 1992 (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1992&fips=2&f=0&off=0&elect=0)

Yup, Obama will turn Alaska Blue in a general election. :rolleyes:

Alaska (2004)

KERRY / EDWARDS DEM 111025 35.52%
BUSH / CHENEY REP 190889 61.07%


Alaska (2000)

BUSH/CHENEY REP 167398 58.62%
GORE/LIEBERMAN DEM 79004 27.67%

Alaska 1996 (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1996&f=0)

Alaska 1992 (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1992&fips=2&f=0&off=0&elect=0)

My point (that the caucus stats support) is that Obama is much more attractive to people of non-leftist political persuasions than both Gore and Kerry. This is also supported by the fact that a significant portion of Obama supporters at the caucus changed their voter registration precisely so they could support Barack Obama.

need to add washington (68%), nebraska (68%), and the virgin islands (90%) to the list, too.

Maine is getting close to joining the club, too, as the votes come in.

I am wounded by your words. :rolleyes:

My mother said words never hurt anyone. What a liar! :mad:

I would add that even some of the traditional outright red states only went Republican by a very slim margin in the last presidential election, so I don't think dismissing the traditional red states out of hand is a good idea. GA, for instance, was really close in the 2004 election. With so much support for Obama here, I honestly think he could take the state in a general election.
Georgia was close in 2004 (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/GA/P/00/epolls.0.html)? Not by a long shot. Even with Kerry taking 88% of the African-American votes, the tally was:

Bush 1,914,254 Kerry 1,366,149

She didn't rule out using nukes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. either because she slammed him for daring to say that he wouldn't nuke terrorist camps.
You have a source for that?

You have a source for that?

Why, so you can ignore it?

My point (that the caucus stats support) is that Obama is much more attractive to people of non-leftist political persuasions than both Gore and Kerry.
There is absolutely no way that you can measure that?

This is also supported by the fact that a significant portion of Obama supporters at the caucus changed their voter registration precisely so they could support Barack Obama.
My thoughts on the voter registration switch:

The Republicans in the very Red States are so afraid of Clinton winning the nomination and the election, that they want Obama to win. I doubt they will be voting for him come November.

Georgia was close in 2004 (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/GA/P/00/epolls.0.html)? Not by a long shot. Even with Kerry taking 88% of the African-American votes, the tally was:

Bush 1,914,254 Kerry 1,366,149

I had thought it was closer, but that's still only by 58% of the vote. With a stronger candidate and bringing the youth vote in, it could be overcome.

You have a source for that?

You paid attention to the Pakistan controversy but not the one immediately following about nukes?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3441323

My thoughts on the voter registration switch:

The Republicans in the very Red States are so afraid of Clinton winning the nomination and the election, that they want Obama to win. I doubt they will be voting for him come November.

But of course! It couldn't possibly be that they actually support him. No one does that, right?

Maine is getting close to joining the club, too, as the votes come in.

i'm willing to round up. maine's in.

I had thought it was closer, but that's still only by 58% of the vote. With a stronger candidate and bringing the youth vote in, it could be overcome.
Don't think that will be a factor either. Georgia is a Red State and it would take a lot to put that in the win column for the Dems.

VOTE BY AGE BUSH KERRY
TOTAL 2004 2000 2004

18-29 (19%) 52% +0 47%

30-44 (35%) 57% +1 42%

45-59 (31%) 62% +6 38%

60 and Older (15%) 64% +13 36%


You paid attention to the Pakistan controversy but not the one immediately following about nukes?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3441323
Wasn't aware of it. I will look into it. Thanks for the link.

But of course! It couldn't possibly be that they actually support him. No one does that, right?
Oh, it is quite possible, but seriously, I don't think that Obama has enough to capture the truly redneck States.

Don't think that will be a factor either.

Of course you don't. Next you'll be telling me that you think Hillary is the best candidate. =)

Maybe that's the biggest difference between those of us who support Obama and those who support Clinton. We see what can be. You guys focus only on what has been.

Oh, and CH, might want to do a bit more research on your candidate.

I gave some links here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13431807&postcount=44).

You paid attention to the Pakistan controversy but not the one immediately following about nukes?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3441323
Your spin:

She didn't rule out using nukes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. either because she slammed him for daring to say that he wouldn't nuke terrorist camps.
Reality:

Asked about Obama's speech and his comments about nuclear weapons, New York Sen. Clinton chided Obama for addressing hypotheticals.

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said.

Asked about the idea of unilateral U.S. military action in Pakistan to get al-Qaida leadership, Clinton said: "How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons."
and the rest is interesting too:

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, one of Obama's presidential rivals, also criticized Obama's comments about unilateral military action in Pakistan to pursue terrorists.

"It's a well-intended notion he has, but it's a very naive way of figuring out how you're going to conduct foreign policy," Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on National Public Radio's "The Diane Rehm Show."

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee along with Obama, also took his rival to task.

"Over the past several days, Senator Obama's assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options," Dodd said in a statement.
And further down in the article:

In an AP interview Thursday, the governor of Pakistan's largest province said Obama's comments undermine crucial efforts to win Pakistanis' support for the fight against terrorists.

Baluchistan Gov. Owais Ahmed Ghani, whose province shares a long border with Afghanistan, said Pakistanis watch their soldiers being killed in the fight against militants and say, "If that is the sort of signal that is coming out of Washington, why bother?"

"Nothing must be said or done which will undermine the vital public support that Pakistan needs, the world needs," he said.
Your spin got spun out in the rinse cycle.

Right now, I tend to agree with you on that matter. Polling is all over the map the past few months and the more meaningful polls will start once the parties have nominated their candidate.

Okay, to pick up where I left off. This report (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22494)somewhat details exactly what I was talking about, although he mentions many States that I mentioned, he does have some that differ from mine.

In just about every state mentioned Clinton or Obama are near neck and neck (Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa) and one clear win for Obama (Colorado by 67%). Two haven't had their primaries yet, and only Ohio has a poll leaning to Clinton. The only way to even balance that ledger is to grant an invalid primary. So granting that persons premise Obama is in at least as good a position as Clinton might be in if not better. So setting aside using the concerns of a conservative blogger from back in September there's nothing to indicate that Obama couldn't do the same thing.

And I'll see your September concern from a conservative with a February praise from a conservative. That's praise (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5516076.html)...
Barack Obama is not only popular among Democrats, he's also an appealing figure to many Republicans. Former GOP House member Joe Scarborough, now a host on MSNBC, reports that after every important Obama speech, he is inundated with e-mails praising the speech — with most of them coming from Republicans. William Bennett, an influential conservative intellectual, has said favorable things about Obama. So have Rich Lowry of National Review and Peggy Noonan. And so have I.

A number of prominent Republicans I know, who would wage a pitched battle against Hillary Clinton, like Obama and would find it hard to generate much enthusiasm in opposing him.

It has some of the usual bullshit antagonism for Clinton-

A second reason Republicans appreciate Obama is that he is pitted against a couple, the Clintons, whom many Republicans hold in contempt. Among the effects of the Obama-Clinton race is that it is forcing Democrats to come to grips with the mendacity and ruthlessness of the Clinton machine. Conservatives have long believed that the Clintons are an unprincipled pair who will destroy those who stand between them and power — whether they are political opponents, women from Bill Clinton's past or independent counsels.

blahblahblah

But there's more and better reasons-
Part of it is the eloquence and uplift of his speeches, combined with his personal grace and dignity. He seems to be a well-grounded, decent, thoughtful man. He comes across, in his person and manner, as nonpartisan. He has an unsurpassed ability to (seemingly) transcend politics. Even when he disagrees with people, he doesn't seem disagreeable.

"You know what charm is," Albert Camus wrote in The Fall, "a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question." Obama has such charm, and its appeal is not restricted to Democrats.

...

A third reason for Obama's GOP appeal is that unlike Clinton and especially John Edwards, Obama has a message that, at its core, is about unity and hope rather than division and resentment. He stresses that "out of many we are one." And to his credit, Barack Obama is running a color-blind campaign. "I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina," Obama said in his victory speech last weekend. "I saw South Carolina." That evening, his crowd of supporters chanted as one, "Race doesn't matter." This was an electric moment. Obama's words are in the great tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. Obama, more than any figure in America, can help bind up the racial wounds of America. In addition, for the past eight years, one of the most prominent qualities of the American left has been anger, which has served it and the country very poorly. An Obama primary win would be a move away from the politics of rage.

Granted, he goes on about how Obama has to become less liberal, but what do you expect him to say?

The bottom line is that in all of your criteria so far Obama has faired better.

Oh, and CH, might want to do a bit more research on your candidate.

I gave some links here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13431807&postcount=44).
Yeah, I did check those out and sorry, for a multitude of reasons, not interested. :D

There is absolutely no way that you can measure that?


My thoughts on the voter registration switch:

The Republicans in the very Red States are so afraid of Clinton winning the nomination and the election, that they want Obama to win. I doubt they will be voting for him come November.

What makes you think they are afraid of her? They have so much ammo to hit her with. She may claim she can "fight them" but did it work well the last time? I believe Bill got impeached the last time they fought. The impeachment lost as it should have. John McCain and the Republican party will steamroll Hillary. If you want to hand the election to the Republicans then Hillary is your girl. This is fine for me because McCain is a good alternative. Stating that Clinton is feared is simply conjecture, but how can you deny her polarization factor?

There are far too many independents who will not vote for Hillary and they are crucial to winning the electoral college. Look at the numbers of independents voting for her in the past contests. That's just the primaries. Obama is riding a swell of grassroots momentum. His campaign is in better shape from its organization to its financial status. The only way Hillary wins is if party bosses go for her. She's the establishment candidate in this case, and needs to win big. She was the presumed nominee from the beginning and needs to win convincingly. Her name recognition alone should have carried her. Obama is energizing and tapping into people who have not come out before. In the end, Obama brings more to the party and their dominance in the decades to come. Hillary wins and the country stays on the same skewed course it is on. Of course she'll be better than Bush, but let's set the bar at a reasonable threshold.

What the fuck, man? This thread was all stalled and shit so I took half an hour to type and research a response and that's when you all decide to go gangbusters in it? Bastages.


Sorry, nothing relevant to see here...

Yeah, I did check those out and sorry, for a multitude of reasons, not interested. :D

How nice. Whenever someone points out some flaw in your candidate, you just plug your ears and go "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Honestly, most people get over that when they're five or six.

There is absolutely no way that you can measure that?Well, you can measure it with a vote, and a caucus is a vote, and the numbers I put up are from the caucus.

My thoughts on the voter registration switch:

The Republicans in the very Red States are so afraid of Clinton winning the nomination and the election, that they want Obama to win. I doubt they will be voting for him come November.
My thoughts on your thoughts:
1) Of course they didn't want Clinton to get the nomination. I don't want Clinton to get the nomination. She's a populist authoritarian (the most dangerous kind of authoritarian). But if you think they voted to make it easier to win the general elections, then you don't know Alaskans; they don't do that shit. This is a state where third parties get votes in large numbers because voters refuse to compromise their conscience for practicality. Just look at the Republican numbers - Mitt Romney and Ron Paul beat out McCain. If electability were the overriding factor, you would have seen McCain do a lot better.

2) Republican spoilers don't venture out into -10 windchill, slick roads, have to park a half mile away, stand around in a crowd for an hour once inside talking excitedly, and cheer loudly after the pro-Obama speech.

3) You have no idea this Hillary Clinton thing will go down, do you. At best she will barely eke out an electoral vote victory with ratios of 51% reluctant democrats to 49% united republicans and independents in the states she wins. She will be deadlocked with Congress on all the issues that matter, except for the things she agrees with the other politicos on, like being hawkish, sustaining the military-industrial complex, pork-fueled deficit spending, and dangerous opacity in government. At then end of four or eight years, we'll just have set ourselves up for another Bush, and another slide closer to the black hole of 1984-style totalitarianism.

4) There are two reasons Obama appeals to non-leftists. One's the inspirational reason, but the second is a rational reason. Although he may be a progressive, his means to acheiving his progressive agenda is not one of attempting to use demagoguery and backroom deals to ram it through congress, but enlisting the electorate, making government more transparent, and using common ground politics and deliberation to acheive a consensus. And we know he's going to so this because he did it in Illinois. Non-leftists like this because they believe that this method will also help push them toward their respective agendas, which they perceive to be popular, and would benefit from shedding light in the dark corners of government decision-making. Of course, the reality is probably somewhere in between if Obama can pull off Changing the Way Politics is Done. Pork/earmarks would decrease, government would become more efficient, foreign policy more rational, the deficit would be reduced, and vital government services would be better covered - the things everybody agrees on but the government can't seem to get done because of the way politics works at the moment.


For some clarity on foreign policy approach, watch this short debate clip:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=v0tgxVmVQpw

There is absolutely no way that you can measure that?


My thoughts on the voter registration switch:

The Republicans in the very Red States are so afraid of Clinton winning the nomination and the election, that they want Obama to win. I doubt they will be voting for him come November.

You're cracking me up. Every time the data supports you, you throw it in our face and when it doesn't, you excuse it with wild and unsupported assertions. This time you did in a post where you say there is no way to measure that about something that can be and has been measured. Seriously, how about you allow just a bit of logic into your opinion on this topic.

Meanwhile, how could such a claim POSSIBLY help you? That people would go to such lengths to prevent Clinton from becoming President is very much a problem with Clinton winning the nomination. It's nice that you're finally acknowledging exactly why she's going to struggle if she wins the nomination.

I am wounded by your words. :rolleyes:

Wounded? I made a statement about your claims. Like I said, you are carefully avoiding a reasoned debate instead just completely spinning everything you can to your favor. Now when your statements are proven wrong and I point it out, you pretend it's an insult.

Perhaps you should re-read what I said before making another incorrect statement?


I don't care what labels you want to use. :)

I read exactly what you said. You were talking about which red states might actually go democrat in November and that only she is likely to win them. There's the fact that when including ALL of the swing states, Obama has an overwhelming lead.

Meanwhile, you might want to look up the word "label". You are spinning the information. That's not a label. It's a fact.

Man this is freaking hilarious. I mean...CH is on the receiving end of something that used to be me.

CH. Please! For all of our sanities just admit that Clinton is not the best nominee and lets move on.

Man this is freaking hilarious. I mean...CH is on the receiving end of something that used to be me.

CH. Please! For all of our sanities just admit that Clinton is not the best nominee and lets move on.

Who cares if he admits it? Clinton recognizes the current state of her campaign. She can't even beat Obama after starting out with an enormous lead. CH can deny reality all he likes, but the voting is telling a different story. Obama is favored in the next round of states as well.

Given the current state of his argument, I'd be clinging to states that didn't hold a real election as well. Frankly, there is nothing else to support the idea that Clinton is the more popular candidate. Nothing.

Given the current state of his argument, I'd be clinging to states that didn't hold a real election as well. Frankly, there is nothing else to support the idea that Clinton is the more popular candidate. Nothing.

And the fact that CBS has a 3 candidate lead now over Clinton says something though CNN still has Hillary up still says alot as well.

And the fact that CBS has a 3 candidate lead now over Clinton says something though CNN still has Hillary up still says alot as well.

My FFMA theory posted elsewhere-
I heard how they were determining this. Both candidates have given them lists. Not everyone on those lists have publicly announced anything, but they feel it more or less seems reliable that they'd vote that way.

What CBS might be doing is only counting SDs who have said themselves or at least verified their names in either category. That is MIGHT, CNN said what I noted, the CBS thing is FFMA.

Since you want to keep denying the color of the sky, let's continue to talk about the swing states.

Who the states went for the last 4 elections.

Obama States:
State(Electoral votes) - 2004-2000-1996-1992
Alabama(9)-RRRR
Alaska(3)-RRDR
Colorado(9)-RRRD
Connecticut(7)-DDDD
Deleware(3)-DDDD
Georgia(15)-RRRD
Idaho(4)-RRRR
Illinois(21)-DDDD
Iowa(7)-RDDD
Kansas(6)-RRRR
Lousiana(9)-RRDD
Maine(4)-DDDD
Minnesota(10)-DDDD
Missouri(11)-RRDD
Nebraska(5)-RRRR
North Dakota(3)-RRRR
South Carolina(8)-RRRR
Utah(5)-RRRR
Washinton(11)-DDDD

In other words he has a potential 150 electoral votes in the states he won.

Of them,
40 are virtually guaranteed Republican
56 are virtually guaranteed Democrat
54 are states he could swing.



Clinton States:
Arizona(10)-RRDR
Arkansas(6)-RRDD
California(55)-DDDD
Massachussetts(12)-DDDD
Nevada(5)-RRDD
New Hampshire(4)-DRDD
New Jersey(15)-DDDD
New Mexico(5)-RDDD
New York(31)-DDDD
Oklahoma(7)-RRRR
Tennessee(11)-RRDD

In other words she has a potential 161 electoral votes in the states she won.

Of them,
7 are virtually guaranteed Republican
113 are virtually guaranteed Democrat
41 are states she could swing.

So, even though I don't agree with your premise, CH, Clinton is only bring 41 electoral votes from swing states to the table. Obama is bringing 54. Unless you're now going to argue that states that have gone at least once to each party in the last 4 elections aren't swing states.


EDIT: A little more analysis -
Clinton's states:
Oklahoma - Went sharply Republican in 2004. It's not a likely state to budge.
The democrat states went pretty heavily Democrat so they aren't likely to swing either.

Obama's states:
Minnesota was a close race. Otherwise, all of the states that aren't swing pretty firmly in whatever column they are already in.

In other words, the only states that really seem to matter if we're looking at who is likely to swing states Democrat, we have to look at the states that have gone at least once to both parties in the last few elections. CH suggested we look at such things, and in those contests, Obama has a noticable lead. And if you add in Minnesota, which clearly could be swung to the Republican side considering how close that contest was, you have to give this one to Obama. Minnesota alone is 10 electoral votes. That's pretty sizeable.

It seems like you've not mentioned a single argument that doesn't go against your candidate, yet, CH.

Since you want to keep denying the color of the sky, let's continue to talk about the swing states.

Who the states went for the last 4 elections.

Obama States:
State(Electoral votes) - 2004-2000-1996-1992
Alabama(9)-RRRR
Alaska(3)-RRDR
Colorado(9)-RRRD
Connecticut(7)-DDDD
Deleware(3)-DDDD
Georgia(15)-RRRD
Idaho(4)-RRRR
Illinois(21)-DDDD
Iowa(7)-RDDD
Kansas(6)-RRRR
Lousiana(9)-RRDD
Maine(4)-DDDD
Minnesota(10)-DDDD
Missouri(11)-RRDD
Nebraska(5)-RRRR
North Dakota(3)-RRRR
South Carolina(8)-RRRR
Utah(5)-RRRR
Washinton(11)-DDDD

In other words he has a potential 150 electoral votes in the states he won.

Of them,
40 are virtually guaranteed Republican
56 are virtually guaranteed Democrat
54 are states he could swing.



Clinton States:
Arizona(10)-RRDR
Arkansas(6)-RRDD
California(55)-DDDD
Massachussetts(12)-DDDD
Nevada(5)-RRDD
New Hampshire(4)-DRDD
New Jersey(15)-DDDD
New Mexico(5)-RDDD
New York(31)-DDDD
Oklahoma(7)-RRRR
Tennessee(11)-RRDD

In other words she has a potential 161 electoral votes in the states she won.

Of them,
7 are virtually guaranteed Republican
113 are virtually guaranteed Democrat
41 are states she could swing.

So, even though I don't agree with your premise, CH, Clinton is only bring 41 electoral votes from swing states to the table. Obama is bringing 54. Unless you're now going to argue that states that have gone at least once to each party in the last 4 elections aren't swing states. More importantly, you'll find that Obama also has won in a lot of Republican states as well, demonstrating the possiblity that he might actually create some new "swing" states. Hillary seems to be me mostly winning in states that always vote Democrat.

That looked so much easier than what I did...I hate you now...but yeah, good job.

Bite me. That took me an hour and a half.

It was fun, though. I'm enjoying the democratic primaries and I find all of this quite interesting. I'm really hoping that this is a sign that the US is finally going back blue, something I simply am not sure about with Clinton running. I become less sure of her potential as a candidate the more I investigate her policies and her standing with voters.

It has been entertaining. And CH's dogmatic devotion has forced me to dig the minutia in a way that I might not have. So there's that.

At least you had to work at that one. Though the harder you worked on it and the more detailed it is, the more likely it is to be dismissed with a line or two and another vague claim that won't stand up to the research...it's almost like we have a certain old poster back...

What I find interesting is how it won't stand up to research, supposedly, but that research that demonstrates a flaw in our statements just never seems to surface. All that comes back around is argument about how Obama can't win FL provided the election requires him not to campaign and FL is told that the election doesn't count. If that happens in Nov, then, clearly, the best candidate for running is Clinton. Is that going to happen in Nov?

He also can't win MI if he's not on the ticket. What a loser that Obama is. I find it funny that anyone would use MI in an argument about how Clinton is the better candidate. She almost lost MI and she wasn't running against any other viable candidates. I'd be worried if a state voted "anyone, but you" at a rate of 40%. I certainly wouldn't keep bragging about how that state voted. That's for certain.

Obama talks candidly about his electability (vs Clinton's) in this 60 Minutes interview:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BHe8N5hL0Wo

He's also incorporating electability arguments into his recent speeches, going over the various issues on which he can provide a clear contrast with John McCain but Clinton can't.

It has been entertaining. And CH's dogmatic devotion has forced me to dig the minutia in a way that I might not have. So there's that.

At least you had to work at that one. Though the harder you worked on it and the more detailed it is, the more likely it is to be dismissed with a line or two and another vague claim that won't stand up to the research...it's almost like we have a certain old poster back...

I gave up on CH after he pulled a runner...

I gave up on CH after he pulled a runner...

To his credit he keeps coming back. Not with anything necessarily new or verifiable, but he does come back.

Man this is freaking hilarious. I mean...CH is on the receiving end of something that used to be me.
Hey man, they can throw whatever they like at me. Totally not my concern. I will soldier on. However, I unlike you will not swear at them or call them idiots or morons as is your wont to do. :D

CH. Please! For all of our sanities just admit that Clinton is not the best nominee and lets move on.
As far as I am concerned, Clinton is the best choice, and that is what debate is all about.

Now if only you could drop your phony I love Obama because I really hate Clinton routine.......

Hey man, they can throw whatever they like at me. Totally not my concern. I will soldier on. However, I unlike you will not swear at them or call them idiots or morons as is your wont to do. :D

You just reject everything you disagree with because it does not support Ms. Clinton.

As far as I am concerned, Clinton is the best choice, and that is what debate is all about.

And you have been shown, numerous times, that Clinton does not fair well against McCain whereas Obama does.

Now if only you could drop your phony I love Obama because I really hate Clinton routine.......

I actually do like Obama. I like some of his stances and I just may vote for him in the General Election if he gets the nomination. Wait what? Did I just say that I would vote for a Democrat over a Republican in the General election? By golly I did. Yet another reason that Obama is a better candidate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

Yet again Obama wins but the media wants Billary. :mad:

Fine... let 'em have Billary! We'll take Obama! ;-)

Actually, getting Republicans to vote for him isn't a good thing. ;)

Funny! HAHA

And the best reason of all to vote for Obama is:

He's a Grammy Award Winner! LOL :D

I actually do like Obama. I like some of his stances and I just may vote for him in the General Election if he gets the nomination. Wait what? Did I just say that I would vote for a Democrat over a Republican in the General election? By golly I did. Yet another reason that Obama is a better candidate.Actually, getting Republicans to vote for him isn't a good thing. ;)

I will soldier on.

Is that a euphemism for "ignore all the work everyone ELSE puts into this topic and blindly continue to make false claims"?

Actually, getting Republicans to vote for him isn't a good thing. ;)

Unless, of course, the goal is to win the election.

Is that a euphemism for "ignore all the work everyone ELSE puts into this topic
Not at all. I fully intend to reply to your handiwork, which is quite interesting, when I get the time. I will give you a heads up though, in that I believe you are still missing the point(s) I raised, and I will point those out as we go along.

and blindly continue to make false claims"?
Your personal attacks don't provide fertile ground for an enriching debate. :p

Unless, of course, the goal is to win the election.Eh? Good for the person running, maybe. A candidate capable of getting a large chunk of people swayed by right-wing ideals to follow them may not necessarily be that cool of a choice.

Eh? Good for the person running, maybe. A candidate capable of getting a large chunk of people swayed by right-wing ideals to follow them may not necessarily be that cool of a choice.
Yeah, I can agree with your thoughts there.

Yeah, I can agree with your thoughts there.

So you agree that only a polarizing figure is best for the country eh? That's nice of ya.

Eh? Good for the person running, maybe. A candidate capable of getting a large chunk of people swayed by right-wing ideals to follow them may not necessarily be that cool of a choice.
Well the problem here is a choice between a Democratic candidate Corneliu endorsed and one Anne Coulter endorsed. I'll go for one the common idiot Republican would vote for over the one the rabid neocon pundit would vote for.

So you agree that only a polarizing figure is best for the country eh? That's nice of ya.
What can I say....after all it was YOU that voted for George W. Bush (the Uniter and Compassionate Conservative)!!. :p

What can I say....after all it was YOU that voted for George W. Bush (the Uniter and Compassionate Conservative)!!. :p

Ronald Reagan managed to win in landslides while not doing the Democrats who voted for him any favors. Because someone can be persuasive across party lines doesn't necessarily mean he has to pander.

Well the problem here is a choice between a Democratic candidate Corneliu endorsed and one Anne Coulter endorsed. I'll go for one the common idiot Republican would vote for over the one the rabid neocon pundit would vote for.Suit yourself. I'll be voting non-Evil this time around ;)

So you agree that only a polarizing figure is best for the country eh? That's nice of ya."Polarizing" is dependent on the constituency. If one half of the country is supports a wrong cause, the polarizing candidate that supports the correct cause will still be the better choice. Serbia is a pretty good example of this, as is the Ukraine.

What can I say....after all it was YOU that voted for George W. Bush (the Uniter and Compassionate Conservative)!!. :p

That's only because of Kerry's military records that were released. Unlike most people here, I do know how to actually read a fitrep.

"Polarizing" is dependent on the constituency. If one half of the country is supports a wrong cause, the polarizing candidate that supports the correct cause will still be the better choice. Serbia is a pretty good example of this, as is the Ukraine.

ideally, though, wouldn't you prefer to get some percentage of that bad half to come to their senses and vote for the proper side?

ideally, though, wouldn't you prefer to get some percentage of that bad half to come to their senses and vote for the proper side?Ideally, that would be great. However, it's more likely that the candidate they're now supporting leans in their direction, and away from mine.

That's only because of Kerry's military records that were released. Unlike most people here, I do know how to actually read a fitrep.
Yeah right!! :p

Perhaps one of these would be appropriate for your next tattoo?

http://pinkdome.com/archives/bush_mccain_400.jpg

The only difficult decision that you will have to make is whether to put it on the right or left cheek. :p

Not at all. I fully intend to reply to your handiwork, which is quite interesting, when I get the time. I will give you a heads up though, in that I believe you are still missing the point(s) I raised, and I will point those out as we go along.

Stop personally attacking me. (See how silly that sounds when we're talking about whether or not an argument is true or properly formed.)

Your personal attacks don't provide fertile ground for an enriching debate. :p

I'm attacking your argument. Why would we be arguing if your claims weren't false? Seriously, do you actually think pretending like it hurts your feelings that I disagree with you helps your case. How about you address the mountains of evidence brought up by myself and CTOAN and stop wasting everyone's time.

Ideally, that would be great. However, it's more likely that the candidate they're now supporting leans in their direction, and away from mine.

Then you have a poor sense of history. Reagan pulled many, many Dems and he was hardly liberal. Many people who count themselves as Republican are very much against the direction the current administration has taken and against any candidate that would continue to head in that direction. If such feelings leads them to vote Obama, I'll not complain about it.

Eh? Good for the person running, maybe. A candidate capable of getting a large chunk of people swayed by right-wing ideals to follow them may not necessarily be that cool of a choice.

Democrats are right-wing according to most of the world. American politics are wildly skewed. Anyone who would support either party in general is not someone whose ideals I would trust. Both parties have been selling Americans down the river for half a century, at least.

Then you have a poor sense of history. Reagan pulled many, many Dems and he was hardly liberal. Many people who count themselves as Republican are very much against the direction the current administration has taken and against any candidate that would continue to head in that direction. If such feelings leads them to vote Obama, I'll not complain about it.Nah, note the "more likely" in my sentence.

Democrats are right-wing according to most of the world. American politics are wildly skewed. Anyone who would support either party in general is not someone whose ideals I would trust. Both parties have been selling Americans down the river for half a century, at least.Yeah, I know. The incredible irony of the situation here is that Hillary is the more right-wing candidate and she isn't getting the Republican love...

Yeah right!! :p

Perhaps one of these would be appropriate for your next tattoo?

http://pinkdome.com/archives/bush_mccain_400.jpg

The only difficult decision that you will have to make is whether to put it on the right or left cheek. :p

I do not have tattoos nor am I pierced.

And yes. I know how to read a fitrep and what I saw appalled me about Kerry. Especially his leadership ratings as well as his promotional status.

Your spin:

You mean exactly what she said? If a presidential candidate is not supposed to say that nukes are off the table, that clearly means that they are on the table.

Nah, note the "more likely" in my sentence.

The vast majority of the country fear votes. They vote for the candidate they think will do the least damage. That one of the parties is finally putting up a candidate that speaks to the American people, actually speaks to them, is something laudible. Obama is the first candidate since I've been voting that I actually look forward to voting for. A lot of people feel that way.

There is one good side-effect of the current administration (I hope). Americans have had it so easy in the past that we were voting on all kinds of nonsensical things, like whether or not we wanted to have a drink with the candidate or whether they cheated on their spouse. GWB broke our country so badly that finally people have to vote on real issues (again, I hope). The actually electoral process will tell, but it looks to me like we might actually spend some time talking about what people are gonna do rather than whether or not the candidates look like horses or monkeys.

For my money, if I'm right, the last eight years had a fairly important positive effect. Stiff price to pay, though, for something that should have been there all along.

Yeah, I know. The incredible irony of the situation here is that Hillary is the more right-wing candidate and she isn't getting the Republican love...

Yes, that's why I reject your theory.

What scares me about Hillary is that she thinks that it's okay that Bush pulled so much power away from Congress and into the White House. She simply thinks he abused that power. Giving war powers to the White House was a mistake and I'll consider her as a rational candidate when she admits that.

Suit yourself. I'll be voting non-Evil this time around ;)
So you're not voting I take it :p

You mean exactly what she said? If a presidential candidate is not supposed to say that nukes are off the table, that clearly means that they are on the table.

Obama says all options are on the table as well. It's kind of a non-point. She was massaging what he said to extrapolate it to mean something else. So are you. There are plenty of definitive points to focus on with these candidates. We don't need to try and make something out of nothing. That they don't take options off the table doesn't mean they're planning to use many of those options. If nukes weren't an option, we wouldn't have them.

Stop personally attacking me. (See how silly that sounds when we're talking about whether or not an argument is true or properly formed.)
Shall we move along?

I'm attacking your argument. Why would we be arguing if your claims weren't false?
You haven't proven that my claims are false. You have made counter arguments that clearly do not address the points I raised.

Seriously, do you actually think pretending like it hurts your feelings that I disagree with you helps your case.
You aren't hurting my feelings one bit. I just asking you to stay focused on the topic and cut the window dressing.

How about you address the mountains of evidence brought up by myself and CTOAN
I stated that I would address your reply, but I certainly would not call them "mountains of evidence". Certainly what you brought forward does not provide "proof" that you are factually correct in your assumptions.

and stop wasting everyone's time.
If you figure what you are doing is a waste of time, you have a choice as to whether you want to continue to waste your time.

When you use really stupid methodology for choosing a President, it's probably best you don't tell people about it. Frankly, if you're biggest issue with Kerry was that he didn't score like you'd like when he was in his early 20's then I'd say Kerry should have been the top candidate. Afterall, by comparison, we had some of the most ridiculous decisions of all time on which to base the decision regarding Bush.

That was not my only reason why I voted against Kerry in 2004. I have a list of others. I"ll post them when I get back from picking up my Fiance from school.

I do not have tattoos nor am I pierced.

And yes. I know how to read a fitrep and what I saw appalled me about Kerry. Especially his leadership ratings as well as his promotional status.

When you use really stupid methodology for choosing a President, it's probably best you don't tell people about it. Frankly, if you're biggest issue with Kerry was that he didn't score like you'd like when he was in his early 20's then I'd say Kerry should have been the top candidate. Afterall, by comparison, we had some of the most ridiculous decisions of all time on which to base the decision regarding Bush.

I mean...CH is on the receiving end... yes, he/she is receiving it from all sides, but I would not underestimate CH.
.
CH. Please! For all of our sanities just admit that Clinton is not the best nominee and lets move on.And just who is the best running candidate -in your opinion- Corny?

Shall we move along?

Hey, it's your point. I hope you're done trying to complain about my references to your claims as personal attacks.


You haven't proven that my claims are false. You have made counter arguments that clearly do not address the points I raised.

So you've said, but you admit you've not actually demonstrated that to be true. For more than a day, we've been hearing about how you're GOING TO show this. I won't hold my breath.


You aren't hurting my feelings one bit. I just asking you to stay focused on the topic and cut the window dressing.

The topic IS your claims. What is complicated about this? I find it hilarious that you're complaining about window dressing while people do research and post evidence about past and current voting trends and your posts seemed to consist entirely of rhetoric and complaints about attacks on your position being personal. How about you stop spending your time whining people thinking your position is wrong and actually reassign those efforts to evidence? Sound fair?


I stated that I would address your reply, but I certainly would not call them "mountains of evidence". Certainly what you brought forward does not provide "proof" that you are factually correct in your assumptions.

My assumptions? What assumptions? You brought up the states that could actually go blue in the next election, so I demonstrated who was winning the states that actually show some potential for going blue. No assumptions necessary. I showed actually evidence that said states actually do swing. Again, what is complicated about this?



If you figure what you are doing is a waste of time, you have a choice as to whether you want to continue to waste your time.
Amusing. As long as your making incorrect statements, it's worthwhile to correct them. However, it would help everyone out if you just stopped making incorrect statements. It would save a lot of time. Seriously, what is complicated about this?

I notice that when a person is losing an argument, generally, they always have time to address any comment they feel is personal, but never enough time to actually make reasoned replies to the points made. Feel free to be the first to buck the system and actually skip over any points you feel are "window dressing" and focus on the meat of the argument. I'd be ecstatic. As long as I'm posting relevant arguments, I'll add all the window dressing I like. You're welcome to do so as well, as soon as you "find time" to post relevant arguments.

The vast majority of the country fear votes. They vote for the candidate they think will do the least damage. That one of the parties is finally putting up a candidate that speaks to the American people, actually speaks to them, is something laudible. Obama is the first candidate since I've been voting that I actually look forward to voting for. A lot of people feel that way.

Precisely. And I guess you've got an election or two further back than I do.

Obama says all options are on the table as well.

No, he doesn't. He has (repeatedly, at this point), stated that he would not use nukes against terrorist camps.

Note that we were talking specifically about a particular use of nukes, not about any use of nukes.

Why isn't this voting for candidates done all in one day rather than strung out like this - isn't it slightly undemocratic for the last states to make a choice as some of the candidates they may wish to have chosen could already have dropped out?

That was not my only reason why I voted against Kerry in 2004. I have a list of others. I"ll post them when I get back from picking up my Fiance from school.

Frankly, it's unimportant. You supported Bush. If you thought Kerry was a bad candidate, you should have voted for someone else. If you voted for someone you didn't think was the best available candidate for President, that's your problem. And if you thought Bush was the best available candidate, then you deserve every bit of ridicule you've gotten.

^See what I mean, CH. People are always suddenly busy when they're feeling the ropes on their back.

You mean exactly what she said?
She said:

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said.

Asked about the idea of unilateral U.S. military action in Pakistan to get al-Qaida leadership, Clinton said: "How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons."
Now, what YOU said that she said:

She didn't rule out using nukes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. either because she slammed him for daring to say that he wouldn't nuke terrorist camps.

If a presidential candidate is not supposed to say that nukes are off the table, that clearly means that they are on the table.
That maybe your take on it, but it is clearly not mine.

Now when Bush says that "all options are on the table", it is obvious that he means ALL options.

Precisely. And I guess you've got an election or two further back than I do.



No, he doesn't. He has (repeatedly, at this point), stated that he would not use nukes against terrorist camps.

Note that we were talking specifically about a particular use of nukes, not about any use of nukes.
'Against terrorist camps'? Well, it does seem like using a shotgun to solve your mouse problem, so I'd hope not. I think this one is just common sense. (and no I'm not reducing the significance of terrorists, I'm criticizing the method)

Why isn't this voting for candidates done all in one day rather than strung out like this - isn't it slightly undemocratic for the last states to make a choice as some of the candidates they may wish to have chosen could already have dropped out?
To prevent what they refer to as "airport" campaigning. In the general election this actually does happen, where candidates focus on large population centers and concentration of electoral votes. By giving a few smaller states with varied demographics earlier primaries it forces candidates to campaign to them as well. Even though there are more people in cities and metropolitan areas of the US, and they do have a large proportional say in things, this prevents them from completely dominating the political landscape, it protects the voices of the smaller voters by forcing them to be campaigned to first. It is why there was such a careful selection of the states that could move their primaries before 'Super Tuesday' and why Michigan and Florida's jump was such an infraction.

Yes, that's why I reject your theory.

What scares me about Hillary is that she thinks that it's okay that Bush pulled so much power away from Congress and into the White House. She simply thinks he abused that power. Giving war powers to the White House was a mistake and I'll consider her as a rational candidate when she admits that.There's been a pretty big smear campaign against Hillary on grounds that she's Hillary Clinton. Hating Hillary is the hip Republican thing to do. It has little to do with her policies, so that isn't really grounds for rejecting the theory.

So you're not voting I take it :p
Voting for Nader, this time around ;)
He's a THIRD PAR-TY CAN-DI-DATE, meaning not from one of the TWO other parties. That's why they call it "THIRD" party.

Precisely. And I guess you've got an election or two further back than I do.



No, he doesn't. He has (repeatedly, at this point), stated that he would not use nukes against terrorist camps.

Note that we were talking specifically about a particular use of nukes, not about any use of nukes.

Obama said that all options are on the table with regard to Iran. This is not dissimilar to what Hillary said. Frankly, it's a silly point. Why wouldn't all options be on the table? Part of diplomacy is recognizing that they have to have some reason to capitulate to your demands. That's fairly easy when a nation or person is being reasonable, but denying the potential need for force in the most dire circumstances is simply naive. Both have said that the use of force on any level would only be with a clear and emminent threat.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/11/60minutes/main2458530.shtml

There's been a pretty big smear campaign against Hillary on grounds that she's Hillary Clinton. Hating Hillary is the hip Republican thing to do. It has little to do with her policies, so that isn't really grounds for rejecting the theory.

The fact is that being right-wing isn't necessarily what attracts voters. Voters, unfortunately, tend toward voting on a single or a couple of issues. If that issue is the economy, Obama or Hillary could very easily attract Republicans (more Obama since a lot of Republicans worry about her health plan).

I still argue the most significant difference between the two is that one seems to believe in the focus of power in fewer people, the other the opposite. There are some bits of this where I disagree with Obama (like putting issues up for an internet vote), but there is pretty much no common ground I can find with Hillary in this particular area. Power is already too far from the people and it's the opposite of the original design of our country.

She said:


Now, what YOU said that she said:

That maybe your take on it, but it is clearly not mine.

Now when Bush says that "all options are on the table", it is obvious that he means ALL options.

What was the blanket statement? It was that nukes were off the table in use against terrorist camps.

Her response is "Don't make blanket statements." In other words, "Don't say you won't use nukes against terrorist camps." In other words, "Nukes are still on the table for use against terrorist camps."

Add to that her debate statement that national security comes before human rights and it seems pretty scary.


'Against terrorist camps'? Well, it does seem like using a shotgun to solve your mouse problem, so I'd hope not. I think this one is just common sense. (and no I'm not reducing the significance of terrorists, I'm criticizing the method)

You would think, wouldn't you? That's what Obama has said - and military analysts have backed him up.

But Clinton slammed him for saying it, suggesting that it isn't all that much "common sense" after all.


Obama said that all options are on the table with regard to Iran. This is not dissimilar to what Hillary said.

We weren't talking about Iran, though.

As I pointed out in my last post (and you ignored it), we were talking about using nukes against terrorist camps, not using them against nations. He was specifically asked if he would use nukes to go after al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. He said no. Hillary slammed him for it.

We weren't talking about Iran, though.

As I pointed out in my last post (and you ignored it), we were talking about using nukes against terrorist camps, not using them against nations. He was specifically asked if he would use nukes to go after al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. He said no. Hillary slammed him for it.

I recognize what you're saying. I don't see a significant difference. The truth is that it IS silly to remove options from the table before you have all the information. It is like using a shotgun to kill a mouse, but it's not entirely inappropriate to use a shotgun to kill a mouse when that mouse is hard to pin down. Using a rifle to kill a mouse is more than a little more difficult. There are no good solutions to dealing with terrorist camps. Both candidates have admitted this and both have been attacked for saying so. Right now, as Obama has frequently admitted, they really aren't in a position to start removing options (again, look at the 60 Minutes interview). I don't see why he says he should wait for more information on Iran but not on terrorist camps. Nukes are a last resort. It's really unfortunate that because of Bush people can't have reasonable discussions about options without people jumping all over them suggesting they're gonna start WWIII or their a psycho pacifist. (Can't spell pacifist without fist.)

I recognize what you're saying. I don't see a significant difference.

You don't see a significant difference to use nukes against a relatively small group of people hiding amongst civilians in a sovereign nation or to use them against a nation that is at war with you?

Seriously?

The truth is that it IS silly to remove options from the table before you have all the information. It is like using a shotgun to kill a mouse, but it's not entirely inappropriate to use a shotgun to kill a mouse when that mouse is hard to pin down. Using a rifle to kill a mouse is more than a little more difficult.

This analogy would make sense if using a shotgun caused nuclear fallout and was guaranteed to hurt many, many more people than the mouse.

There are no good solutions to dealing with terrorist camps. Both candidates have admitted this and both have been attacked for saying so. Right now, as Obama has frequently admitted, they really aren't in a position to start removing options (again, look at the 60 Minutes interview). I don't see why he says he should wait for more information on Iran but not on terrorist camps. Nukes are a last resort. It's really unfortunate that because of Bush people can't have reasonable discussions about options without people jumping all over them suggesting they're gonna start WWIII or their a psycho pacifist. (Can't spell pacifist without fist.)

Maybe because using nukes against terrorist camps would be idiotic? If you want the entire world to come after us for destroying sovereign nations in our hunt for terrorists, by all means, use nukes in those situations.

Strangely enough, though, neither Obama nor military strategists are afraid to state that nukes are inappropriate in that context.

Is it wrong to state that you wouldn't use nukes to go after the mob?

You don't see a significant difference to use nukes against a relatively small group of people hiding amongst civilians in a sovereign nation or to use them against a nation that is at war with you?

Seriously?

Who says they are hiding amongst civilians? Seriously, are you really trying to prove you're not attempting to have a rational discussion about Hillary? No one, not Hillary, not Obama, not McCain, and not Bush is has even the remotest plans of using nukes on terrorists hiding among civilians.

Furthermore, you're really extrapolating to suggest she's saying she's going to use nukes in Pakistan without the permission of the Pakistanis. The entire argument really stretches the realm of logic to such extremes that we all should be ashamed. You're making perhaps the strongest argument I've heard for Hillary. Apparently, her detractors are so desperate for bad things to say about her that they're denying reality. It really destroys any credibilty any linked arguments are going to have.



This analogy would make sense if using a shotgun caused nuclear fallout and was guaranteed to hurt many, many more people than the mouse.

Nuclear fallout? Seriously, people really should learn things about nukes that don't come from popular novels and the 50's. The design of tactical nukes makes the danger of fallout not something significant when talking about attacking mountain camps in rural areas that make the most rural areas of our country look like major cities.

Fallout is the result of strategic weapons that push a lot of dust and debris into the atmosphere where it is pushed by weather patterns to other areas. Including in the debris is radiation. Tactical nukes, neutron bombs, are designed to localize "fallout" to the point where it only affects the area of attack. They're still a terrible tool to use, but people who think this is the 50's and we're talking about nuclear winter really need to read up.



Maybe because using nukes against terrorist camps would be idiotic? If you want the entire world to come after us for destroying sovereign nations in our hunt for terrorists, by all means, use nukes in those situations.

Again, seriously, are you trying to make it seem like Clinton detractors can't apply a modicum of logic? Cuz that's what's happening here. Tactical nukes would not destroy a nation. The smallest ones would take out approximately the area of a football stadium with little affect on any surrounding areas.

Either through ignorance or disdain for the truth, you're wildly exaggerating what she said. NO ONE is going to turn Pakistan to glass because there are some terrorists there. NO ONE. Pretending as if she suggested she would is incredibly dishonest.


Strangely enough, though, neither Obama nor military strategists are afraid to state that nukes are inappropriate in that context.

Is it wrong to state that you wouldn't use nukes to go after the mob?

Amusing. Would I be willing to use nukes to go after the mob if they had a camp in the mountains away from any other people and it was the only option? Yup. Would I destroy an area about the size of a football stadium in order to save countless lives? Yup.

(Assuming the mob was as dangerous as terrorists. They aren't.)

At the same time, she didn't say she'd be willing. She said it should be considered an option. Again, how can you possibly think making the level of extrapolation that jumps from "it's an option to use a weapon that affects a football stadium-sized area" to "destroying sovereign nations" is going to help your argument in regards to Clinton? Seriously, how about we talk about REAL concerns? This is nonsense. You sound like CH, clinging to your claims despite all reason and evidence and I don't care how passionate you are, it calls every claim you make into question as well as any evidence you present.

*snip*.

You're correct that I don't know all that much about nuclear weapons. I'd have to do some research that I really just don't have time for to continue this conversation.

I do find the idea that my lack of knowledge about nuclear weapons is somehow an argument in favor of Clinton amusing, though.


One way or another, my original statement stands. Obama has taken nukes off the table in going after al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Clinton has not. Whether that's a good thing or not is up to the individual.

And just who is the best running candidate -in your opinion- Corny?

In reality, my opinion is Obama on the Democratic Side. McCain is not the best running candidate on the Republican side but it looks like we are stuck with him.

^See what I mean, CH. People are always suddenly busy when they're feeling the ropes on their back.

Um...I did have to pick up my fiance at school Jocabia. She got out of class at 1100 and we did some errands. I am back and was about ready to post other reasons but as you said...it is unimportant.

Maybe you should stop assuming that I am always suddenly busy. Maybe I am, you know, telling the truth?

What was the blanket statement? It was that nukes were off the table in use against terrorist camps.
That clearly is not what she said.

Her response is "Don't make blanket statements." In other words, "Don't say you won't use nukes against terrorist camps." In other words, "Nukes are still on the table for use against terrorist camps."
Here, using quotation marks, you are clearly putting words in her mouth. That is not what she said.

Add to that her debate statement that national security comes before human rights and it seems pretty scary.
You have a source for this claim?

You would think, wouldn't you? That's what Obama has said - and military analysts have backed him up.
I guess you didn't read the whole article that you sourced? I will re-post it again:

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, one of Obama's presidential rivals, also criticized Obama's comments about unilateral military action in Pakistan to pursue terrorists.

"It's a well-intended notion he has, but it's a very naive way of figuring out how you're going to conduct foreign policy," Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on National Public Radio's "The Diane Rehm Show."

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee along with Obama, also took his rival to task.

"Over the past several days, Senator Obama's assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options," Dodd said in a statement.
And I will re-post the closer:

In an AP interview Thursday, the governor of Pakistan's largest province said Obama's comments undermine crucial efforts to win Pakistanis' support for the fight against terrorists.

Baluchistan Gov. Owais Ahmed Ghani, whose province shares a long border with Afghanistan, said Pakistanis watch their soldiers being killed in the fight against militants and say, "If that is the sort of signal that is coming out of Washington, why bother?"

"Nothing must be said or done which will undermine the vital public support that Pakistan needs, the world needs," he said.
Obviously Obama requires work on his foreign relations policy?

But Clinton slammed him for saying it,
She slammed him and rightly so.

suggesting that it isn't all that much "common sense" after all.
She said that?

As I pointed out in my last post (and you ignored it), we were talking about using nukes against terrorist camps, not using them against nations. He was specifically asked if he would use nukes to go after al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. He said no. Hillary slammed him for it.
Again you are putting your own spin on this.

Again, what Hillary said (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3441323):

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said.

Asked about the idea of unilateral U.S. military action in Pakistan to get al-Qaida leadership, Clinton said: "How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons."