NationStates Jolt Archive

Ah, what a difference a weekend and a blunder of ones own changes things...

Absolutely true.

Absolutely true.

The top two stories on Real Clear Politics for today (Tuesday) says it shorter than I do-

Caught Telling a Lie, Clinton Under Fire - Dan Kennedy, The Guardian
Clinton: Wright 'Would Not Have Been My Pastor' - Pitt Tribune-Review

Teaching isnt having a real job?
Scientists dont have real jobs?
Lawyers dont have real jobs?
Journalists (real journalists) dont have real jobs?

Hell, Id wager liberals work in almost all lines of work.


Ill make equally BS blanket statements. Conservatives dont get a real education. Of course, we may differ about what consists of a real education.

:D

Isn't that the staple of existence for college students? Or have things changed that much since my undergrad days?

Now, did I tell you about the time I was crossing High Street to sell my blood...? No? Well, there I was, in the middle of the road and there was this sniper...

Now there's a good war story. ;)

She will lose now, I wish she'll pull out, but she is the stubborn kind.
Meh. I'd still prefer it was official so she's gone and it's over.

In the end though, it may be that it will be the Democrats will be more desperate and will have to choose Hillary due to Obama's poor numbers against McCain in states such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and Florida.
It's too early for polls to mean shit. Obama will rack up well over 300 against McCain. If Hillary is nominated in a reversal of the voters, the Democrats are guaranteed to lose half their electorate for half a century.

The polls still aren't shifting much (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary) in Pennsylvania-
I hate polls with 10% undecided. It ends up like 51-39, that's not realistic at all. They need to add "favoring" or "leaning" to polls...

And that, so far, is the Wright effect.
I'm one of those 15%...sort of. I don't think it's really important or relevant.

Ill make equally BS blanket statements. Conservatives dont get a real education. Of course, we may differ about what consists of a real education.
Sunday School?

I also wish to add this HUGE factor that makes Obama the better candidate:
He's brought in so many youth and independents that will help "down-ballot" Democrats win close elections. So, Hillary will keep Congress as it is now and Obama will greatly expand Democratic domains.

It's too early for polls to mean shit. Obama will rack up well over 300 against McCain. If Hillary is nominated in a reversal of the voters, the Democrats are guaranteed to lose half their electorate for half a century.

I don't get that. That is ... I don't get "half the electorate" (which half?), I don't get why the Democrats would be so radically affected ("half a century") by a single candidacy, and I don't get why you are so sure that you say "guaranteed."

In short: wtf ?

None that I've ever met. Of course, we may differ about what a real job consists of.

How does owning thier own business play for you? I make well over 6 figures a year. Does that qualify?

Gosh, I hope one day to grow up and support people who don't actually support the principles I want them to and at the same time act like not caring about freedom should be considered wise.

:eek:
you worked for Triple H (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_H)?
Nah, just this guy that looked a little like him...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/H_Humphrey.jpg/202px-H_Humphrey.jpg
Since we're all so literal lately, worked meant volunteered, volunteered meant handing out flyers and stuffing envelopes.

It's too early for polls to mean shit.
A trend is developing that McCain will do better against Obama than against Hillary in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Missouri, and Florida, and in the general.

Obama will rack up well over 300 against McCain.
What do you base that estimate on?

If Hillary is nominated in a reversal of the voters, the Democrats are guaranteed to lose half their electorate for half a century.
At one time you were willing to bet that Hillary would win the nomination and face off against Guiliani:

A few months ago I made predictions similar to this and would bet money that it would end up Hillary vs. Rudy. It's not there yet, but it's sure looking close.
Crap shoot huh? Especially your "guarantee"?

A trend is developing that McCain will do better against Obama than against Hillary in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Missouri, and Florida, and in the general.

Doing better against Obama means what? Does it matter if Obama would still win the state? Does it matter if you win the state by 1% or 10%? Do you then not get the electoral votes for that state? Further, most of these numbers are within margins of error which renders them pretty useless. Once they get outside of that range they might means something.

You honestly believe that NJ and PA are going to go red?

Doing better against Obama means what? Does it matter if Obama would still win the state? Does it matter if you win the state by 1% or 10%? Do you then not get the electoral votes for that state? Further, most of these numbers are within margins of error which renders them pretty useless. Once they get outside of that range they might means something.

You honestly believe that NJ and PA are going to go red?

Pennsylvania was just as close as Ohio was last election.

But more importantly, from a statistical sense just because a survey is in the margin of error doesn't make it "pretty useless." The chances of 4 or 5 polls all being wrong in the same direction (assuming they were taken correctly) is extremely low.

Hm... well, Obama was leading in the first national round of head-to-heads, state-by-state. Don't be too hasty.

And bear in mind that there's a lot of variation over time, mmk? Personally, I'm of the opinion that Obama is starting to hurt in the general polls as a result of being attacked by not just Republicans, but Clinton's camp as well. Clinton didn't really open the heavy-duty attack ads until early this month. It's starting to add up.

Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx)

Latest on the Clinton-Obama feud and its impact...

28% of Clinton supporters would rather vote for McCain than Obama. 19% of Obama supporters would rather vote for McCain than Clinton.

Given that Obama looks rather likely to win the nomination, and Clinton is strongest in the swing states - PA, OH, NH, MI - this is good news for Republicans.

Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx)

Latest on the Clinton-Obama feud and its impact...

28% of Clinton supporters would rather vote for McCain than Obama. 19% of Obama supporters would rather vote for McCain than Clinton.

Given that Obama looks rather likely to win the nomination, and Clinton is strongest in the swing states - PA, OH, NH, MI - this is good news for Republicans.
I read this earlier, I think it's important to note this-
It is unknown how many Democrats would actually carry through and vote for a Republican next fall if their preferred candidate does not become the Democratic nominee. The Democratic campaign is in the heat of battle at the moment, but by November, there will have been several months of attempts to build party unity around the eventual nominee -- and a focus on reasons why the Republican nominee needs to be defeated.

Additionally, some threat of deserting the party always takes place as party nomination battles are waged, and this threat can dissipate.
...
It is worth noting that in Gallup's historical final pre-election polls from 1992 to 2004, 10% or less of Republicans and Democrats typically vote for the other party's presidential candidate.

It certainly does make a case for bringing this thing to a close sooner rather than later to start healing those rifts. With Clinton likely to win Pennsylvania, unfortunately that won't happen. If she goes for a brokered convention she just might take the whole ship down with her, and some people (people who write these articles who themselves cite these nebulous 'some people', so take it as a large possibility that 'some people' are the voices in someone's head and not really talking about anything that is actually real) are suggesting that that is her plan, to sink the ship to open the door for her in 2012 in a "see, you should have picked me last time" campaign. I see so many things wrong with that that I doubt anyone is seriously considering it.

suggesting that that is her plan, to sink the ship to open the door for her in 2012 in a "see, you should have picked me last time" campaign. I see so many things wrong with that that I doubt anyone is seriously considering it.


I can see Clinton doing that. That woman is willing to do anything for power, the common good be damned.

Pennsylvania was just as close as Ohio was last election.

But more importantly, from a statistical sense just because a survey is in the margin of error doesn't make it "pretty useless." The chances of 4 or 5 polls all being wrong in the same direction (assuming they were taken correctly) is extremely low.

I do not believe that Clinton or Obama could lose PA and certainly not NJ. The issue is that 4 or 5 polls are not in the same direction. The polls pretty much show a mixed bag at the current time. Right now we're in an awkward place because there are no primaries for a long while. The trends actually show McCain increasing his lead against both Democrats at the same times regarding when the polls were taken. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

This is all a result of the battle going on between the two and the lack thereof for McCain. He's had some pretty good gaffes lately, but they have been overshadowed by the battle of the Dems. The Dems keep this up and they'll seal the deal for McCain. The final thing I have to say is that so much of this can change from now until November. I think their VP choices will be big influences on the votes.

Can I ask a possibly dumb question?

What exactly did Rev. Wright say that was racist?

I kind of ignored a lot of the media blitz over the issue, because I thought Obama's position that he would reject some of the positions put forth by Wright, but not the man himself, was fine.

But a friend's comments have prompted me to go look up the video clips, and I'm not really seeing anything I would call racist. He's definitely very critical of the government and the way it has treated the black community. He throws in a few kooky conspiracy theories. He's definitely very critical of the government in general. But the closest thing I can find to a racist comment is him saying the government is controlled by "rich white people".

For all the hubbub over him being an anti-Semite and anti-white and such, you'd think they'd have a clip of him actually attacking these groups as a whole, wouldn't you? Am I missing something?

Can I ask a possibly dumb question?

What exactly did Rev. Wright say that was racist?

I kind of ignored a lot of the media blitz over the issue, because I thought Obama's position that he would reject some of the positions put forth by Wright, but not the man himself, was fine.

But a friend's comments have prompted me to go look up the video clips, and I'm not really seeing anything I would call racist. He's definitely very critical of the government and the way it has treated the black community. He throws in a few kooky conspiracy theories. He's definitely very critical of the government in general. But the closest thing I can find to a racist comment is him saying the government is controlled by "rich white people".

For all the hubbub over him being an anti-Semite and anti-white and such, you'd think they'd have a clip of him actually attacking these groups as a whole, wouldn't you? Am I missing something?

well, im not sure im right about this but ...

he did say that poor blacks are being kept down by rich whites.

the notion that the (white) government developed aids in order to kill africans, the notion that the (white) government decided to punish crack more harshly than powder cocaine because crack is a black drug. these are racist conspiracy theories rooted in the idea that whites are out to get blacks any way they can.

he said something about palestinians. im not going to look it up but its "code talk" for hating israel and jews.

maybe i just know more nutcase conspiracy theorists than most (white) people do but i dont find his remarks anything but a bit crazy.

well, im not sure im right about this but ...

he did say that poor blacks are being kept down by rich whites.

Given the beginning statement that the government is controlled by rich white people (which is pretty true) and the list of government positions and actions that harmed the black community, is that really a racist statement?

I think it's a bad idea (and perhaps a bit racist) for someone to blame all of the problems in the black community on whites (of any income bracket), but I really can't tell if he's doing that based on short snippets of sermons.

the notion that the (white) government developed aids in order to kill africans, the notion that the (white) government decided to punish crack more harshly than powder cocaine because crack is a black drug. these are racist conspiracy theories rooted in the idea that whites are out to get blacks any way they can.

I disagree that the idea of rack being punished more heavily than cocaine because of ethnic associations is a conspiracy theory. I actually think that one is correct.

But, if he isn't accusing all or even most white people as being a party to this, is it really racism?

Maybe it is, but it doesn't seem even close to being as problematic as McCain's use of a racial slur to me.

he said something about palestinians. im not going to look it up but its "code talk" for hating israel and jews.

This one always bothers me. Criticism of Israel is not the same thing as Antisemitism. According to the New York Times, the Anti-Defamation League found no cause to accuse Wright of Antisemitism.

maybe i just know more nutcase conspiracy theorists than most (white) people do but i dont find his remarks anything but a bit crazy.

That's what I'm thinking as well.

Given the beginning statement that the government is controlled by rich white people (which is pretty true) and the list of government positions and actions that harmed the black community, is that really a racist statement?

I think it's a bad idea (and perhaps a bit racist) for someone to blame all of the problems in the black community on whites (of any income bracket), but I really can't tell if he's doing that based on short snippets of sermons.



I disagree that the idea of rack being punished more heavily than cocaine because of ethnic associations is a conspiracy theory. I actually think that one is correct.

But, if he isn't accusing all or even most white people as being a party to this, is it really racism?

Maybe it is, but it doesn't seem even close to being as problematic as McCain's use of a racial slur to me.



This one always bothers me. Criticism of Israel is not the same thing as Antisemitism. According to the New York Times, the Anti-Defamation League found no cause to accuse Wright of Antisemitism.



That's what I'm thinking as well.

i dont disagree with your analysis. but it seems that white sensibilities are so delicate that to talk about such things without going to great lengths to explain that its not ALL white people and that some things only SEEM racist wounds us deeply. we are delicate--like flowers--and must be treated very carefully or we'll wilt. we cant possibly think around these statements to see the man's intentions. we just arent that thoughtful.

on a more serious level i think that rev wright and those like him make a mistake in building black political involvement on the basis that white people are out to get them.

, the notion that the (white) government decided to punish crack more harshly than powder cocaine because crack is a black drug. these are racist conspiracy theories rooted in the idea that whites are out to get blacks any way they can.

This one, I believe, just held up in court. We were punishing crack cocaine more harshly and it was clearly along racial/class lines.
In 1986, Congress established a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for a first-time trafficking offense involving 5 grams or more of crack cocaine; 10 years for 50 grams or more. It set the sentencing thresholds in powder cocaine cases 100 times higher.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission had used the same 100-to-1 ratio in its guidelines for determining prison terms. The commission's sentencing data show that white cocaine offenders outnumber black offenders, but blacks account for more than 80 percent of federal crack defendants.

or, sorry, are (http://www.startribune.com/local/16435741.html)-
Though the commission revised its guidelines to eliminate the sentencing disparities, the change does not affect mandatory minimum prison terms set by statute, which remain in effect.
...
Jesselyn McCurdy, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington, said it's time for Congress to act. "Although the sentencing commission has done what is in their power ... Congress still needs to act to correct the 100-to-1 disparity," she said.

Congress is considering two types of bills, she said. One would essentially treat powder and crack cocaine the same for sentencing purposes. The other would reduce the threshold disparity that triggers a mandatory minimum term to a 20-to-1 ratio. None of the bills would apply to inmates already sentenced, though, she said.

i dont disagree with your analysis. but it seems that white sensibilities are so delicate that to talk about such things without going to great lengths to explain that its not ALL white people and that some things only SEEM racist wounds us deeply. we are delicate--like flowers--and must be treated very carefully or we'll wilt. we cant possibly think around these statements to see the man's intentions. we just arent that thoughtful.

LOL. I'll remember that. =)

on a more serious level i think that rev wright and those like him make a mistake in building black political involvement on the basis that white people are out to get them.

Yeah, even if he's just talking about the white people in the government, I don't think this focus is a good one. I think a lot of the racism in our government these days comes more from people simply not thinking than from specifically targeting the black community.

It's part of the reason I liked Obama's response to the whole issue - that anger from multiple ethnicities is prevalent and often focused partially, if not wholly, on another ethnicity. But doing that ignores the actual problems - problems that we can't really face as long as we're looking at ourselves as distinct groups.

LOL. I'll remember that. =)



Yeah, even if he's just talking about the white people in the government, I don't think this focus is a good one. I think a lot of the racism in our government these days comes more from people simply not thinking than from specifically targeting the black community.

It's part of the reason I liked Obama's response to the whole issue - that anger from multiple ethnicities is prevalent and often focused partially, if not wholly, on another ethnicity. But doing that ignores the actual problems - problems that we can't really face as long as we're looking at ourselves as distinct groups.

B-but, he called his grandmother just as bad* and didn't call Rev. Wright a poopie head, so it wasn't enough!!!




*no he didn't

B-but, he called his grandmother just as bad* and didn't call Rev. Wright a poopie head, so it wasn't enough!!!




*no he didn't

AND he refused to throw the man under the bus. if THAT isnt racist, i dont know what is!

AND he refused to throw the man under the bus. if THAT isnt racist, i dont know what is!

Have you noticed a rise in the use of the phrase "throw under the bus?" Like, that circumstance is coming up a whole lot recently? Is it just me or is it like this 'bus' is the highest scoring Death Race 2000 participant to date?

How can you talk about the will of the voters out of ones side of your mouth and this (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1725514-2,00.html) out of the other?
We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment. And, you know, I'm just going to do the best I can in the next 10 contests to make my case to the voters in those elections and then we'll see where we are.
This isn't isn't a surrogate, a strategist, or a pundit contemplating what she might do, this is Clinton herself in an interview with Time magazine saying that "so called" pledged delegates should switch their votes based on the last 10 elections.

Nice.

What do you base that estimate on?

It's his opinion, which you cannot possibly prove wrong until November. What, you think he should actually cite some facts or something? When did you start being so unreasonable? :D:D

It's his opinion, which you cannot possibly prove wrong until November.
Possibly it is his opinion? However, the only way to find that out would be to let him answer instead of having you put words in his mouth?

What, you think he should actually cite some facts or something?
I was clearly asking him where he arrived at that estimate, and you are just offering a supposition as to what his response may or may not be? :p

When did you start being so unreasonable? :D:D
Asking a question is unreasonable?

Possibly it is his opinion? However, the only way to find that out would be to let him answer instead of having you put words in his mouth?

wait, you literally think saying the words 'in my opinion' is where the magical power resides? not even the concept itself, but the sounds?!

Possibly it is his opinion? However, the only way to find that out would be to let him answer instead of having you put words in his mouth?


I was clearly asking him where he arrived at that estimate, and you are just offering a supposition as to what his response may or may not be? :p


Asking a question is unreasonable?

Good grief...

Possibly it is his opinion? However, the only way to find that out would be to let him answer instead of having you put words in his mouth?


I was clearly asking him where he arrived at that estimate, and you are just offering a supposition as to what his response may or may not be? :p


Asking a question is unreasonable?

Oh for the love of...

How can you talk about the will of the voters out of ones side of your mouth and this (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1725514-2,00.html) out of the other?

This isn't isn't a surrogate, a strategist, or a pundit contemplating what she might do, this is Clinton herself in an interview with Time magazine saying that "so called" pledged delegates should switch their votes based on the last 10 elections.

Nice.

What a moron.

Possibly it is his opinion? However, the only way to find that out would be to let him answer instead of having you put words in his mouth?

Of course it's his opinion, by virtue of he being the one who said it. It's generally assumed that what you say is your own opinion unless you indicate otherwise.

Of course it's his opinion, by virtue of he being the one who said it. It's generally assumed that what you say is your own opinion unless you indicate otherwise.

but he didn't say it was his opinion, and thus, whatever it was, it is subject to rational debate. it is only by putting on your wizard hat and robe and actually saying "in my opinion" that you invoke the power of inviolability.

McCain's recent statements distancing him further from Bush have reinvigorated my support for him in the event Hillary Clinton is nominated, however unlikely. :)

McCain's recent statements distancing him further from Bush have reinvigorated my support for him in the event Hillary Clinton is nominated, however unlikely. :)
I declare you not to be a Democrat.

That is all.

I declare you not to be a Democrat.

That is all.

You say that like its a bad thing to not be a democrat...

McCain's recent statements distancing him further from Bush have reinvigorated my support for him in the event Hillary Clinton is nominated, however unlikely. :)

Lip service from a Republican who knows Shrub is excess baggage to anyone wanting to be elected. Keep in mind he has never rebuked any of the statements from his "spiritual advisor" Rod Parsley, who has made sermons openly calling for Christianity to declare war on Islam and wipe it out as a "false religion." Whereas we've heard countless stories ranting about how Jeremiah Wright makes Obama a closet honky-hater.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx

Hillary has done more damage to herself by trying to nail Obama to the cross. Even her old tactics are now failing her. This plays to the electability issue with Hillary. People who do not like you will not vote for you. I don't care what issues you have in common. This is politics in its purest form. People should start to realize that Barack Obama is the start of something new for a long while. Changing the way America behaves in the world and towards its own people is key into allowing America to strengthen. As our country continues the demographics will change greatly. Do we want to have the same complaints that blacks and latinos have today in the reverse extreme? It's time to do more "hard work" than GWB did in his entire two terms. Healing the racial division in our country and allowing people to work together will take decades. It's simply a question of whether you want to recognize the truth and the future?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx

Hillary has done more damage to herself by trying to nail Obama to the cross. Even her old tactics are now failing her. This plays to the electability issue with Hillary. People who do not like you will not vote for you. I don't care what issues you have in common. This is politics in its purest form. People should start to realize that Barack Obama is the start of something new for a long while. Changing the way America behaves in the world and towards its own people is key into allowing America to strengthen. As our country continues the demographics will change greatly. Do we want to have the same complaints that blacks and latinos have today in the reverse extreme? It's time to do more "hard work" than GWB did in his entire two terms. Healing the racial division in our country and allowing people to work together will take decades. It's simply a question of whether you want to recognize the truth and the future?
The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday this week by Hart-McInturff and surveyed 700 registered voters, which gives the poll a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percent. In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup.
Not that I disagree on a surface level, but don't you think that that might be a contributing factor in the new results, considering how along race lines some of this has gotten?

I declare you not to be a Democrat.

That is all.
Indeed, I'm an Independent/Socialist.

Dude, seriously, I really can't stand to watch Clinton go on anymore. She was just on FOX news and said she plans to force the Democratic Party to go on record as saying they want to disenfranchise voters because she doesn't think they have the balls to do it. She really is tearing down the cathedral. I was so wrong about this. I thought she wouldn't even try.

Then after saying she wanted to protect the will of the people, she commented on how pledged delegates aren't really pledged and can pick whoever they like. How do those even jive?

Lip service from a Republican who knows Shrub is excess baggage to anyone wanting to be elected.

Exactly.

Keep in mind he has never rebuked any of the statements from his "spiritual advisor" Rod Parsley, who has made sermons openly calling for Christianity to declare war on Islam and wipe it out as a "false religion." Whereas we've heard countless stories ranting about how Jeremiah Wright makes Obama a closet honky-hater.

Wow. I didn't think it was possible for me to hate McCain more than I did before. Now I do.

Have you noticed a rise in the use of the phrase "throw under the bus?" Like, that circumstance is coming up a whole lot recently? Is it just me or is it like this 'bus' is the highest scoring Death Race 2000 participant to date?

I have indeed. (And that's a classic film!)

You say that like its a bad thing to not be a democrat...

I'll say one good thing about GW Bush. It took him only a few years to do what the Dems took decades to do - make his party into a dirty word. :D

Dude, seriously, I really can't stand to watch Clinton go on anymore. She was just on FOX news and said she plans to force the Democratic Party to go on record as saying they want to disenfranchise voters because she doesn't think they have the balls to do it. She really is tearing down the cathedral. I was so wrong about this. I thought she wouldn't even try.

Then after saying she wanted to protect the will of the people, she commented on how pledged delegates aren't really pledged and can pick whoever they like. How do those even jive?

You're statring to see why she's soooo disliked.

And in the odd twist of the day, this week's The American Conservative makes "The conservative case for Barack Obama" (http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html). (Yes, I know TAC is paleoconservative/libertarian. I just thought it was funny to see an article practically endorsing BHO.)

And in the odd twist of the day, this week's The American Conservative makes "The conservative case for Barack Obama" (http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html). (Yes, I know TAC is paleoconservative/libertarian. I just thought it was funny to see an article practically endorsing BHO.)
Ron Paulism for Obama? Lesser of the two in all honesty.

Dude, seriously, I really can't stand to watch Clinton go on anymore. She was just on FOX news and said she plans to force the Democratic Party to go on record as saying they want to disenfranchise voters because she doesn't think they have the balls to do it. She really is tearing down the cathedral. I was so wrong about this. I thought she wouldn't even try.

Then after saying she wanted to protect the will of the people, she commented on how pledged delegates aren't really pledged and can pick whoever they like. How do those even jive?

i wish she had more integrity than this. its very disturbing in an election where we need a democrat in the oval office far more than we need a specific democrat.

I'll just hold on to my hope that no matter what Obama keeps his integrity, even if it looks like he will lose because of dirty tactics - because of Hillary's campaign I have decided to vote for Nader if she gets the nomination.

With clinton doing everything she can to drag down the dems it looks like they might lose.

Cerean;13559208']With clinton doing everything she can to drag down the dems it looks like they might lose.

nah. its just very annoying.

when the nominations are over and the real campaign begins the contrast between the democrat and mccain will be so severe that only those who hate the democrat will vote for him. he is already having "senior moments" how much worse will it be when he is pressed every day?

Dude, seriously, I really can't stand to watch Clinton go on anymore. She was just on FOX news and said she plans to force the Democratic Party to go on record as saying they want to disenfranchise voters because she doesn't think they have the balls to do it. She really is tearing down the cathedral. I was so wrong about this. I thought she wouldn't even try.

Then after saying she wanted to protect the will of the people, she commented on how pledged delegates aren't really pledged and can pick whoever they like. How do those even jive?
I mentioned this earlier, and you're right, it's getting hard to watch.

It gets even worse... (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/in_letter_a_dozen_top_clinton.php)
Twenty top Hillary fundraisers and donors have sent a scathing private letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chastising her for publicly saying that the super-delegates should support the winner of the pledged delegate count and demanding that she say that they should make an "independent" choice.

This doesn't come without a heavy dose of monetary threat-
The letter also contains an explicit reference to the fact that these donors have contributed heavily to Democratic causes, and demands that Pelosi clarify that the role of the super-dels is to make an "independent" choice between the candidates:

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

The letter itself contains the same noted gymnastics...
But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes.
...
Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee.
...
We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the [b]optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August.

To quote a commenter on the page-
could someone please ask the HRC campaign this:
The campaign says that if superdels make a decide a winner now, this would subvert the election process because their votes should be counted and therefore their pledged delegates chosen. BUT, if, regardless of the lead in popular vote or pledged dels come June, it would be fine thine for superdels to choose the winner. What's the difference? What is the logic behind ignoring votes later being somehow better than ignoring votes now? If superdels do not have to support whomever leads in pledged dels, then why does the campaign argue that it is wrong for them to make that independent choice now?

So, in addition to Clinton's Rabbit Seasonings logic of "you don't have to shoot me now, you can shoot me when I get home," and her 'don't disenfranchise voters this way, (the way, by the way, that I agreed with when I looked invincible but now I need so I'm totally against it) do it in this other way that actually undermines what I've been saying even more...' she has the, "do it my way or we're taking our money bags and going home."

Perhaps she hasn't noticed Obama out fundraising her by leaps and bounds...

It really is getting kind of sad.

...
It really is getting kind of sad.
These are the Clintons, after all. This shouldn't be unexpected behavior.

These are the Clintons, after all. This shouldn't be unexpected behavior.

we forget this annoying aspect of clintonosity. back when bill was president it annoyed the crap out of me. now that we have endured 8 years of incompetence the memory of annoyance has faded. we look back on the clinton years as being pretty damned good.

she is bringing back those memories.

we forget this annoying aspect of clintonosity. back when bill was president it annoyed the crap out of me. now that we have endured 8 years of incompetence the memory of annoyance has faded. we look back on the clinton years as being pretty damned good.

she is bringing back those memories.

Looks like the Republicans may have been right about them after all. Nothing truly illegal, but the complete lack of ethics and the "I AM ENTITLED TO THIS OVER YOUR OBJECTIONS" stinks on ice.

Looks like the Republicans may have been right about them after all. Nothing truly illegal, but the complete lack of ethics and the "I AM ENTITLED TO THIS OVER YOUR OBJECTIONS" stinks on ice.

Hence why some of us are predicting that if she somehow gets the nomination, there's going to be a massive uproar.

I mentioned this earlier, and you're right, it's getting hard to watch.

It gets even worse... (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/in_letter_a_dozen_top_clinton.php)

This doesn't come without a heavy dose of monetary threat-

The letter itself contains the same noted gymnastics...

To quote a commenter on the page-

So, in addition to Clinton's Rabbit Seasonings logic of "you don't have to shoot me now, you can shoot me when I get home," and her 'don't disenfranchise voters this way, (the way, by the way, that I agreed with when I looked invincible but now I need so I'm totally against it) do it in this other way that actually undermines what I've been saying even more...' she has the, "do it my way or we're taking our money bags and going home."

Perhaps she hasn't noticed Obama out fundraising her by leaps and bounds...

It really is getting kind of sad.
What is your problem? You complain about Hillary wanting to bend the rules by having the Michigan and Florida voters re-do their voting, yet you think it is perfectly acceptable to expect that all superdelegates should vote for whoever has the most delegates RIGHT NOW!! Or if not right now, then at the convention.

You want democracy or do you and others here want to dictate the terms of surrender?

From Wiki:

All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination.

By contrast, the unpledged PLEO delegates are seated without regard to their presidential preferences, just by virtue of being current or former elected officeholders and party officials. Many of them have chosen to announce endorsements, but they are not bound in any way. They may support any candidate they wish, including one who has dropped out of the presidential race.

What is your problem? You complain about Hillary wanting to bend the rules by having the Michigan and Florida voters re-do their voting, yet you think it is perfectly acceptable to expect that all superdelegates should vote for whoever has the most delegates RIGHT NOW!! Or if not right now, then at the convention.

You want democracy or do you and others here want to dictate the terms of surrender?

From Wiki:

Yea yea...we all know you want Billary to win and will support any measure to actually win it. And tell me what is wrong with wanting the Superdelegates to support the POPULAR VOTE/Pledged Delegate leader?

Yea yea...we all know you want Billary to win and will support any measure to actually win it.
If it is within the bounds of democratic process, why not?

And tell me what is wrong with wanting the Superdelegates to support the POPULAR VOTE/Pledged Delegate leader?
Wanting the superdelegates to support the popular vote is one thing.....telling them that the HAVE to is another.

What is your problem? You complain about Hillary wanting to bend the rules by having the Michigan and Florida voters re-do their voting, yet you think it is perfectly acceptable to expect that all superdelegates should vote for whoever has the most delegates RIGHT NOW!! Or if not right now, then at the convention.

You want democracy or do you and others here want to dictate the terms of surrender?

From Wiki:

If it is within the bounds of democratic process, why not?


Wanting the superdelegates to support the popular vote is one thing.....telling them that the HAVE to is another.

Ugh, nobody is saying that the Super Delegates should be required to support the popular candidate. What we're saying is that (in our opinion... hah, you can't contest it now!) they should do so.

If it is within the bounds of democratic process, why not?


Wanting the superdelegates to support the popular vote is one thing.....telling them that the HAVE to is another.

So you would rather risk seeing an uproar on the convention floor? Yep..you clearly do not realize what the ramifications could be if Hillary somehow escapes Denver with the nomination.

Ugh, nobody is saying that the Super Delegates should be required to support the popular candidate.
Nobody?

Pelosi Says Superdelegates Shouldn't Overrule Voters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080316/pl_bloomberg/adf5jjbbppxw)

I guess that she is entitled to her opinion?

What we're saying is that (in our opinion... hah, you can't contest it now!) they should do so.
In my opinion, they should do whatever the hell they feel like. :D

Nobody?

Pelosi Says Superdelegates Shouldn't Overrule Voters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080316/pl_bloomberg/adf5jjbbppxw)

I guess that she is entitled to her opinion?

Shouldn't is a long way from telling them not to.

So you would rather risk seeing an uproar on the convention floor? Yep..you clearly do not realize what the ramifications could be if Hillary somehow escapes Denver with the nomination.
This is a very close race and whoever wins, it will be all done in a legal manner, even though it will be unfortunate that the voters of Michigan and Florida have been given no voice into the selection of the leader.

Nobody?

Pelosi Says Superdelegates Shouldn't Overrule Voters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080316/pl_bloomberg/adf5jjbbppxw)

I guess that she is entitled to her opinion?

She said they shouldn't. Not that they can't.

To quote you:
anting the superdelegates to support the popular vote is one thing.....telling them that the HAVE to is another.

As such, you clearly agree that yes, Pelosi is entitled to her opinion.

This is a very close race and whoever wins, it will be all done in a legal manner, even though it will be unfortunate that the voters of Michigan and Florida have been given no voice into the selection of the leader.

They broke the rules and they got the heavy end of the hammer. I'd be more pissed if no consequences happened.

Lasting harm feared in Democrats' battle (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/27/lasting_harm_feared_in_democrats_battle/?page=1)

An interesting article I must say and from listening to other democrats, its spot on that this needs to be settled before Denver.

Nobody?

Pelosi Says Superdelegates Shouldn't Overrule Voters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080316/pl_bloomberg/adf5jjbbppxw)

I guess that she is entitled to her opinion?


yes she is. her opinion as a big time democratic leader carries far more weight than the opinion of a nameless poster on the internet.

If it is within the bounds of democratic process, why not?


Wanting the superdelegates to support the popular vote is one thing.....telling them that the HAVE to is another.

I believe that the superdelegates should use two things as their criteria. 1. Popular vote 2. How the electorate in their area voted. These two things should be the guiding principals. In the end the superdelegates may not even be able to save Hillary. Obama may have already settled the score by then.

She said they shouldn't. Not that they can't.
I realize that, however, most here want Hillary to cave in. I think she should hang in there. I believe she has a better chance at getting elected.

As such, you clearly agree that yes, Pelosi is entitled to her opinion.
Yes, I do agree that she is entitled to her opinion, but I do not agree with her opinion.

I believe that the superdelegates should use two things as their criteria. 1. Popular vote 2. How the electorate in their area voted. These two things should be the guiding principals. In the end the superdelegates may not even be able to save Hillary. Obama may have already settled the score by then.
The superdelegates are free to use whatever methods they want to cast their vote, and as long as there are superdelegates, they should be allowed to do so.

They broke the rules and they got the heavy end of the hammer. I'd be more pissed if no consequences happened.
The fact remains that disenfranchizing 1/10th of the electorate in crucial states is exceedingly dumb, and will be harmful to the Democrats in November.

Lasting harm feared in Democrats' battle (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/27/lasting_harm_feared_in_democrats_battle/?page=1)

An interesting article I must say and from listening to other democrats, its spot on that this needs to be settled before Denver.
And how do you settle it before Denver?

What is your problem? You complain about Hillary wanting to bend the rules by having the Michigan and Florida voters re-do their voting, yet you think it is perfectly acceptable to expect that all superdelegates should vote for whoever has the most delegates RIGHT NOW!! Or if not right now, then at the convention.

You want democracy or do you and others here want to dictate the terms of surrender?

From Wiki:
As usual, your reading comprehension sucks out loud, not to mention your selective recognition of the facts to make you comically blind to the actual point.

The fact remains that disenfranchizing 1/10th of the electorate in crucial states is exceedingly dumb, and will be harmful to the Democrats in November.

It was a dumb move. But wantonly changing the rules in the middle of the contest would probably do just as much, if not more, damage.

The best situation would have been for the states to move their primaries back instead of holding them in violation of the rules and hoping the get the rules changed midstream. Barring that, the best situation would have been a revote. Unfortunately, both states seem to have waited too long before even trying to arrange a revote.

In the end, the people most at blame for this are the states' party leadership.

Meanwhile, I'd say that choosing a nominee contrary to the pledged delegates and popular vote would be equally disastrous for the Democratic party. It would be within the rules, but it would piss enough people off to give them huge problems in November.

It would be within the rules, but it would piss enough people off to give them huge problems in November.

Indeed it would be. But the problems will (note: that's will, not might) last long past November. In a way, looking at things long term, I hope the SDs do discount the popular and pledged votes. That may well be the best route to a revolution in US party politics, via both the GOP and Dems both wrecking themselves for a full generation....

It was a dumb move. But wantonly changing the rules in the middle of the contest would probably do just as much, if not more, damage.

The best situation would have been for the states to move their primaries back instead of holding them in violation of the rules and hoping the get the rules changed midstream. Barring that, the best situation would have been a revote. Unfortunately, both states seem to have waited too long before even trying to arrange a revote.

In the end, the people most at blame for this are the states' party leadership.

Meanwhile, I'd say that choosing a nominee contrary to the pledged delegates and popular vote would be equally disastrous for the Democratic party. It would be within the rules, but it would piss enough people off to give them huge problems in November.

There are two stupidities - the superdelegate thing (which sounds romantically elitist, in the Founding Fathers sense), and the Florida/Michigan thing.

Two things that seem guaranteed to come off as stupid, rigged, and undemocratic.

And, it's too late to fix any of that, without coming off as stupid, rigged, and undemocratic.

I'm waiting for the riots at the Convention.

So if I am hearing things correctly, Hillary can only win if the super delegates go against the will of the popular vote/pledged delegates during the convention. Is this broken down numerically by anyone in an easy to read format as to how it is impossible for Hillary to catch up during the last few contests? :confused:

I realize that

no, quite obviously you do not. if you did, then you would not have posted the silly things you did.

So if I am hearing things correctly, Hillary can only win if the super delegates go against the will of the popular vote/pledged delegates during the convention. Is this broken down numerically by anyone in an easy to read format as to how it is impossible for Hillary to catch up during the last few contests? :confused:

There are a total of 611 democratic delegates remaining and 358 superdelegates...not including Florida and Michigan.

Obama needs 505 more to win (without superdelegates)
Hillary needs 601 (without superdelegates)

Neither will make such a clean sweep...

So if I am hearing things correctly, Hillary can only win if the super delegates go against the will of the popular vote/pledged delegates during the convention. Is this broken down numerically by anyone in an easy to read format as to how it is impossible for Hillary to catch up during the last few contests? :confused:

Well, yes and no. She could go on an Obamaesque winning streak in the last ten states and somehow pull out the popular vote and then use that as the metric to convince the supers. She could go on a minor winning streak and somehow make that an argument that Dems have 'buyers remorse' and try and convince the supers to overturn popular and delegate vote. Or, in a frankly amazing twist of logic she could insist that the will of the voters be acknowledged in the last ten contests by having the will of the voters in the previous 40+ tossed out the window with the pledged delegates changing their vote.

Once again, that last plan-out of her own mouth.

Yeah. That's how bad it's gotten.

If it is within the bounds of democratic process, why not?


Wanting the superdelegates to support the popular vote is one thing.....telling them that the HAVE to is another.

Nobody?

Pelosi Says Superdelegates Shouldn't Overrule Voters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080316/pl_bloomberg/adf5jjbbppxw)

I guess that she is entitled to her opinion?


In my opinion, they should do whatever the hell they feel like. :D

She said they shouldn't. Not that they can't.



I realize that,
No you don't.

Yes, I do agree that she is entitled to her opinion, but I do not agree with her opinion.

Yea we know. Fuck the will of the people.

The fact remains that disenfranchizing 1/10th of the electorate in crucial states is exceedingly dumb, and will be harmful to the Democrats in November.

Don't tell me that. Both states said no to a revote. As such, they have no one but themselves to blame.

And how do you settle it before Denver?

I think one of the plans in the article is a good one.

we forget this annoying aspect of clintonosity. back when bill was president it annoyed the crap out of me. now that we have endured 8 years of incompetence the memory of annoyance has faded. we look back on the clinton years as being pretty damned good.

she is bringing back those memories.

Some people might. I look back at the last near century as one of largely presidential abominations.

Wilson - evil imperial idealist
Harding - corrupt
Coolidge - OK...
Hoover - bad politician
FDR - :mad:
Truman - decent guy
Eisenhower - I like Ike
JFK - Good morning Vietnam!
LBJ - Fraeking evil SOB!!!!
Nixon - last one I have much respect for, too bad he was an evil criminal
Ford - nobody placeholder
Carter - niceguy nobody, has had a better career post presidency
Reagan - he had charisma, for what that's worth, otherwise senile
Bush I - set the stage for all of the post Cold-War FP failures
Clinton - FUBARed Bush I's SNAFUs
Bush II - has begun to approached Andrew Johnson in horrificness...

So if I am hearing things correctly, Hillary can only win if the super delegates go against the will of the popular vote/pledged delegates during the convention.
No, I don't think you are hearing it correctly. Since Florida and Michigan have been removed from the process, no one knows what the true popular vote would have been and no one knows what the true number of pledged delegates would have been.

Is this broken down numerically by anyone in an easy to read format as to how it is impossible for Hillary to catch up during the last few contests? :confused:
This comes close to estimating the totals:

2008 Democratic Popular Vote (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html)

Harry Reid has a secret plan to end the war! (hey, if people can be Ken Starr, McCarthy, and Judas, why can't I cast the play as well? Yeah, Reid isn't talking about the Iraq war or using it as a way to get elected, but it's not like the rest of the comparisons have made much damn sense...)

Anyway, this little paragraph at the end of an article about the damage the race is having (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/Story?id=4534607&page=2) is a little weird-
For those Democrats hoping the party will save itself from a nasty August convention fight, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently told a reporter from the Las Vegas Review Journal that it will be "easy" to resolve the race and "things are being done" to handle it.

He didn't elaborate.

I wonder if it's a bunch of 'its over' cards printed up for Clinton if she doesn't start a series of uberwins...

There are two stupidities - the superdelegate thing (which sounds romantically elitist, in the Founding Fathers sense), and the Florida/Michigan thing.

Two things that seem guaranteed to come off as stupid, rigged, and undemocratic.

And, it's too late to fix any of that, without coming off as stupid, rigged, and undemocratic.

I'm waiting for the riots at the Convention.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I may not be able to be physically present to '68 Denver, but I won't have to be to help do so in this age of digi-coms. :D

Yea we know. Fuck the will of the people.
Yup, that is what you are telling them in Florida and Michigan. :p

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I may not be able to be physically present to '68 Denver, but I won't have to be to help do so in this age of digi-coms. :D

It'll be interesting if they broadcast the riots on TV as it occurs on the floor :D

Yup, that is what you are telling them in Florida and Michigan. :p

:rolleyes:

No you don't.
Thats right......I forgot that you have all the answers.......as crooked as they may be. :p

Thats right......I forgot that you have all the answers.......as crooked as they may be. :p

Wow...

So if I am hearing things correctly, Hillary can only win if the super delegates go against the will of the popular vote/pledged delegates during the convention. Is this broken down numerically by anyone in an easy to read format as to how it is impossible for Hillary to catch up during the last few contests? :confused:

well, it's not utterly impossible, but its so unlikely as makes no difference. it is difficult to lay out the exact specifics of why in any short and easy format due to the ridiculous nature of the process, but basically it comes down to the fact that obama is approximately 167 pledged delegates ahead and there are 566 pledged delegates left fight over. but because delegates are divided up proportionately, clinton would need to win really really big from here on out to overcome that deficit. like bigger than any wins she has pulled of yet, and in every remaining contest.

but all the delegates aren't even divided up proportionally across a state, but are further divided between districts within a state. so there are actually a whole bunch of much smaller contests for even fewer delegates. so in any district with an even number of delegates, you need to win absolutely huge to win any extra delegates out of the deal at all. in a district with 4 delegates, the split will be 2-2 unless somebody gets, what, like 65% or so? yeah, something like that. and in a 5 delegate district you get just one extra delegate if you win by 1 vote up to 70%. and the state-wide delegates are also split into two groups, so you can't easily rack up the number there either.

ooh, this gets some of the detail across,
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/162042/3056

key points:
Number of 3 delegate districts left: 1
Number of 4 delegate districts left: 19 (including all 8 in Puerto Rico)
Number of 5 delegate districts left: 21
Number of 6 delegate districts left: 14
Number of 7 delegate districts left: 10
Number of 8 delegate districts left: 1
Number of 9 delegate districts left: 3
Number of 10 delegate districts left: 1 (Montana)

and you need to win by
4 delegates - 25%+ to get from 2-2 to 3-1
5 delegates - 40%+ to get from 3-2 to 4-1
6 delegates - 16.7%+ to get from 3-3 to 4-2
7 delegates - 28.6%+ to get from 4-3 to 5-2

Thats right......I forgot that you have all the answers.......as crooked as they may be. :p

Is it me or is CH suffering from a mental disorder?

Is it me or is CH suffering from a mental disorder?

knock it off, we don't want to attract seagulls.

Yup, that is what you are telling them in Florida and Michigan. :p

Is Corny a Democratic party leader in one of those two states?

This destroys my image of him. Truly.

It'll be interesting if they broadcast the riots on TV as it occurs on the floor :D

You bet they will! '68 wasn't "Patriot Act"ed. '08 certainly won't be.

ok, a part of the process i'm unclear on:
some of the superdelegates are "unpledged add-ons", right? but according to the rules (http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf page 10),
Unpledged add-on delegates may be selected by either the same selecting body which will select the state’s party leader and elected official delegates, or by the same selecting body which will select the state’s at-large delegates and alternates.
so does this mean that effectively 76 of the 'superdelegates' are more or less given out on a winner-take-all system based on who won the state and thus is in charge of the body that selects the elected delegates?

The superdelegates are free to use whatever methods they want to cast their vote, and as long as there are superdelegates, they should be allowed to do so.

Notice I said I believe. This is the same things as you saying it is your opinion. No one is telling the superdelegates how to vote. They are expressing their opinions of what they believe the superdelgates should do. Why are you not jumping on Hillary Clinton for saying that even pledged delegates should be allowed to vote however you want? Party rules say those are won through primaries and caucuses. Hillary wants to do anything that might give he the slightest. She wants to include Florida and Michigan, after her campaign agreed to a deal made by the DNC. She wants pledged delegates to go against the votes of their communities. She's willing to tear down the castle no matter how much damage it causes the party.

The fact remains that disenfranchizing 1/10th of the electorate in crucial states is exceedingly dumb, and will be harmful to the Democrats in November.


And how do you settle it before Denver?

Have you ever gone back on your word or broken a contract illegally? That is in effect what Hillary wants to do. If she can't be trusted to abide by an agreement her campaign made then what holds her to other agreements and promises she makes. I guess I'm trying to ask if you are a man of your word or a snake?

ok, a part of the process i'm unclear:
some of the superdelegates are "unpledged add-ons", right? but according to the rules (http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf page 10),



so does this mean that effectively 76 of the 'superdelegates' are more or less given out on a winner-take-all system based on who won the state and thus is in charge of the body that selects the elected delegates?

This has made my brain hurt.

Is Corny a Democratic party leader in one of those two states?

Nope. Not even a party leader in PA.

You bet they will! '68 wasn't "Patriot Act"ed. '08 certainly won't be.

YAY!!! Think of the rating this'll get.

No, I don't think you are hearing it correctly. Since Florida and Michigan have been removed from the process, no one knows what the true popular vote would have been and no one knows what the true number of pledged delegates would have been.


This comes close to estimating the totals:

2008 Democratic Popular Vote (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html)

Once again...Counting votes in a state where Hillary was the only one on the ballot would be stupid and irrelevant. Counting votes where there was no campaigning or advertising allowed would also be stupid and irrelevent. Arguing that these two contests should be included in a democratic process is not only stupid, but arrogant and dishonest.

Have you ever gone back on your word or broken a contract illegally? That is in effect what Hillary wants to do. If she can't be trusted to abide by an agreement her campaign made then what holds her to other agreements and promises she makes. I guess I'm trying to ask if you are a man of your word or a snake?

to quote my little bro, a life long Dem:
Tomorrow AM on NPR's Morning Edition, hillary will
declare that her votes in MI should count. When the
interviewer counters by asking if she really thinks
that is fair since Barack Obama wasn't even on the
ballot, she responds by saying "that was his choice."
(this exchange was excerpted on an ad this evening)
This may be the single most compelling argument I will
offer [IF hillary pulls off a coup and gets the
nomination] for why I would burn my dem card and wait
a long time before rejoining their party. If they let
someone break the rules to which they agreed a then
use that violation to gain an advantage, then they are
no better than the criminals they were painted to be
when bill declared that he did not have sexual
relations..etc etc etc.
I would hope Howard Dean would respond to that
interview by threatening to revoke her party
membership.
dirty, dirty, dirty... her word is no better than a
pile of excrement....

Exactly so. How can one expect her to win the crucial middle, when she alienates the party base in this manner...

This has made my brain hurt.

truly the democratic party has created a masterful process of selecting a nominee. did they honestly never stop and go,
"you know, i don't think i could easily explain this system, even to myself - perhaps we should rethink some of it"?

Yup, that is what you are telling them in Florida and Michigan. :p

They brought it on themselves. They could have easily moved their primaries back and the DNC would not have ruled against them. Instead they decided to hang their dick out and the DNC pounded it with a hammer. Was the decision the right one, probably not. But once you make a deal you stick to that deal. "All I've got in this world is my word and my balls, and I don't break them for anyone."

to quote my little bro, a life long Dem:


Exactly so. How can one expect her to win the crucial middle, when she alienates the party base in this manner...

*applauds*

The superdelegates are free to use whatever methods they want to cast their vote, and as long as there are superdelegates, they should be allowed to do so.

i don't think you actually believe this. clearly there are some metrics which they absolutely should not use when making their decisions - choosing a nominee on the basis of who has given the greatest amount of money to al-queda, for example. the fact that they can do whatever they want in no way implies that they should do whatever strikes their fancy.

i don't think you actually believe this. clearly there are some metrics which they absolutely should not use when making their decisions - choosing a nominee on the basis of who has given the greatest amount of money to al-queda, for example. the fact that they can do whatever they want in no way implies that they should do whatever strikes their fancy.

They are indeed free to do what thwy wish. They are also free to reap the whirlwind...

ok, a part of the process i'm unclear on:
some of the superdelegates are "unpledged add-ons", right? but according to the rules (http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf page 10),

so does this mean that effectively 76 of the 'superdelegates' are more or less given out on a winner-take-all system based on who won the state and thus is in charge of the body that selects the elected delegates?

haha, so according to this (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/convention-math-remember-the-u.php), the answer is 'sorta'. fuck you, democratic party. this shit does not have to be anywhere near as complicated as you have made it.

also, this makes things even worse for clinton. obama has presumably picked up 40ish add-ons to clinton's 24, with 12 left to determine. she really probably should have tried competing in more states, i think.

Have you ever gone back on your word or broken a contract illegally? That is in effect what Hillary wants to do. If she can't be trusted to abide by an agreement her campaign made then what holds her to other agreements and promises she makes. I guess I'm trying to ask if you are a man of your word or a snake?

You mean like agreeing to public financing?

They are indeed free to do what thwy wish. They are also free to reap the whirlwind...

I'm buying plenty of popcorn so I can watch the riots in Denver and have plenty to munch on.

You mean like agreeing to public financing?

yeah, that is pretty shitty of mccain. "dear bank, if you give me money then no matter what i will stay in this race at least long enough to get public financing that i have already signed up for to pay you back."
what a fucking scumbag

yeah, that is pretty shitty of mccain. "dear bank, if you give me money then no matter what i will stay in this race at least long enough to get public financing that i have already signed up for to pay you back."
what a fucking scumbag

Catch me up?

You mean like agreeing to public financing?

I don't agree with that either. But signing legal documents to the fact is what all the Dems did. They didn't just have a verbal agreement. I think that Obama should take public financing if McCain agrees to do the same. Otherwise Obama would be shooting himself in the foot just to keep that deal. It would not make sense to put yourself at a disadvantage. Obama said in the debate, if McCain does it he'll do it.

You mean like agreeing to public financing?

I don't agree with that either. But signing legal documents to the fact is what all the Dems did. They didn't just have a verbal agreement. I think that Obama should take public financing if McCain agrees to do the same. Otherwise Obama would be shooting himself in the foot just to keep that deal. It would not make sense to put yourself at a disadvantage. Obama said in the debate, if McCain does it he'll do it.

Catch me up?

well, the gist of it is that back when mccain was running a distant 12th, he had no money at all. in order to stay in the race, he signed up for public financing as a condition on a loan - saying, effectively, that even if he had no chance at all he was going to stay in the race until the public bailed out his abortion of a campaign (the bank also demanded that he take out life insurance on himself for them - because that dude is old).

that's pretty scumbaggy by itself. but it gets better. as his prospects started looking way up, he decided to try to opt out of public financing, because being in the program sets some strict spending limits. two small problems. first, the fec would have to meet to allow him to opt out but cannot do so because it currently lacks a quorum (bush is insisting on putting some retard there, and congress isn't allowing it). and second, because he used the promise of that money to secure a loan, he has already used the money and just cannot back out now - at least that is a plausible reading of the rules.

and now he has gone over the spending limit, so there is a lawsuit being brought against him to effectively make him stop spending any money at all until after the convention.

I'm Phil Ken Sebben. You may not know me, but I have 12 billion dollars here that says you'll vote me regardless.

Once again...Counting votes in a state where Hillary was the only one on the ballot would be stupid and irrelevant. Counting votes where there was no campaigning or advertising allowed would also be stupid and irrelevent. Arguing that these two contests should be included in a democratic process is not only stupid, but arrogant and dishonest.
So, it is one thing to tell them that they have been disenfranchised....too bad....so sad, and totally another to tell them too bad....so sad.....and that they are also "stupid, arrogant and dishonest" for wanting to be included in the "democratic process". How silly of them? :rolleyes:

It's A Beautiful Primary Day in Florida (http://www.care2.com/politics/a-beautiful-primary-day-in-florida.html)


Disenfranchisement of Florida Democratic Voters (1.7 Million voters) (http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/Voice0Reason/Cvss)

So, it is one thing to tell them that they have been disenfranchised....too bad....so sad, and totally another to tell them too bad....so sad.....and that they are also "stupid, arrogant and dishonest" for wanting to be included in the "democratic process". How silly of them? :rolleyes:

It's A Beautiful Primary Day in Florida (http://www.care2.com/politics/a-beautiful-primary-day-in-florida.html)


Disenfranchisement of Florida Democratic Voters (1.7 Million voters) (http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/Voice0Reason/Cvss)

No, we're saying "Hey your state screwed up. It knew the rules. Dont like what happened? Dont reelect your local senators and governors, becaue its unfair to give the states to the person whos name was the only one on the ballot."


I dont see whats so hard to understan about this CH.

So, it is one thing to tell them that they have been disenfranchised....too bad....so sad, and totally another to tell them too bad....so sad.....and that they are also "stupid, arrogant and dishonest" for wanting to be included in the "democratic process". How silly of them? :rolleyes:

It's A Beautiful Primary Day in Florida (http://www.care2.com/politics/a-beautiful-primary-day-in-florida.html)


Disenfranchisement of Florida Democratic Voters (1.7 Million voters) (http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/Voice0Reason/Cvss)


They should definitely take it up with their state party leaders who disenfranchised them.

They were given a chance at a redo weren't they?

They were given a chance at a redo weren't they?

Yeah, and a lot of them didnt want to do it. A lot of the average citizens in Florida said it would be too much of a hassel.


Cry me a fucking river than. If you really cared that much you wouldnt be so damn lazy. You just like to whine.

Yeah, and a lot of them didnt want to do it. A lot of the average citizens in Florida said it would be too much of a hassel.


Cry me a fucking river than. If you really cared that much you wouldnt be so damn lazy. You just like to whine.



I think they should take their party leaders to court and kick their asses out of the party.

I think they should take their party leaders to court and kick their asses out of the party.

Well, at least in the case of Florida, it was a Republican state senate that moved the elections up over Democratic objections. However, they had since last year to come up with a solution and they waited until last month...

Well, at least in the case of Florida, it was a Republican state senate that moved the elections up over Democratic objections. However, they had since last year to come up with a solution and they waited until last month...



What?!?!?!?!

The Republicans decided to break the democratic party rules to cause this whole kerfuffle?

she really probably should have tried competing in more states, i think.

No kidding FS. No one can argue you there.

I'm buying plenty of popcorn so I can watch the riots in Denver and have plenty to munch on.

I'm just glad that my honeymoon will be over when the Convention starts in Denver. I do not want to miss a minute of it.

I dont see whats so hard to understan about this CH.

He's a Clinton support! A staunch one. They do not care at all about rules.

Yeah, and a lot of them didnt want to do it. A lot of the average citizens in Florida said it would be too much of a hassel.


Cry me a fucking river than. If you really cared that much you wouldnt be so damn lazy. You just like to whine.

Hear Hear

Well, at least in the case of Florida, it was a Republican state senate that moved the elections up over Democratic objections. However, they had since last year to come up with a solution and they waited until last month...

You may want to check the vote on that. The vote was without dissent.

What?!?!?!?!

The Republicans decided to break the democratic party rules to cause this whole kerfuffle?
They were breaking Republican Party rules likewise. The GOP, however, decided the penalty would only be half the delegates, not all of them; and none of the Florida Republicans are making much of a fuss about that, since it doesn't make a damn bit of difference anyway.

What?!?!?!?!

The Republicans decided to break the democratic party rules to cause this whole kerfuffle?

Well, yes and no. It was a rule that both parties had established. The Republican party punished Florida and Michigan, too, but only by halving their delegate count (I'm not sure how much of a punishment this really is, but anyway...) The Democratic party reacted more harshly.

But again, the cincher in all of this is that all decisions were made in September of last year. Back in September Clinton approved of the removal, he campaign chair Ickes actually voted for it.

That's when Clinton was leading in the polls and figured she'd have this puppy wrapped up by Super Tuesday regardless...since that didn't happen she and Ickes have now changed their tune.

If there was any real concern they would have handled this in September of last year, giving them plenty of time to arrange for fucking airport shuttles to personally chauffeur party members to an alternate, valid primary. Or Ickes wouldn't have voted to remove their delegates in the first place.

But this isn't about enfranchisement or 'voters being heard,' if it was they wouldn't be making noises about pledged delegates changing their votes. This is about finding any way to staunch the bleeding from a former sure fire campaign.

He's a Clinton support! A staunch one. They do not care at all about rules.

The First rule of Clinton, you are not allowed to talk about Clinton.
The Second rule of Clinton, you are not allowed to talk about Clinton.
The Third rule of Clinton, only two people fighting at any one time.
The Fourth rule of Clinton, Fights can take place anywhere.

So, it is one thing to tell them that they have been disenfranchised....too bad....so sad, and totally another to tell them too bad....so sad.....and that they are also "stupid, arrogant and dishonest" for wanting to be included in the "democratic process". How silly of them? :rolleyes:=

Wanting to be included and wanting to be included in an unfair manner are two very different things.

I think they should be included. But including the original votes is not the way.

Obama and Clinton prove their idiocy once again (http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&id=20080327/47eb29d0_3421_1334520080327-1517884835).

Obama and Clinton prove their idiocy once again (http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&id=20080327/47eb29d0_3421_1334520080327-1517884835).

what is it that you found so stupid?

Obama and Clinton prove their idiocy once again (http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&id=20080327/47eb29d0_3421_1334520080327-1517884835).


By offering their ideas on the economy?

What would you do different?

No, we're saying "Hey your state screwed up. It knew the rules. Dont like what happened? Dont reelect your local senators and governors, becaue its unfair to give the states to the person whos name was the only one on the ballot."

I dont see whats so hard to understan about this CH.
Oh.....I fully understand your logic here. They screwed them, so they get to screw them back, even though that is just screwing themselves even more. They also get to screw the Dems in the general, once more screwing themselves in the end.

Such a winning formula!! :rolleyes:

Well, yes and no. It was a rule that both parties had established. The Republican party punished Florida and Michigan, too, but only by halving their delegate count (I'm not sure how much of a punishment this really is, but anyway...) The Democratic party reacted more harshly.

But again, the cincher in all of this is that all decisions were made in September of last year. Back in September Clinton approved of the removal, he campaign chair Ickes actually voted for it.

That's when Clinton was leading in the polls and figured she'd have this puppy wrapped up by Super Tuesday regardless...since that didn't happen she and Ickes have now changed their tune.

If there was any real concern they would have handled this in September of last year, giving them plenty of time to arrange for fucking airport shuttles to personally chauffeur party members to an alternate, valid primary. Or Ickes wouldn't have voted to remove their delegates in the first place.

But this isn't about enfranchisement or 'voters being heard,' if it was they wouldn't be making noises about pledged delegates changing their votes. This is about finding any way to staunch the bleeding from a former sure fire campaign.
And if the tables were exactly reversed, then Obama fans would be clamouring to have those votes counted???

And if the tables were exactly reversed, then Obama fans would be clamouring to have those votes counted???

I wouldn't be.

Fairness doesn't depend on who's winning or who would benefit most.

I wouldn't be.

Fairness doesn't depend on who's winning or who would benefit most.
Perhaps you wouldn't but there are so many die hard Hillary haters here, that it is not hard to imagine them going to any length to screw her over.

Perhaps you wouldn't but there are so many die hard Hillary haters here, that it is not hard to imagine them going to any length to screw her over.

It's possible, just as it seems that there are many die-hard Hillary fans that would like to see the state delegates seated in an unfair manner.

Neither would be more right than the others.

I wouldn't be.

Fairness doesn't depend on who's winning or who would benefit most.


Same here


It's possible, just as it seems that there are many die-hard Hillary fans that would like to see the state delegates seated in an unfair manner.

Neither would be more right than the others.

exactly

And if the tables were exactly reversed, then Obama fans would be clamouring to have those votes counted???

You know what I love? When people act like scumbags, and then in order to defend themselves, they say "In my position, you would have been just as much of a scumbag as I was there."

No we wouldn't have. We have principles.

No we wouldn't have. We have principles.

Thank God.

If Obama had pulled something like this, I'd have immediately stopped supporting him.

If Obama had pulled something like this, I'd have immediately stopped supporting him.

And he wouldn't nearly have as much international support from Euro's like me.

I'd have dropped Obama like a hot potato if he went back on his principled stances.

Obama's leanings towards transparency and positive electioneering are central to his overall appeal.

And if the tables were exactly reversed, then Obama fans would be clamouring to have those votes counted???

if clinton had an insurmountable delegate lead and had won huge all the way through feb, obama would have been pressured to sit down, the supers would have stepped in and declared for clinton, and the game would have been over weeks ago.


listen, the one thing that absolutely insures that mi and fl don't get seated with full voting rights is if clinton stays in to the bitter end. that's pretty much the only scenario that results in their delegations not getting seated. if you are really very concerned with letting them vote at the convention, then you must demand that clinton withdraw.

if clinton had an insurmountable delegate lead and had won huge all the way through feb, obama would have been pressured to sit down, the supers would have stepped in and declared for clinton, and the game would have been over weeks ago.
You know this how?

listen, the one thing that absolutely insures that mi and fl don't get seated with full voting rights is if clinton stays in to the bitter end.
Again, you know this how?

that's pretty much the only scenario that results in their delegations not getting seated. if you are really very concerned with letting them vote at the convention, then you must demand that clinton withdraw.
I am sure that they would get a chuckle out of a Canadian "demanding" that Clinton withdraws?

Looks like Senator Dodd wants this race to end soon!

Sen. Chris Dodd said Thursday a protracted Democratic presidential race would be "devastating" to the party, and argued an agreement should be worked out after the upcoming contests in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/27/dodd-prolonged-democratic-race-devastating/

I really wish Clinton grows a brain and bows out. Unfortunately, I have this feeling we'll be seeing a fight on the Convention Floor. Still...Obama will come out of Denver with the Nomination.

You know this how?

because of the history and nature of insurgent campaigns vs establishment campaigns. this isn't the first primary we've had, you know.

Again, you know this how?

because obama's people will control the committee that determines who gets to be seated at the convention, and therefore the only way mi and fl don't get seated is if seating them throws doubt onto his victory. if clinton ain't running, they will be seated. if obama's campaign implodes tomorrow, they will be seated. the only scenario that results in them getting excluded (or split 50-50, or being seated but denied a vote, etc) is if they matter. which is exactly as it should be.

you do know something about how the process works, right?

Looks like Senator Dodd wants this race to end soon!



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/27/dodd-prolonged-democratic-race-devastating/

I really wish Clinton grows a brain and bows out. Unfortunately, I have this feeling we'll be seeing a fight on the Convention Floor. Still...Obama will come out of Denver with the Nomination.
There is little to no chance of her dropping out before Pennsylvania, and as she's likely to win that state she won't bow out after then either. As she's positioned right now there isn't even a way for her to bow out without doing a completely uncharacteristic about face. The long and short of it is that she's not going anywhere until the very last primary. You can only hope she leaves enough party to run for the presidency once she's done.

And if the tables were exactly reversed, then Obama fans would be clamouring to have those votes counted???

You know what I love? When people act like scumbags, and then in order to defend themselves, they say "In my position, you would have been just as much of a scumbag as I was there."


Pretty much. You know someone is in a indefensible position when they resort to "B-b-but, you'd do the same!!!"

This isn't even an argument. It's an excuse, and a poor one.

There is little to no chance of her dropping out before Pennsylvania, and as she's likely to win that state she won't bow out after then either. As she's positioned right now there isn't even a way for her to bow out without doing a completely uncharacteristic about face. The long and short of it is that she's not going anywhere until the very last primary. You can only hope she leaves enough party to run for the presidency once she's done.

eh, i think even her clearly incompetent strategists will surrender after indiana and north carolina. or if obama can pull a magic win in pennsylvania.

eh, i think even her clearly incompetent strategists will surrender after indiana and north carolina. or if obama can pull a magic win in pennsylvania.

If he manages a win in Pennsylvania the supers will peel off her and gather around Obama so fast it the rapid suction of air might actually make a popping sound. The somewhat marginal pressure to end this will become phenomenal. Theoretically they were ready to do this if Obama could have clinched Ohio and Texas.

You know this how?


Again, you know this how?

Its his opinion. And opinions dont need to be proven or based on logic. You of all people would know this CH. :rolleyes:


If Obama had been pulling this crap, Id have jumped ships.

Its his opinion. And opinions dont need to be proven or based on logic. You of all people would know this CH. :rolleyes:

to be fair, i was wearing neither my wizard hat nor robe, and i failed to say the magic words. so he is quite right to demand that i provide actual justification for my statements. my mistake.

As an Australian, I'm obviously well out of my depth in this thread. So I'll just ask everyone who knows anything about it three questions:

Shouldn't the will of the party be enforced on the Presidential nominee? Shouldn't the party require them to take the other candidate (whoever came second in a close race like the current Dem race) as their Vice Presidential nominee? The VP could become the president, shouldn't the idea be to choose a strong contender for that role, rather than a lapdog who won't cause the Presidential nominee embarrassment?

Obama has stated that he is not interested in having Clinton as his VP. Will he change his mind if he wins?

Will Clinton choose Obama as her VP candidate, if she wins the nomination? And, given his statements, would he accept?

As an Australian, I'm obviously well out of my depth in this thread. So I'll just ask everyone who knows anything about it three questions:

Shouldn't the will of the party be enforced on the Presidential nominee? Shouldn't the party require them to take the other candidate (whoever came second in a close race like the current Dem race) as their Vice Presidential nominee? The VP could become the president, shouldn't the idea be to choose a strong contender for that role, rather than a lapdog who won't cause the Presidential nominee embarrassment?

Obama has stated that he is not interested in having Clinton as his VP. Will he change his mind if he wins?

Will Clinton choose Obama as her VP candidate, if she wins the nomination? And, given his statements, would he accept?

Clinton has already offered Obama the position as her VP. When he was the frontrunner. I think before she made that offer, he would have accepted had he lost the primary. But she made it in a rather condescending manner.

I doubt Clinton would ever accept the vice presidency.

Clinton has already offered Obama the position as her VP. When he was the frontrunner. I think before she made that offer, he would have accepted had he lost the primary. But she made it in a rather condescending manner.

It did rather play like a bribe, for him to drop out.

I doubt Clinton would ever accept the vice presidency.

Your opinion is noted. Thanks.

Clinton just got a wonderful bitch slap from Senator Casey:

Pennsylvania senator to endorse Obama (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsement;_ylt=AvZDFrJMspg94W8I1WLbibWyFz4D)

NEW YORK - Barack Obama will be endorsed by Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey.

Campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the endorsement will come as Obama begins a six-day campaign swing through the Keystone State.

...

Casey is a first-term senator and the son of a popular former governor of the state. His support could help Obama make inroads among Catholic voters. Catholics constitute more than 30 percent of the state. Casey is scheduled to join Obama in Pittsburgh Friday and campaign with him as Obama travels by across Pennsylvania by bus.

At least Casey has some sense about him. This can very well help Obama in this beautiful state.

Clinton just got a wonderful bitch slap from Senator Casey:

Pennsylvania senator to endorse Obama (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsement;_ylt=AvZDFrJMspg94W8I1WLbibWyFz4D)



At least Casey has some sense about him. This can very well help Obama in this beautiful state.

I don't know, considering the high profile endorsements that Clinton has received in that state it's more of a band aid than a bitch slap. Endorsements haven't converted to votes so much, remember all the endorsements in Mass. that didn't result in Obama winning there. It's good news on the level of getting three pickles instead of one on a fast food burger.

Shouldn't the will of the party be enforced on the Presidential nominee? Shouldn't the party require them to take the other candidate (whoever came second in a close race like the current Dem race) as their Vice Presidential nominee? The VP could become the president, shouldn't the idea be to choose a strong contender for that role, rather than a lapdog who won't cause the Presidential nominee embarrassment?

The VP candidates are vusually chosen to balance perceived weaknesses in the candidate, balance the ticket geographically, or compliment them in some some way.

Obama has stated that he is not interested in having Clinton as his VP. Will he change his mind if he wins?

Doubtful.

Will Clinton choose Obama as her VP candidate, if she wins the nomination? And, given his statements, would he accept?

Possible, but not likely, and :::dons the magical hat and robes of involibility, In My Opinion hed be a fool to accept if she did.

I don't know, considering the high profile endorsements that Clinton has received in that state it's more of a band aid than a bitch slap. Endorsements haven't converted to votes so much, remember all the endorsements in Mass. that didn't result in Obama winning there. It's good news on the level of getting three pickles instead of one on a fast food burger.

Let me put it this way! Casey is more popular than Rendell is.

So, it is one thing to tell them that they have been disenfranchised....too bad....so sad, and totally another to tell them too bad....so sad.....and that they are also "stupid, arrogant and dishonest" for wanting to be included in the "democratic process". How silly of them? :rolleyes:

It's A Beautiful Primary Day in Florida (http://www.care2.com/politics/a-beautiful-primary-day-in-florida.html)


Disenfranchisement of Florida Democratic Voters (1.7 Million voters) (http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/Voice0Reason/Cvss)

Good attempt to twist my argument. Hillary is the ones who is being stupid, arrogant, and dishonest. You CANNOT include Michigan because Barack wasn't even on the ballot. It's like taking my offense and throwing touchdowns when your defense is sitting on the sidelines. Then me screaming "I beat you sucker!" Florida is almost as bad considering there was no campaigning allowed there. Declaring that the popular vote should be based with these two states included is stupid, arrogant, and dishonest. Allowing them to have a say is fine. There's only one way this could work IMHO... Split the delegates evenly and seat them at the convention. You cannot make an agreement and then change the rules midstream because it will benefit you. I take it that your word is not very valuable. I repeat, "In this world I only have my word and my balls, and I don't break em for anybody."

And if the tables were exactly reversed, then Obama fans would be clamouring to have those votes counted???

Not me. You live and die by your word. Once again, due to your argument I take it your word doesn't mean much. You don't play chess and in the middle switch to rules for checkers. It seems you are justifying that you want them counted because you are a Clinton supporter. Thank you for admitting that.

Perhaps you wouldn't but there are so many die hard Hillary haters here, that it is not hard to imagine them going to any length to screw her over.

You mean like she is trying to do to Obama. I love the logical contraries that can be drawn from your arguments. So, it would be screwing Hillary over if it happened, but if it happened to Obama it would be fair?

Let me put it this way! Casey is more popular than Rendell is.

yeah, but what really matters in all of these contests is not the transferable popularity of endorsers, but whether the endorsers have a working machine that can deliver votes on election day. i'm with kos on this. and that's the sort of thing you are more likely to find among big city mayors.

yeah, but what really matters in all of these contests is not the transferable popularity of endorsers, but whether the endorsers have a working machine that can deliver votes on election day. i'm with kos on this. and that's the sort of thing you are more likely to find among big city mayors.

That explains Philadelphia :D

and now some late-breaking news in the obama campaign's on-going implosion:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3065/2369123904_53f4b54574_o.gif

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/032808DailyUpdateGraph1.gif

and now some late-breaking news in the obama campaign's on-going implosion:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3065/2369123904_53f4b54574_o.gif

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/032808DailyUpdateGraph1.gif

Good. Obama's lead is gaining again.

and now some late-breaking news in the obama campaign's on-going implosion:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3065/2369123904_53f4b54574_o.gif

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/032808DailyUpdateGraph1.gif

Oh no, abandon ship!!!!!!

and now some late-breaking news in the obama campaign's on-going implosion:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3065/2369123904_53f4b54574_o.gif

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/032808DailyUpdateGraph1.gif

He's at his highest point again, huh. That really means this is going to drag out, she's still likely to win Pennsylvania but not by enough to meet her needs, but she can't bow out after winning, and her argument isn't valid with his polling that high, so all the way to June we go and it's in the super's hands as to when it ends then.

EDIT: Looks like Dean wants that to be the end of it- (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/BREAKING_Dean_wants_closure_by_July_1.html)
DEAN: “Well, I think the superdelegates have already been weighing in. I think that there's 800 of them and 450 of them have already said who they're for. I'd like the other 350 to say who they're at some point between now and the first of July so we don't have to take this into the convention.”

Somebody is getting an "it's over" card by July...

He's at his highest point again, huh. That really means this is going to drag out, she's still likely to win Pennsylvania but not by enough to meet her needs, but she can't bow out after winning, and her argument isn't valid with his polling that high, so all the way to June we go and it's in the super's hands as to when it ends then.

of course, this decline seems related to her getting caught in a string of stupid lies that hit at the heart of her campaign's message. it seems like it might be kinda hard to come back from flat out making shit up about being under sniper fire with a stirring speech on the nature of gun violence in america, for example.

ooh, daily tracking poll numbers for the entire primary season thus far

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/election2008_HP_1.gif

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/election2008_HP_1.gif

Is this accurate?

Does Obama really have an 8 point lead?

Is this accurate?

Does Obama really have an 8 point lead?

Gallup is usually pretty accurate.

Gallup is usually pretty accurate.

That's... brilliant.

If it's really true, Clinton is really being incredibly selfish to keep this race going. Perhaps she's been a covert Republican the whole time...

Is this accurate?

Does Obama really have an 8 point lead?

Overall, but not in Pennsylvania, which is the only state up right now that gets a say. Which is why this is going to July...unless he pulls out Pennsylvania, then it's pretty much done, but not without a lot of screaming.

Overall, but not in Pennsylvania, which is the only state up right now that gets a say. Which is why this is going to July...unless he pulls out Pennsylvania, then it's pretty much done, but not without a lot of screaming.

Which is why I'm going to do my best to convince as many voters as possible to vote for Obama.

Which is why I'm going to do my best to convince as many voters as possible to vote for Obama.

Good luck :)

That's... brilliant.

If it's really true, Clinton is really being incredibly selfish to keep this race going. Perhaps she's been a covert Republican the whole time...

Well, no, not really. To be fair to Clinton, she's likely to win a fairly big state, which has been where she hangs her flag, and it will be the third in a row (remember, she doesn't recognize caucuses and her argument now rests on popular vote, so by that metric she can still be considered to have won Texas) that she's won. While eleven victories in a row apparently wasn't momentum for Obama, three big states interrupted by Obama wins is. So she'll win in Pennsylvania and then pick the next state that 'matters,' I think it's West Virginia since Obama has such a lead in North Carolina. Or maybe Puerto Rico, who knows...either way, this win will buttress her argument which she'll try to carry through the remaining nine states. She's been at this split before and changed it, in theory if she can convert a win in Pennsylvania into something resembling momentum she can do it again.

If she doesn't win in Pennsylvania and those numbers continue to spread, yeah, she'd be pretty selfish to stay in, but she's got at least a chance at this point and as long as she has one, no matter how long, she'll stay in.

Maybe I was wrong, maybe it will be North Carolina- (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120665997629669997.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox)
That makes it all the more critical for Sen. Clinton to win in a state where it's not expected. A strong showing in North Carolina could alter the contest more than wins in Pennsylvania, Kentucky or West Virginia, where she is favored to do well, or even in Indiana, which is considered a toss-up.

"Even a very close Clinton showing here really has the potential to change the race," says John Dinan, a political-science professor at Wake Forest University.
...
The Clinton campaign opens its headquarters in the state next week in Raleigh, and it has brought on as its state director Averell "Ace" Smith, who helped Sen. Clinton fend off Sen. Obama in California and Texas. Aides say that Sen. Clinton will focus on the economy and the war during her speeches in the state and that she will rely on the endorsement of North Carolinian Gen. Hugh Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Is this accurate?

Does Obama really have an 8 point lead?

well, its a tracking poll, i think using daily three-day averages. so it accurately reflects the prevailing sentiment around the country. but note that you can actually see the individual events that swing the numbers up and down - the early shock in iowa, the february momentum, the ohio win and fake texas win, the wright non-story and speech bounce-back, sniper fire hilarity, etc.

Well, no, not really. To be fair to Clinton, she's likely to win a fairly big state, which has been where she hangs her flag, and it will be the third in a row (remember, she doesn't recognize caucuses and her argument now rests on popular vote, so by that metric she can still be considered to have won Texas) that she's won. While eleven victories in a row apparently wasn't momentum for Obama, three big states interrupted by Obama wins is. So she'll win in Pennsylvania and then pick the next state that 'matters,' I think it's West Virginia since Obama has such a lead in North Carolina. Or maybe Puerto Rico, who knows...either way, this win will buttress her argument which she'll try to carry through the remaining nine states. She's been at this split before and changed it, in theory if she can convert a win in Pennsylvania into something resembling momentum she can do it again.

If she doesn't win in Pennsylvania and those numbers continue to spread, yeah, she'd be pretty selfish to stay in, but she's got at least a chance at this point and as long as she has one, no matter how long, she'll stay in.

Even if she does win in Pennsylvania (and who knows, its still three weeks away), she's just not going to get that delegate lead- she'd need to win all the remaining primaries with 60% majorities, which won't happen.

She's clearly an intelligent woman, so she must realise this and hope the Superdelegates will pick her despite Obama's lead, which is like taking a red elephant to Democratic unity, burning the resulting rubble, then digging up John F Kennedy's corpse and making his dead body dance a puppet jig whilst his deanimated hands give John McCain the charred remains of what was the Democratic Party.

well, its a tracking poll, i think using daily three-day averages. so it accurately reflects the prevailing sentiment around the country. but note that you can actually see the individual events that swing the numbers up and down - the early shock in iowa, the february momentum, the ohio win and fake texas win, the wright non-story and speech bounce-back, sniper fire hilarity, etc.

Hillary Clinton running out of money? It seems Hillary is not bringing in as many bucks as she needs. http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/865494,CST-NWS-SNEED28.article

Even if she does win in Pennsylvania (and who knows, its still three weeks away), she's just not going to get that delegate lead- she'd need to win all the remaining primaries with 60% majorities, which won't happen.

more than that, actually. as i said earlier,

well, it's not utterly impossible, but its so unlikely as makes no difference. it is difficult to lay out the exact specifics of why in any short and easy format due to the ridiculous nature of the process, but basically it comes down to the fact that obama is approximately 167 pledged delegates ahead and there are 566 pledged delegates left fight over. but because delegates are divided up proportionately, clinton would need to win really really big from here on out to overcome that deficit. like bigger than any wins she has pulled of yet, and in every remaining contest.

but all the delegates aren't even divided up proportionally across a state, but are further divided between districts within a state. so there are actually a whole bunch of much smaller contests for even fewer delegates. so in any district with an even number of delegates, you need to win absolutely huge to win any extra delegates out of the deal at all. in a district with 4 delegates, the split will be 2-2 unless somebody gets, what, like 65% or so? yeah, something like that. and in a 5 delegate district you get just one extra delegate if you win by 1 vote up to 70%. and the state-wide delegates are also split into two groups, so you can't easily rack up the number there either.

ooh, this gets some of the detail across,
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/162042/3056

key points:
Number of 3 delegate districts left: 1
Number of 4 delegate districts left: 19 (including all 8 in Puerto Rico)
Number of 5 delegate districts left: 21
Number of 6 delegate districts left: 14
Number of 7 delegate districts left: 10
Number of 8 delegate districts left: 1
Number of 9 delegate districts left: 3
Number of 10 delegate districts left: 1 (Montana)

and you need to win by
4 delegates - 25%+ to get from 2-2 to 3-1
5 delegates - 40%+ to get from 3-2 to 4-1
6 delegates - 16.7%+ to get from 3-3 to 4-2
7 delegates - 28.6%+ to get from 4-3 to 5-2

further adding to her woes are the fact that there is a type of delegate lumped in with the supers that are actually selected on a more-or-less winner-take-all-by-state system, and so obama has an additional 20ish delegate edge there too.

Hillary Clinton running out of money? It seems Hillary is not bringing in as many bucks as she needs. http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/865494,CST-NWS-SNEED28.article

My god, that article is written like celebrity gossip. I think I threw up in my mouth a little...

The Edwards endorsement could be on the big side, since he's the only other candidate who had a prayer. I don't know that it'll be enough, but it will be a boost and might even get her the donations to keep going.

Probably not enough to win, but enough to stay alive.

more than that, actually. as i said earlier,

She's abandoned the delegate metric, because more or less like you laid out it would take a miracle to overcome that-and if she does she'll be slamming her new metric anyway so closing the delegate gap would just be butter.

Now it's about changing the momentum in the last 10 races and closing the popular vote gap, possibly by arguing the Florida and Michigan popular vote. If she strings together some wins and paints him as unelectable then she'll push both the supers and the pledged delegates to change their votes. Not something she'll have a lot of luck doing if Dean has his way and everyone makes their decision by July.

My god, that article is written like celebrity gossip. I think I threw up in my mouth a little...

The Edwards endorsement could be on the big side, since he's the only other candidate who had a prayer. I don't know that it'll be enough, but it will be a boost and might even get her the donations to keep going.

Probably not enough to win, but enough to stay alive.

I just thought the idea of Hillary being forced out because the will of the people (her donations) dictates.

I just thought the idea of Hillary being forced out because the will of the people (her donations) dictates.

Well, she's got a buttload of money, so it'll really just means she'll dip into her pocket again, so it won't be as dramatic as all that, more like a slow trickle, like watching a fish die on the table.

EDIT: I was making a sandwich and it hit me how ridiculous this discussion even is. This was Clinton's to lose. She led in the early polls by 20 points, she is associated with the most popular Democratic president not shot in the head, she's had name recognition and more or less an 8 year head start in her campaign for the big office. Literally everything going her way, and she got trumped by an elequant relative nobody junior senator from Indiana who made a good speech at the '04 convention and we have to listen to why her second best against him is still good enough. When you step back from it it's rather ridiculous...

EDIT: I was making a sandwich and it hit me how ridiculous this discussion even is. This was Clinton's to lose. She led in the early polls by 20 points, she is associated with the most popular Democratic president not shot in the head, she's had name recognition and more or less an 8 year head start in her campaign for the big office. Literally everything going her way, and she got trumped by an elequant relative nobody junior senator from Indiana who made a good speech at the '04 convention and we have to listen to why her second best against him is still good enough. When you step back from it it's rather ridiculous...

The joys of a long primary season, eh?

Well, she's got a buttload of money, so it'll really just means she'll dip into her pocket again, so it won't be as dramatic as all that, more like a slow trickle, like watching a fish die on the table.

EDIT: I was making a sandwich and it hit me how ridiculous this discussion even is. This was Clinton's to lose. She led in the early polls by 20 points, she is associated with the most popular Democratic president not shot in the head, she's had name recognition and more or less an 8 year head start in her campaign for the big office. Literally everything going her way, and she got trumped by an elequant relative nobody junior senator from Indiana who made a good speech at the '04 convention and we have to listen to why her second best against him is still good enough. When you step back from it it's rather ridiculous...

He's from Illinois. But everything else you said I full agree with.

The Edwards endorsement could be on the big side, since he's the only other candidate who had a prayer. I don't know that it'll be enough, but it will be a boost and might even get her the donations to keep going.
I, for one, think this has a chance in hell of happening. Obama and Edwards were clearly the most similar and it amazes me he hasn't endorsed him yet.

Sneed hears Edwards' wife, cancer survivor Elizabeth Edwards, does NOT favor Barack Obama's candidacy . . . but NOT because of racism. "She feels her husband should have been the man in the center of the presidential sweepstakes, rather than Obama," a source said.
Jealous much?

z0mG!! Condi Rice endorses Obama...sort of (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080328/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_rice_dc)
"I think it was important that he (Obama) gave it for a whole host of reasons," said Rice in a transcript of the interview released by the State Department on Friday...."It's time for new blood," she said.

I, for one, think this has a chance in hell of happening. Obama and Edwards were clearly the most similar and it amazes me he hasn't endorsed him yet.

The graph that was up before (Gallup) certainly looked like most of Edwards' support going to Obama.

I, for one, think this has a chance in hell of happening. Obama and Edwards were clearly the most similar and it amazes me he hasn't endorsed him yet.

I got the feeling with the whole "not standing in the way of history" bit he said when he ended his campaign, that he wasn't planning on getting involved. But I really don't see him endorsing Clinton, and the dirty politics she's been playing might just get him to come out and endorse Obama.

z0mG!! Condi Rice endorses Obama...sort of (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080328/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_rice_dc)

I don't believe for a moment that Rice is done with politics. If she's offered VP by McCain and doesn't take it ... that could only be because she doesn't think he can win.

VP under a President McCain would seem the ideal positioning for a Presidential run herself. Given his age, he might not run for a second term. He might even die in office.

I don't believe for a moment that Rice is done with politics. If she's offered VP by McCain and doesn't take it ... that could only be because she doesn't think he can win.

VP under a President McCain would seem the ideal positioning for a Presidential run herself. Given his age, he might not run for a second term. He might even die in office.

she is not a politician. she would not help his candidacy because she is not a dynamic speaker and she has never campaigned for office.

she is not a politician. she would not help his candidacy because she is not a dynamic speaker and she has never campaigned for office.

All good reasons not to offer her the job. But I think she has great ambition, and I'm wondering why SHE would rule out taking the job?

Not being a "dynamic speaker" has more to do with the role she's filled these last few years ... look at how carefully she has had to conceal her personal position on all issues. She has served a useless Administration remarkably well.

All good reasons not to offer her the job. But I think she has great ambition, and I'm wondering why SHE would rule out taking the job?

Not being a "dynamic speaker" has more to do with the role she's filled these last few years ... look at how carefully she has had to conceal her personal position on all issues. She has served a useless Administration remarkably well.

Now, let me say first of all that I don't like Condi rice at all.

But leaving that aside, she seems much more of an administrator than a politician to me. I don't see her running a campaign, or giving good speeches. She could manage the country competently, but I doubt she could pull off the figurehead role that a president needs to play.

All good reasons not to offer her the job. But I think she has great ambition, and I'm wondering why SHE would rule out taking the job?

Not being a "dynamic speaker" has more to do with the role she's filled these last few years ... look at how carefully she has had to conceal her personal position on all issues. She has served a useless Administration remarkably well.

i would kinda like ms rice to take the nomination.

in my dreams it goes like this....

the disaster happens and mccain is elected. mccain drops dead and mrs rice becomes president.

the first woman and first black president is a republican!

i would kinda like ms rice to take the nomination.

in my dreams it goes like this....

the disaster happens and mccain is elected. mccain drops dead and mrs rice becomes president.

the first woman and first black president is a republican!
Too scary!!

Too scary!!

WE know you hate republicans and probably wish they just become extinct but you have to admit one thing, that would totally upstage the democrats :D

WE know you hate republicans and probably wish they just become extinct but you have to admit one thing, that would totally upstage the democrats :D

She could only get it through succession. She could never get the drunken redneck vote that's so deep at the core of the republican voting block.

WE know you hate republicans and probably wish they just become extinct

So? Whats wrong with feeling that way?;)

WE know you hate republicans and probably wish they just become extinct but you have to admit one thing, that would totally upstage the democrats :D
I my dear friend, unlike you, hate no one. I certainly dislike Republicans, especially the Bushie ones, but I don't hate them. Condi Rice is just a Bushie puppet, and as such, a McCain/Rice ticket would not hold a candle to a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Alas, I think that a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton will not materialize.

My ultimate ticket would be Clinton/Clinton. Now, that would upstage just about anything else. :D

My ultimate ticket would be Clinton/Clinton. Now, that would upstage just about anything else. :D

God what an awful ticket. One power hungry psycho and another who just wants to use his position to get ass.


What trouble the US would be in.

She could only get it through succession. She could never get the drunken redneck vote that's so deep at the core of the republican voting block.
I would certainly have to agree with you on that one.

God what an awful ticket. One power hungry psycho and another who just wants to use his position to get ass.


What trouble the US would be in.
Once you get past your prejudice, you might realize that the Clinton years were far superior for Americans than the Bush the Elder years and the Bush the Lesser years.

WE know you hate republicans and probably wish they just become extinct but you have to admit one thing, that would totally upstage the democrats :D

i dont want mccain to be elected and i dont think that ms rice is presidential material but DAMN it would be cool.

i dont want mccain to be elected and i dont think that ms rice is presidential material but DAMN it would be cool.
Seriously? Why would it be "cool"?

i dont want mccain to be elected and i dont think that ms rice is presidential material but DAMN it would be cool.

Personally, I would prefer Michelle Obama. hell, I'd vote for her over hillary if she was running instead of Barack.

Anyone mind telling me what is so great about Obama or Clinton? All I keep hearing are vague promises for "change" and "hope" but I'm not hearing answers. I don't want slogans, I want plans and policies that I can scrutinize and pick apart. I don't want a president that will try to solve every problem with the cashapult, I want a president who understands the real issues facing society and humanity today and either has a real and effective solution worked out or will consult with people who can get one put together.

What are their plans to provide affordable, clean energy? How will they combat world hunger and poverty and assist in the development of the third-world? These questions, and many more like them, have been avoided and gone completely unanswered during this race so I really do wonder why everyone is so excited.

For a good example of what I'm talking about look to the YouTube debates when the issue of Nuclear Power was brought up. Obama gave the tired old "there are no silver bullets" soundbyte and then launched into a 30 second tirade against oil companies. Clinton spoke briefly about a "strategic energy fund" that would be funded by money extracted through higher corporate taxes on oil companies (and where do you think they'll shift that cost to protect their bottom line?) and then displayed a complete lack of knowledge on the subject by rambling on about hope and America (I swear that for a second I thought she'd say something about apple pie) and then saying that she had no opinion on the subject but was weary of the very idea.

Why are so many people swooning at the very whisper of empty rhetoric? I know that McCain isn't doing much better on that front and he seems to have a singular wit concerning economics but that's not the issue here. The problem is that presidential politicians seem to be capable of nothing more than setting unreasonable efficiency improvements and that the people seem to be squeeling for it with the same zeal as teenage girl in the 60's at the mere glimpse of a Beatles album. If this keeps up I really will vote for Octocat, at least he understands the issues.

Could someone please explain to me why all the unwarranted hype?

Seriously? Why would it be "cool"?

so many reasons....(ignoring the horror of it)

the democrats are soooooo "we are the inclusive party" but noooo the first black and the first woman is a republican.

the republicans are the racist sexist pigs who have spent the last 35 years courting the southern redneck racist vote but WHAM they now have a black woman leader. it could destroy the republican party in the south for another 50 years.

Anyone mind telling me what is so great about Obama or Clinton? All I keep hearing are vague promises for "change" and "hope" but I'm not hearing answers. I don't want slogans, I want plans and policies that I can scrutinize and pick apart. I don't want a president that will try to solve every problem with the cashapult, I want a president who understands the real issues facing society and humanity today and either has a real and effective solution worked out or will consult with people who can get one put together.

What are their plans to provide affordable, clean energy? How will they combat world hunger and poverty and assist in the development of the third-world? These questions, and many more like them, have been avoided and gone completely unanswered during this race so I really do wonder why everyone is so excited.

For a good example of what I'm talking about look to the YouTube debates when the issue of Nuclear Power was brought up. Obama gave the tired old "there are no silver bullets" soundbyte and then launched into a 30 second tirade against oil companies. Clinton spoke briefly about a "strategic energy fund" that would be funded by money extracted through higher corporate taxes on oil companies (and where do you think they'll shift that cost to protect their bottom line?) and then displayed a complete lack of knowledge on the subject by rambling on about hope and America (I swear that for a second I thought she'd say something about apple pie) and then saying that she had no opinion on the subject but was weary of the very idea.

Why are so many people swooning at the very whisper of empty rhetoric? I know that McCain isn't doing much better on that front and he seems to have a singular wit concerning economics but that's not the issue here. The problem is that presidential politicians seem to be capable of nothing more than setting unreasonable efficiency improvements and that the people seem to be squeeling for it with the same zeal as teenage girl in the 60's at the mere glimpse of a Beatles album. If this keeps up I really will vote for Octocat, at least he understands the issues.

Could someone please explain to me why all the unwarranted hype?

So you don't do the research and you're mad at them? You realize what the news shows is the stuff that is interesting. It doesn't show the detailed explanation, but they're wildly available to you. You're on the internet. Act like you know how to go to a website for the candidates and find out the specifics of their plans.

So you don't do the research and you're mad at them? You realize what the news shows is the stuff that is interesting. It doesn't show the detailed explanation, but they're wildly available to you. You're on the internet. Act like you know how to go to a website for the candidates and find out the specifics of their plans.
That's the thing. I have gone to the candidates websites and I have read through what they have to offer. Neither Democrat has an effective energy policy. Obama is just unrealistic demands for cutbacks and carbon credits. Same goes for Clinton. And I have a feeling she understands it less than he.

None of the candidates have put forth a plan to reduce world hunger and poverty. Just 400 new nuclear plants clould meet our nation's entire electrical needs and liquifying coal would make gasoline affordable again. Widespread vertical farming could sequester carbon dioxide while increasing food production and reducing world hunger. By building said vertical farms in the thrid-world would help to develop and give the people a better source of income than subsistance agriculture which could contribute to a reduction in world poverty.

None of the candidates have put forth a plan to legalize and regulate currently illegal drugs, even for medicinal purposes. Opium is a great source of morphine and since places like Afganistan grow lots of it, making it legal would be a good thing for the country and provide doctors with at least one drug at a slightly reduced cost.

I am educated about the candidates, I'm looking at their sites right now and I'm not finding the answers I'm looking for. All I see is shallow, carefully worded bullshit on all the issues most important to me.

The most dramatic effect on reducing emissions would come from ending deforestation and engaging in replanting.

That's the thing. I have gone to the candidates websites and I have read through what they have to offer. Neither Democrat has an effective energy policy. Obama is just unrealistic demands for cutbacks and carbon credits. Same goes for Clinton. And I have a feeling she understands it less than he.

None of the candidates have put forth a plan to reduce world hunger and poverty. Just 400 new nuclear plants clould meet our nation's entire electrical needs and liquifying coal would make gasoline affordable again. Widespread vertical farming could sequester carbon dioxide while increasing food production and reducing world hunger. By building said vertical farms in the thrid-world would help to develop and give the people a better source of income than subsistance agriculture which could contribute to a reduction in world poverty.

None of the candidates have put forth a plan to legalize and regulate currently illegal drugs, even for medicinal purposes. Opium is a great source of morphine and since places like Afganistan grow lots of it, making it legal would be a good thing for the country and provide doctors with at least one drug at a slightly reduced cost.

I am educated about the candidates, I'm looking at their sites right now and I'm not finding the answers I'm looking for. All I see is shallow, carefully worded bullshit on all the issues most important to me.


i dont know what they would really do but nuclear power isnt likely to be on a democrats list of things to push for. the general public is very frightened of nuclear power. thats why we havent built a new nuclear generator in a generation.

no national politician dares to speak about legalizing drugs. not even the stuff that needs to be legal. i dont know what its going to take but none of them are going to doom their chances to get elected by advocating legalized drugs.

i havent seen any innovative plans for 3rd world poverty. did they address the issue at all?

The most dramatic effect on reducing emissions would come from ending deforestation and engaging in replanting.
Most deforestation is taking place in the tropics because the people are poor. So poor they can't afford food and they end up clear cutting and torching forests for farmland. Introducing more advanced technology and more productive methods of production like GE crops and vertical farming would mean less land getting plowed and fewer forests getting destroyed to make room for agriculture.

i dont know what they would really do but nuclear power isnt likely to be on a democrats list of things to push for. the general public is very frightened of nuclear power. thats why we havent built a new nuclear generator in a generation.
Stupidity is no excuse.

no national politician dares to speak about legalizing drugs. not even the stuff that needs to be legal. i dont know what its going to take but none of them are going to doom their chances to get elected by advocating legalized drugs.
And nothing will change until someone has the balls to say what needs to be said and at least try to do what needs to be done.

i havent seen any innovative plans for 3rd world poverty. did they address the issue at all?
No, only Hollywood celebs are campaigning for that and frankly, their plans' may as well have come from the government because they're nothing but guilt trips and a cashapult.

My point is that no one is addressing any real issues, they're just spouting the same old slogans about "hope" and "change" and I can't understand why they're so popular. Is the body politic really that idiotic and blind?

Most deforestation is taking place in the tropics because the people are poor. So poor they can't afford food and they end up clear cutting and torching forests for farmland. Introducing more advanced technology and more productive methods of production like GE crops and vertical farming would mean less land getting plowed and fewer forests getting destroyed to make room for agriculture.

Problem with what your saying is that the nations these people live in cannot afford to build these types of systems. Technology almost always raises the cost of food. In order for the poor of these nations to survive they need cheap basic foods. I know this because I have spent a large amount of time in third world conditions.

Most deforestation is taking place in the tropics because the people are poor. So poor they can't afford food and they end up clear cutting and torching forests for farmland. Introducing more advanced technology and more productive methods of production like GE crops and vertical farming would mean less land getting plowed and fewer forests getting destroyed to make room for agriculture.
There's deforestation around my parts too, but the government has to subsidize it because its not economically viable.

On Topic - my boss drove me around town today because my car is broke, and politics came up. Turns out she's "not prejudiced", but thinks that Clinton is very smart, and Obama would just bring in all his black friends and make everything about race. I explained to her that I disagreed and why, and I told her to go check out his website and read his positions and speeches. Now, she isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but it still discouraged me a bit. Is anybody else running into these problems?

Stupidity is no excuse.


And nothing will change until someone has the balls to say what needs to be said and at least try to do what needs to be done.


No, only Hollywood celebs are campaigning for that and frankly, their plans' may as well have come from the government because they're nothing but guilt trips and a cashapult.

My point is that no one is addressing any real issues, they're just spouting the same old slogans about "hope" and "change" and I can't understand why they're so popular. Is the body politic really that idiotic and blind?

i have come not to expect that politicians will take noble but doomed stances on things. its not the nature of the beast.

the war in iraq and on terror are real issues. the economy is a real issue. energy is a real issue even if you disagree with their approach.

if you want nuclear energy considered you need to join a group that is pushing for it. until it becomes politically viable, no viable presidential candidate will be for it.

Most deforestation is taking place in the tropics because the people are poor. So poor they can't afford food and they end up clear cutting and torching forests for farmland. Introducing more advanced technology and more productive methods of production like GE crops and vertical farming would mean less land getting plowed and fewer forests getting destroyed to make room for agriculture.
Also, I was under the impression that the major impetus behind deforestation in the tropics wasn't the subsistence "slash and burn", but rather clearing for cattle and/or crops to support cattle, and that sort of thing. I'd like to see the numbers there.

Also, I was under the impression that the major impetus behind deforestation in the tropics wasn't the subsistence "slash and burn", but rather clearing for cattle and/or crops to support cattle, and that sort of thing. I'd like to see the numbers there.

That would be the best description for Brazil I think.

Problem with what your saying is that the nations these people live in cannot afford to build these types of systems. Technology almost always raises the cost of food. In order for the poor of these nations to survive they need cheap basic foods. I know this because I have spent a large amount of time in third world conditions.
If increasing productivity and efficiency raisedthe price of goods and services then why would anyone bother with technology in the first place? Subsistance agriculture is getting paid 5 cents a week to till fields with grandpa's femur and shit on your crops because you have nothing else to use for fertilizer.

Those who have the money should build them and then work out a payment plan where they get to skim some of the produce until everything is paid off.

If increasing productivity and efficiency raisedthe price of goods and services then why would anyone bother with technology in the first place? Subsistance agriculture is getting paid 5 cents a week to till fields with grandpa's femur and shit on your crops because you have nothing else to use for fertilizer.

Those who have the money should build them and then work out a payment plan where they get to skim some of the produce until everything is paid off.

Toward your comment on why would you bother with tech. Remember most nations including the us had steps up to the tech achievements that we have now. It is very difficult to start at the bottom of the tech ladder and then leapfrog to the top. The transition is to difficult. Without the intermediate steps it is just far to costly in my opinion.

As for other companies/nations coming into the third world and improving conditions. Well the answer is politics and corruption.

Stupidity is no excuse.


And nothing will change until someone has the balls to say what needs to be said and at least try to do what needs to be done.


No, only Hollywood celebs are campaigning for that and frankly, their plans' may as well have come from the government because they're nothing but guilt trips and a cashapult.

My point is that no one is addressing any real issues, they're just spouting the same old slogans about "hope" and "change" and I can't understand why they're so popular. Is the body politic really that idiotic and blind?

So you'd prefer they make promises they cannot keep and lose the election. Their is excuse is stupidity, but it's the stupidity of following your suggested plans. They cannot be accomplished. How is tilting at windmills going to help anyone? How about we pretend like this election is occurring in the real world, huh?

That's the thing. I have gone to the candidates websites and I have read through what they have to offer. Neither Democrat has an effective energy policy. Obama is just unrealistic demands for cutbacks and carbon credits. Same goes for Clinton. And I have a feeling she understands it less than he.

None of the candidates have put forth a plan to reduce world hunger and poverty. Just 400 new nuclear plants clould meet our nation's entire electrical needs and liquifying coal would make gasoline affordable again. Widespread vertical farming could sequester carbon dioxide while increasing food production and reducing world hunger. By building said vertical farms in the thrid-world would help to develop and give the people a better source of income than subsistance agriculture which could contribute to a reduction in world poverty.

None of the candidates have put forth a plan to legalize and regulate currently illegal drugs, even for medicinal purposes. Opium is a great source of morphine and since places like Afganistan grow lots of it, making it legal would be a good thing for the country and provide doctors with at least one drug at a slightly reduced cost.

I am educated about the candidates, I'm looking at their sites right now and I'm not finding the answers I'm looking for. All I see is shallow, carefully worded bullshit on all the issues most important to me.

I see. So there are plans and policies you can pick apart. Their answers aren't vague. They just aren't lunatics claiming to be able to do things that are impossible and aren't within the realm of their control. You realize your second post complete destroyed your first post.

z0mG!! Condi Rice endorses Obama...sort of (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080328/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_rice_dc)

Nice one. Although I'm very sceptical of her for various reasons, she'd be better than almost all the candidates the GOP put up this year. Honestly, if she were running in this year's GOP race, I'd have been sore tempted to caucus for her rather than Obama.


My ultimate ticket would be Clinton/Clinton. Now, that would upstage just about anything else. :D

Worst. Idea. EVAH!

Bill was a horrible president. (Note: the current situation in Iraq can be laid at his feet, as can most of the US's post-cold war FP FUBARs. Such a back door attempt to sit him again would be cause for me to take up arms against the federal government. Pulling the "Miriam Amanda Wallace "Ma" Ferguson" argument for re-seating Bill the Beast is the worst possible argument you can pull out of your ass for voting HRC.

Not being a "dynamic speaker" has more to do with the role she's filled these last few years ... look at how carefully she has had to conceal her personal position on all issues. She has served a useless Administration remarkably well.
i would kinda like ms rice to take the nomination.

in my dreams it goes like this....

the disaster happens and mccain is elected. mccain drops dead and mrs rice becomes president.

the first woman and first black president is a republican!

:D I could think of much worse. CH's awful idea....

I see. So there are plans and policies you can pick apart. Their answers aren't vague. They just aren't lunatics claiming to be able to do things that are impossible and aren't within the realm of their control. You realize your second post complete destroyed your first post.
Actually the proposed policies are vague and quite a few may as well have been copypasta'd from the other's page.

A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence/implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050...A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies.
Throwing money at something will not make it go away. No technical solution to energy or environmental woes is provided in this section of either page nor in any section of either page.

And if the goal of 80% reductions of emitted atmospheric carbon isn't unrealistic enough Hillary want all mandate that all buildings have zero emissions (an probably zero pollution and zero environmental impact). When concrete cures it eeks out carbon dioxide. In other words, it would be impossible to have a zero emission building unless we were talking about a nocturnal emission.

The only differences between these policies is how much money has been pledged to be tossed at any snake-oil salesman who claims to have a solution to ever-escalating energy prices. What's needed is less of the "my plug-in electric hybrid fuel cell car can go 5 million miles on a thimble full of corn oil" and more of the "this 4-reactor power plant with on-site waste storage and reprocessing is capable of producing 12.8 GW of electrical power and recycling up to 60% of its waste into new fuel".

There are reasons I like the idea of a meritocracy. That it would put engineers and scientists in positions of authority is one of them. Kill all the lawyers.

Actually the proposed policies are vague and quite a few may as well have been copypasta'd from the other's page.

Yeah, it's like they're members of the same party or something.


Throwing money at something will not make it go away. No technical solution to energy or environmental woes is provided in this section of either page nor in any section of either page.

And if the goal of 80% reductions of emitted atmospheric carbon isn't unrealistic enough Hillary want all mandate that all buildings have zero emissions (an probably zero pollution and zero environmental impact). When concrete cures it eeks out carbon dioxide. In other words, it would be impossible to have a zero emission building unless we were talking about a nocturnal emission.

The only differences between these policies is how much money has been pledged to be tossed at any snake-oil salesman who claims to have a solution to ever-escalating energy prices. What's needed is less of the "my plug-in electric hybrid fuel cell car can go 5 million miles on a thimble full of corn oil" and more of the "this 4-reactor power plant with on-site waste storage and reprocessing is capable of producing 12.8 GW of electrical power and recycling up to 60% of its waste into new fuel".

There are reasons I like the idea of a meritocracy. That it would put engineers and scientists in positions of authority is one of them. Kill all the lawyers.
Interesting. So you found specifics to object to. I love people who prove they're full of crap.

Meanwhile, you avoided the point. Let's say Obama suggested we build 400 more nuclear power plants during his administration. Could it be accomplished? Nope. He couldn't build one and we all know it. Trying to do something NO ONE will support is just stupid. Avoiding stupidity IS a great excuse.

And what does your wish for a meritocracy have to do with who we should vote for? None of them have the power to change the style of our government.

And what does your wish for a meritocracy have to do with who we should vote for? None of them have the power to change the style of our government.
Guys like Fred Thompson and Ron Paul did, to some degree, with their desires to appoint strict construction judges and relitigate decisions from the 1820s.

I'd support it and I have a feeling that I wouldn't be alone. Especially if the issue and the solution were explained. I'm sick of people that promise change but propose the same old tired bullshit.

I'd support it and I have a feeling that I wouldn't be alone. Especially if the issue and the solution were explained. I'm sick of people that promise change but propose the same old tired bullshit.

You mean you'd like they to propose crazy things that aren't actually possible. So you don't want candidates that can actually win or even have any potential for accomplishing anything, but instead candidates completely detached from reality. How is this helpful at all?

I want no more war, child abuse, fires and bad pizza. Until a candidate proposes that will abolish war, child abuse, fires and bad pizza in all forms, I cannot support them. Nothing crazy about that.

You mean you'd like they to propose crazy things that aren't actually possible. So you don't want candidates that can actually win or even have any potential for accomplishing anything, but instead candidates completely detached from reality. How is this helpful at all?

I want no more war, child abuse, fires and bad pizza. Until a candidate proposes that will abolish war, child abuse, fires and bad pizza in all forms, I cannot support them. Nothing crazy about that.
Since when is nuclear power a crazy thing? Since when is liquifying coal a crazy thing? Since when is vertically farming genetically engineered crops a crazy thing?

I'll tell you what's crazy; doing the same shit over and over and expecting a different outcome. Another thing that's crazy is throwing money at a technical problem and expecting the piles of paper and green dye to somehow fix it.

Octocat understands this and will find the answers to our problems while he finds his parents. Vote Octocat in '08.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20080305/capt.cps.mnx85.050308174524.photo03.photo.default-512x482.jpg?x=366&y=345&sig=DHKT1aE7h6VJto8W1kIxBw--
Interesting to note?

With possible wins in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and perhaps even Kentucky, and Indiana, Hillary's wins will show quite dramatically on this map.

Anyone mind telling me what is so great about Obama or Clinton? All I keep hearing are vague promises for "change" and "hope" but I'm not hearing answers. I don't want slogans, I want plans and policies that I can scrutinize and pick apart. I don't want a president that will try to solve every problem with the cashapult, I want a president who understands the real issues facing society and humanity today and either has a real and effective solution worked out or will consult with people who can get one put together.

What are their plans to provide affordable, clean energy? How will they combat world hunger and poverty and assist in the development of the third-world? These questions, and many more like them, have been avoided and gone completely unanswered during this race so I really do wonder why everyone is so excited.

For a good example of what I'm talking about look to the YouTube debates when the issue of Nuclear Power was brought up. Obama gave the tired old "there are no silver bullets" soundbyte and then launched into a 30 second tirade against oil companies. Clinton spoke briefly about a "strategic energy fund" that would be funded by money extracted through higher corporate taxes on oil companies (and where do you think they'll shift that cost to protect their bottom line?) and then displayed a complete lack of knowledge on the subject by rambling on about hope and America (I swear that for a second I thought she'd say something about apple pie) and then saying that she had no opinion on the subject but was weary of the very idea.

Why are so many people swooning at the very whisper of empty rhetoric? I know that McCain isn't doing much better on that front and he seems to have a singular wit concerning economics but that's not the issue here. The problem is that presidential politicians seem to be capable of nothing more than setting unreasonable efficiency improvements and that the people seem to be squeeling for it with the same zeal as teenage girl in the 60's at the mere glimpse of a Beatles album. If this keeps up I really will vote for Octocat, at least he understands the issues.

Could someone please explain to me why all the unwarranted hype?
Although I don't totally agree with you here, I hear you.

Obama's rhetorical we can "change the world" rings hollow, especially when Americans can hardly come to grips with electing a female or a black President, and/or are considering an aging McCain slogging the same tired Republican slogans.

You are right about nuclear power and looking for huge improvements in farming technologies, and efficiencies that will improve the environment.

And it is hard to imagine any kind of improvements if the US keeps blowing shit up.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20080305/capt.cps.mnx85.050308174524.photo03.photo.default-512x482.jpg?x=366&y=345&sig=DHKT1aE7h6VJto8W1kIxBw--
Interesting to note?

With possible wins in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and perhaps even Kentucky, and Indiana, Hillary's wins will show quite dramatically on this map.

four problems:

1) land area of states won doesn't actually mean anything (and obama's land area is vastly bigger, even if she wins all of the remaining contests, which she won't come anywhere near)
2) the map is incorrect - obama won texas and tied in new hampshire (and missouri, to be fair)
3) those delegate numbers are wrong
4) mi and fl didn't have primaries

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20080305/capt.cps.mnx85.050308174524.photo03.photo.default-512x482.jpg?x=366&y=345&sig=DHKT1aE7h6VJto8W1kIxBw--
Interesting to note?

With possible wins in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and perhaps even Kentucky, and Indiana, Hillary's wins will show quite dramatically on this map.

Yes, that might be more compelling, if Alaska was it's actual size. Though, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Hillary suddenly decided that we should decide by who has won more land.

I expecially love how it treats a win by 1 vote as equal to a win by over 20%.

Yes, that might be more compelling, if Alaska was it's actual size. Though, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Hillary suddenly decided that we should decide by who has won more land.

well, the alaska thing would trow off that metric. it'd have to be "most land area of states that matter" - a clear clinton win!

I expecially love how it treats a win by 1 vote as equal to a win by over 20%.

yeah, the wiki maps on the primary are much less like lying with pictures

pledged delegate margins
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/2008_Democratic_Primaries_Delegate_Vote.png/400px-2008_Democratic_Primaries_Delegate_Vote.png


'popular vote' margins (which i still deny really even exists in any meaningful comparative sense)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/2008_Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.png/400px-2008_Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.png

Yes, that might be more compelling, if Alaska was it's actual size. Though, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Hillary suddenly decided that we should decide by who has won more land.

I expecially love how it treats a win by 1 vote as equal to a win by over 20%.

No, no, no, no-the new metric is clearly who can draw the most dramatic map. By June hers will have things like little pictures of sea serpents and "Here be Dragons!" on all the states Obama has won...now that's drama!

EDIT: You can't even reduce that image's URL to find the site it's from for reference and context, what the hell?

sniper fire!!!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2065/2372528359_9b5f800455_o.jpg

well, the alaska thing would trow off that metric. it'd have to be "most land area of states that matter" - a clear clinton win!



yeah, the wiki maps on the primary are much less like lying with pictures

'popular vote' margins (which i still deny really even exists in any meaningful comparative sense)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/2008_Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.png/400px-2008_Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.png
I believe this map truly illustrates what I was saying earlier, in that Obama's biggest vote percentages and number of delegates are coming from, for the most part, from states that he is just not going to win in the general:

The wild west:

North Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado.

The sleepy south:

Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and more than likely Virginia.

The arctic north:

Alaska.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20080305/capt.cps.mnx85.050308174524.photo03.photo.default-512x482.jpg?x=366&y=345&sig=DHKT1aE7h6VJto8W1kIxBw--
Interesting to note?

With possible wins in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and perhaps even Kentucky, and Indiana, Hillary's wins will show quite dramatically on this map.

Obama 1,414
Clinton 1,243

Or shall we go with total?

Obama 1,625
Clinton 1,486

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

I believe this map truly illustrates what I was saying earlier, in that Obama's biggest vote percentages and number of delegates are coming from, for the most part, from states that he is just not going to win in the general:

The wild west:

North Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado.

The sleepy south:

Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and more than likely Virginia.

The arctic north:

Alaska.

Please demonstrate a correlation with states won in primaries and states won in general elections that would make this line of argument valid. After all, McCain won a lot of states.

In what way can you advocate for the voice of the electorate like you do in Michigan and Florida while at the same time devaluing the electorate in states you've arbitrarily decided 'won't go blue?'

Further, if you disregard the votes of the states you've arbitrarily decided 'won't go blue,' in what way will that change? In fact, if the Democratic party were to simply concede those states and decide that their vote didn't matter what hope would the party have of maintaining majority? "We know you selected Obama when we asked, but we decided to go with the choice of a handful of bigger states that vote blue most of the time anyway. But hey, be sure to still vote for us down ballot, eh?"

Please consider a larger picture more grounded in relevance. There is little to suggest correlation between states won in the primary vs. states won in the general election. Not to mention that none of Clinton's wins with the exception of Arkansas have been so dominant as to suggest that Obama would not have relative support in any of them. Unless you're going to suggest that somehow California or New York or going to vote for McCain, in which case we're going to need more than your 'opinion,' no matter how high a regard you hold it in.

I believe

yes, you most certainly do. but nobody cares, since you seem to have no grasp of, well, anything.

yes, you most certainly do. but nobody cares, since you seem to have no grasp of, well, anything.

LMAO!!! :D

obama campaign collapse update (http://www.gallup.com/poll/105841/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-52-Clintons-42.aspx):

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/033008DailyUpdateGraph1_ponm_bf730lslmnvp2.gif

Please demonstrate a correlation with states won in primaries and states won in general elections that would make this line of argument valid. After all, McCain won a lot of states.
There is none whatsoever. If anyone seems to base primary/caucus wins as translating into potential wins in the general, it would be the Obama supporters?

In what way can you advocate for the voice of the electorate like you do in Michigan and Florida while at the same time devaluing the electorate in states you've arbitrarily decided 'won't go blue?'
Michigan is a traditionally blue state but it is close. Florida on the other hand can swing, and in every McCain head to head poll with either Obama or Clinton, the candidate with the best chance of beating him is Hillary.

Further, if you disregard the votes of the states you've arbitrarily decided 'won't go blue,' in what way will that change?
Not quite sure that I understand your question.

In fact, if the Democratic party were to simply concede those states and decide that their vote didn't matter what hope would the party have of maintaining majority?
Certainly not advocating that anyone concede those states, just making a prognosis on the eventual outcome. It would certainly be foolish to put too much effort into a state that you are unlikely to win versus a state that is necessary to hold on to.

"We know you selected Obama when we asked, but we decided to go with the choice of a handful of bigger states that vote blue most of the time anyway. But hey, be sure to still vote for us down ballot, eh?"
Depending on time, money and resources, one must ultimately maintain the base? I also think that you are downplaying the amount of time and effort that Hillary put into some of those states that she lost.

Please consider a larger picture more grounded in relevance.
That is exactly what I am asking the Obama supporters to do. I think most of you are using rose coloured glasses.

There is little to suggest correlation between states won in the primary vs. states won in the general election.
Yup, as discussed earlier in this post.

Not to mention that none of Clinton's wins with the exception of Arkansas have been so dominant as to suggest that Obama would not have relative support in any of them.
There were many states according to SurveyUSA that reverse was opposite for Clinton. That survey also showed him losing PA, and New Jersey, and getting clobbered in some southern states, and yet in the general Clinton would fare better than Obama in all those areas.

Unless you're going to suggest that somehow California or New York or going to vote for McCain, in which case we're going to need more than your 'opinion,' no matter how high a regard you hold it in.
Let's face it, if NY and/or CA go McCain, the rout is on?

Forget Obama, Vote Nader! Ralph is the man with a plan!

I believe this map truly illustrates what I was saying earlier, in that Obama's biggest vote percentages and number of delegates are coming from, for the most part, from states that he is just not going to win in the general:

The wild west:

North Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado.

The sleepy south:

Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and more than likely Virginia.

The arctic north:

Alaska.

You just making the same flawed arguments over in over. I think it's funny that primaries matter when it helps your candidate, even if they are illegal and didn't have all of the candidates on the ballot, but you want to dismiss a portion of the primaries so large that you'd be nearly giving McCain the win before the fight even starts. Forgive us, if we don't wish to keeping changing the rules until our candidate wins the battle and loses the war.

You know you've made it clear that you'll pick up your pieces and run around the room claiming we can't capture them. When you started it was embarrassing to you, but, at some point, if we don't acknowledge you're doing so and treat your "game" like it's no longer chess, then it's embarrassing to us. We've long since passed that point. You make the same arguments, over and over, devoid of acknowledging their distinct and obvious fallacies, over and over, failing to address the arguments against them, over and over. I'm done trying to get you to return to chess.

The arguments you're holding up have long since been debunked. Your candidate has been represented by much better arguments than any you've provided, some provided by the very people you're arguing with, like myself and CTOAN. Please, pretend like this is a debate forum and accept that your arguments need to incorporate ALL of the evidence. Doing otherwise is just a waste of everyone's time.