NationStates Jolt Archive

Except that OBama said TERRORISTS CAMPS! Why waste a nuke on a camp? That's not a blanket statement at all.

Except that OBama said TERRORISTS CAMPS! Why waste a nuke on a camp? That's not a blanket statement at all.
Again you have missed the point. Carry on MacDuff.

That clearly is not what she said.

No, silly, it's what he said.

Here, using quotation marks, you are clearly putting words in her mouth. That is not what she said.

Yes, it is. She slammed him for making a "blanket statement." That "blanket statement" was not to use nukes against terrorist camps.

This quite clearly means that, according to Clinton, the use of nukes in this situation is still on the table - and must remain there.

You have a source for this claim?

*sigh* Do I have to do all your homework for you?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/15/se.02.html

There's video of it as well, somewhere. When watching it, I had to actually go back and hear it again just to make sure I'd heard it correctly.

*snip talk about a different controversial statement*

She slammed him and rightly so.

So, it is your opinion the use of nukes in going after terrorist camps should not be taken off the table.

Fine. But don't pretend that's not what you're saying.

Again you are putting your own spin on this.

Again, what Hillary said:


What Hillary said was in a specific context - response to a comment made by Obama. The only "spin" I'm putting on it is taking it in context, instead of ignoring the context to try and pretend it means something else.

Again you have missed the point. Carry on MacDuff.

The point is that Obama would not use nuclear weapons on terrorists camps but has not ruled them out in other situations.

CH, are you going to address the substantive posts any time soon or can I just stop checking this? There's one by me and one by Jocabia still outstanding (though I'd argue that there is at least half of another one by me since you just waved it off without any real explanation).

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.

Someone has replaced CH with some sort of alien it would seem. Even his arguments disagree with him. Obama is beating Hillary in elections (primaries and caucuses) and polls. Your argument that people are mobilizing against her is an argument opposed to your position, not for it. Hillary will not carry swing states and will not be able to turn any formally red state blue. You're right, people really don't want to see her win. This is not a case for her as you seem to think it is CH. More people against you means....more people against you.

CH, are you going to address the substantive posts any time soon or can I just stop checking this? There's one by me and one by Jocabia still outstanding (though I'd argue that there is at least half of another one by me since you just waved it off without any real explanation).

This is what I was thinking. People have worked on rational posts substantiated with facts and figures. CH has been claiming he will enlighten us with his reasoning for about 15 pages so far and has not done so. Put up or.....er, put up?

The point is that Obama would not use nuclear weapons on terrorists camps but has not ruled them out in other situations.
Attention....attention.....Elvis has left the building.

Attention....attention.....Elvis has left the building.

-> This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13441915&postcount=506) & This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13441899&postcount=504)

*nudges CH *

I am just spot filling right now. I really don't have enough time to answer those posts at the moment. Check back later tonight. :)

You'll understand if at this point I don't hold my breath...

CH, are you going to address the substantive posts any time soon or can I just stop checking this? There's one by me and one by Jocabia still outstanding (though I'd argue that there is at least half of another one by me since you just waved it off without any real explanation).
I am just spot filling right now. I really don't have enough time to answer those posts at the moment. Check back later tonight. :)

At this moment it's looking a bit better for Obama than Hillary in a match up against McCain: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080211/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_race_ap_poll

1 hour, 37 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama has a narrow lead over John McCain in a potential presidential matchup, while Hillary Rodham Clinton is about even with the Republican front-runner, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll indicated Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The survey is the first look at voter sentiment since last week's Super Tuesday presidential contests around the country and Mitt Romney's departure from the GOP race. Obama and Clinton are battling in a Democratic campaign that may take weeks or even months to resolve, while McCain, an Arizona senator, is the likely Republican nominee.

Obama, an Illinois senator, led McCain in the poll by 48 percent to 42 percent when people were asked which one they would prefer if the presidential race were held now. Clinton, a senator from New York, got 46 percent to McCain's 45 percent in their matchup.

The poll shows Obama leading Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination, 46 percent to 41 percent. McCain is well ahead of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has remained in the Republican contest, by 44 percent to 30 percent. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has 9 percent.

The survey was conducted from Feb. 7-10 and involved telephone interviews with 1,029 adults. It had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Included were 520 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 4.3 points, and 357 Republicans, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.2 points.

I wasn't actually attacking you. Teasing would be a better way to look at this. It was pretty convenient (for me) that you did it just as I was mentioning such things. I was mostly kidding around, though it really does happen a lot. (<Here, I'm not referring to you, necessarily. I don't argue with you much.)

Ah! Ok. I understand :) Sorry

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?

I wasn't actually attacking you. Teasing would be a better way to look at this. It was pretty convenient (for me) that you did it just as I was mentioning such things. I was mostly kidding around, though it really does happen a lot. (<Here, I'm not referring to you, necessarily. I don't argue with you much.)

Ah! Ok. I understand :) Sorry

Damn, you got in before the edit.

I know this gets said a lot, but if Obama keeps looking better and better in the polls like this, but the Super Delegates save the day for Hillary I'll be plenty upset. I think it's a stupid system if the political insiders nominate their 'friends' rather than who is the most popular and more likely to get the most votes.

Like someone said earlier, I've never been excited to vote for someone for Pres. until now.


DNC, please do the right thing.

Damn, you got in before the edit.

:D

I know this gets said a lot, but if Obama keeps looking better and better in the polls like this, but the Super Delegates save the day for Hillary I'll be plenty upset. I think it's a stupid system if the political insiders nominate their 'friends' rather than who is the most popular and more likely to get the most votes.

Like someone said earlier, I've never been excited to vote for someone for Pres. until now.


DNC, please do the right thing.

Me: I said that. And I agree with me.
Random person in crowd: Yeah, he's right!!! (totally god-moding)

I joked that I'm leaving the country if Obama doesn't get the nod. I wasn't entirely serious, but it's becoming a consideration. I view it as a huge problem that Hillary endorses the concentration of Congress' powers into the Presidential role. She still won't back down from that. There are a lot of things I think people exaggerate about her, but I cannot take another term of someone turning the President into the King.

Obama could make me proud to be a 'Merkin again. I also keep making plans to move out of the country.

Obama could make me proud to be a 'Merkin again. I also keep making plans to move out of the country.

I say if we leave en masse that we move to Europe so everyone can start freaking out about how immigrants are ruining the pure European-ness of people over there. And, if not, it will fully and truly debunk that whole nonsense about the freakout about Muslims not having anything to do with where they come from.

I say if we leave en masse that we move to Europe so everyone can start freaking out about how immigrants are ruining the pure European-ness of people over there. And, if not, it will fully and truly debunk that whole nonsense about the freakout about Muslims not having anything to do with where they come from.


That would be fun to coordinate. If not Canada, then Europe would be a definite destination. Amsterdam specifically.

They already know that Merkins are no fun to deal with as tourists. If they saw us moving in in droves, they'd prolly all move to Italy. A nice game of musical countries.

I say if we leave en masse that we move to Europe so everyone can start freaking out about how immigrants are ruining the pure European-ness of people over there.
Funny that the one poster who most waffles on about this nonsense, young TAi, is from the US himself.

I know this gets said a lot, but if Obama keeps looking better and better in the polls like this, but the Super Delegates save the day for Hillary I'll be plenty upset. I think it's a stupid system if the political insiders nominate their 'friends' rather than who is the most popular and more likely to get the most votes.

Like someone said earlier, I've never been excited to vote for someone for Pres. until now.


DNC, please do the right thing.

I find these numbers on the upcoming states very appealing. Obama goes 6 for 6 and Hillary might just get TKO'd.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html#upcomingstates

That would be fun to coordinate. If not Canada, then Europe would be a definite destination. Amsterdam specifically.

They already know that Merkins are no fun to deal with as tourists. If they saw us moving in in droves, they'd prolly all move to Italy. A nice game of musical countries.

We could establish a theocracy in one of the countries we don't really like to tourist about in and that way we'll give all the theocrats somewhere to hide out. Maybe we can get them to emigrate and then we can come back.

Our flag will be blood red and we'll make very violent movies with no intimate touching whatsoever. And we'll be huge warmongers while refusing to actually fight in any. It'll be perfect.

We could establish a theocracy in one of the countries we don't really like to tourist about in and that way we'll give all the theocrats somewhere to hide out. Maybe we can get them to emigrate and then we can come back.

Our flag will be blood red and we'll make very violent movies with no intimate touching whatsoever. And we'll be huge warmongers while refusing to actually fight in any. It'll be perfect.

Sign me up for SecDef :D

Oh, and we need someone to ridicule. Does anyone know someone who served in Iraq and got hurt in battle? We'll get our new leader, who will definitely not have done anything noble like serve his country, but is perfectly willing to ask others to do it, to talk about how his injuries aren't REAL injuries. It's proven effective. 4 out of 5 Roves recommend it.

Okay, here we go. My initial premise:

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.
Okay, let's look at your list, even though it did not directly address my premise. I was not referring to all the "swing States" but it is an interesting thought. I will add my comments in Red or in Blue. Keep in mind that if Kerry had won either Ohio or Florida, he would have beaten George Bush.

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 staying Red
Alaska(3)-RRDR staying Red
Colorado(9)-RRRD staying Red
Connecticut(7)-DDDD staying Blue
Deleware(3)-DDDD staying Blue
Georgia(15)-RRRD staying Red
Idaho(4)-RRRR staying Red
Illinois(21)-DDDD staying Blue
Iowa(7)-RDDD possible to go either way
Kansas(6)-RRRR staying Red
Lousiana(9)-RRDD staying Red
Maine(4)-DDDD staying Blue
Minnesota(10)-DDDD staying Blue
Missouri(11)-RRDD staying Red
Nebraska(5)-RRRR staying Red
North Dakota(3)-RRRR staying Red
South Carolina(8)-RRRR staying Red
Utah(5)-RRRR staying Red
Washinton(11)-DDDD staying Blue

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

Of them,
40 are virtually guaranteed Republican 87 are virtually guaranteed Republican
56 are virtually guaranteed Democrat agreed
54 are states he could swing 7 one possible swing State (Iowa)

Which gives Obama a grand potential of 63 electoral votes, not the 150 you claim. What "swing States" are you giving Obama?

Now, my 2nd premise was:

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.

Clinton States:
Arizona(10)-RRDR staying Red
Arkansas(6)-RRDD going Blue for the Clintons
California(55)-DDDD staying Blue
Massachussetts(12)-DDDD staying Blue
Nevada(5)-RRDD possible to go either way
New Hampshire(4)-DRDD staying Blue
New Jersey(15)-DDDD staying Blue
New Mexico(5)-RDDD going Blue with Latino votes
New York(31)-DDDD staying Blue
Oklahoma(7)-RRRR staying Red
Tennessee(11)-RRDD staying Red

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

Of them,
7 are virtually guaranteed Republican 28 are virtually guaranteed Republican
113 are virtually guaranteed Democrat 117 are virtually guaranteed Democrat
41 are states she could swing. 16 are States she could swing

Which gives Hillary a grand potential of 133 electoral votes, not the 161 you claim.

Now it gets controversial in States that Clinton won but was not credited with:

I stated that Clinton could swing Florida (27 electoral votes) (again the Latino vote), and she would keep Michigan (17 electoral votes).

That is another 44 plus the 133 is 177 electoral votes so far, which is 114 electoral votes more than Obama has/could realistically win.

Add to that her debate statement that national security comes before human rights and it seems pretty scary.
Okay, getting back to you on this one. Here is the direct question and her response (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/15/se.02.html):

BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?

CLINTON: I agree with that completely. The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America. That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests.
Why is that answer scary?

What the hell is any of that based on?

What the hell is any of that based on?
My two premises. You answered one of them sorta.

Also, I threw this one in for added support:

Hillary Can Win (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22494)

My two premises. You answered one of them sorta.

You know what? I give up. That's it. You've broken me. I waited for that and it was nothing but more FFYA nonsense. That's all I can take. We've researched and sourced each grain of nonsense you've put up, and all you do is essentially make up more shit and pretend it's gospel with out a damn thing to back it up. I've had it. I'm not going to play this game anymore. There's only so much bullshit you can watch someone shovel before you decide that they no longer need an audience.

Okay, here we go. My initial premise:


Okay, let's look at your list, even though it did not directly address my premise. I was not referring to all the "swing States" but it is an interesting thought. I will add my comments in Red or in Blue. Keep in mind that if Kerry had won either Ohio or Florida, he would have beaten George Bush.




Who the states went for the last 4 elections.

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

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

Of them,
40 are virtually guaranteed Republican 87 are virtually guaranteed Republican
56 are virtually guaranteed Democrat agreed
54 are states he could swing 7 one possible swing State (Iowa)

Which gives Obama a grand potential of 63 electoral votes, not the 150 you claim. What "swing States" are you giving Obama?

Now, my 2nd premise was:



Clinton States:
Arizona(10)-RRDR staying Red
Arkansas(6)-RRDD going Blue for the Clintons
California(55)-DDDD staying Blue
Massachussetts(12)-DDDD staying Blue
Nevada(5)-RRDD possible to go either way
New Hampshire(4)-DRDD staying Blue
New Jersey(15)-DDDD staying Blue
New Mexico(5)-RDDD going Blue with Latino votes
New York(31)-DDDD staying Blue
Oklahoma(7)-RRRR staying Red
Tennessee(11)-RRDD staying Red

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

Of them,
7 are virtually guaranteed Republican 28 are virtually guaranteed Republican
113 are virtually guaranteed Democrat 117 are virtually guaranteed Democrat
41 are states she could swing. 16 are States she could swing

Which gives Hillary a grand potential of 133 electoral votes, not the 161 you claim.

Now it gets controversial in States that Clinton won but was not credited with:

I stated that Clinton could swing Florida (27 electoral votes) (again the Latino vote), and she would keep Michigan (17 electoral votes).

That is another 44 plus the 133 is 177 electoral votes so far, which is 114 electoral votes more than Obama has/could realistically win.

First of all, how sad that I put so much effort into a post you clearly didn't understand. The total "potential" votes was the sum total fo the elctoral votes for the states the won. Frankly, only the swing states matter. If there is no chance that a state will change, franlkly it doesn't matter who wins. I was just showing the numbers relative to the total number of delegates.

Second of all, after all that research, your answer is nuh-uh? Seriously? On what do you base your claims? How about an argument instead of this embarassament of poking your fingers in your ears? Please, please, please, pretend like you're interested in rational debate.

My two premises. You answered one of them sorta.

Also, I threw this one in for added support:

Hillary Can Win (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22494)

Human Events Website? HAHAHAHA!!! WOW! You really have hit a new low haven't you? I had to unsubscribe to their emails because I could not take the bullshit they put out anymore. You really have lost it.

...

my god this is dumb. fucking retarded. you literally are arguing that the democrat will only carry the states they won the primary in and that clinton has a wider crossover appeal than obama?! dude, crack is whack.

You know what? I give up. That's it. You've broken me. I waited for that and it was nothing but more FFYA nonsense. That's all I can take. We've researched and sourced each grain of nonsense you've put up, and all you do is essentially make up more shit and pretend it's gospel with out a damn thing to back it up. I've had it. I'm not going to play this game anymore. There's only so much bullshit you can watch someone shovel before you decide that they no longer need an audience.

It really is just sad. He basically said, nuh-uh. We've proven that thos states can and have swung when a candidate was popular enough and his answer was a grand total of "no, it won't".

Worse, after all that, he goes back to the ludicrous claim that Clinton won states where there actually wasn't a fair or free election. It's pretty hypocritical after Canuck's reaction to 2000 Florida.

Canuck, you've been defended as this conversation not representing the best of you by me, CTOAN and several others trying to make people realize you're not actually this absurd, but, frankly, this resembles reason like I resemble an underwear model.

Human Events Website? HAHAHAHA!!! WOW! You really have hit a new low haven't you? I had to unsubscribe to their emails because I could not take the bullshit they put out anymore. You really have lost it.
Critique the assessment not the web site. Critique the author....have you ever heard of him?

But to dismiss it because you quit their subscription doesn't tell me too much.

My two premises. You answered one of them sorta.

Also, I threw this one in for added support:

Hillary Can Win (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22494)

Added support? Huh? You post an opinion piece from five months ago that has already been proven wrong while denying the facts entirely. Again, we're not talking about you denying my opinion that a state can swing, but denying that a state DOES swing after showing that overall it has a tendency to go for the person who become President.

Critique the assessment not the web site. Critique the author....have you ever heard of him?

But to dismiss it because you quit their subscription doesn't tell me too much.

The author is proven wrong. He's going by polls that favor both Clinton and Guiliana from 5 months ago. Half of his claim is already proven wrong and the other half is based on something that's drastically changed. It's nonsense.

my god this is dumb. fucking retarded. you literally are arguing that the democrat will only carry the states they won the primary in and that clinton has a wider crossover appeal than obama?! dude, crack is whack.

Sad isn't it?

my god this is dumb. fucking retarded. you literally are arguing that the democrat will only carry the states they won the primary in and that clinton has a wider crossover appeal than obama?! dude, crack is whack.
No I wasn't arguing that at all. We were only premising potential electoral votes in the States that already have been won by the candidates. Jocaibia broke it down along those lines. From him to suggest that Obama has the potential to win the mostly red states in a general election that he won in the primaries/caucuses is far from feasible and also not backed by reasonable claims.

It really is just sad. He basically said, nuh-uh. We've proven that thos states can and have swung when a candidate was popular enough and his answer was a grand total of "no, it won't".

Worse, after all that, he goes back to the ludicrous claim that Clinton won states where there actually wasn't a fair or free election. It's pretty hypocritical after Canuck's reaction to 2000 Florida.

Canuck, you've been defended as this conversation not representing the best of you by me, CTOAN and several others trying to make people realize you're not actually this absurd, but, frankly, this resembles reason like I resemble an underwear model.
That's the thing. I believe I've been as fair as I can be. Each time I've gone looking I've granted the premise and looked into it prepared for it to be true. If a criticism I thought was bullshit I said so no matter which way it went. I favored sources over hearsay in both directions. I made a good faith effort to see where he was coming from. While I denoted pessimism I waited for him, gave him the chance to clarify, or to provide some research of his own, anything that would actually support his premise.

And that was the shit I got. Well, not even I, you got. I got the same fucking 5 month old opinion piece I already fucking addressed thrown back at me as if it was still golden.

Bullshit. He can just go find that fucking trout-slap smiley and the transition can be complete.

Critique the assessment not the web site. Critique the author....have you ever heard of him?

But to dismiss it because you quit their subscription doesn't tell me too much.

So if I post a story from Fox News that was picked up by them from the Associated Press, by your statement here, critique the assessment and not the website.

However, from the history I have seen from them, they are highly conservative.

And yes I have heard of Ed Rollins and this article is vastly out of date.

No I wasn't arguing that at all. We were only premising potential electoral votes in the States that already have been won by the candidates. Jocaibia broke it down along those lines. From him to suggest that Obama has the potential to win the mostly red states in a general election that he won in the primaries/caucuses is far from feasible and also not backed by reasonable claims.

This has nothing to do with my premise. You made the claim that certain states didn't matter since they wouldn't flip and that of the states that could possibly flip all of them went to Clinton. I proved that both claims were untrue. You fail.

That's the thing. I believe I've been as fair as I can be. Each time I've gone looking I've granted the premise and looked into it prepared for it to be true. If a criticism I thought was bullshit I said so no matter which way it went. I favored sources over hearsay in both directions. I made a good faith effort to see where he was coming from. While I denoted pessimism I waited for him, gave him the chance to clarify, or to provide some research of his own, anything that would actually support his premise.

And that was the shit I got. Well, not even I, you got. I got the same fucking 5 month old opinion piece I already fucking addressed thrown back at me as if it was still golden.

Bullshit. He can just go find that fucking trout-slap smiley and the transition can be complete.

Strange bedfellows this conversation has made. It's not his support for Clinton that makes this all sad. It's that he actually thinks anyone would reasonably consider that a reply to the research I did. And, yes, the reply to you was pretty bad as well. An old opinion piece that claimed the Guiliani was going to the win the nomination in the same breath.

I'd like to see Obama win, but he won't. Clinton will take the nomination (think: Superdelegates), and then people will flock to McCain, just to vote against her. Then we'll have a third Bush presidency, just with a somewhat smarter guy.

The author is proven wrong. He's going by polls that favor both Clinton and Guiliana from 5 months ago. Half of his claim is already proven wrong and the other half is based on something that's drastically changed. It's nonsense.
He hasn't been proven wrong. The only way that he can be proven wrong is that Clinton would have to win the nomination and face whoever the Republican candidate is and win.

He stated:

I won't deal with who is going to be the Rep nominee. It is a race that is extremely close and a few capable candidates have real chances of being the nominee. But in view of the history Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate in years and is not only going to be the democratic nominee; she can be elected President. I am not happy about that, but those are the facts.
I hope that he is right.

Hillary is in a bit of a dry spell right now, but I think she will land right side up. I would be extremely disappointed, as well as all her supporters, if she loses the nomination because of the non-events in Florida and Michigan.

Strange bedfellows this conversation has made. It's not his support for Clinton that makes this all sad. It's that he actually thinks anyone would reasonably consider that a reply to the research I did.
And your research is somehow gospel and irreutable? Give me a break.

And, yes, the reply to you was pretty bad as well. An old opinion piece that claimed the Guiliani was going to the win the nomination in the same breath.
Read further down, or my previous post. He put the Rep nominee off to the side.

I'd like to see Obama win, but he won't. Clinton will take the nomination (think: Superdelegates), and then people will flock to McCain, just to vote against her. Then we'll have a third Bush presidency, just with a somewhat smarter guy.
I just love the politics of fear that oozes from the US. Fear the terrorists, fear Kerry, fear Clinton, fear McCain.

No wonder the White House eludes the Dems.

He hasn't been proven wrong. The only way that he can be proven wrong is that Clinton would have to win the nomination and face whoever the Republican candidate is and win.

He stated:


I hope that he is right.

Hillary is in a bit of a dry spell right now, but I think she will land right side up. I would be extremely disappointed, as well as all her supporters, if she loses the nomination because of the non-events in Florida and Michigan.

Honestly, this couldn't be a more painful conversation if you were poking me in the eye with a sharp stick. You didn't read your own article and how it claimed that Guiliani was the favorite to win the candidacy. Half of his prediction has been proven wrong. You really want that opinion piece to be your source?

And, Jesus, you're still crying about Florida and Michigan. If FL and MI want to have real elections they can go right ahead. Until then, you're pulling ridiculous things out of your anus. She didn't win those states. No one did. One wonders how little belief someone must have in their own candidate that their only claim is about elections that didn't happen. How desperate.

He hasn't been proven wrong. The only way that he can be proven wrong is that Clinton would have to win the nomination and face whoever the Republican candidate is and win.

He stated:


I hope that he is right.

Hillary is in a bit of a dry spell right now, but I think she will land right side up. I would be extremely disappointed, as well as all her supporters, if she loses the nomination because of the non-events in Florida and Michigan.

Except that if that was the case then this race would be over by now. Guess what? Its not and has a very very hard road to the finish line.

Except that if that was the case then this race would be over by now. Guess what? Its not and has a very very hard road to the finish line.
Gee, I think I just said that? And if she loses, then he will be wrong. If she wins then he will be correct. Yes....time will tell.

And your research is somehow gospel and irreutable? Give me a break.

Then um actually...you know...refute it.

And your research is somehow gospel and irreutable? Give me a break.

No, it's just research. It's a fact those states have swung Dem under Dem presidencies and Rep under Rep presidencies. It's simply evidence. I gave evidence and you gave your opinion. Yup, when debating supported claims trumps unsupported claims.

Otherwise, I claim Clinton eats babies. Who needs evidence? You already proved that evidence isn't required, right?


Read further down, or my previous post. He put the Rep nominee off to the side.

Huh? Dude, for one second break character. You're a smart guy. Aren't you embarrassed of your own argument?

I just love the politics of fear that oozes from the US. Fear the terrorists, fear Kerry, fear Clinton, fear McCain.

No wonder the White House eludes the Dems.

Well Kerry was by far the worst candidate they could have put up last year though I think that was intentional. McCain is just a nut and Hillary is way to extreme.

I just love the politics of fear that oozes from the US. Fear the terrorists, fear Kerry, fear Clinton, fear McCain.

No wonder the White House eludes the Dems.

You mean the same politics you were arguing about when you were claiming that Obama can't win. Laughable.

Then um actually...you know...refute it.

He did. He said, "nuh-uh". No evidence. No explanation. Just, no. Cuz, in CanuckHaven, that's apparently a reasoned argument, despite the complete lack of ANY reasoning. No, not a lack of good reasoning. He literally didn't reason it out at all, just denied.

Gee, I think I just said that? And if she loses, then he will be wrong. If she wins then he will be correct. Yes....time will tell.

He's already been proven wrong and she is not that strong a candidate. Obama is far stronger and has more support.

Honestly, this couldn't be a more painful conversation if you were poking me in the eye with a sharp stick. You didn't read your own article and how it claimed that Guiliani was the favorite to win the candidacy. Half of his prediction has been proven wrong. You really want that opinion piece to be your source?
You really need to brush up on your reading skills....he stated (encore un fois):

I won't deal with who is going to be the Rep nominee. It is a race that is extremely close and a few capable candidates have real chances of being the nominee.

And, Jesus, you're still crying about Florida and Michigan. If FL and MI want to have real elections they can go right ahead. Until then, you're pulling ridiculous things out of your anus. She didn't win those states. No one did. One wonders how little belief someone must have in their own candidate that their only claim is about elections that didn't happen. How desperate.
There was an election. Over 1,684,300 voters went to the poll and you are just going to say too bad. Yea for inclusiveness!! Puke!!

Latest State Poll of Polls (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/florida.html)
Likely Democratic primary voters' choice for nominee in 2008:
Clinton50%
Obama26%
Edwards12%
Unsure12%

You really need to brush up on your reading skills....he stated (encore un fois):


The two favorite opinions I hear expressed at New York and Washington dinner parties (certainly not representative of the country at large) is that Rudy Gulliani can't be the Republican nominee and there is no way the country is going to elect Hillary Clinton President. The facts that Rudy leads all national polls among Republican primary voters and that Hillary nearly laps her closest Democratic rival (and beats all potential Republicans in a general head to head match up) means nothing to those who believe so passionately. Facts and evidence to the contrary cannot convince those who are so convinced otherwise.

He started with an argument that has since been proven wrong (or moreso he starts by arguing against an argument that was proven right). What part are you struggling with here? Like I said, are even you trying to come near to reason here, or would you prefer we laugh and point?

The best part is the "evidence" you presented doesn't even say she's likely to win, but only not to count her out yet with "yet" being 5 months ago. Interesting that you couldn't find a better supporting article that was more recent. Could it be because she's completely lost the enormous momentum she started with.


There was an election. Over 1,684,300 voters went to the poll and you are just going to say too bad. Yea for inclusiveness!! Puke!!

Latest State Poll of Polls (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/florida.html)
Likely Democratic primary voters' choice for nominee in 2008:
Clinton50%
Obama26%
Edwards12%
Unsure12%

Oh, dear God, there wasn't an election. See when an election occurs that actually tell the public that it counts and allow the candidates to campaign. The farce you're calling an election strongly favored name recognition. It's incredibly desperate that you won't even stipulate to such a clear fact. It doesn't prove she wouldn't have won the state to admit the election wasn't a true election. Yet, you won't. This speaks to how weak you truly believe your candidate is. It does more damage to your argument than any of us could ever do.

There still has been no campaigning in FL. Stop kicking your argument in the crotch, it's screaming.

You mean the same politics you were arguing about when you were claiming that Obama can't win. Laughable.
Please point to a post that I claimed that "Obama can't win".

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Traders wagering on the outcome of the U.S. presidential vote were overwhelmingly betting on Monday that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will defeat former first lady Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination and ultimately win the presidency.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080211/pl_nm/usa_politics_predictions_dc

Looks like political traders are now saying that Obama is going to win the nomination.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080211/pl_nm/usa_politics_predictions_dc

Looks like political traders are now saying that Obama is going to win the nomination.
Yeah and like the stock market, it goes up and goes down. Pure science. :rolleyes:

Buy Clinton stock now while the price is low. :D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080211/pl_nm/usa_politics_predictions_dc

Looks like political traders are now saying that Obama is going to win the nomination.

Dear God, I hope so.

There was an election. Over 1,684,300 voters went to the poll and you are just going to say too bad. Yea for inclusiveness!! Puke!!


So how do you think the Michigan votes should be "included"? should Hillary get every single one of them, since Edwards and Obama took their names off the ballot under the assumption that the election wouldn't count? and you don't think that would be a farce?

How do YOU propose this be resolved.

Please point to a post that I claimed that "Obama can't win".

I'll tell you what. I'm happy to continuing providing evidence to this thread when you reciprocate. Support your responses to the post I spent an hour and a half on and I'll be happy to show where you said that. Deal?

Yeah and like the stock market, it goes up and goes down. Pure science. :rolleyes:

Buy Clinton stock now while the price is low. :D

It's more evidence than, "no, it won't swing" as a retort to a post that shows those states DO swing.

It's more evidence than an opinion piece. Now you're talking about what is and isn't science? Dude, are you trying to look silly?

Please point to a post that I claimed that "Obama can't win".

-




Clinton is the real deal, and I think that bothers conservatives. Obama would get his ass whupped.

I'd like to see Obama win, but he won't. Clinton will take the nomination (think: Superdelegates), and then people will flock to McCain, just to vote against her. Then we'll have a third Bush presidency, just with a somewhat smarter guy.

I don't know that we should make too much of the super-delegates. Those numbers haven't changed much and I think that there is a good reason for it.

Here's what some super-delegates are saying;
Democratic superdelegate Sam Spencer said he's not entirely comfortable with the decisive role superdelegates could play in this election.

"I think the best people to decide who our nominee should be ... should be actual voters in primaries and caucuses," Spencer said on CNN's "American Morning." "I think superdelegates are somewhat outdated, and it's not the most democratic way of doing things."

Nancy Larson, another Democratic superdelegate, said she hopes a decision gets made "before we have to step in."

"They never anticipated that we would have two superstars locked in a dead heat, so I think there is no playbook for this," she said.
Source (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/dates/index.html#20080209)

-

And we continue to be the only people who are actually bringing evidence the table. This "argument" is just pathetic.

And we continue to be the only people who are actually bringing evidence the table. This "argument" is just pathetic.

I feel like taking bets on the response-

"That's not what I meant" and then some weaselly 'mission accomplished doesn't mean mission accomplished' kind of argument,

or-

"Why you bringin' up old shit?"

Well, I was just reading up on the Clinton campaign. They appear to be focusing on March 4 to stop the bleeding. Interesting that they'd need if to if she didn't lose Super Tuesday. Didn't someone (read: nearly everyone) in this very thread suggest that Super Tuesday was a clear and undeniable sign of a shift of momentum? Didn't someone else, namely CH, deny the loss of Super Tuesday by Clinton? And aren't all of our claims that Super Tuesday would have devestating repurcussions for Clinton proving true? The answer is "yes" to all of them.

We've been proven right on the question posed by the OP. Obama was the clear victor on Super Tuesday and every day we hear about the scrambling of the Clinton camp to recover. That CH hasn't conceded the argument at this point is positively absurd.

That CH hasn't conceded the argument at this point is par for the course.

fixed ;)

Well, I was just reading up on the Clinton campaign. They appear to be focusing on March 4 to stop the bleeding. Interesting that they'd need if to if she didn't lose Super Tuesday. Didn't someone (read: nearly everyone) in this very thread suggest that Super Tuesday was a clear and undeniable sign of a shift of momentum? Didn't someone else, namely CH, deny the loss of Super Tuesday by Clinton? And aren't all of our claims that Super Tuesday would have devestating repurcussions for Clinton proving true? The answer is "yes" to all of them.

We've been proven right on the question posed by the OP. Obama was the clear victor on Super Tuesday and every day we hear about the scrambling of the Clinton camp to recover. That CH hasn't conceded the argument at this point is positively absurd.

I was going to bring that up yesterday but I was still too pissed. I saw it in this article-
Obama's surge in delegates is due primarily to his electoral victories on Super Tuesday and in contests held over the weekend, including Sunday's Democratic caucuses in Maine, which he won by a comfortable margin.

The first-term Illinois senator won at least 923 delegates from those contests, compared with at least 876 delegates for Clinton, according to CNN's analysis of voting results.
If you do the math, the 46 delegate difference all come from the weekend contests, meaning that they have Tuesday's total at a dead heat. Also-
Another 67 delegates from those races still remain unallocated in areas with particularly tight vote results or local delays in vote-counting. But 60 of those slots are in states Obama won, which may give him the edge as these remaining delegates are allocated.
If the slammage continues it won't matter one way or another about Michigan or Florida. They still have a chance at relevance, all they have to do is ask for a do over...

But yeah, to the strategy (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/11/campaign.dems/index.html?iref=newssearch)-
Clinton aides admit this month's remaining Democratic contests may favor Obama, but they plan to focus on a larger cache of delegates up for grabs in March.

"Although the next several states that hold nominating contests this month are more favorable to the Obama campaign, we will continue to compete in them and hope to secure as many delegates as we can before the race turns to Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania," read a statement from Clinton's campaign.

Those states have high concentrations of voters who have been strong Clinton supporters -- Latinos in Texas and blue-collar workers in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

But Joe Trippi, an adviser to former Democratic contender John Edwards, said Sunday that Obama had "a full head of steam" after Saturday's wins and was poised to win the Potomac contests.

"It's hard to see a win for Sen. Clinton into March, into Ohio and Texas, which I think was what they're counting on," Trippi told CBS' "Face the Nation." "But even that's in jeopardy, I think, as Obama builds some momentum here."

On Tuesday, Clinton and Obama will be competing for 15 pledged delegates in Washington, D.C.; 70 in Maryland; and 83 in Virginia.

This kind of smacks of the Guiliani Gambit, with the exception that she's at least not going to be stupid enough to not campaign in those other states, just lower her expectations. But still, she counted on Super Tuesday big states to pull her ahead definitely and instead they only managed to keep her head above water, and barely at that. She went into Super Tuesday with a lot of back and forth, going into the next set of big states with a lot of pounding doesn't seem like a good idea. Not that she might have a choice, so this might just be putting nice rims on your beater car, it's the best you got so you might as well put the prettiest bow you can find on it.

As we've said repeatedly, that she has to count a dead tie on Super Tuesday as a victory says a lot about their campaign. She was poised to do double damage on a single day and she failed. In failing, she gave Obama momentum and we've seen what he's doing with it. That Super Tuesday was a turning point in this election is obvious. There simply can be no denying it.

Hillary is hoping for another turning point, and if they don't get it, it's over.

Obama is going to take alot of states, but he will lose Puerto Rico and Texas to Clinton because of the Hispanic populations and those are large 'states' (Puerto Rico apparently has more delegates than Mississippi). Then there are going to be fights for anything north of DC in New England (Obama will take DC and south).

Okay, getting back to you on this one. Here is the direct question and her response (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/15/se.02.html):

Why is that answer scary?

The whole "national security is more important than human rights" thing. If they come into conflict, she'll choose to infringe upon human rights to protect national security. It's not a surprising answer, given her authoritarian history, but it is a scary one. It's like asking for more of Dubya.


Human Events Website? HAHAHAHA!!! WOW! You really have hit a new low haven't you? I had to unsubscribe to their emails because I could not take the bullshit they put out anymore. You really have lost it.

But they're funny!

Honestly, this couldn't be a more painful conversation if you were poking me in the eye with a sharp stick. You didn't read your own article and how it claimed that Guiliani was the favorite to win the candidacy. Half of his prediction has been proven wrong. You really want that opinion piece to be your source?

And, Jesus, you're still crying about Florida and Michigan. If FL and MI want to have real elections they can go right ahead. Until then, you're pulling ridiculous things out of your anus. She didn't win those states. No one did. One wonders how little belief someone must have in their own candidate that their only claim is about elections that didn't happen. How desperate.

I'd like to bring up one more point that CH keeps trying to ignore. MI and FL were offered a make up caucus. This WOULD favor Obama. Even Hillary mentioned this in her dismissal of Obama's caucus wins. And quote from article. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/11/clinton-dismisses-weekend-losses/)

WHITE MARSH, Maryland (CNN) — Hillary Clinton on Monday explained away Barack Obama's clean sweep of the weekend's caucuses and primaries as a product of a caucus system that favors "activists" and, in the case of the Louisiana primary, an energized African-American community.

She told reporters who had gathered to watch her tour a General Motors plant here that "everybody knew, you all knew, what the likely outcome of these recent contests were."

"These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."

Clinton has publicly dismissed the caucus voting system since before Super Tuesday, seeking to lower expectations heading into a series of contests that played to Obama's advantage. His campaign features what many consider to be a stronger and more dedicated grassroots organization than Clinton's.

Noting that "my husband never did well in caucus states either," Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."

So to hell with the weeping argument of "what about Florida and Michigan boohoo *sniffle*?"

CH, can you at least concede this point? At least give us some hope that you can be objective.

There was an election. Over 1,684,300 voters went to the poll and you are just going to say too bad. Yea for inclusiveness!! Puke!!

An election without campaigning isn't an election at all. It's "vote name recognition." I wonder who has the most name recognition? Could it be the person married to a past president?

Maybe we should hold an election in Florida over whether I'm prettier or Julia Roberts is, but neither of us can put up any pictures to try and win over the voters. I wonder who will win?


And this doesn't bring in the people who either stayed home or voted in the Republican primaries because their delegates weren't going to count...

An election without campaigning isn't an election at all. It's "vote name recognition." I wonder who has the most name recognition? Could it be the person married to a past president?

Maybe we should hold an election in Florida over whether I'm prettier or Julia Roberts is, but neither of us can put up any pictures to try and win over the voters. I wonder who will win?

With not being able to see your picture (and already knowing what Julia Roberts looks like) I'd vote for you.

With not being able to see your picture (and already knowing what Julia Roberts looks like) I'd vote for you.Just head back through the Sexiest NSer thread. Heck, the picture is in the post that's included in my multipost in one of the more recent pages, you'd just have to follow the little green arrow.

Just head back through the Sexiest NSer thread. Heck, the picture is in the post that's included in my multipost in one of the more recent pages, you'd just have to follow the little green arrow.

I was just making a comment on my opinion of Julia Roberts, although now that you mention it, I think I did see her picture... 'dress-up time', yes?

I was just making a comment on my opinion of Julia Roberts, although now that you mention it, I think I did see her picture... 'dress-up time', yes?Yeah, dress up and... what was it? oh, yeah, "grope" time... until Dem publicly denies it. :D

With not being able to see your picture (and already knowing what Julia Roberts looks like) I'd vote for you.

LOL.

It's weird. It seems like everyone either thinks Julia Roberts is really, really hot, or really, really not.

¿Cómo Se Dice? ¿Cómo Se Llama? ¡Obama! ¡Obama!

:D

you know, it was just a few short weeks ago that clinton had massive leads everywhere. perhaps CH is a time traveler from the distant past of early january. CH, were you in fact frozen in a block of ice and dug up by pauly shore while he was digging a pool?

lmao

Oh my....I think I may have taken this thread completely off-topic...

LOL.

It's weird. It seems like everyone either thinks Julia Roberts is really, really hot, or really, really not.

Well, I don't really fall into either category, my opinion is more meh...

Julia Roberts has nothing on Demp

you know, it was just a few short weeks ago that clinton had massive leads everywhere. perhaps CH is a time traveler from the distant past of early january. CH, were you in fact frozen in a block of ice and dug up by pauly shore while he was digging a pool?

you know, it was just a few short weeks ago that clinton had massive leads everywhere. perhaps CH is a time traveler from the distant past of early january. CH, were you in fact frozen in a block of ice and dug up by pauly shore while he was digging a pool?

That seems feasible, the only real evidence he uses is a five month old opinion piece and primary results that were invalidated in September of last year...

That seems feasible, the only real evidence he uses is a five month old opinion piece and primary results that were invalidated in September of last year...

No, he has the ever powerful fingers in ears.

I think the most entertaining bit was that he waited a day because he was too busy to respond to my post and then his response was... no... and no... and no... oh, and no... That was the total response. No reasons. No explanation. Nothing. Just shaking his head vigorously and hoping that works.

But they're funny!

Now there we agree.

No, he has the ever powerful fingers in ears.

I think the most entertaining bit was that he waited a day because he was too busy to respond to my post and then his response was... no... and no... and no... oh, and no... That was the total response. No reasons. No explanation. Nothing. Just shaking his head vigorously and hoping that works.
That's what set me off. It wasn't even that he didn't use a source that demonstrated his findings, he didn't even bother to explain why he came to the conclusions he came to, what criteria he used to dismiss the analysis, just what for all appearances was just randomly selecting parts and deciding, "No, they won't vote 'blue'" And when I asked him he just restated the premise under challenge like that was some sort of answer.

It's like he came along and said, "The sky is pink," and we all went, "No man, it's blue. See, here-it's a picture of the sky today. You'll notice it's blue hue. Further, here's all these pictures of previous days and they all have blue skies. And here's a detailed explination of why sometimes at sunset part of the sky will be pink, but if you look, you realize that the sky is still blue, there's just this pink-ish haze as the sun sets." And then he said, "Wait a day and I'll show you why the sky is pink....No, it's pink." What, why are you looking at that and saying it's pink? Where are you getting that? "Duh, you can see here, I said the sky is pink."

And then this urge to hurl feral cats at him starts to rise...

That's what set me off. It wasn't even that he didn't use a source that demonstrated his findings, he didn't even bother to explain why he came to the conclusions he came to, what criteria he used to dismiss the analysis, just what for all appearances was just randomly selecting parts and deciding, "No, they won't vote 'blue'" And when I asked him he just restated the premise under challenge like that was some sort of answer.

It's like he came along and said, "The sky is pink," and we all went, "No man, it's blue. See, here-it's a picture of the sky today. You'll notice it's blue hue. Further, here's all these pictures of previous days and they all have blue skies. And here's a detailed explination of why sometimes at sunset part of the sky will be pink, but if you look, you realize that the sky is still blue, there's just this pink-ish haze as the sun sets." And then he said, "Wait a day and I'll show you why the sky is pink....No, it's pink." What, why are you looking at that and saying it's pink? Where are you getting that? "Duh, you can see here, I said the sky is pink."

And then this urge to hurl feral cats at him starts to rise...

Why punish the cats?

By the by, I'm going to giggle if Obama sweeps again today. You know, given how everybody loves Hillary and all, it's interesting that she's just falling more and more behind.

-

Wow, mega pwn

Why punish the cats?
Well, because the feral ones are the only ones that scratch like they mean it.

(Off topic, that was really a shocker. I never realized exactly how much house cats hold back when they scratch you, even house cats that are jerks. They really are just kind of saying, "Seriously, knock it off." But when I accidentally cornered a feral cat (I was trying to let it out but wound up blocking it because it went for a dead end instead) I found out what a cat scratch for real is like. Deep and really really really fucking painful)

By the by, I'm going to giggle if Obama sweeps again today. You know, given how everybody loves Hillary and all, it's interesting that she's just falling more and more behind.
They're already playing down the expectations for today so that the loss isn't as big a blow as it might be. You can see it as she downplays the loses over the weekend- (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/12/potomac.primaries/index.html?iref=newssearch)

Also Monday in Maryland, Clinton downplayed Obama's wins Saturday and Sunday in Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, Maine and the U.S. Virgin Islands, saying the results there were foregone conclusions.

"These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand," she said.

Caucuses are dominated by activists, she said, adding that her husband also typically floundered in caucus states during his first presidential run.

The Clinton camp is more optimistic about Wisconsin's February 19 primary and the March 4 face-offs in Texas and Ohio.

My favorite is the "you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand," 'but seriously, no one gives a shit about what they think...'

She's not really saying that, but still...

Here's what's killing me. I keep seeing Penn (her pollster and a senior strategist) saying, "She has consistently shown an electoral resiliency in difficult situations that have made her a winner. Senator Obama has in fact never had a serious Republican challenger."

Who is the serious Republican challenger she faced and where are these "electoral" situations that have made her a winner? She was elected ONCE. Against a very weak challenger. They're just straight up lying.

Here's what's killing me. I keep seeing Penn (her pollster and a senior strategist) saying, "She has consistently shown an electoral resiliency in difficult situations that have made her a winner. Senator Obama has in fact never had a serious Republican challenger."

Who is the serious Republican challenger she faced and where are these "electoral" situations that have made her a winner? She was elected ONCE. Against a very weak challenger. They're just straight up lying.

Maybe it's another area where she gets credit for Bill's experiences?

Here's what's killing me. I keep seeing Penn (her pollster and a senior strategist) saying, "She has consistently shown an electoral resiliency in difficult situations that have made her a winner. Senator Obama has in fact never had a serious Republican challenger."

Who is the serious Republican challenger she faced and where are these "electoral" situations that have made her a winner? She was elected ONCE. Against a very weak challenger. They're just straight up lying.
Well, twice. She was elected to her first term in 2000 and her second in 2006. The second was apparently a handy victory and of course she was running as an incumbent.

The only challenge that I know of was when she championed health care in her husband's first term and got the shit kicked out of her.

I honestly don't know who she went up against in both senate challenges. Ah, looked it up. It was supposed to be Guiliani but he got prostate cancer and dropped out. Apparently the 'tough' part was that Lazzio was well funded and she was accused of being a carpet bagger. "National" was because we paid attention (kind of) because of who she was.

I'm too lazy to go looking for a Stretch Armstrong to give it a Stretchy...

Maybe it's another area where she gets credit for Bill's experiences?

Even then, Bush Sr and Bob Dole are not strong Republicans...

Correction: She ran twice. Both times were essentially one-sided as the first time the most likely candidate dropped out last minute and the second was a gimme. By the same token, Obama managed similar victories. The only difference is that she basically won those contests by throwing money at them.

Well, twice. She was elected to her first term in 2000 and her second in 2006. The second was apparently a handy victory and of course she was running as an incumbent.

The only challenge that I know of was when she championed health care in her husband's first term and got the shit kicked out of her.

I honestly don't know who she went up against in both senate challenges. Ah, looked it up. It was supposed to be Guiliani but he got prostate cancer and dropped out. Apparently the 'tough' part was that Lazzio was well funded and she was accused of being a carpet bagger. "National" was because we paid attention (kind of) because of who she was.

I'm too lazy to go looking for a Stretch Armstrong to give it a Stretchy...

Eh, you beat me by half a minute. I'd have corrected myself and did.

Eh, you beat me by half a minute. I'd have corrected myself and did.
I was mostly just being additive.

Doesn't matter, he'll still quote the first post and pretend that's it...

Here's what's killing me. I keep seeing Penn (her pollster and a senior strategist) saying, "She has consistently shown an electoral resiliency in difficult situations that have made her a winner. Senator Obama has in fact never had a serious Republican challenger."

Who is the serious Republican challenger she faced and where are these "electoral" situations that have made her a winner? She was elected ONCE. Against a very weak challenger. They're just straight up lying.

QFT and carpetbagger for the win.

So how do you think the Michigan votes should be "included"?
Good question. This topic was bandied about earlier in this thread. I think they should pick another date and have a make up vote.

should Hillary get every single one of them,
Of course not....that would certainly be undemocratic.

since Edwards and Obama took their names off the ballot under the assumption that the election wouldn't count?
Edwards name was on the ballot. The only name not on the ballot was Obama's and many of his supporters were urged to vote "uncommitted".

Michigan Voters Who Support Obama, Edwards Urged to choose ‘Uncommitted’ in Primary (http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/michiganprimary114)

and you don't think that would be a farce?
Of course it has been a farce and I blame the Democrat party for that. Truly not conducive to party unity, and disenfranchising voters in States that are needed for a Presidential win is total insanity.

Edwards name was on the ballot. The only name not on the ballot was Obama's and many of his supporters were urged to vote "uncommitted".



Thats so factually incorrect I dont know where to begin. Clinton, Forest Gnome, Dodd, and some other random guy were there. Obama and Edwards were NOT on the ballot! How many times do we have to correct you?

Virginia falls to Obama!

*rubs palms together*


And so the endgame has begun...

Virginia falls to Obama!

*rubs palms together*

And so the endgame has begun...

no, don't you see? it's all part of clinton's amazing electoral strategy. it's a modified form of the giuliani method, which was used to such great effect on the repub side. this is all just part of the plan.

Good question. This topic was bandied about earlier in this thread. I think they should pick another date and have a make up vote.


Of course not....that would certainly be undemocratic.
.
Fucking finally.

Edwards name was on the ballot. The only name not on the ballot was Obama's and many of his supporters were urged to vote "uncommitted".
Wrong. The names on the ballot were Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd (had already dropped out), and Gravel (hasn't been campaigning for a while). The problem with the "uncommitted" option was that there was no indication who those delegates would be (random party hacks, presumably) or what candidate they might actually favor (Edwards people and Obama people are not, actually, identical).

Wrong. The names on the ballot were Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd (had already dropped out), and Gravel (hasn't been campaigning for a while). The problem with the "uncommitted" option was that there was no indication who those delegates would be (random party hacks, presumably) or what candidate they might actually favor (Edwards people and Obama people are not, actually, identical).
I stand corrected. Thanks.

Wrong. The names on the ballot were Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd (had already dropped out), and Gravel (hasn't been campaigning for a while). The problem with the "uncommitted" option was that there was no indication who those delegates would be (random party hacks, presumably) or what candidate they might actually favor (Edwards people and Obama people are not, actually, identical).



And the fact that many Obama and Edwards supporters probably didnt go out to vote becuase they're guy wasnt on the bill.

No, he has the ever powerful fingers in ears.

I think the most entertaining bit was that he waited a day because he was too busy to respond to my post and then his response was... no... and no... and no... oh, and no... That was the total response. No reasons. No explanation. Nothing. Just shaking his head vigorously and hoping that works.
Actually that is not exactly true.

On your list, you stated that Obama had the potential to win several Red States. You didn't say which ones. I went down your list and added my comments in blue and red as to how I thought they would play out and in certain cases offered reasoning.

The 4 years you show for the voting, you should remember that the Red States and Blue States stayed fairly status quo when Kerry ran. The biggest problem in 2000 was that Gore lost Florida and the election (due some wicked tom foolery), which Clinton snagged from the Republicans in 1996. The swing States, which weren't swing States were won by a Clinton. Before that, Bush Sr. and Ronnie had a lock on those Red States in 1980, 1984, and 1988. Hell, they had a lock on most of the country.

Keep up with the Hillary bashing and you will probably see the Red Sea return?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2f/ElectoralCollege2004-Large.PNG/350px-ElectoralCollege2004-Large.PNG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/ElectoralCollege2000-Large.png/300px-ElectoralCollege2000-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/ElectoralCollege1992-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1992-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/ElectoralCollege1988-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1988-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/ElectoralCollege1980-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1980-Large.png

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%)
need to add washington (68%), nebraska (68%), and the virgin islands (90%) to the list, too.
i'm willing to round up. maine's in (59.47ish%).

looks like we're adding at least virginia to the list too.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

Stand corrected like a week ago. You've been corrected repeatedly and you just NOW finally concede? Ugh.

And the fact that many Obama and Edwards supporters probably didnt go out to vote becuase they're guy wasnt on the bill.

I'm really growing tired of this ridiculous argument. FL and MI don't count because the DNC said they violated the rules. We may not agree, but that's the situation. Since CH has already admitted he is wrong about who was on the ballot, and I've shown in Hillary's own words that even she thinks Barack is stronger in caucuses... Why are we still arguing it. CH, stats have been provided to you which you seem to want to ignore. You have an analysis that is contrary to others and the facts presented. Either reveal the information that you are using to base your judgment on so we may debate it. If it's just your gut feeling then say so. Otherwise you should take your ball and go on to another topic. You've been dismantled here. You want to continue getting spanked then so be it. I may have to assess whether or not this is even worth my time anymore. I have a few walls in my house and I think I can go talk to them and be more pleased.

Stand corrected like a week ago. You've been corrected repeatedly and you just NOW finally concede? Ugh.

You beat me to this by seconds. You son of a biscuit.

CNN has Obama with a 2 candidate lead over Clinton!

GO OBAMA!!!!

I second that. Obama is infinitely preferrable to The Bitch.

I second that. Obama is infinitely preferrable to The Bitch.

fucking christof, why is so much of the anti-clinton side openly sexist?

CNN has Obama with a 2 candidate lead over Clinton!

GO OBAMA!!!!

Denying reality seems to be your new gig.

And trolling.

Actually that is not exactly true.

On your list, you stated that Obama had the potential to win several Red States. You didn't say which ones. I went down your list and added my comments in blue and red as to how I thought they would play out and in certain cases offered reasoning.

You, my friend, are just lying now. What reasoning? Quote it.


The 4 years you show for the voting, you should remember that the Red States and Blue States stayed fairly status quo when Kerry ran. The biggest problem in 2000 was that Gore lost Florida and the election (due some wicked tom foolery), which Clinton snagged from the Republicans in 1996. The swing States, which weren't swing States were won by a Clinton. Before that, Bush Sr. and Ronnie had a lock on those Red States in 1980, 1984, and 1988. Hell,
they had a lock on most of the country.

You're gonna use Reagan? Reagan won FORTY-NINE states in 1984. If we concede all of those states to Republicans then who cares who gets nominated. I showed that with a strong Democratic candidate that every state I said was swing could swing Democrat. With a strong Republican candidate every one of those states can swing Republican. Your response is nonsensical.

The point is that Clinton won the states I pointed to and Bush won the same states. Those states are up for grabs and yet you claimed "no". Clearly your grasp of history is lacking.

Keep up with the Hillary bashing and you will probably see the Red Sea return?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/ElectoralCollege1992-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1992-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/ElectoralCollege1988-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1988-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/ElectoralCollege1980-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1980-Large.png

Hilarious. Good thing you're not claiming that Obama can't win, huh? If Hillary loses now, suddenly it's going to be a red sea? You crack me up.

Meanwhile, now you act like some pictures substitute for an argument. Every one of those maps agree with what I presented. They show that every state I listed as a potential swing has swung in the past four elections at least once. Denying reality seems to be your new gig.

Stand corrected like a week ago. You've been corrected repeatedly and you just NOW finally concede? Ugh.
You one of those kinda guys that would swat a fly and then pull the wings off huh?

I bow to your uniqueness!! :p

You beat me to this by seconds. You son of a biscuit.

His own link said Edwards withdrew. I swear he just posts a link once in a while because he somehow thinks that's the same as having an actual reasoned argument. I mean look, he posts a bunch of pictures that actually demonstrate that a LOT more states can swing than he lists.

Actually that is not exactly true.

On your list, you stated that Obama had the potential to win several Red States. You didn't say which ones. I went down your list and added my comments in blue and red as to how I thought they would play out and in certain cases offered reasoning.

The 4 years you show for the voting, you should remember that the Red States and Blue States stayed fairly status quo when Kerry ran. The biggest problem in 2000 was that Gore lost Florida and the election (due some wicked tom foolery), which Clinton snagged from the Republicans in 1996. The swing States, which weren't swing States were won by a Clinton. Before that, Bush Sr. and Ronnie had a lock on those Red States in 1980, 1984, and 1988. Hell, they had a lock on most of the country.

Keep up with the Hillary bashing and you will probably see the Red Sea return?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/ElectoralCollege1992-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1992-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/ElectoralCollege1988-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1988-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/ElectoralCollege1980-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1980-Large.png

Ok, so let me sum this up. You've provided reasons you say and I throw it back that you've provided very few. Like, woefully inadequate reasons. Is your logic really that a Clinton won them before so only a Clinton will win them now? Further, what do you think of Hillary taking a pounding in Virginia? How about that Obama split the white vote, won amongst women, and does far better amongst well educated voters? Here are the results for Virginia for 1996, 2000, and 2004. It's a red state, but it's one that even Kerry did well in and he sucked. This is a state who has recently elected Jim Webb and would be one of the most likely to flip to the other side. If Obama pounded Hillary is a state that has the potential to flip, then who has the better chances in the general?

The swing States, which weren't swing States were won by a Clinton.
...
Keep up with the Hillary bashing and you will probably see the Red Sea return?

this has got to be elaborate performance art. nobody can post full intelligible sentences and be this lost.

His own link said Edwards withdrew. I swear he just posts a link once in a while because he somehow thinks that's the same as having an actual reasoned argument. I mean look, he posts a bunch of pictures that actually demonstrate that a LOT more states can swing than he lists.

This one of the most interesting parts. When he provided info he is undone by his own articles. It's either he doesn't read them, or he doesn't think anyone else will read them and call him out. You choose which one, it doesn't much matter to me.

fucking christof, why is so much of the anti-clinton side openly sexist?

For some reason, different swear words are used depending on gender. For example, "bitch" is used for females, but not generally for males, while "bastard," is used for males and not females. As is "jerk," "scumbag," "asshole," and "shithead."

You one of those kinda guys that would swat a fly and then pull the wings off huh?

I bow to your uniqueness!! :p

Yes. IF the fly kept buzzing at me after I'd already swatted him, yes. In this environment, you actually have to accept whether you've been swatted or not. But at least your analogy shows you recognize your defeat. It's quite positive, really. I defend you a lot and this was starting to make me feel like I was mistaken.

You, my friend, are just lying now. What reasoning? Quote it.
Go back and read it if you don't believe me.

I showed that with a strong Democratic candidate that every state I said was swing could swing Democrat.
Four problems with your premise.

1. You assume that Obama is a strong candidate.

2. The Hillary bashing is divisive and could cost Dems big time at the polls.

3. The boneheaded Democratic party that took Florida and Michigan (two important States) off the map, disenfranchising voters, and giving the Republicans a free campaign pass in those States.

4. An African-American has never been nominated for the Presidency of the US and is in uncharted waters.

Hilarious. Good thing you're not claiming that Obama can't win, huh? If Hillary loses now, suddenly it's going to be a red sea? You crack me up.
The point alludes you I see?

Meanwhile, now you act like some pictures substitute for an argument. Every one of those maps agree with what I presented. They show that every state I listed as a potential swing has swung in the past four elections at least once. Denying reality seems to be your new gig.
Thanks to Clinton. I truly don't think Obama will fare as well.

Obama talks about why he's a strong candidate:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=b3GLyuVzIn8

She's getting bashed because she deserves to get bashed for several of her stances.

QFT

Four problems with your premise.

1. You assume that Obama is a strong candidate.

He is.

2. The Hillary bashing is divisive and could cost Dems big time at the polls.

She's getting bashed because she deserves to get bashed for several of her stances.

3. The boneheaded Democratic party that took Florida and Michigan (two important States) off the map, disenfranchising voters, and giving the Republicans a free campaign pass in those States.

The dems should have done what the reps did and cut their delegation in half. Instead, they cut them out entirely. Blame the states and not the national party for being stupid.

4. An African-American has never been nominated for the Presidency of the US and is in uncharted waters.

A woman has never been nominated for the Presidency of the US and is in uncharterd waters.

The point alludes you I see?

There was a point?

Thanks to Clinton. I truly don't think Obama will fare as well.

The polls are saying something vastly different.

Maryland has just been called and what a surprise:

It has been called for Obama

Go back and read it if you don't believe me.

There's no reason there at all, and I read it many times. Seriously, you're floundering worse than my dad does on this.

Four problems with your premise.

This oughtta be good.,

1. You assume that Obama is a strong candidate.

If he wasn't why would he be continuing to take state after state in the primaries? Why would he even be a factor at this point?

2. The Hillary bashing is divisive and could cost Dems big time at the polls.

If she wins the nomination, perhaps. If she doesn't, it won't do a thing.

3. The boneheaded Democratic party that took Florida and Michigan (two important States) off the map, disenfranchising voters, and giving the Republicans a free campaign pass in those States.

Oh please. We've gone over this many times. They broke the rules and were WARNED, and they didn't heed the warning. Since then they keep being offered a reasonable alternative that gives them representation and they're refusing it.

4. An African-American has never been nominated for the Presidency of the US and is in uncharted waters.

So is a woman.

The point alludes you I see?

Yes, it is quite the allusion, an allusion to your delusions.

Thanks to Clinton. I truly don't think Obama will fare as well.
Could you please clarify what you mean? Why would Clinton affect Obama's chances?

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-

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.


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.


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.


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.


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 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.


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.


Obama takes this one in a slammer, 67% to 32%.


Obama in another squeaker. A delegate dead heat. But again, we granted Clinton the delegate dead heat for popular vote advantage, consistency.


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.


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.


Another drubbing here, Obama takes 67% compared to 32%.


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.


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 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
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon

Obama
Wisconsin
Virginia
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
Colorado

Bold are states that have already had their primaries/caucuses.
See EDIT Lower Why this is adjusted and doesn't match the text anymore
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 have to now update this as yet unaddressed rebuttal as it looks like of the swing states that have had their primaries Obama has won more.

The best I got from CH on the matter was a restatement of his premise like it had gone unchallenged...actually, it wasn't even in answer to me, it was to Jocabia. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13443083&postcount=527)

I got this bullshit-
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.

Even though it dealt with this premise-
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?

But again, as of tonight Obama has won more of the states considered swing states. If you take into account, as Jocabia has, states that have swung at least once in the last four elections, Obama has won even more than that.

So far the best we got is some ramble about the Reagan era elections. I don't know, it didn't make a lick of fucking sense.

EDIT: Well, Wisconsin has migrated (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html) to Obama (45-41), meaning that being as fair as possible to CanuckHeaven's premise, it's 7-6 in swing states with legitimate primaries. And New Mexico still remains undecided. Weaker and weaker.

D.C. has been called for Obama.

Obama not a strong candidate huh? 3 wins, all by huge margins. As for your other points Corny, Jacobia, and CNTOAN have done you dirty here. I don't need to add to the other points I have made, or their for that matter. CH, are you arguing just to see if you can argue? You certainly aren't playing for the win.

Go back and read it if you don't believe me.
We've been hounding you and hounding you to back up your reasoning, to give some sort of support, any kind of support. We even had to lower our expectations from sources to simply begging you to simply explain your reasoning, and you have the balls to write this?


Four problems with your premise.

1. You assume that Obama is a strong candidate.
Why is this not true? Dear fucking god, for fucking once, follow through on a fucking argument.

What bellweather are you using? Money raised-he's on the top of the heap.

National polls? He's doing better than Hillary against McCain.

An active base? Democratic turn out for the primaries, which Obama has been winning, has been twice that of the Republicans.

But as usual, you haven't even given your own reasoning much less anything to support it. Just a 'just cause.' And then ten pages later you'll pretend you actually made an argument.

2. The Hillary bashing is divisive and could cost Dems big time at the polls.
Despite the desire of the media, the campaign has been pretty genial. In fact, the bulk of the negativity has come from Bill Clinton on the campaign trail to the point where she had to 'reel him in.'

I wish CNN sourced their polls better so that I could link to the one they showed after Super Tuesday that showed @75% of both Clinton supporters and Obama supporters would be happy to vote for the other should they get the nomination.

3. The boneheaded Democratic party that took Florida and Michigan (two important States) off the map, disenfranchising voters, and giving the Republicans a free campaign pass in those States.
You've been smacked around on this so many times you have to have welts. The party heads of their states fucked their constituents in a show of pride. It was they who pulled the bone head move, the DNC is bending over backwards to give them a chance and they're the ones fucking over the people in their states.

4. An African-American has never been nominated for the Presidency of the US and is in uncharted waters.
As has already been pointed out, neither has a woman. A woman has been a VP candidate who lost to one of the biggest landslides in American electoral history, though, if you want to bring up Reagan era trends.


The point alludes you I see?
You've got to be fucking kidding me.


Thanks to Clinton. I truly don't think Obama will fare as well.
What is this based on?

I should of stayed quit. You're MO hasn't fucking changed.

Obama talks about why he’s a strong candidate...
...but first, a really annoying woman won’t shut up.

But first, a really annoying woman won’t shut up.

lol

Why is this not true? Dear fucking god, for fucking once, follow through on a fucking argument.

but unargued assertions are so much easier

but unargued assertions are so much easier

...

Don't mind me, I'm just out collecting feral cats.




No reason.

looks like we're adding at least virginia to the list too.

And DC and Maryland.

3. The boneheaded Democratic party that took Florida and Michigan (two important States) off the map, disenfranchising voters, and giving the Republicans a free campaign pass in those States.
Wahhh, wahhh, the jackasses who broke the rules voted for the candidate I want to win so I'm going to bitch until I get my way, wahh, wahh.

For some reason, different swear words are used depending on gender. For example, "bitch" is used for females, but not generally for males, while "bastard," is used for males and not females. As is "jerk," "scumbag," "asshole," and "shithead."

I call guys "bitches" sometimes. But I'm probably weird on that count.

I don't recall using bastard, really, so I can't say if I use it more with guys.

Go back and read it if you don't believe me.


Four problems with your premise.

1. You assume that Obama is a strong candidate.

No, I just don't assume he isn't. The difference isn't subtle. In order for me to assume he can't swing those states, I have to assume he's not strong. That's your assumption and so far every assumption you've made that has been determined has proven false.


2. The Hillary bashing is divisive and could cost Dems big time at the polls.

Yeah, he's campaigning against her. They tend to point out weaknesses. It happens. It won GWB an election.


3. The boneheaded Democratic party that took Florida and Michigan (two important States) off the map, disenfranchising voters, and giving the Republicans a free campaign pass in those States.

Uh-huh. So you say. First, it's not settled. Second, I didn't list those states so this doesn't address "my premise". You suck at this.


4. An African-American has never been nominated for the Presidency of the US and is in uncharted waters.

Yes, good argument. How many women have been elected? Are you saying that neither of them could win or do you just not have any good arguments?

I find it amusing that you use this argument. How do you propose we change that if don't actually use a candidate that can change that?


The point alludes you I see?

Good English there. What does the point ALLUDE to?

And I notice that when you're losing rather than clarify you just claim people didn't understand and pretend you've made argument. Sad.

Meanwhile, you've suggested there's going to be the red sea without Clinton, when just a bit ago you basically suggested I was lying when I claimed you've said that in the past. There's that intellectual dishonesty rearing it's head. Oh, wait, it's not intellectual. It's just dishonesty.

Thanks to Clinton. I truly don't think Obama will fare as well.

Heh. You crack me up. So the Dems are just gonna lose. Hilarious. I'm happy to watch the race. i can't wait to see McCain attempt to debate Obama. That should be a crack up.

By the way, did you enjoy another sweep by Obama.

Wahhh, wahhh, the jackasses who broke the rules voted for the candidate I want to win so I'm going to bitch until I get my way, wahh, wahh.
For some reason I have it in my head that he was saying that the un-seated delegates would give Clinton a net 91 delegate gain. If that is the case then they still wouldn't give her the pledged delegate lead at this point. I don't feel like looking for that number right now, though, so that could just be nothing.
I call guys "bitches" sometimes. But I'm probably weird on that count.

I don't recall using bastard, really, so I can't say if I use it more with guys.
I call dudes bitches all the time, though if I was to be honest sometimes it's to emasculate them, "Quit being a bitch" (in this instance it's not a 'mean woman' but a 'whiny woman.' Not really the best thing in the world to say...)

Fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. How the fuck can you write that? We've been hounding you and hounding you to back up your reasoning, to give some sort of support, any kind of support. We even had to lower our expectations from sources to simply begging you to simply explain your reasoning, and you have the balls to write this? Fuck you.


Why is this not true? Dear fucking god, for fucking once, follow through on a fucking argument.

What bellweather are you using? Money raised-he's on the top of the heap.

National polls? He's doing better than Hillary against McCain.

An active base? Democratic turn out for the primaries, which Obama has been winning, has been twice that of the Republicans.

But as usual, you haven't even given your own reasoning much less anything to support it. Just a 'just cause.' And then ten pages later you'll pretend you actually made an argument.

Despite the desire of the media, the campaign has been pretty genial. In fact, the bulk of the negativity has come from Bill Clinton on the campaign trail to the point where she had to 'reel him in.'

I wish CNN sourced their polls better so that I could link to the one they showed after Super Tuesday that showed @75% of both Clinton supporters and Obama supporters would be happy to vote for the other should they get the nomination.

You've been smacked around on this so many times you have to have welts. The party heads of their states fucked their constituents in a show of pride. It was they who pulled the bone head move, the DNC is bending over backwards to give them a chance and they're the ones fucking over the people in their states.

As has already been pointed out, neither has a woman. A woman has been a VP candidate who lost to one of the biggest landslides in American electoral history, though, if you want to bring up Reagan era trends.


You've got to be fucking kidding me.


WHY, YOU SON OF A BITCH? What the fuck is this based on?

I should of stayed quit. You're MO hasn't fucking changed.

While I agree with you on CH's obfuscation, I think you need to relax and put this in perspective. CH is providing nothing except his omnipotent opinion. Sit back, drink some JWB on the rocks, and enjoy his defeat.

Whew! Cannot think of a name, please, go take a lo-o-ong walk or a short cuppa before you have to take a brief holiday.

And everybody else -- I know elections are important, but keep it cool, there's many, many months more of this to get through.

I'm cool now. Sorry about that. I'll go smooth it out.

Fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. How the fuck can you write that? <snip>
WHY, YOU SON OF A BITCH? What the fuck is this based on?

I should of stayed quit. You're MO hasn't fucking changed.

Whew! Cannot think of a name, please, go take a lo-o-ong walk or a short cuppa before you have to take a brief holiday.

And everybody else -- I know elections are important, but keep it cool, there's many, many months more of this to get through.

While I agree with you on CH's obfuscation, I think you need to relax and put this in perspective. CH is providing nothing except his omnipotent opinion. Sit back, drink some JWB on the rocks, and enjoy his defeat.

Ultimately it's a difference between tone in my head and the tone as it comes across in text. If I had said it out loud it would have come across a lot more light hearted. Reading it again without remembering the 'way' I was saying it at the time I see it coming of frothing at the mouth crazy-eyes, which wasn't what I want to portray at all, so I've taken out the more aggressive sounding parts. I understand where the impression comes from and it was my mistake.

Okay, here we go. My initial premise:


Okay, let's look at your list, even though it did not directly address my premise. I was not referring to all the "swing States" but it is an interesting thought. I will add my comments in Red or in Blue. Keep in mind that if Kerry had won either Ohio or Florida, he would have beaten George Bush.




Who the states went for the last 4 elections.

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

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

Of them,
40 are virtually guaranteed Republican 87 are virtually guaranteed Republican
56 are virtually guaranteed Democrat agreed
54 are states he could swing 7 one possible swing State (Iowa)

Which gives Obama a grand potential of 63 electoral votes, not the 150 you claim. What "swing States" are you giving Obama?

Now, my 2nd premise was:



Clinton States:
Arizona(10)-RRDR staying Red
Arkansas(6)-RRDD going Blue for the Clintons
California(55)-DDDD staying Blue
Massachussetts(12)-DDDD staying Blue
Nevada(5)-RRDD possible to go either way
New Hampshire(4)-DRDD staying Blue
New Jersey(15)-DDDD staying Blue
New Mexico(5)-RDDD going Blue with Latino votes
New York(31)-DDDD staying Blue
Oklahoma(7)-RRRR staying Red
Tennessee(11)-RRDD staying Red

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

Of them,
7 are virtually guaranteed Republican 28 are virtually guaranteed Republican
113 are virtually guaranteed Democrat 117 are virtually guaranteed Democrat
41 are states she could swing. 16 are States she could swing

Which gives Hillary a grand potential of 133 electoral votes, not the 161 you claim.

Now it gets controversial in States that Clinton won but was not credited with:

I stated that Clinton could swing Florida (27 electoral votes) (again the Latino vote), and she would keep Michigan (17 electoral votes).

That is another 44 plus the 133 is 177 electoral votes so far, which is 114 electoral votes more than Obama has/could realistically win.

Here is the post. Can you tell me which of those claims about which state will go which way contains any reasoning? Like I said, this long since ceased to qualify as intellectual. You're just being dishonest. Now would you like to explain why states that have proven to swing in the past cannot swing now?

I also sometimes call women "dude".

But I generally use "bitch" the same way regardless of gender.

I live on the California coast, everyone gets called 'dude.' It's probably my most used word.

I call dudes bitches all the time, though if I was to be honest sometimes it's to emasculate them, "Quit being a bitch" (in this instance it's not a 'mean woman' but a 'whiny woman.' Not really the best thing in the world to say...)

I also sometimes call women "dude".

But I generally use "bitch" the same way regardless of gender.

Here is the post. Can you tell me which of those claims about which state will go which way contains any reasoning? Like I said, this long since ceased to qualify as intellectual. You're just being dishonest. Now would you like to explain why states that have proven to swing in the past cannot swing now?
Especially Colorado. What a lot of people seem to be unaware of is that Colorado has quite the large Latino population, in the southern parts of the state. They've been rallying for some time now for Obama--part of why he won with such a high percentage over Clinton in the primary--and I don't see why Colorado wouldn't switch the whole way through come November, especially given that they've been electing Democrats all over the place recently, from Mayor Hickenlooper of Denver to Senator Ken Salazar to Governor Bill Ritter.

recently, from Mayor Hickenlooper of Denver to Senator Ken Salazar to Governor Bill Ritter.

Is it just me or does it seem like Colorado is governed by people who sound like they have sci-fi names?

I live on the California coast, everyone gets called 'dude.' It's probably my most used word.

Hah! You guys need more Mexicans. :p Seriously, I don't hear "dude" too much any more.

Anyhow, I thought I'd pipe up to mention that Karl thinks Hillary may lose Texas, not because the Hispanics will abandon her, but because they're too wodely dispersed to tip the balance in the number of districts she'll need. I'm not sure if I buy it 100% just yet, but it's Karl we're talking about here, so I guess I'll have to rethink my assumptions. :)

Ultimately it's a difference between tone in my head and the tone as it comes across in text. If I had said it out loud it would have come across a lot more light hearted. Reading it again without remembering the 'way' I was saying it at the time I see it coming of frothing at the mouth crazy-eyes, which wasn't what I want to portray at all, so I've taken out the more aggressive sounding parts. I understand where the impression comes from and it was my mistake.

I heard it that way and was cracking up. But I'm sick.

I do know that you have to be careful of such things though.

Is it just me or does it seem like Colorado is governed by people who sound like they have sci-fi names?

Well, the Stargate program is based at Cheyenne Mountain...:D

Here is the post. Can you tell me which of those claims about which state will go which way contains any reasoning? Like I said, this long since ceased to qualify as intellectual. You're just being dishonest. Now would you like to explain why states that have proven to swing in the past cannot swing now?

You know, this is a good example, to me, anyway, a big part of the Obama campaign, and why the change that he's talking about is different from the change offered by Clinton.

You see, Hillary sometimes talks about how she's for change, too: she wants to change the policies of George W. Bush, she wants to implement new policies. But she misunderstands (or, as is more likely, intentionally misinterprets) what Barack means by change.

He doesn't mean it in the sense that he wants to implement new policies that differ from the current ones-- though he does plan to do that, too-- he means a difference more fundamental. He wants to change the mindset of Washington and of the political process, and a part of that is this idea of red states versus blue states. Red states are irrevocably Republican, and Blue states are completely Democratic, and there's a small handful of swing states that bat for both teams.

CH seems to be stuck in this: oh, no, those are red states, they won't vote for a Democrat. Yes, the margins of Bush's victories in several of these states was narrow; yes, many of them have fairly large amounts of independents; and yes, many of them have elected several Democrats to offices, but they just won't vote for a Democrat for president. Because they're red states, and red states do not vote for Democrats. Red states vote for Republicans.

All that matters are a few states that are called swing states-- and only Hillary can win those, of course.

As has already been pointed out, neither has a woman. A woman has been a VP candidate who lost to one of the biggest landslides in American electoral history, though, if you want to bring up Reagan era trends.

Yeah, I noticed he skipped over that. It wasn't one of the biggest. It was the biggest. Reagan got the most electoral votes in history and only lost MN and DC. It was a devestating victory.

You know, this is a good example, to me, anyway, a big part of the Obama campaign, and why the change that he's talking about is different from the change offered by Clinton.

You see, Hillary sometimes talks about how she's for change, too: she wants to change the policies of George W. Bush, she wants to implement new policies. But she misunderstands (or, as is more likely, intentionally misinterprets) what Barack means by change.

He doesn't mean it in the sense that he wants to implement new policies that differ from the current ones-- though he does plan to do that, too-- he means a difference more fundamental. He wants to change the mindset of Washington and of the political process, and a part of that is this idea of red states versus blue states. Red states are irrevocably Republican, and Blue states are completely Democratic, and there's a small handful of swing states that bat for both teams.

CH seems to be stuck in this: oh, no, those are red states, they won't vote for a Democrat. Yes, the margins of Bush's victories in several of these states was narrow; yes, many of them have fairly large amounts of independents; and yes, many of them have elected several Democrats to offices, but they just won't vote for a Democrat for president. Because they're red states, and red states do not vote for Democrats. Red states vote for Republicans.

All that matters are a few states that are called swing states-- and only Hillary can win those, of course.
I honestly hope you're right about that, his intentions of a fundamental change, because we need that change. Despite my support for him as a candidate I can't fail to see that oftentimes even he sounds like he is spouting empty rhetoric. In many ways right now my support for him is more due preventing Clinton than truly supporting him.

Maybe I'm just trying to keep from being swept up by the perception that Obama is some sort of messiah...but on that same token, as I said, I hope you're right and that he really means to do that, because if he does it means some very, very good things for this country.

You know, this is a good example, to me, anyway, a big part of the Obama campaign, and why the change that he's talking about is different from the change offered by Clinton.

You see, Hillary sometimes talks about how she's for change, too: she wants to change the policies of George W. Bush, she wants to implement new policies. But she misunderstands (or, as is more likely, intentionally misinterprets) what Barack means by change.

He doesn't mean it in the sense that he wants to implement new policies that differ from the current ones-- though he does plan to do that, too-- he means a difference more fundamental. He wants to change the mindset of Washington and of the political process, and a part of that is this idea of red states versus blue states. Red states are irrevocably Republican, and Blue states are completely Democratic, and there's a small handful of swing states that bat for both teams.

CH seems to be stuck in this: oh, no, those are red states, they won't vote for a Democrat. Yes, the margins of Bush's victories in several of these states was narrow; yes, many of them have fairly large amounts of independents; and yes, many of them have elected several Democrats to offices, but they just won't vote for a Democrat for president. Because they're red states, and red states do not vote for Democrats. Red states vote for Republicans.

All that matters are a few states that are called swing states-- and only Hillary can win those, of course.

Heh. It'll be funny when Obama has to interpret his own words for himself, i.e., during the debates (although your take on "change" was adorably optimistic). :p But I suppose there aren't red, blue and swing states in the strict sense that they *can't* be won by the oppositon - Nixon and Reagan taught us that much, and hopefully Mac will give us a refresher course on that. ;)

You know, this is a good example, to me, anyway, a big part of the Obama campaign, and why the change that he's talking about is different from the change offered by Clinton.

You see, Hillary sometimes talks about how she's for change, too: she wants to change the policies of George W. Bush, she wants to implement new policies. But she misunderstands (or, as is more likely, intentionally misinterprets) what Barack means by change.

He doesn't mean it in the sense that he wants to implement new policies that differ from the current ones-- though he does plan to do that, too-- he means a difference more fundamental. He wants to change the mindset of Washington and of the political process, and a part of that is this idea of red states versus blue states. Red states are irrevocably Republican, and Blue states are completely Democratic, and there's a small handful of swing states that bat for both teams.

CH seems to be stuck in this: oh, no, those are red states, they won't vote for a Democrat. Yes, the margins of Bush's victories in several of these states was narrow; yes, many of them have fairly large amounts of independents; and yes, many of them have elected several Democrats to offices, but they just won't vote for a Democrat for president. Because they're red states, and red states do not vote for Democrats. Red states vote for Republicans.

All that matters are a few states that are called swing states-- and only Hillary can win those, of course.

Yes, very much. It's this idea that certain states don't matter that is soooooo sad. Clinton is basically skipping over this whole month because calling out to the people is less important than winning. It's a stupid strategy but it highlights everything wrong with the way politics is typically done.

It's more than just winning. Obama is energizing people. It's exciting. And, honestly, I'm not going to say that Clinton can't. She can. It's part of why some people hate her so much. If she wasn't powerful, people wouldn't react that way. But this is an exciting time. Personally, I think she's a better candidate than McCain. It's a very positive sign that Obama can beat her (or at least all current evidence suggests so).

Heh. It'll be funny when Obama has to interpret his own words for himself, i.e., during the debates (although your take on "change" was adorably optimistic). :p But I suppose there aren't red, blue and swing states in the strict sense that they *can't* be won by the oppositon - Nixon and Reagan taught us that much, and hopefully Mac will give us a refresher course on that. ;)

Bwahahaha. No, seriously, tell it again. My knee's not sore yet. McCain might be able to win, but come on, that guy was a great candidate 10 years ago. Now, he's totally and utterly clueless. Watching him debate Romney was positively painful. And, honestly, I used to love McCain. McCain is a different kind of candidate and when he had a set, I'd have voted for him. In 2000, I really think he could have given us one of those landslide victories. And I'd say that he'd won, we'd be utterly and totally focused on terrorism instead of Iraq.

This isn't 2000, though, and McCain can't win a general election against anyone who's going to be able to call him out on all his nonsense.

Bwahahaha. No, seriously, tell it again. My knee's not sore yet. McCain might be able to win, but come on, that guy was a great candidate 10 years ago. Now, he's totally and utterly clueless. Watching him debate Romney was positively painful. And, honestly, I used to love McCain. McCain is a different kind of candidate and when he had a set, I'd have voted for him. In 2000, I really think he could have given us one of those landslide victories. And I'd say that he'd won, we'd be utterly and totally focused on terrorism instead of Iraq.

This isn't 2000, though, and McCain can't win a general election against anyone who's going to be able to call him out on all his nonsense.

McCain's got more crossover appeal than you might expect. I'll leave it there, and let the polls do the talking once we get rolling. ;)

McCain's got more crossover appeal than you might expect. I'll leave it there, and let the polls do the talking once we get rolling. ;)

And when McCain is shown to be a bumbling oaf, what will you do?

Partially because I need to redeem myself and partially because apparently I like tilting at windmills...
Okay, here we go. My initial premise:


Okay, let's look at your list, even though it did not directly address my premise. I was not referring to all the "swing States" but it is an interesting thought. I will add my comments in Red or in Blue. Keep in mind that if Kerry had won either Ohio or Florida, he would have beaten George Bush.
No, you implied that the 'red states that Obama were winning were Red States that were not likely to change.' This implies then that he is not winning in states that could swing. Not only have we proven that he not only is winning 'red states' that can in fact swing, it is more true of him than it is of Clinton.

Then there was this random stuff, which for some reason I decided to research.




Who the states went for the last 4 elections.

Obama States:
State(Electoral votes) - 2004-2000-1996-1992
Alabama(9)-RRRR staying Red
Alaska(3)-RRDR staying Red
Colorado(9)-RRRD staying Red
Colorado went to Bush by a margin of less than 5% (4.67%) in 2004

Connecticut(7)-DDDD staying Blue
Deleware(3)-DDDD staying Blue
Georgia(15)-RRRD staying Red
Idaho(4)-RRRR staying Red
Illinois(21)-DDDD staying Blue
Iowa(7)-RDDD possible to go either way
Kansas(6)-RRRR staying Red
Lousiana(9)-RRDD staying Red
Maine(4)-DDDD staying Blue
Minnesota(10)-DDDD staying Blue
To maintain fairness, Kerry only carried this state by 3.48% in 2004.

Missouri(11)-RRDD staying Red
Bush had this state by 7.2%. Again, while 'likely' not a sure thing.

Nebraska(5)-RRRR staying Red
North Dakota(3)-RRRR staying Red
South Carolina(8)-RRRR staying Red
Utah(5)-RRRR staying Red
Washinton(11)-DDDD staying Blue
Kerry only held this state by 7.18%, though once you get above 6% it's a little more reliable. Though only 21 states had margins below 10%.


snip (EDIT-I erased the math because I don't want to do it)

Now, my 2nd premise was:



Clinton States:
Arizona(10)-RRDR staying Red
Arkansas(6)-RRDD going Blue for the Clintons
The closest thing you come to for an explanation or reasoning for you conclusions. Bush took Arkansas by 9.76%

California(55)-DDDD staying Blue
Massachussetts(12)-DDDD staying Blue
Nevada(5)-RRDD possible to go either way
New Hampshire(4)-DRDD staying Blue
Kerry only carried this state by 1.37% in 2004

New Jersey(15)-DDDD staying Blue
Kerry only took this state by 6.68% in 2004

New Mexico(5)-RDDD going Blue with Latino votes
McCain's home state might be a closer fight regardless of who the Democratic candidate is. Kind of moot, I'd say it's still up for grabs, but it will be a tough fight.

New York(31)-DDDD staying Blue
Oklahoma(7)-RRRR staying Red
Tennessee(11)-RRDD staying Red

snip (see above)


Now it gets controversial in States that Clinton won but was not credited with:

I stated that Clinton could swing Florida (27 electoral votes) (again the Latino vote), and she would keep Michigan (17 electoral votes).

That is another 44 plus the 133 is 177 electoral votes so far, which is 114 electoral votes more than Obama has/could realistically win.
Why would Obama not realistically win those states?

And when McCain is shown to be a bumbling oaf, what will you do?

Do I detect a tinge of fear in those words? ;) Mac's kung-fu is strong, we will see. :p

Is it just me or does it seem like Colorado is governed by people who sound like they have sci-fi names?

lmao

Do I detect a tinge of fear in those words? ;) Mac's kung-fu is strong, we will see. :p

Alright then. Fair enough. We'll see.

I want you to admit you were wrong when he loses, though. (And if I am wrong I shall do the same.)

McCain's got more crossover appeal than you might expect. I'll leave it there, and let the polls do the talking once we get rolling. ;)

I love that. The polls matter if they ever agree with you, but the fact they show him losing to Obama at the current time means nothing. Logic, this is Thumbless Pete. It's time you two meet.

Hah! You guys need more Mexicans. :p Seriously, I don't hear "dude" too much any more.
Dude, we live, like, 30 minutes from each other.

Anyhow, I thought I'd pipe up to mention that Karl thinks Hillary may lose Texas, not because the Hispanics will abandon her, but because they're too wodely dispersed to tip the balance in the number of districts she'll need. I'm not sure if I buy it 100% just yet, but it's Karl we're talking about here, so I guess I'll have to rethink my assumptions. :)
She's a good campaigner (which makes her using the Guiliani gambit seem so weird), and if she focuses her energy there I have no doubt that she'll have a strong showing. In big states like that it's harder for Obama's 'personal' approach. There's no denying it's Clinton's strong suit in many ways. Obama will have his work cut out to close the gap there.

If he does, that'll pretty much be it. Especially if he continues his winning streak going into Texas.

Alright then. Fair enough. We'll see.

I want you to admit you were wrong when he loses, though. (And if I am wrong I shall do the same.)

I'd be pretty disappointed if the Dems didn't have at least a good few conspiracy theories to explain away any potential loss, but I'm game if you are. ;) I do mean that sincerely, though - we lost a bunch of good people after '04, and I sorta felt responsible for a couple. That's no fun.

I think people keep making the mistake of thinking the change Obama is talking about is supposed to happen without the involvement of the everyday citizen at every level.

Our part in this transformation doesn't end at the voting booth and it isn't going to be a walk in the park. While I believe that many of us want the change we are voting for, I wonder if we have the will to pull our weight. I'm not even sure if I do personally.

McCain's got more crossover appeal than you might expect. I'll leave it there, and let the polls do the talking once we get rolling. ;)

The interesting and frankly encouraging thing about the possibility of an Obama/McCain race is that it won't be a race to the bottom. Both candidates have hung their hats on high mindedness, statesmanship. It'll only be when one of them gets desperate will it start to resemble the politics we've grown used to over the last 12 years. I won't make absolute predictions about when that happens or who will do it, but I'd like to think that the first one to slip will lose that sheen of statesmanship and with it any cross party support.

Which is not to say they aren't going to dig at each other, and affiliates are going to be fucking horrible (push-polling, making shit up, etc) but from the candidates I think we'll see a more civil discourse, at least initially.

I love that. The polls matter if they ever agree with you, but the fact they show him losing to Obama at the current time means nothing. Logic, this is Thumbless Pete. It's time you two meet.

Where did I mention polls? McCain trailing within the margin of error nine months out is meaningless if you've been paying attention to any recent presidential campaign - Bush down 20 in 2000 and Kerry up 8 in Aug. 04 are a couple recent examples.

Edit: Aha, okay: I see where I used the *word* "polls," but I wasn't implying that current polls tell the story - we'll be tracking the race as it progresses with them, that's all. ;)

Dude, we live, like, 30 minutes from each other.

Wha? I was thinking San Francisco (eight hours, approx.?) - sorry. :p

She's a good campaigner (which makes her using the Guiliani gambit seem so weird), and if she focuses her energy there I have no doubt that she'll have a strong showing. In big states like that it's harder for Obama's 'personal' approach. There's no denying it's Clinton's strong suit in many ways. Obama will have his work cut out to close the gap there.

If he does, that'll pretty much be it. Especially if he continues his winning streak going into Texas.

That much seems beyond a doubt. Local leftie radio says neither will make 2025 (or whatever it is to win) delegates before the convention, but it would be effectively over if she's stopped on March 4. A few parts of Wisconsin should give us the heads-up.

I think people keep making the mistake of thinking the change Obama is talking about is supposed to happen without the involvement of the everyday citizen at every level.

Our part in this transformation doesn't end at the voting booth and it isn't going to be a walk in the park. While I believe that many of us want the change we are voting for, I wonder if we have the will to pull our weight. I'm not even sure if I do personally.

I would so totally have done community service for financial aid instead of having a looming $50,000 debt for a degree that wasn't going to make me money.

I honestly hope you're right about that, his intentions of a fundamental change, because we need that change. Despite my support for him as a candidate I can't fail to see that oftentimes even he sounds like he is spouting empty rhetoric. In many ways right now my support for him is more due preventing Clinton than truly supporting him.
Heh. It'll be funny when Obama has to interpret his own words for himself, i.e., during the debates (although your take on "change" was adorably optimistic). :p
It should be noted that almost every time Obama talks about "change", he defines it precisely as Pirated Corsairs did, if not more comprehensively.

And when McCain is shown to be a bumbling oaf, what will you do?Didn't hurt Bush too much.

I think people keep making the mistake of thinking the change Obama is talking about is supposed to happen without the involvement of the everyday citizen at every level.

Our part in this transformation doesn't end at the voting booth and it isn't going to be a walk in the park. While I believe that many of us want the change we are voting for, I wonder if we have the will to pull our weight. I'm not even sure if I do personally.True that. Public participation is crucial to the kind of change Obama intends to get implemented. Fortunately, computers and the Internet allow us to make a fuss without bothering to put on any pants.

Wha? I was thinking San Francisco (eight hours, approx.?) - sorry. :p



No, you're right. I'm in San Francisco. I thought you were NorCal for some reason.

I would so totally have done community service for financial aid instead of having a looming $50,000 debt for a degree that wasn't going to make me money.

Same here! Well my degree makes me a little money but it'll still take me 30 years to pay it off.

True that. Public participation is crucial to the kind of change Obama intends to get implemented. Fortunately, computers and the Internet allow us to make a fuss without bothering to put on any pants.


Hah, well that's not always true when it comes to making a difference locally.

I honestly hope you're right about that, his intentions of a fundamental change, because we need that change. Despite my support for him as a candidate I can't fail to see that oftentimes even he sounds like he is spouting empty rhetoric. In many ways right now my support for him is more due preventing Clinton than truly supporting him.

Maybe I'm just trying to keep from being swept up by the perception that Obama is some sort of messiah...but on that same token, as I said, I hope you're right and that he really means to do that, because if he does it means some very, very good things for this country.

Well, to an extent, you're right: I don't think that we'll be able to be 100% successful with this fundamental change. I'm realistic about this; I know that we can't accomplish everything we desire, and I think if you sat down and spoke with him, Senator Obama'd agree. However, the fact that we will try to get it all will allow us to get some of it-- and it will certainly allow us to change more than we would if we didn't try to change it at all!

It's true that hope is not enough. But it is necessary-- you cannot do great things without the condition of hope, for hope is the starting point from which great deeds find their origins.

Well, to an extent, you're right: I don't think that we'll be able to be 100% successful with this fundamental change. I'm realistic about this; I know that we can't accomplish everything we desire, and I think if you sat down and spoke with him, Senator Obama'd agree. However, the fact that we will try to get it all will allow us to get some of it-- and it will certainly allow us to change more than we would if we didn't try to change it at all!

It's true that hope is not enough. But it is necessary-- you cannot do great things without the condition of hope, for hope is the starting point from which great deeds find their origins.

Now that is something I can agree with completely.

Tongass: Against Kerry, sure. But McCain against Obama? Nuh-uh. Obama has too much crossover appeal. If he makes McCain look like an idiot, he will succeed.

The interesting and frankly encouraging thing about the possibility of an Obama/McCain race is that it won't be a race to the bottom. Both candidates have hung their hats on high mindedness, statesmanship. It'll only be when one of them gets desperate will it start to resemble the politics we've grown used to over the last 12 years. I won't make absolute predictions about when that happens or who will do it, but I'd like to think that the first one to slip will lose that sheen of statesmanship and with it any cross party support.

Which is not to say they aren't going to dig at each other, and affiliates are going to be fucking horrible (push-polling, making shit up, etc) but from the candidates I think we'll see a more civil discourse, at least initially.

McCain already lowered the level.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080213/pl_cq_politics/politics2669816_1

and

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080213/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_109

"Now comes the hard part, and for America, the much bigger decision," McCain said. "We do not yet know for certain who will have the honor of being the Democratic Party's nominee for president. But we know where either of their candidates will lead this country, and we dare not let them. (...) They will paint a picture of the world in which America's mistakes are a greater threat to our security than the malevolent intentions of an enemy that despises us and our ideals.""

Can the Republican base use anything but fear? Who the heck is their speech writer, Scarecrow?

More bad news from the Clinton camp.

Clinton's deputy campaign manager resigns (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/12/clintons-deputy-campaign-manager-resigns/)

McCain already lowered the level.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080213/pl_cq_politics/politics2669816_1

and

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080213/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_109

"Now comes the hard part, and for America, the much bigger decision," McCain said. "We do not yet know for certain who will have the honor of being the Democratic Party's nominee for president. But we know where either of their candidates will lead this country, and we dare not let them. (...) They will paint a picture of the world in which America's mistakes are a greater threat to our security than the malevolent intentions of an enemy that despises us and our ideals.""

Can the Republican base use anything but fear? Who the heck is their speech writer, Scarecrow?

Fear-based voting has been the message of both parties for my entire life. "Don't vote for who you think is the best candidate. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." If not for fear-based voting, third parties would do much better and that's their real fear.

Can the Republican base use anything but fear? Who the heck is their speech writer, Scarecrow?
The Republicans only have fear: fear of terrorism, fear of communism, fear of people being able to abort fetuses, fear of gay people being able to get divorced, etc.

More bad news from the Clinton camp.

Clinton's deputy campaign manager resigns (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/12/clintons-deputy-campaign-manager-resigns/)
Either the rats are jumping ship (which is is too early for considering we are headed for Texas and Puerto Rico) or Clinton is tossing rats out because she isn't winning and we are calling it "resigning." It's too close for Clinton to step down and hand the election to Obama.

And McCain can spout whatever base Republican fear rhetoric he wants; without the dipshit pundits behind him, the Republican base isn't going to mobilize for him.

More bad news from the Clinton camp.

Clinton's deputy campaign manager resigns (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/12/clintons-deputy-campaign-manager-resigns/)

Hmmm... it's it the Bush MO to replace people when things get hot? I really hope Obama and McCain are more the "buck stops here" types. Hillary definitely isn't.

And DC and Maryland.

yup. full update:

states obama won with 60% or more of the vote:
Alaska (75%)
DC (75%)*
Colorado (67%)
Georgia (67%)*
Idaho (79%)
Illinois (65%)*
Kansas (74%)
Maryland (60%)*
Minnesota (67%)
Nebraska (68%)
North Dakota (61%)
Virginia (64%)*
Washington (68%)
The Virgin Islands (90%)*
and we should probably spot him Maine (59.47%) too.

states Clinton won with 60% or more of the vote:
Arkansas (70%)*

* primary rather than caucus

yup. full update:

states obama won with 60% or more of the vote:
Alaska (75%)
DC (75%)*
Colorado (67%)
Georgia (67%)*
Idaho (79%)
Illinois (65%)*
Kansas (74%)
Maryland) (60%)*
Minnesota (67%)
Nebraska (68%)
North Dakota (61%)
Virginia (64%)*
Washington (68%)
The Virgin Islands (90%)*
and we should probably spot him Maine (59.47%) too.

states Clinton won with 60% or more of the vote:
Arkansas (70%)*

* primary rather than caucus

Clearly, she's the more popular candidate. I don't know why anyone would think Obama is more popular.

Clearly, she's the more popular candidate. I don't know why anyone would think Obama is more popular.

Of course she is. It's a well known fact that the population of Arkansas is over 200 million, encompassing the majority of the nation's citizens.

Clearly, she's the more popular candidate. I don't know why anyone would think Obama is more popular.

We already know what the answer to that is. Those are results of the black vote, and while we respect them, they don't really count. And an activated base. And while they care and are engaged, they don't matter either. No, what really matters are white women and labor, there's a demographic and base that matter. Especially if you live in a populous state like California or New York or Texas or maybe a state that didn't have a legitimate primary. Not so much if you come from someplace on the Potomac or had your primary/caucus last Saturday. And maybe Wisconsin. Those states are full of blacks and/or an activate support, and no one cares what they think...

Clearly, she's the more popular candidate. I don't know why anyone would think Obama is more popular.

Of course she is. The evil media just prefers Obama. Anyone who actually researched the issues and was in the know would prefer Hillary.

We already know what the answer to that is. Those are results of the black vote, and while we respect them, they don't really count. And an activated base. And while they care and are engaged, they don't matter either. No, what really matters are white women and labor, there's a demographic and base that matter. Especially if you live in a populous state like California or New York or Texas or maybe a state that didn't have a legitimate primary. Not so much if you come from someplace on the Potomac or had your primary/caucus last Saturday. And maybe Wisconsin. Those states are full of blacks and/or an activate support, and no one cares what they think...

I really don't get how she or anyone can think that it's a good long-term strategy to skip over a large number of states and basically tell them you don't care about them, because they don't have enough delegates to matter. She's basically throwing away 10 states.

I'm a candidate of the people except when I'm losing, then I'm a candidate of whatever the hell gives me some hope for getting the nod.

How is she going to answer to that criticism if she's running against McCain? McCain has already won and he's still campaigning in every state. I'm not a big fan, but it's lunacy to just write off states (yes, I know it's common lunacy). It's rude. Every state matters (even MI and FL). Every person matters, and it's really sad that so often candidates don't notice the problem in the methodologies they use to win.

If Clinton really cared about the people, she'd be positioning herself to beat McCain like Obama is. If he loses the nod, and she's positioned to beat McCain, then great. If she loses and he is positions, great. Instead, she's doing things that will hurt against McCain but get her the nomination. Now, that screams of a woman who is more concerned with herself than the state of our country.

whoever its going to be it will be the first black president or the first female president the the last one is actually funny bill clinton will be the first lady

That is most likely what the official title will be...

I think we should refer to him like we do senators. The chair recognize the gentleman that can be found in Hillary's pants.

whoever its going to be it will be the first black president or the first female president the the last one is actually funny bill clinton will be the first lady
I know radio pundits will call him the first lady, but what do we call him if she wins? First Man? First Gentleman? Probably that, now that I think about it...

I know radio pundits will call him the first lady, but what do we call him if she wins? First Man? First Gentleman? Probably that, now that I think about it...It's "First Husband" in Calvin and Hobbes...

I know radio pundits will call him the first lady, but what do we call him if she wins? First Man? First Gentleman? Probably that, now that I think about it...

That is most likely what the official title will be...

McCain's got more crossover appeal than you might expect. I'll leave it there, and let the polls do the talking once we get rolling. ;)

A lot of McCain's crossover appeal comes from the campaign he ran 8 years ago, which was much different. All it takes is people realizing that he's not presenting the kind of face he did 8 years ago, and his crossover appeal drops drastically.

A lot of McCain's crossover appeal comes from the campaign he ran 8 years ago, which was much different. All it takes is people realizing that he's not presenting the kind of face he did 8 years ago, and his crossover appeal drops drastically.

Expect to see lots of those pictures of McCain hugging Bush. Not that I necessarily think that alone is fair. They're in the same party, he's the president, what do we want, McCain throwing batteries at him?

But the photos aren't the only thing to go on, there's a voting record to underscore that. How much it does will be carefully debated.

Actually consdiring that Hillary won both New York and California, she did have more delegates than Obama. If the Democrats would let Michigan and Florida send their delegates to the convention that would cement Hillaries delegate lead. But the reason that Obama has recently overcome Hillary on the delegate issue is only because the Democrats won't let Florida or Michigan have a voice in the Democrat primary. Why is it that only Hillary is championing the inclusion of Florida and Michigan voters into the primary while Obama opposes it?
Because its not in Obama's interest for Florida to count.
But now the biggest stake is Texas. After that, you have the superdelegates, who, contrary to Obama's uneducated claims, don't have to vote with the people of their states. A super delegate is a person who goes to the convention and votes for whoever he or she wants. They don't are not required to vote for the same people that the majority of their home state voted for. Those are the people Obama has to wooe now. But it seems that Hillary is doing a better job of it.
A superdelegate is any person who has been elected to public office or (in California's Republican Party) is a current candidate for a political office after having won a primary.

Actually consdiring that Hillary won both New York and California, she did have more delegates than Obama. If the Democrats would let Michigan and Florida send their delegates to the convention that would cement Hillaries delegate lead. But the reason that Obama has recently overcome Hillary on the delegate issue is only because the Democrats won't let Florida or Michigan have a voice in the Democrat primary. Why is it that only Hillary is championing the inclusion of Florida and Michigan voters into the primary while Obama opposes it?
Because its not in Obama's interest for Florida to count.
But now the biggest stake is Texas. After that, you have the superdelegates, who, contrary to Obama's uneducated claims, don't have to vote with the people of their states. A super delegate is a person who goes to the convention and votes for whoever he or she wants. They don't are not required to vote for the same people that the majority of their home state voted for. Those are the people Obama has to wooe now. But it seems that Hillary is doing a better job of it.
A superdelegate is any person who has been elected to public office or (in California's Republican Party) is a current candidate for a political office after having won a primary.

So then you haven't been paying attention I gather. That's all covered in this thread, over and over again.

We already know what the answer to that is. Those are results of the black vote, and while we respect them, they don't really count. And an activated base. And while they care and are engaged, they don't matter either. No, what really matters are white women and labor, there's a demographic and base that matter. Especially if you live in a populous state like California or New York or Texas or maybe a state that didn't have a legitimate primary. Not so much if you come from someplace on the Potomac or had your primary/caucus last Saturday. And maybe Wisconsin. Those states are full of blacks and/or an activate support, and no one cares what they think...

Old people matter, too!

But those young people, they never vote, right? So when they do, it obviously doesn't matter.

I really don't get how she or anyone can think that it's a good long-term strategy to skip over a large number of states and basically tell them you don't care about them, because they don't have enough delegates to matter. She's basically throwing away 10 states.

By the way, has anyone else noticed the news reporting that Clinton has not called to congratulate Obama in any of the past 7 or 8 contests, despite the fact that it is generally considered common courtesy to do so? Is that supposed to make her look better?

She's ignoring voters and trying very hard to ignore her opponent. What is that supposed to gain her?


I know radio pundits will call him the first lady, but what do we call him if she wins? First Man? First Gentleman? Probably that, now that I think about it...

Just call him Bill!

Of course, there was a rumor that, in a move that would drive Constitutional scholars crazy, she might name him as her VP. What would that make him?

Actually consdiring that Hillary won both New York and California, she did have more delegates than Obama. If the Democrats would let Michigan and Florida send their delegates to the convention that would cement Hillaries delegate lead. But the reason that Obama has recently overcome Hillary on the delegate issue is only because the Democrats won't let Florida or Michigan have a voice in the Democrat primary. Why is it that only Hillary is championing the inclusion of Florida and Michigan voters into the primary while Obama opposes it?

Because only Hillary would be helped by such an unfair move. After all, if we include results from states in which no campaigning was allowed, the people were told their votes wouldn't count, and all the candidates weren't even necessarily on the ballot, it appears that Hillary's name recognition wins the day.

But now the biggest stake is Texas. After that, you have the superdelegates, who, contrary to Obama's uneducated claims, don't have to vote with the people of their states.

Where did Obama claim that they did?

Those are the people Obama has to wooe now. But it seems that Hillary is doing a better job of it.

The vast majority of superdelegates are still uncommitted. So Hillary has more close cronies at the top. Should we really be surprised by that?

Actually consdiring that Hillary won both New York and California, she did have more delegates than Obama. If the Democrats would let Michigan and Florida send their delegates to the convention that would cement Hillaries delegate lead. But the reason that Obama has recently overcome Hillary on the delegate issue is only because the Democrats won't let Florida or Michigan have a voice in the Democrat primary. Why is it that only Hillary is championing the inclusion of Florida and Michigan voters into the primary while Obama opposes it?
Because its not in Obama's interest for Florida to count.
But now the biggest stake is Texas. After that, you have the superdelegates, who, contrary to Obama's uneducated claims, don't have to vote with the people of their states. A super delegate is a person who goes to the convention and votes for whoever he or she wants. They don't are not required to vote for the same people that the majority of their home state voted for. Those are the people Obama has to wooe now. But it seems that Hillary is doing a better job of it.
A superdelegate is any person who has been elected to public office or (in California's Republican Party) is a current candidate for a political office after having won a primary.
Welcome to 20 pages ago.

It was a delegate dead heat on Super Tuesday by last count. Obama won more states and Clinton managed to balance that lose by managing big state wins. She's banking on that strategy again in Texas, but the difference is that all the small states she's conceding don't vote on the same day, so she's also conceding momentum which up to this point has been elusive in the Democratic primary. It's a risky gambit and we've already seen it not work in this election cycle.

She's the only one championing the Michigan delegates because she's the only one in the race who was on the ballot. She supported Michigan and Florida losing their delegates in September and changed her mind after losing in South Carolina. Florida and Michigan are allowed to do 'make up' primaries before June 10th when the candidates would be allowed to campaign and both of them will be on the ballot. It's only the bullheadedness of the state party officials that prevents that.

I don't believe that Obama is confused about the superdelegate situation since both senators and the governor of Mass. are super delegates for him despite the fact that the state voted for Clinton. However, it is traditional, even with Hart/Mondale which was the first 'test' of super-delegates, for the majority of them to vote with the popular vote over all and in fact many of them have said they would do just that. It's why so many of them are unassigned.

And when McCain is shown to be a bumbling oaf, what will you do?
I don't think he'll turn into an "oaf", but I see some danger of him doing a "Bob Dole", getting real cranky when he's tired and turning some people off. He has shown signs already.

Actually consdiring that Hillary won both New York and California, she did have more delegates than Obama. If the Democrats would let Michigan and Florida send their delegates to the convention that would cement Hillaries delegate lead. But the reason that Obama has recently overcome Hillary on the delegate issue is only because the Democrats won't let Florida or Michigan have a voice in the Democrat primary. Why is it that only Hillary is championing the inclusion of Florida and Michigan voters into the primary while Obama opposes it?
Because its not in Obama's interest for Florida to count.
But now the biggest stake is Texas. After that, you have the superdelegates, who, contrary to Obama's uneducated claims, don't have to vote with the people of their states. A super delegate is a person who goes to the convention and votes for whoever he or she wants. They don't are not required to vote for the same people that the majority of their home state voted for. Those are the people Obama has to wooe now. But it seems that Hillary is doing a better job of it.
A superdelegate is any person who has been elected to public office or (in California's Republican Party) is a current candidate for a political office after having won a primary.

RTFT. Fail.

You know, this is a good example, to me, anyway, a big part of the Obama campaign, and why the change that he's talking about is different from the change offered by Clinton.

You see, Hillary sometimes talks about how she's for change, too: she wants to change the policies of George W. Bush, she wants to implement new policies. But she misunderstands (or, as is more likely, intentionally misinterprets) what Barack means by change.

He doesn't mean it in the sense that he wants to implement new policies that differ from the current ones-- though he does plan to do that, too-- he means a difference more fundamental. He wants to change the mindset of Washington and of the political process, and a part of that is this idea of red states versus blue states. Red states are irrevocably Republican, and Blue states are completely Democratic, and there's a small handful of swing states that bat for both teams.

CH seems to be stuck in this: oh, no, those are red states, they won't vote for a Democrat. Yes, the margins of Bush's victories in several of these states was narrow; yes, many of them have fairly large amounts of independents; and yes, many of them have elected several Democrats to offices, but they just won't vote for a Democrat for president. Because they're red states, and red states do not vote for Democrats. Red states vote for Republicans.

All that matters are a few states that are called swing states-- and only Hillary can win those, of course.

Obama takes independents and moderates from McCain. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/obamavotersimpactmccaintoo) This is the news coming out at the current time from the primary season. Once again Obama handles McCain better than Hillary. Obama is the only hope of a Democratic presidency. A vote Hill is a vote for McCain. This makes me happy because I like Mac as well.

McCain's got more crossover appeal than you might expect. I'll leave it there, and let the polls do the talking once we get rolling. ;)

While I agree with you he does have crossover appeal...http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/obamavotersimpactmccaintoo

By the way, has anyone else noticed the news reporting that Clinton has not called to congratulate Obama in any of the past 7 or 8 contests, despite the fact that it is generally considered common courtesy to do so? Is that supposed to make her look better?
You know this how? From what I understood, she mailed in the points before the voting.

Edit (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-13-clinton-texas_N.htm):

Clinton congratulated Obama on his recent victories and said: "Tell him to meet me in Texas — we're ready."

You know this how?
Balls.

Reading is fundamental!
And blind hatred is irrational. :D

You know this how?

Reading is fundamental!

I'll repeat my post with the important parts bolded:

By the way, has anyone else noticed the news reporting that Clinton has not called to congratulate Obama in any of the past 7 or 8 contests, despite the fact that it is generally considered common courtesy to do so? Is that supposed to make her look better?

From what I understood, she mailed in the points before the voting

Huh? What points. Mailed where? What are you talking about?

You know this how? From what I understood, she mailed in the points before the voting.

Edit (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-13-clinton-texas_N.htm):


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/12/clinton-still-no-congratulations-for-obama/

Actually consdiring that Hillary won both New York and California, she did have more delegates than Obama. If the Democrats would let Michigan and Florida send their delegates to the convention that would cement Hillaries delegate lead. But the reason that Obama has recently overcome Hillary on the delegate issue is only because the Democrats won't let Florida or Michigan have a voice in the Democrat primary. Why is it that only Hillary is championing the inclusion of Florida and Michigan voters into the primary while Obama opposes it?
Because its not in Obama's interest for Florida to count. Obama has no say in it. Hillary and Obama both pledged to respect the DNC decision and not campaign in either state. The question is, why did Hillary change her mind , leaving her name on the Michigan ballot and start pandering to the states before they voted by dropping hints that she was on their side? Because she wants to win even if it means undermining the democratic process.

But now the biggest stake is Texas. After that, you have the superdelegates, who, contrary to Obama's uneducated claims, don't have to vote with the people of their states.Obama never claimed that.

A super delegate is a person who goes to the convention and votes for whoever he or she wants. They don't are not required to vote for the same people that the majority of their home state voted for.Of course, if the superdelegates want to keep their jobs, they'll throw their vote that's worth a few thousands times as mine toward the will of the people. If they votes against that, There are going to be a lot more angry democrats voting against the establishment figures next primary.

Those are the people Obama has to wooe now. But it seems that Hillary is doing a better job of it.
A superdelegate is any person who has been elected to public office or (in California's Republican Party) is a current candidate for a political office after having won a primary.Monica taught Hillary a few lessons in sucking up at Bill's request.

Monica taught Hillary a few lessons in sucking up at Bill's request.

What a disgraceful, rude, and vulgar comment.....I loved it.

so lets talk delegates. you need 2025 delegate votes. if both people stay in, ain't nobody getting that from pledged delegates alone as there are only 1075 left to win and each needs about that to pull it off. assume for the sake of argument that the democratic party isn't utterly retarded (suspension of disbelief, ftw), and they do the standard thing of superdelegates lining up behind the winner of the primaries. there are a total of 3253 delegates to be won in primaries, which means that 1627 is the winning number (1783 if we seat both florida and michigan with no penalty at all).

anyone care to do the back of the envelope calculations of how badly obama has to lose from here on out to not get there first?

(Numbers come from this wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_primaries_2008#February) article.)

So, so far, we have:
Obama 1,110
Clinton 975
Edwards 26

(note that, if you do the math here, 7 of the delegates from previous states are, apparently, still undetermined by this count. I'll ignore those because it'll have very little impact on the final count, and because I'm more interested in how well Obama has to perform from now on, and he can't influence these 7 any more.)

If 1627 is indeed the winning number, Obama needs to get 517 more delegates, which comes out to be about 48% of the remaining delegates.

If it's 1783, he needs 673, which is about 63%.

Somebody check my work if you'd like; I'm a history major, so I may have screwed up some math somewhere.

Looks about right to me, Pirated.

I think he can do it, too. Obama's momentum is continuing at a steady pace. What I wonder is how he'll do in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Anyone have numbers on those states?

Looks about right to me, Pirated.

I think he can do it, too. Obama's momentum is continuing at a steady pace. What I wonder is how he'll do in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Anyone have numbers on those states?

Say what we will about Clinton, she's a pretty good campaigner. Even without her being in Wisconsin she's only behind by 4%, 45-41 (that's linked earlier in the thread). If she's putting all her effort there I expect that she might win or at least have really close race in Texas. Obama is a good closer, but even the closing he did here in California didn't result in the race being that tight here. Granted Obama might still have momentum if his winning streak continues and a sense of presumptiveness starts to build that might allow him to do better in Texas than he did in California where he was still 'up and coming.' But I don't know the numbers yet. They'll fluctuate pretty hard from next week on.

Clinton's got a pretty commanding lead in Ohio (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html). They don't have an average, but Clinton is fairing anywhere from 10 to 25 percent higher than Obama. For Texas (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html) ...well, that poll is really out of date. I copied the URL before it loaded...

EDIT:This place (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/texas.html) has Clinton ahead of Obama 48-38% with 10% unsure and 3% deciding they should vote for Gravel.

(Numbers come from this wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_primaries_2008#February) article.)

So, so far, we have:
Obama 1,110
Clinton 975
Edwards 26

(note that, if you do the math here, 7 of the delegates from previous states are, apparently, still undetermined by this count. I'll ignore those because it'll have very little impact on the final count, and because I'm more interested in how well Obama has to perform from now on, and he can't influence these 7 any more.)

If 1627 is indeed the winning number, Obama needs to get 517 more delegates, which comes out to be about 48% of the remaining delegates.

If it's 1783, he needs 673, which is about 63%.

Somebody check my work if you'd like; I'm a history major, so I may have screwed up some math somewhere.

for the higher number including michigan and florida, obama will get something on the order of 61 more from fl and 51 from mi by giving him the uncommitted anti-clinton vote there. which means he'd need 561 more rather than 673. which puts the delegates to win ratio at about 52% from here out.

these numbers are, of course, very back of the envelope, since delegates aren't done at a straight up state-wide proportion. but its close enough for our purposes (i'm sure both campaigns have someone that actually sat down and figured things out in more detail and compared it to other data they have about how various precincts will go, etc.).

Say what we will about Clinton, she's a pretty good campaigner. Even without her being in Wisconsin she's only behind by 4%, 45-41 (that's linked earlier in the thread). If she's putting all her effort there I expect that she might win or at least have really close race in Texas. Obama is a good closer, but even the closing he did here in California didn't result in the race being that tight here. Granted Obama might still have momentum if his winning streak continues and a sense of presumptiveness starts to build that might allow him to do better in Texas than he did in California where he was still 'up and coming.' But I don't know the numbers yet. They'll fluctuate pretty hard from next week on.

Clinton's got a pretty commanding lead in Ohio (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html). They don't have an average, but Clinton is fairing anywhere from 10 to 25 percent higher than Obama. For Texas (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html) ...well, that poll is really out of date. I copied the URL before it loaded...

EDIT:This place (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/texas.html) has Clinton ahead of Obama 48-38% with 10% unsure and 3% deciding they should vote for Gravel.

According to "this place" she's losing by 11 points in WI and Obama has been closing steadily on her in TX.

According to "this place" she's losing by 11 points in WI and Obama has been closing steadily on her in TX.

Ouch, yeah, didn't see that. I tend not to go to that website unless I'm desperate for a poll because I don't like the way it's laid out and it isn't really thorough. Or maybe it is but the lay out is so irritating that I haven't seen it.

I fully expect Obama to close on Hillary as the election gets closer. He's done so in every state so far. The polls in Wisconsin are more indicative because that's were he's putting his energy and their primary is less than a week away.

EDIT: Should link "This place" (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/wisconsin.html) for the marginally more lazy than me.

presumably obama will win hawai'i at a walk - its a caucus state and he grew up there. also, aloha shirt inauguration. quintuple advantage obama, and also making him the winner of the home state challenge by winning all of his various 'home states', while clinton lost one of hers.

I have to correct myself, I said that Clinton wasn't campaigning in Wisconsin, and aparently that isn't true at least anymore-

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign showed signs of being buffeted by conflicting forces as it sought to grapple with a dwindling number of options. Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, after some discussion about whether to focus exclusively on Ohio and Texas for the next three weeks, finally decided to send her for three days this week to Wisconsin, which votes next Tuesday.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said that they did not think she could win there but that they had concluded at this point they could not afford to leave any delegates on the table or allow Mr. Obama to run up another big margin of victory in the popular vote.

This is also interesting-

And that is the problem for Mrs. Clinton going forward. If these were winner-take-all states, Mrs. Clinton could pick up 389 delegates in Texas and Ohio on March 4. Now she would have to beat Mr. Obama by more than 20 percentage points in order to pick up a majority of delegates in both states.

“We don’t think our lead will drop below 100 delegates,” David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, said in an interview. “The math is the math.”

Mr. Plouffe said by his count, Mr. Obama had won 14 states by a margin of over 20 percentage points or more; Mrs. Clinton has won two states by that margin.

I don't necessarily see that happening. I said she was a strong campaigner, but so is Obama.

Especially considering this-

But Mrs. Clinton faces another problem there in the form of that state’s unusual delegation allocation rules. Delegates are allocated to state senatorial districts based on Democratic voter turn-out in the last election. Bruce Buchanan, a professor of political science at the University of Texas at Austin, noted that in the last election, turnout was low in predominantly Hispanic districts and unusually high in urban African-American districts.

That means more delegates will be available in districts that, based on the results so far, could be expected to go heavily for Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton, Dr. Buchanan said, “has got her work cut out for her.”

And Clinton's back up plan-

Mrs. Clinton’s aides said they would also argue to superdelegates that they should give less deference to a lead from Mr. Obama because much of that had been built up in states where there were caucuses, which tend to attract far fewer voters than primaries, where Mrs. Clinton has tended to do better than she has done in caucuses.

“I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s senior campaign adviser.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14delegates.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp)

Oh no she doesn't. She's not going to use the superdelegates to give her the win after all. If she does that...

If she does that she'll doom us to a McCain Presidency. We cannot afford that.

Oh no she doesn't. She's not going to use the superdelegates to give her the win after all. If she does that...

If she does that she'll doom us to a McCain Presidency. We cannot afford that.

I think in order to do that she's relying on the race ending less than 100 delegates apart. I should have added this-
Mr. Obama’s aides said they hoped to end the voting season with a delegate lead of more than 100, which they would seek to portray as a decisive affirmation by Democratic primary voters of Mr. Obama’s candidacy. Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said they were looking to bring the margin down significantly below 100 in hope of arguing that the result was too close for delegates to consider in deciding how to vote.

And to do that she's probably going to have to rely on getting Michigan and Florida's delegates seated. And to not keep losing by huge ass margins.

I think in order to do that she's relying on the race ending less than 100 delegates apart. I should have added this-


And to do that she's probably going to have to rely on getting Michigan and Florida's delegates seated. And to not keep losing by huge ass margins.

Oh, I see. In that case let's not worry as much, but let's still worry a little bit.

With any luck the DNC will not be stupid and will refuse to seat Michigan and Florida if they do not do a redo of their votes. Furthermore, luck will let Obama continue his momentum.

Either way I'm not going to worry too much at this point.

I have to correct myself, I said that Clinton wasn't campaigning in Wisconsin, and aparently that isn't true at least anymore-



This is also interesting-



I don't necessarily see that happening. I said she was a strong campaigner, but so is Obama.

Especially considering this-



And Clinton's back up plan-



Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14delegates.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp)

So she wants the superdelegates to ignore what took place in the Caucuses? Oh brother. Talk about undermining the democratic process. What a fool

1: Dammit, seat the delegates in FL and MI so the people's voice can be heard. We don't want to have people disenfranchised.

2: Let's skip over some states so we can focus on the states that have enough delegates to count.

3: Traditional Red states aren't going to vote for a democrat in the general election so they don't count.

4: Caucuses aren't "real" elections so they don't count.

Anyone notice a problem with all 4 of those arguments coming from the same camp.

Yeah, CH, I'm be hiding under my covers too. Your candidate is proving every one of her detractors right. She's out to win and she doesn't care if democracy or the will of the people or fairness get trampled in the process.

It's disturbing, really. If only more Clinton supporters would recognize what she's doing. It'd be bad enough if she was doing it because she had no other choice if she wanted to win but knew she had to beat out someone who was a really bad candidate.

But that's not the case. She's a horrible candidate AND she's trying these tactics. It's lose lose.

It's disturbing, really. If only more Clinton supporters would recognize what she's doing. It'd be bad enough if she was doing it because she had no other choice if she wanted to win but knew she had to beat out someone who was a really bad candidate.

But that's not the case. She's a horrible candidate AND she's trying these tactics. It's lose lose.

Even if she was the best candidate, this isn't the general election. These tactics are going to come up in the general election and she's going to have to answer to them. Her style of campaigning is making it less likely she can beat McCain. If I'm McCain, those are going to be talking points all election. I'll be quoting her to Virginia and Hawaii. And every caucus state or state she skipped over or Obama won that she said doesn't actually matter.

"She doesn't care about your state. Back when she was doing anything to get a chance at the Presidency, she said X. She said you don't matter. That your vote doesn't count. Even when I'd locked up the nomination, I continued to go to all 50 states. All 50 states count. Every person counts. Vote for a candidate that cares about every person, not just the ones she think will help her win."

So she wants the superdelegates to ignore what took place in the Caucuses? Oh brother. Talk about undermining the democratic process. What a fool
She knows the only chance she has of winning is getting as many overdelegates (like overlords) as possible to vote for her and to do that she has to use bullshit and scare tactics. She might as well run for the Republican party, with all the pundits behind her she might get the nomination.

She knows the only chance she has of winning is getting as many overdelegates (like overlords) as possible to vote for her and to do that she has to use bullshit and scare tactics. She might as well run for the Republican party, with all the pundits behind her she might get the nomination.

I don't want her in the GOP! If she went to the GOP, I'll transfer my membership to the DNC!

As I stated before, this issue with Michigan and Florida delegates would be a divisive and contentious situation. The Dems have really made it difficult for the party to succeed.

With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules.

Mrs. Clinton won more votes than Mr. Obama in both states, though both candidates technically abided by pledges not to campaign actively there.

Mr. Obama’s aides reiterated their opposition to allowing Mrs. Clinton to claim a proportional share of the delegates from the voting in those states. The prospect of a fight over seating the Florida and Michigan delegations has already exposed deep divisions within the party.

Julian Bond, the head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called for the delegates to be seated, saying failure to do so would amount to disenfranchising minority voters in those states. But on Wednesday, such a move was denounced by the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, who said many people in those states did not go the polls because they assumed their votes would not count.
Dem Delegate Fight Pits Sharpton Vs. NAACP (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/dem-delegate-fi.html)

Florida’s Democratic Delegate Mess (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/floridas-democratic-delegate-mess/)

A credentials committee will meet this summer, and it could decide to take up the matter of seating the Florida and Michigan delegations. So, it’s still possible — possible — that these big delegations could be a force at the convention, and in fact, some Florida voters believe that will ultimately be the case.
There is still hope for a fair solution!! :)

My suggested solution, IF Florida and Michigan do not have make up votes:

Let all 156 Michigan delegates and all Florida's 210 delegates attend the Convention as free agents. That should make for a lot of good old arm twisting. :)

And this guy's comment sums up my feelings on this issue:

This is one of the biggest mistake that Howard Dean has made yet. Disenfranchising millions of Floridians is very idiotic, and not allowing the candidates to campaign in a state that is going to be a battle ground in the general is just suicidal to me. The republicans here have been on the local newspapers and local media for months. It seems to me that the democrats have already conceded a huuuuuuuuuuuge lag to the republicans in this state. I am afraid that it would take some serious campaigning here and some serious media buys here in the summer and fall to redress that harm caused idiot Dean
Then of course, there is always the Superdelegates......

Democrats fear superdelegates could overrule voters (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/superdelegates/index.html)

Dem Delegate Fight Pits Sharpton Vs. NAACP (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/dem-delegate-fi.html)

Florida’s Democratic Delegate Mess (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/floridas-democratic-delegate-mess/)

Blogs? That's your source? People's opinions?

Then of course, there is always the Superdelegates......

Democrats fear superdelegates could overrule voters (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/superdelegates/index.html)

That explains why Obama has a 42 delegate lead at the moment (that's including superdelegates)

Blogs? That's your source? People's opinions?
Actually, they are news items, but I understand your confusion.

Also, in regards to elections, peoples' opinions are rather important, especially when it is a hot topic?

That explains why Obama has a 42 delegate lead at the moment (that's including superdelegates)
Well at the moment, Clinton does have a Superdelegate lead, and I am sure Clinton and Obama will do whatever it takes to secure as many of the ones available.

Well at the moment, Clinton does have a Superdelegate lead, and I am sure Clinton and Obama will do whatever it takes to secure as many of the ones available.

Um...what website are you looking at?

Obama 1253
Clinton 1211

So what source has Clinton with a super delegate lead?

And this from NPR

Candidate Plgd Supr Total*
Obama 1112 163 1275
Clinton 978 242 1220

Blogs? That's your source? People's opinions?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I love that the only hope for the Hillary supporters is that the legitimate votes be overridden by superdelegates and invalid delegates. So much for every vote counting and whatnot. If Hillary doesn't concede upon losing the popular delegates she's putting herself ahead of the needs of her party.

4: Caucuses aren't "real" elections so they don't count.

I love the 'reason' for this one, too. It's because "activists" dominate them. It's like she's screaming from the rooftops that voters shouldn't be active in the process.

As I stated before, this issue with Michigan and Florida delegates would be a divisive and contentious situation. The Dems have really made it difficult for the party to succeed.
It's no surprise that after an eight state drubbing you'd have to return to this losing battle for a desperate hope. The odor of bullshit is all over it.

From your sources-
Asked whether the Clinton campaign made a mistake in signing the early state pledge, Mr. Wolfson said, “I think all the candidates would agree that the situation that we find ourselves in vis-à-vis Michigan and Florida is unfortunate …” And one, he added, that anyone would want to avoid in the future, given how engaged voters seem to be here and elsewhere.
Yeah. Back in September, where we said we backed that decision because we didn't think we'd need them? And when we said we agreed with the decision later when Obama and Edwards and others pulled their name off the Michigan ballot (but didn't think it was necessary to take her name off) because we didn't feel like we were going to need those votes? Yeah, we're super sorry. Now we totally care about your votes. We need them to help invalidate the votes of the Potomac states, Washington, Maine, South Carolina, young voters, activists, and black voters.

Speaking of black voters, again from your sources-
Sharpton said that Bond's argument of disenfranchisement "should have been made many months ago before the decision was made to strip these states of their delegates, and, once the decision was made, it should have been vigorously objected to and contested by those who felt it disenfranchised voters. To raise that claim now smacks of politics in its form most raw and undercuts the moral authority behind such an argument."
Let me put a punctuation mark and underline that. This decision was made IN AUGUST/SEPTEMBER. IN SEPTEMBER Clinton agreed with the decision. She had since August to protest this, to negotiate the situation. When did she decide to 'champion' this? After Michigan voted and after she lost in South Carolina and suddenly needed those votes because what was true in August wasn't true in January, she suddenly needed the boost. But if she let those states have normal contested primaries, she might not win as big, or dare I say it, not win at all. She needs the artificially big wins to come back now, so she's going for this nakedly opportunistic nonsense.

We know how Florida and Michigan can have their constituents heard and their delegates seated. It's not Howard Dean's fault, it's the fault of bullheaded state party leaders.

Dem Delegate Fight Pits Sharpton Vs. NAACP (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/dem-delegate-fi.html)

Florida’s Democratic Delegate Mess (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/floridas-democratic-delegate-mess/)


There is still hope for a fair solution!! :)
Yeah, a redo!

My suggested solution, IF Florida and Michigan do not have make up votes:

Let all 156 Michigan delegates and all Florida's 210 delegates attend the Convention as free agents. That should make for a lot of good old arm twisting. :)[

And this guy's comment sums up my feelings on this issue:


Then of course, there is always the Superdelegates......

Democrats fear superdelegates could overrule voters (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/superdelegates/index.html)
The strongest argument against Clinton strong arming super-delegate votes to over-ride popular vote.

Actually, they are news items, but I understand your confusion.
You seem to be confused. They are in fact blogs. They are blogs from news agencies, so it's not just 'some yay-hoo,' but they say pretty clearly on their headers, "Blog."

Also, in regards to elections, peoples' opinions are rather important, especially when it is a hot topic?
Pundits or voters? And we already outlined how a certain party is being really selective about whose opinions matter.


Well at the moment, Clinton does have a Superdelegate lead, and I am sure Clinton and Obama will do whatever it takes to secure as many of the ones available.
And you can judge the candidates on the approach. Obama is campaigning in all states with legitimate primaries and suggesting that the superdelegates vote with the people. Clinton is suggesting that they just vote for her because she's swell.

But she doesn't want to disenfranchise voters. Oh no.

Um...what website are you looking at?



So what source has Clinton with a super delegate lead?

And this from NPR

Forgive my failure to multiquote.

She has more Superdelegates on her 'list,' which is what he's saying. If you only count super delegates she has the lead, in other words.

Obama now has enough of a lead in pledged delegates that his over all total is greater, but Clinton does have a superdelegate lead.

Looks about right to me, Pirated.

I think he can do it, too. Obama's momentum is continuing at a steady pace. What I wonder is how he'll do in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Anyone have numbers on those states?

State numbers here. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/)

Some of these numbers suck as there is only 1 set of numbers for TX with 300 or so RV. They also include Gore for some stupid reason.

Check out the graph (http://www.pollingreport.com/)for the daily tracking poll of preference for the Dem Nod. For the first time Barack is polling above Hillary and looks like he can pull away.

State numbers here. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/)

Some of these numbers suck as there is only 1 set of numbers for TX with 300 or so RV. They also include Gore for some stupid reason.

Check out the graph (http://www.pollingreport.com/)for the daily tracking poll of preference for the Dem Nod. For the first time Barack is polling above Hillary and looks like he can pull away.

Both your links pertain to your second point, the first one didn't show what you said it would, or I'm looking in the wrong place...


This sure says a lot about what things are going to be like going into November-
http://www.pollingreport.com/images/GALenthused.GIF
Damn. Democratic turn out could hand this to the Democrats no matter who gets the nomination. Unless of course the already huge turn out is ignored by the super delegates.

And the Republicans have a long time to re-invigorate their base. We see in Cat-Tribe's thread where McCain is already pandering to them...