NationStates Jolt Archive

You trust McCain but don't believe he'll follow his promises?

Isn't that mutually exclusive?

I Trust Obama, more-or-less, more than I'd trust most pols...

I don't trust McCain completely, but expect him to go b his record more than the statements he's had to make to win over certain factions.

I don't trust Clinton period, hands down.

The spell will dissapate and people will recognize him for what he is and that is a politician with a good speech writer. The Republican party will expose the soft underbelly in the general election.


Hillary has a strong enough presence in enough states to comfortably win the general election. It might not be pretty but it will be effective.


As I stated before, it is admirable to have a "50 State Strategy", but if you end up eroding the base and lose the election, then the policy is a failure.


Obama is "redrawing the map", how so?

Current polls suggest that Clinton has a better chance than Obama at winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida (http://www.electoral-vote.com) (a total of 68 electoral votes). How many "Mountain West States" would Obama have to win to equal that number? And just how well is Obama polling in those "Mountain West States" against McCain? How about in the 30's?


I don't think so, and I hope not.


When she says she is done.

Of course! Everyone who supports Obama is just under some "spell." They are whisked away by the elixir of Barack. They have no rational thinking skills, they are just in love with his prose. Yes, all of the people who donated 40 million to Barack and only 20 to Hillary are crazy. Even though he got those donations in chunks averaging $100 and she gets hers in $2,300. "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, boogety boogety boo Barack tricked you." By even suggesting this you are disenfranchising more people than you claim is being done in FL and MI. Your suggestion is that the people who support Barack Obama will one day wake up from their slumber and realize the emporer has no clothes. You'd like to dismiss those who support him as merely fools to make your little ego feel better. After all, Hillary and the man she supports (McCain) are the only ones you could possibly vote for if you have half a brain right?

Finally an article that sums up most of what I have been saying and then presenting a whole new perspective on this whole nomination process.

Why Hillary Clinton should be winning (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/)

Some selected comments:











And on the 2nd page:

Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and McCain would beat Obama (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/index1.html)






Thank you Sean Wilentz. :D

Wow, this guy seems like he is giving the most balanced analysis on the democratic debate we have seen thus far. Thank God for him! My eyes are finally open to the light and the "spell" that the Warlock Obama put on me is over.

Wow, this guy seems like he is giving the most balanced analysis on the democratic debate we have seen thus far. Thank God for him! My eyes are finally open to the light and the "spell" that the Warlock Obama put on me is over.

Picture help:

http://www.geocities.com/linkerdrich/magus.jpg - A wizard.

http://www.nationalclergycouncil.org/images/Barack%20Obama%20Official%20small.jpg - Barack Obama.

This article is going to be so much fun to dissect and destroy.

Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall.

Blatantly anti-democratic? Care to back that up with some sort of substantiative statistical information? Or just throw out a charge and hope it sticks. I call this manuever the al dente pasta trick. Throw it all against the wall and see if it sticks. Only that way will you know it is done.

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count.

This system is not brand new. Why is he crying over spilled milk now? Because he supports Hillary, that's why.

The exclusion thus far of these two vital states has come about because of an arbitrary and catastrophic decision made last year by Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee.

And agreed upon by all of the candidates.

Some of it is because Obama's backers are using the same kind of tactics as George Bush's camp used in Florida in 2000.

Ah, use GWB as a catch all and take the resentment people feel for him and try to stick that to Obama!!!! That's what this guy is doing and it's blatantly obvious.

To be continued. I have a meeting right now, but I'll be back to rip a new #sshole out of this article some more.

Edit: guess who'se back, back again...

Yet in this, as has happened more than once this primary season, the Obama camp's reaction has not been to clean up the mess the party has created, but to benefit from it. Given the original primary outcomes in Michigan and Florida, Obama has rejected the idea of certifying the results. Although Obama's supporters conducted a stealth "uncommitted" campaign in Michigan after he voluntarily removed his name from the state ballot, and even though, contrary to DNC directives, his campaign advertised in Florida, Clinton still won both states decisively. This leaves open the option of holding new primaries in both states. National and state party officials have announced that such revotes could be conducted.

Here's this and we already know the result of this mental workout. The state and national parties have made it clear that a revote cannot happen. But then there's this...

Yet the Obama campaign has stoutly resisted any such revote in either state.

The national and state parties have said that it would not be possible as stated by the author above. He then goes on to blame Obama for this because...he wants to blame Obama of course.

By any definition of democracy, those votes do not belong to Obama; nor do they belong to Hillary Clinton, nor to Howard Dean. They belong to the voters.

Exactly, so what is this guys point again?

But why are the rules suddenly sacrosanct and the popular vote irrelevant? Might it be because the rules, and not the popular vote, now benefit Obama? And what about Texas, another state where Clinton won the popular vote but has not been awarded the majority of pledged delegates? Once again, for Obama, the rules are suddenly all-important -- because the rules, and not the popular majority, now favor him.

When did Obama claim that the rules should not apply. I believe his stance has been clear on this issue. The rules are set up by the party, and they have been this way for years. This is not something new that was created just for Obama as the author seems to make it look like. The party makes the rules and the candidates must follow. Otherwise, you could agree to change the rules from the start. You CANNOT change the rules midstream because it benefits any candidate.

Of the remaining states that Obama has won, only one is a large state with a considerable number of electoral votes -- his home state of Illinois. Clinton has won the popular vote in all of the other large states -- and has done so in primaries, not caucus decisions.

Once again this is the argument that somehow NY, CA, and other Democratic strongholds are suddenly going to vote for a Republican. Making this leap of logic requires wishful thinking.

In the final analysis, though, the fights inside the Democratic Party aren't really about either an ideal American democracy or the American democracy that actually exists. According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a candidate arguing this way. But everybody should see it for what it is -- not something new or transformative, but one of the oldest ploys in the playbook of American politics.

Right back at you Hillary supporter.

Funny definition of "conscious" you've got there. They got in a war that screwed the US a hundred times over. And yes, they were conservative by several accounts. Including sponsoring coups, of which my country was a victim.

And which several conservatives have shown themselves as eager to repeat.



http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Feb2003/bybee0203.html

The Pittsburgh Tribune Review is more centrist than it is right. The Post Gazette on the other hand...

*snip*

An argument based on 2 opinion pieces?

The Pittsburgh Tribune Review is more centrist than it is right. The Post Gazette on the other hand...

You call "centrist" a newspaper that berated the CIA for not SPONSORING A COUP IN MY COUNTRY?

That's MODERATE???

An argument based on 2 opinion pieces?

It's two pages of the same piece. And opinion pieces aren't off limits, really, they've been used by everybody at one point or another. You'd do better to use the Luizzo route and dissect the piece itself. It's not new, it's CH's old argument:

Clinton is winning big blue states (as if California and New York are not going to vote Obama)...

During an aggressive primary where both candidates are hard at each other, some choice selected states show Obama slightly behind Clinton when rated against McCain who is currently unopposed in his primary battle. Even though those polls are often close and Obama is currently demonstrating his ability to close big poll numbers, those clearly show that Obama could never win those states.

Obama is following the 'rules' and is a bastard because the 'rules' favor him. They author doesn't cite a contradiction to this, just sneers at Obama for following the rules.

Some how 'winner take all' is more democratic than proportional distribution.

Etc. It's just the same old desperate bs. As Pennsylvania gets closer and it becomes clearer that it won't be the firewall that Ohio and Texas where supposed to be, expect to see more of it.

You call "centrist" a newspaper that berated the CIA for not SPONSORING A COUP IN MY COUNTRY?

That's MODERATE???

Alright, alright.

Right of centre.

Alright, alright.

Right of centre.

Please tell me you're joking.

It's two pages of the same piece. And opinion pieces aren't off limits, really, they've been used by everybody at one point or another. You'd do better to use the Luizzo route and dissect the piece itself. It's not new, it's CH's old argument:

Clinton is winning big blue states (as if California and New York are not going to vote Obama)...

During an aggressive primary where both candidates are hard at each other, some choice selected states show Obama slightly behind Clinton when rated against McCain who is currently unopposed in his primary battle. Even though those polls are often close and Obama is currently demonstrating his ability to close big poll numbers, those clearly show that Obama could never win those states.

Obama is following the 'rules' and is a bastard because the 'rules' favor him. They author doesn't cite a contradiction to this, just sneers at Obama for following the rules.

Some how 'winner take all' is more democratic than proportional distribution.

Etc. It's just the same old desperate bs. As Pennsylvania gets closer and it becomes clearer that it won't be the firewall that Ohio and Texas where supposed to be, expect to see more of it.

I actually read the article before CH posted it... and questioned the sanity of its author. How the HELL is winner take all more democratic than proportionality...

I actually read the article before CH posted it... and questioned the sanity of its author. How the HELL is winner take all more democratic than proportionality...

Yeah, me too. (are we all obsessively checking Real Clear Politics?) I even almost posted it because I knew CH would, dissect it before he got a chance to praise it, but I didn't.

First and foremost, in argument about Hillary being better for the General because Obama wins states that "don't matter". Electoral Votes are Electoral Votes...whereever they come from. The Hillary camp wants to use the SAME strategy that has LOST 2 elections(see Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004). To focus all your efforts to these states ignores a large majority of the country and electorate. A lot of states are "turning blue"...those are the states Dems need to go after....while still trying to win Penn and Ohio and Florida and so on. Your math of 68 EVs...Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota(all states he is polling ahead of McCain), add-in Virginia(if Hill gets Ohio, where she trials, Obama gets one where he trails) and that's 72 EVS!

You can not say Caucuses are Undemocratic while calling for a "winner take all system"....those 2 statements are contradictoray. A winner take all system is the most undemocratic principle in democracy! Caucuses encourage Party involvement. It shows real strength in your campaign. Hillary has been succesful in states where it is just a case of strolling a poll, picking the most familar name. In the General Election, first, Obama will have Name recognition, secondly, people pay closer attention. Hillary has a lot of negatives. She tries to deceive the public, and the public isn't as stupid as she would like to think we are. See Mark Penn. The campaign says he's Stepped Down...but if you read the full release, he's only stepped down from a "strategy" stand point...he's still the chief pollster. This is Hillary trying to hide him from the media. The shear amount of money she has will be a negative in the general election(you think Republicans are to low to attack someone for making money?). Further, in the majority of states that have been contested by both canidiates, Obama has beat Hillary. Iowa, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, DC, Missouri,--Texas and Nevada were essential ties(Hillary won popular Vote, Obama won delegates). Hillary's biggest competitive wins have been New Hampshire, Ohio and New Mexico. The fact is that both Hillary and Obama have a path to the nomination. Obama's focuses on more states, Hillary goes after the same old states that have delivered us 2 Bush terms.

You are going to come back and say "but those states don't matter, no Dem has won blah blah blah"....because that's How Hillary supporters react to Math.

Also, in a Survey USA poll, Barack Obama has the top Favorability numbers(38 for him, 35 for Hill, 34 for McCain)...that's close, I know, but look at Demographics...first and foremost, you know most Women are going to wind up supporting Obama over McCain, just like most African Americans will support Hillary over McCain, so his #'s would go up with regards to Women...now look at regions...Hillary and McCain both have Unfavorable ratings across the board...Barack is not doing great himself...except, in the WEST. The West is the new South....this is where the WIN is going to come from.

You can not say Caucuses are Undemocratic while calling for a "winner take all system"....those 2 statements are contradictoray. A winner take all system is the most undemocratic principle in democracy! Caucuses encourage Party involvement. It shows real strength in your campaign. Hillary has been succesful in states where it is just a case of strolling a poll, picking the most familar name.



No one had a problem with caucuses (or at least were loud about it) until their pet started getting pwnt in them.

Yeah, me too. (are we all obsessively checking Real Clear Politics?) I even almost posted it because I knew CH would, dissect it before he got a chance to praise it, but I didn't.

(I checked RCP for the polls there and saw it)

Why don't we follow his suggestion and do a "democratic" winner take all national popular vote? Obama wins. His argument is contradictory.

Please tell me you're joking.

I am.

I am.

Thanks. Supporting a coup is not unlike supporting the KKK.

Three words to chill the blood: Vice President Rice.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/07/condoleezza-rice-as-vp/

*shudder*

Three words to chill the blood: Vice President Rice.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/07/condoleezza-rice-as-vp/

*shudder*

I heard about this. But there are two problems with it...

1. He alienates the racist redneck/msogynist redneck, who form the core Republican base :p

2. It links him to the Bush administration in a very, VERY big way.

Thanks. Supporting a coup is not unlike supporting the KKK.

The US doesn't have anywhere near a clean record on coups, guerrillas, and regime change, especially during the cold war. See: Contras.

The US doesn't have anywhere near a clean record on coups, guerrillas, and regime change, especially during the cold war. See: Contras.

I'm Brazilian. Which means I'm the choir you're preaching to. ;)

Three words to chill the blood: Vice President Rice.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/07/condoleezza-rice-as-vp/

*shudder*

It really could turn out to be a boon. The Right will pat sores onto their backs with the genius move, insisting that Obama's candacy is just electoral affirmative action and insist, "Well, she's black and a woman, so you totally have to!" ignoring that if that were the case then the Democratic party would have nominated Carol Moseley Braun. So it will be an empty echo-chamber argument.

And, as noted, nothing will scream "Bush again" like putting one of his chief cabinet members as #2. And also as mentioned, racist dumbasses will now have no one to vote for and will stay home. Now, this will effect both sides, lets not get starry eyed about it, but it will hurt on the conservative side way more than the other.

And then you get to play clips of her going "We didn't know" and then "I think the name of the report was 'Osama bin Laden determined to attack USA'" and choice things like that.

It just might be butter for McCain to pick her.

Condi killed any shot(which wasn't a big one to begin with) at VP when she talked about the plight of Black American's...she's proud of her Race, and commented that White's have done them wrong in the past...(which, you know, we did)...Some near-racist people liked her, until she made a statement supporting the idea that blacks were not treated fairly in the past, and the fact that it still affects our country...now they all hate her and claims she's a female Barack Obama(but 100 times less charismatic...and more conservative...and a hawk). I think it's going to be either Huckabee or Romeny, some other people may have a shot, but I think they are the favorites.

This article is going to be so much fun to dissect and destroy.

Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall.

Blatantly anti-democratic? Care to back that up with some sort of substantiative statistical information? Or just throw out a charge and hope it sticks. I call this manuever the al dente pasta trick. Throw it all against the wall and see if it sticks. Only that way will you know it is done.

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count.

This system is not brand new. Why is he crying over spilled milk now? Because he supports Hillary, that's why.

The exclusion thus far of these two vital states has come about because of an arbitrary and catastrophic decision made last year by Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee.

And agreed upon by all of the candidates.

Some of it is because Obama's backers are using the same kind of tactics as George Bush's camp used in Florida in 2000.

Ah, use GWB as a catch all and take the resentment people feel for him and try to stick that to Obama!!!! That's what this guy is doing and it's blatantly obvious.

To be continued. I have a meeting right now, but I'll be back to rip a new #sshole out of this article some more.

Edit: guess who'se back, back again...

Yet in this, as has happened more than once this primary season, the Obama camp's reaction has not been to clean up the mess the party has created, but to benefit from it. Given the original primary outcomes in Michigan and Florida, Obama has rejected the idea of certifying the results. Although Obama's supporters conducted a stealth "uncommitted" campaign in Michigan after he voluntarily removed his name from the state ballot, and even though, contrary to DNC directives, his campaign advertised in Florida, Clinton still won both states decisively. This leaves open the option of holding new primaries in both states. National and state party officials have announced that such revotes could be conducted.

Here's this and we already know the result of this mental workout. The state and national parties have made it clear that a revote cannot happen. But then there's this...

Yet the Obama campaign has stoutly resisted any such revote in either state.

The national and state parties have said that it would not be possible as stated by the author above. He then goes on to blame Obama for this because...he wants to blame Obama of course.

By any definition of democracy, those votes do not belong to Obama; nor do they belong to Hillary Clinton, nor to Howard Dean. They belong to the voters.

Exactly, so what is this guys point again?

But why are the rules suddenly sacrosanct and the popular vote irrelevant? Might it be because the rules, and not the popular vote, now benefit Obama? And what about Texas, another state where Clinton won the popular vote but has not been awarded the majority of pledged delegates? Once again, for Obama, the rules are suddenly all-important -- because the rules, and not the popular majority, now favor him.

When did Obama claim that the rules should not apply. I believe his stance has been clear on this issue. The rules are set up by the party, and they have been this way for years. This is not something new that was created just for Obama as the author seems to make it look like. The party makes the rules and the candidates must follow. Otherwise, you could agree to change the rules from the start. You CANNOT change the rules midstream because it benefits any candidate.

Of the remaining states that Obama has won, only one is a large state with a considerable number of electoral votes -- his home state of Illinois. Clinton has won the popular vote in all of the other large states -- and has done so in primaries, not caucus decisions.

Once again this is the argument that somehow NY, CA, and other Democratic strongholds are suddenly going to vote for a Republican. Making this leap of logic requires wishful thinking.

In the final analysis, though, the fights inside the Democratic Party aren't really about either an ideal American democracy or the American democracy that actually exists. According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a candidate arguing this way. But everybody should see it for what it is -- not something new or transformative, but one of the oldest ploys in the playbook of American politics.

Right back at you Hillary supporter.

I'm quoting myself because it was a long time between edits. I'm not in love with myself that much. :p

First and foremost, in argument about Hillary being better for the General because Obama wins states that "don't matter". Electoral Votes are Electoral Votes...whereever they come from. The Hillary camp wants to use the SAME strategy that has LOST 2 elections(see Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004). To focus all your efforts to these states ignores a large majority of the country and electorate. A lot of states are "turning blue"...those are the states Dems need to go after....while still trying to win Penn and Ohio and Florida and so on. Your math of 68 EVs...Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota(all states he is polling ahead of McCain), add-in Virginia(if Hill gets Ohio, where she trials, Obama gets one where he trails) and that's 72 EVS!

You can not say Caucuses are Undemocratic while calling for a "winner take all system"....those 2 statements are contradictoray. A winner take all system is the most undemocratic principle in democracy! Caucuses encourage Party involvement. It shows real strength in your campaign. Hillary has been succesful in states where it is just a case of strolling a poll, picking the most familar name. In the General Election, first, Obama will have Name recognition, secondly, people pay closer attention. Hillary has a lot of negatives. She tries to deceive the public, and the public isn't as stupid as she would like to think we are. See Mark Penn. The campaign says he's Stepped Down...but if you read the full release, he's only stepped down from a "strategy" stand point...he's still the chief pollster. This is Hillary trying to hide him from the media. The shear amount of money she has will be a negative in the general election(you think Republicans are to low to attack someone for making money?). Further, in the majority of states that have been contested by both canidiates, Obama has beat Hillary. Iowa, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, DC, Missouri,--Texas and Nevada were essential ties(Hillary won popular Vote, Obama won delegates). Hillary's biggest competitive wins have been New Hampshire, Ohio and New Mexico. The fact is that both Hillary and Obama have a path to the nomination. Obama's focuses on more states, Hillary goes after the same old states that have delivered us 2 Bush terms.

You are going to come back and say "but those states don't matter, no Dem has won blah blah blah"....because that's How Hillary supporters react to Math.

Also, in a Survey USA poll, Barack Obama has the top Favorability numbers(38 for him, 35 for Hill, 34 for McCain)...that's close, I know, but look at Demographics...first and foremost, you know most Women are going to wind up supporting Obama over McCain, just like most African Americans will support Hillary over McCain, so his #'s would go up with regards to Women...now look at regions...Hillary and McCain both have Unfavorable ratings across the board...Barack is not doing great himself...except, in the WEST. The West is the new South....this is where the WIN is going to come from.

It was funny that the only poll this guy quoted was surveyusa and a certain poster here has been doing the same. CH, do you wrote OP-EDs for Salon?

I'm quoting myself because it was a long time between edits. I'm not in love with myself that much. :p

I am.

It's not reciprocated though.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Obama has an average 6.8% lead against Clinton.

I am.

It's not reciprocated though.

Oh I hate that.

You call "centrist" a newspaper that berated the CIA for not SPONSORING A COUP IN MY COUNTRY?

That's MODERATE???

Well, to be fair, its not like you live somewhere that counts...
:p

Well, to be fair, its not like you live somewhere that counts...
:p

Neither did the perpetrators of 9/11.

You know, after the US interfered in Afghanistan.

Neither did the perpetrators of 9/11.

You know, after the US interfered in Afghanistan.

You do realize I was joking, yes?


points to smiley > :p

You do realize I was joking, yes?


points to smiley > :p

I do, but there are some people who would say that seriously. My response was more for their benefit than for yours.

I do, but there are some people who would say that seriously. My response was more for their benefit than for yours.

Anyone who would say that and mean it is an idiot.

Anyone who would say that and mean it is an idiot.

True. And yet they unfortunately exist.

I am.

It's not reciprocated though.

Now that made me laugh. Thank you.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Obama has an average 6.8% lead against Clinton.

Gallup tracking poll has Obama back up to his all time high of 3/29 (I quoted this earlier and CH called it outdated). Now it's current CH. Don't wait too long to respond like last time. :p

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/polltracker/2008/04/obama-widens-lead-over-clinton-1.html

Obama up by 23 in NC

Now that's the type of lead Clinton needs to score. Only it's Obama that's posting big numbers right now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080407/pl_rasmussen/northcarolinaprez20080407;_ylt=AqbVmFQqF8kZCpWch_QbA3Nh24cA

Dude this stuff gets better every day. I love how a person can argue that we have to respect the will of the people and then argue that the people are just idiots who don't really know who they want for president because the "spell will be broken".

Why argue back when a person argues against themselves?

Oh boy this is gonna be fun! :D (Some parts were omitted because they are moot or not important)

Some think that they are gospel.
Like you? (Way to selectively argue)

Make up your mind about the relevance of polls. :p
It's called doublethink. ;)

They aren't? That is news to me.
They are counted, but never reported. Ever notice how a poll is like 56-33? What's the missing 11%--Undecided.

However, 62% of Dems don't think that either candidate should quit right now. Go figure?
If the problem is resolved beforehand, all will be well. In fact, the Dems will be stronger. If it goes to the convention, and especially if Clinton is nominated, all hell breaks loose.

As I pointed out numerous times, Bill Clinton was able to win a number of red states because there was also two strong conservatives running and they split the vote, allowing him to win. Obama and Hillary don't have that luxury this election.
Point taken, but he also won them in 96 (Perot wasn't AS significant)

Speaking of Perot, I read that he was actually leading polls until he dropped out (and later went back in). Let's say he stayed in the whole time. I wonder if he could have won it and become the first independent president. He only needed 270 votes and might certainly have gotten it. If he didn't, he would have probably sent the election to the Senate (or is it HoR for president...)

It is not about defeating me. It is about picking a candidate that can beat McCain. That would be Clinton.
Uh...no.

If you favour McCain as second choice, why the hell would suggest that you favour Democrats?
I'm more likely to support Democratic candidates, but I have completely ruled out Hillary, so that's what you have.

Um the word you are looking for is a phrase.
Expression rather.

Edwards '12....
He's had his chance and clearly can't put it together. Besides, Obama will be running for re-election then against Huckabee.

The spell will dissapate and people will recognize him for what he is and that is a politician with a good speech writer. The Republican party will expose the soft underbelly in the general election.
Despite the science clearly showing that people choose "the guy they'd like to have a beer with" rather than the issue-driven person. Obama is that guy. Also, speech is an issue--a very powerful one. To be able to make an uplifting speech is very valuable when tragedy strikes. If the issues were important, Kerry would have won. Gore would have won. Clearly that is not the case.

Hillary has a strong enough presence in enough states to comfortably win the general election. It might not be pretty but it will be effective.
Doubtful. She has the establishment in about 200-250 electoral votes. Her strategy is clearly defined as holding the base: a strategy that has conclusively failed for the past two elections. If you rely on your base and then lose one of the states, you're done.

As I stated before, it is admirable to have a "50 State Strategy", but if you end up eroding the base and lose the election, then the policy is a failure.
How does a FIFTY STATE strategy erode the base? In fact, it sets up the party long term by establishing roots in new areas. By competing in all states, you hedge against some base losses. Obama and Bush have clearly shown that competing beyond your base is important. Both won or are winning their elections. Also, down-ballot candidates.

Obama is "redrawing the map", how so?
By bringing in new voters and energizing the base. Also, down-ballot candidates.

Current polls suggest that Clinton has a better chance than Obama at winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida (http://www.electoral-vote.com) (a total of 68 electoral votes). How many "Mountain West States" would Obama have to win to equal that number? And just how well is Obama polling in those "Mountain West States" against McCain? How about in the 30's?
Hillary can't win them either then. He can at the least help down ballot candidates.

Let's go with the Southeast: It has a lot of dark-skinned individuals who have turned out overwhelmingly for Obama. They finally have the chance to see a dark-skinned president. They sure as hell are gonna turn out in droves during the general. More Democrats voted in SC than Republicans and both were still up in the air. Obama will take the base and then the enormous turnout of dark-skinned individuals who might not normally turn out and could certainly win a few states in the southeast, such as Mississippi, Georgia, and South Carolina.

I actually read the article before CH posted it... and questioned the sanity of its author. How the HELL is winner take all more democratic than proportionality...
No, it's saying how it compares to the Electoral College, which is winner take all.

You can not say Caucuses are Undemocratic while calling for a "winner take all system"
In theory, caucuses are the most democratic--they get people more involved and they encourage a good, thorough look at the candidate. Clinton has only won primaries and done so well because of her name. If she had never married Bill and was still Hillary Rodham (assume she married some guy named Rodham who is a minor millionaire), she'd have been out with Edwards and Obama would have been established as the nominee on Super Tuesday.

1. He alienates the racist redneck/msogynist redneck, who form the core Republican base :p
Come on. That has no basis in fact, whatsoever.

2. It links him to the Bush administration in a very, VERY big way.
Good point there. :)

I have yet to see much of a logical explanation for why one would support Obama, but be more willing to vote for McCain over Clinton.
Maybe they don't like Clinton? Maybe the agree with McCain on some issues or like him and think he'd do a good job. I don't agree with him on Iraq, but I know he'd manage it well.

Clinton and Obama are nigh identical on the issues
That's a myth. They are similar, but not identical. They both have Universal Health care plans, but those differ. Just because they both take up a Democratic issue doesn't make them the same.

-- and where they do differ, McCain is far worse on the issue.
Opinion, not fact. I disagree, however.

That is just inane. What exactly about Clinton justifies this irrational fear? She is far more liberal than McCain.
Ann Coulter disagrees. We don't know what a pathological liar and a crazy woman will do in the White House. She just plain scares me about her ways. She uses dirty tactics and dirty politics. Why wouldn't this continue in the White House? Do we really want another liar there? At least we know the type of lies Bush says.

McCain is much more hawkish on foreign policy than Senator Clinton. McCain is a fucking stooge as evidence by his sucking up to the Bush administration on numerous issues, including the war in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts.
Hillary is just as hawkish. She blindly voted for Iraq. At least McCain voiced early objections on the handling of the war.

So yet another poster who pontificates about how Senator Clinton's continuing candidacy should stop, but who actually opposes the Democratic Party itself. Why should we Democrats listen to you?
Do you want us to vote for your guys or just favor Republicans? If you want us to support you, you should listen to our concerns. You can't just say "We're better than Republicans so just vote for us." Quite honestly, we'd rather stay home or vote Nader.

You are a very weird mix. It is hard to see how someone who makes McCain his second choice can be considered to "favor Democrats."
It would appear that way, but the left-right spectrum died out a long time ago.

On what exact issues is McCain and the Socialist Party both preferrable to Clinton if she is nominated?
I am not a set in stone socialist. I take each candidate as they are and do not exclude on the basis of party (with the exception of Libertarians and parties like Constitution and Reform because I completely disagree ideologically with them). It's not just issues. I take in personality, tactics, presentation, and history (I don't like dynasties).

These arguments might be compelling if Obama's leads were not so reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign.
Those are the rules. We're supposed to stick with them, are we not?

Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall.
No, it helps smaller and minority candidates be able to work up support rather than established candidates who cruise into the candidacy. It's about who earns it, not who has dibs on it. Therefore, it is more democratic.

It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.
This ignores several things. Delegates are weighted based on Democratic turnout and can not be fairly compared to the EC.

He also assumes that everything would have remained exactly the same in a winner-take-all system. This is simply not true. Let's say we have winner-take-all for the Dems. Obama wins Iowa and racks up 45 delegates to Hillary's 0, instead of a 16-15-14 split. Even with Hillary's crybaby tactics, he cruises into New Hampshire with a huge lead. Even if Hillary wins NH, it's 45-22. We'll explore both ways. It's either 45-22 or 67-0. They go into Nevada with him doing extremely well. We'll again explore both ways. It'll either be 45-47 (a tie), 70-22, or 92-0. Next we have South Carolina. After Iowa and despite NH and NV, he won it. So obviously he'll still win it. That makes the tally 90-47, 115-22, or 137-0.

He goes into Super Tuesday with a HUGE delegate lead in all ways and the whole dynamic changes with a super Obama and a falling Hillary. She might overtake him a little bit on Super Tuesday, but with his HUGE momentum, he'd probably crush her on that day and she'd either throw it in or pretend she can actually do this while Obama racks up his 2-1 delegate lead and by March has the 2025 needed.

Going into NH with all the delegates will be played up in the media a lot more than just a plain win with roughly even tallies. This large momentum could push NH for him. And so on.

If the Democrats heeded the "winner takes all" democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257.
As I said, that assumes we use the results of now.

But Clinton does not now have 1,743 delegates. According to CNN estimates, Clinton has about 1,242 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,413. Most of that total is based on the peculiar way that delegates are apportioned in 2008.
Which has been the rule for two decades at least. It's not peculiar, it's more fair.

Some of it is because Obama's backers are using the same kind of tactics as George Bush's camp used in Florida in 2000.
But we all know Bush's tactics cost him the election and he recently retired as governor of Texas. :rolleyes:

Crucially, Team Obama doesn't want to count the votes of Michigan and Florida. (And let's note that in a winner-take-all system, Clinton would still be leading in delegates, 1,430 to 1,257, even without Michigan and Florida.) Under the existing system, Obama's current lead in the popular vote would nearly vanish if the results from Michigan and Florida were included in the total, and his lead in pledged delegates would melt almost to nothing. The difference in the popular vote would fall to 94,005 out of nearly 27 million cast thus far -- a difference of a mere four-tenths of 1 percentage point -- and the difference in delegates would plummet to about 30, out of the 2,024 needed to win.
You cannot count elections that were not competed in. Clinton had name recognition, many people stayed home, Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot. How can you claim to support American democracy and then say we should count undemocratic votes?

The exclusion thus far of these two vital states has come about because of an arbitrary and catastrophic decision made last year by Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee.
It was bungled, but hasn't been settled. Counting what already happened is just absurd and is not going to happen.

Yet the Obama campaign has stoutly resisted any such revote in either state. In Michigan, Obama's supporters thwarted efforts to pass the legislation necessary to conduct a new primary. In Florida, campaign lawyers threw monkey wrenches to stop the process cold, claiming that a revote would somehow violate the Voting Rights Act, and charging that a proposed mail-in revote would not be "fraud proof." (Obama himself, it's important to note, proposed a bill in 2007 to allow for mail-in voting in federal elections.)
And on the 2nd page:
It's the state parties and governments that couldn't work out a solution. It had nothing to do with Obama.

Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and McCain would beat Obama
Because those are the only states on the map obviously. McCain is only beating Obama because he's not the nominee yet.

Obama's totals thus far have come in great part from state caucuses nearly as much as from actual primaries. (Eleven out of the 30 states and other entities he has won held caucuses, not primaries. Washington held both, as did Texas, where Obama won the caucuses and lost the popular vote.) Of the two systems, caucuses are by far the less democratic -- which may be why there will be exactly zero caucuses in this fall's general election.
Caucuses are more democratic. You actually have to think out an opinion and not just blindly vote for a name you heard back in the 90s. Caucuses don't occur in the general because it's too damn impractical and complicated for such a large election.

By excluding voters who cannot attend during the limited times available, the caucuses skew participation toward affluent activists and students, and against working people, mothers and caregivers, and the military.
They aren't excluded. It's just harder for them. Caucuses do have flaws as they are now, but certainly can be worked out.

In 2004, Democrats lost most of the states where Obama's delegates come from now.
Because of the strategy of the Democrats to focus only on the base and not reach out.

The Democrats are likely to lose most of those states again in 2008, no matter how much his supporters speak of winning crossover votes. (Idaho and Wyoming, for example, where Obama won caucuses, are not going to vote for either Clinton or Obama come fall.) Of the remaining states that Obama has won, only one is a large state with a considerable number of electoral votes -- his home state of Illinois. Clinton has won the popular vote in all of the other large states -- and has done so in primaries, not caucus decisions. The arithmetic here is simple: Because of the flawed system, the delegates from the states that Obama has won, many of which vote strongly Republican, represent far fewer Democratic voters than those from the states Clinton won.
As has been pointed out over 9000 times, focusing only on "big states" cost the Democrats two elections. It's costing Hillary the nomination. Obama has a broad focus that will work well in the General.

Obama has tried to reinforce his democratic bona fides by asserting his superior electability, and by claiming that Clinton's supporters are more likely to back him in November than vice versa. The polls, however, show otherwise. And even more important, the polling data on the electoral vote totals show an outcome very different from the one suggested by Obama. The latest state-by-state figures (as of late March) updated from SurveyUSA, indicate that if the election were held today, Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and McCain would beat Obama.
Polls now are irrelevant. And as we all know, those three states are the only ones in existence.

In the final analysis, though, the fights inside the Democratic Party aren't really about either an ideal American democracy or the American democracy that actually exists. According to the Clinton campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a candidate arguing this way. But everybody should see it for what it is -- not something new or transformative, but one of the oldest ploys in the playbook of American politics.Fixed.

I must admit, despite taking about an hour or two of my time, this was much fun ripping CH and his clone argument (in that article) to shreds. It has no basis in fact and relies on anti-Obama compounding qualifiers. A tactic similarly used by anti-Communists (not really relevant). They both selectively argue with ONLY what supports them and ignore anything that doesn't. The rest of us look at the whole picture.

This thing’s still going, huh?

The British media has pretty much lost interest in the race for the Democratic nomination, focusing instead on the Olympic Torch’s ill-fated journey (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/up-in-flames-humiliation-for-china-as-torch-relay-descends-into-chaos-805745.html).

So, Obama’s still marginally in front, but not enough to win outright and this will drag on for ages, correct?

This thing’s still going, huh?

The British media has pretty much lost interest in the race for the Democratic nomination, focusing instead on the Olympic Torch’s ill-fated journey (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/up-in-flames-humiliation-for-china-as-torch-relay-descends-into-chaos-805745.html).

So, Obama’s still marginally in front, but not enough to win outright and this will drag on for ages, correct?

I'll be honest, I find myself not giving a shit. I'm developing more of an interest in the U.S. Senate races. I think that the question is how many seats the Democrats can pick up. The closer they get to 60, the more power moderate senators have on both sides of the aisle. But I don't want them getting more than that 60(which is unlikely). As things stand, the Democrats will probably pick up about 4 seats.

I’ll be honest, I find myself not giving a shit.
The excitement’s gone, that’s for sure.

Not that I or my peers ever entertained hope that Obama was anything more than ¬Bush, but when this gigantic thread was started, loads of friends and people round my uni were talking about the US nominations/election.

That’s just disappeared.

I'll be honest, I find myself not giving a shit. I'm developing more of an interest in the U.S. Senate races. I think that the question is how many seats the Democrats can pick up. The closer they get to 60, the more power moderate senators have on both sides of the aisle. But I don't want them getting more than that 60(which is unlikely). As things stand, the Democrats will probably pick up about 4 seats.
I know a guy who is doing the exact same thing with NJ Senate races. How this Andrews guy has challenged the old warm-seat gray beard Frank Lautenberg, who is much older than I thought he was. A few years ago, I also thought he was a Republican...

I just found this article on Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9436.html
To summarize, it suggests that because Obama has run such an excellent, well-organized campaign, he is better off in the general. Hillary's campaign is constantly disorganized and disheveled. So, she probably won't run a good campaign in the general either. It also forecasts thoir abilities as president. Obama is clearly a better administrator.

I just found this article on Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9436.html
To summarize, it suggests that because Obama has run such an excellent, well-organized campaign, he is better off in the general. Hillary's campaign is constantly disorganized and disheveled. So, she probably won't run a good campaign in the general either. It also forecasts thoir abilities as president. Obama is clearly a better administrator.

Yes, because knowing how to run a political media campaign is much more important than actually having sound policies and a good platform to begin with and said media campaign offers great insight in how to run an entire country. I don't know if Bill Hicks would be for this good or screaming in his face with a microphone.

Yes, because knowing how to run a political media campaign is much more important than actually having sound policies and a good platform to begin with and said media campaign offers great insight in how to run an entire country. I don't know if Bill Hicks would be for this good or screaming in his face with a microphone.

Obama's sound policies and good platform are just a bonus then.

Nice post Sel Appa, but:

Ann Coulter disagrees. We don't know what a pathological liar and a crazy woman will do in the White House. She just plain scares me about her ways. She uses dirty tactics and dirty politics. Why wouldn't this continue in the White House? Do we really want another liar there? At least we know the type of lies Bush says.

The same statements could be said of Ann Coulter if she ran for president. ;)

Yes, because knowing how to run a political media campaign is much more important than actually having sound policies and a good platform to begin with and said media campaign offers great insight in how to run an entire country. I don't know if Bill Hicks would be for this good or screaming in his face with a microphone.

Then it's a good thing Obama is running on sound policies and a good platform...

This thing’s still going, huh?

The British media has pretty much lost interest in the race for the Democratic nomination, focusing instead on the Olympic Torch’s ill-fated journey (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/up-in-flames-humiliation-for-china-as-torch-relay-descends-into-chaos-805745.html).

So, Obama’s still marginally in front, but not enough to win outright and this will drag on for ages, correct?

Well not ages! Just about another 2 months hopefully. This better not last till August otherwise it will get very very ugly.

Like you? (Way to selectively argue)
I certainly don't think the polls are gospel.....anything but.

It's called doublethink. ;)
No, it is called confusion or selectivie reasoning?

They are counted, but never reported. Ever notice how a poll is like 56-33? What's the missing 11%--Undecided.
What do you mean that they are never reported?

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

If the problem is resolved beforehand, all will be well. In fact, the Dems will be stronger. If it goes to the convention, and especially if Clinton is nominated, all hell breaks loose.
The democrat process is a problem? IF Clinton is nominated then that would be part of the democratic process?

Point taken, but he also won them in 96 (Perot wasn't AS significant)
No he didn't. In 1996, Clinton lost Montana, Colorado, and Georgia, because the majority of Moderate and Conservative Republican votes that were gobbled up by Perot in 1992 went to Dole in 1996. Which further proves my point.

Speaking of Perot, I read that he was actually leading polls until he dropped out (and later went back in). Let's say he stayed in the whole time. I wonder if he could have won it and become the first independent president. He only needed 270 votes and might certainly have gotten it. If he didn't, he would have probably sent the election to the Senate (or is it HoR for president...)
Polls are polls and guess what, he didn't win. It is only speculation as to whether he could have won or not. I sincerely doubt it. BTW, the year that he dropped out and went back in (1996), is not the same election where he was high in the polls (1992).

Uh...no.
Ummm yes. I do not think Obama will beat McCain.

I'm more likely to support Democratic candidates, but I have completely ruled out Hillary, so that's what you have.
I think Cat Tribe had the correct reply for you on this issue:

So yet another poster who pontificates about how Senator Clinton's continuing candidacy should stop, but who actually opposes the Democratic Party itself. Why should we Democrats listen to you?

Despite the science clearly showing that people choose "the guy they'd like to have a beer with" rather than the issue-driven person. Obama is that guy. Also, speech is an issue--a very powerful one. To be able to make an uplifting speech is very valuable when tragedy strikes. If the issues were important, Kerry would have won. Gore would have won. Clearly that is not the case.
I thought it was reported that Obama fit more closely with the wine drinking crowd? Again, I don't see Obama as a transformative kinda guy. The good speech writer is a plus, but I think the Obama fixation will drain off.

Doubtful. She has the establishment in about 200-250 electoral votes. Her strategy is clearly defined as holding the base: a strategy that has conclusively failed for the past two elections. If you rely on your base and then lose one of the states, you're done.
Obama holds the "establishment" in less blue states than Hillary. Polls in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida certainly favour Hillary moreso than Obama.

How does a FIFTY STATE strategy erode the base? In fact, it sets up the party long term by establishing roots in new areas. By competing in all states, you hedge against some base losses. Obama and Bush have clearly shown that competing beyond your base is important. Both won or are winning their elections. Also, down-ballot candidates.
Obama has really proven nothing so far. In many states that he clobbered Clinton, he polls less favourably than Clinton against McCain.

By bringing in new voters and energizing the base. Also, down-ballot candidates.
There is a multitude of reasons that more people are coming out to vote. It is not all about Obama. Also, primary/caucus votes do not necessarily translate into general election votes as the various polls undoubtedly prove.

Hillary can't win them either then.
That makes zero sense.

Let's go with the Southeast: It has a lot of dark-skinned individuals who have turned out overwhelmingly for Obama. They finally have the chance to see a dark-skinned president. They sure as hell are gonna turn out in droves during the general. More Democrats voted in SC than Republicans and both were still up in the air. Obama will take the base and then the enormous turnout of dark-skinned individuals who might not normally turn out and could certainly win a few states in the southeast, such as Mississippi, Georgia, and South Carolina.
Primary/caucus votes do not equal general election votes. My prediction is that the only States/Districts that Obama will win south of the Mason Dixon Line and east of the Mississippi is Maryland and DC.

I refer you again to this map (http://www.electoral-vote.com). Do a mouse over and notice that only South Carolina is close for Obama, and even Clinton polls better than Obama in Mississippi, although both would lose.

Yes, because knowing how to run a political media campaign is much more important than actually having sound policies and a good platform to begin with and said media campaign offers great insight in how to run an entire country. I don't know if Bill Hicks would be for this good or screaming in his face with a microphone.

well, given that obama's platform and policies are more or less identical to clinton's, with just a bit of fiddling around the edges and some stronger opposition to the more ludicrous aspects of imperial adventuring, and that john mccain is a crazy fucking old man that is running to continue the bush movement for a few more years, i'd say it looks like organizational skills are in fact a relevant concern.

hell, organizational skills actually trump policy concerns in lots of cases.

The Pittsburgh Tribune Review is more centrist than it is right. The Post Gazette on the other hand...

I haven't lived in Pittsburgh since the early 90's, but back then the Tribune Review was the most right-wing newspaper I have ever seen.

Well not ages! Just about another 2 months hopefully. This better not last till August otherwise it will get very very ugly.

It already is ugly. I'm starting to suspect she's running on the Tanya Harding strategy (kneecap Obama in an attempt to hand the next 4 years to McCain, and then grabbing the candidacy in 2012...)

I certainly don't think the polls are gospel.....anything but.


No, it is called confusion or selectivie reasoning?


What do you mean that they are never reported?

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


The democrat process is a problem? IF Clinton is nominated then that would be part of the democratic process?


No he didn't. In 1996, Clinton lost Montana, Colorado, and Georgia, because the majority of Moderate and Conservative Republican votes that were gobbled up by Perot in 1992 went to Dole in 1996. Which further proves my point.


Polls are polls and guess what, he didn't win. It is only speculation as to whether he could have won or not. I sincerely doubt it. BTW, the year that he dropped out and went back in (1996), is not the same election where he was high in the polls (1992).


Ummm yes. I do not think Obama will beat McCain.


I think Cat Tribe had the correct reply for you on this issue:




I thought it was reported that Obama fit more closely with the wine drinking crowd? Again, I don't see Obama as a transformative kinda guy. The good speech writer is a plus, but I think the Obama fixation will drain off.


Obama holds the "establishment" in less blue states than Hillary. Polls in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida certainly favour Hillary moreso than Obama.


Obama has really proven nothing so far. In many states that he clobbered Clinton, he polls less favourably than Clinton against McCain.


There is a multitude of reasons that more people are coming out to vote. It is not all about Obama. Also, primary/caucus votes do not necessarily translate into general election votes as the various polls undoubtedly prove.


That makes zero sense.


Primary/caucus votes do not equal general election votes. My prediction is that the only States/Districts that Obama will win south of the Mason Dixon Line and east of the Mississippi is Maryland and DC.

I refer you again to this map (http://www.electoral-vote.com). Do a mouse over and notice that only South Carolina is close for Obama, and even Clinton polls better than Obama in Mississippi, although both would lose.

Not being an American you may not have ever heard this line, but I'll give it to you anyway to think about. ALL POLITICS ARE LOCAL. Why is Hillary getting trounced in donations? Is it because people think she's the better and more electable candidate? Obama doubled her in March and he does it through true grassroots politics of small donors. He's built a better infrastructure than her. Why has he been able to do this? Because he moves more people to want to work for him. It must be the magical spell you claim he has the power to cast. Boogety boogety boo.

You cannot have a good ground-game without popular support. Obama has far more volunteers than Clinton does because why? Because more people want him to be President and are willing to donate their valuable time for the cause. Your entire argument hinges on the idea that Hillary supporters will somehow just decide that they do not want to vote anymore. They will forgo the idea of Universal healthcare because they only wanted it when Hillary was running. They are somehow not going to oppose the the Iraq war and jump in with John McCain and his everlasting commitment to Iraq. They are suddenly going to forgo their fight to help the environment and push for Kyoto to be signed. They are going to stop caring about more fuel efficient cars, and alternative fuels, because Hillary isn't there anymore. On the economic front they are suddenly going to love deficit spending and not try to balance budgets. They will let go of affirmative action an cease all operations trying to bring equality for all people. They will shout "hooray" for corporate welfare for companies like Exxon-Mobil and spurn small business tax incentives. They will support school vouchers and support taking money away from public schools for private ones. Essentially, what you are saying is that Democrats will become Republicans. '

Before you argue that the same case can be made if Hillary wins I need to stop you dead in your tracks.

But the really interesting number from the poll is Clinton's favorability rating which is down to the lowest its ever been -- only 37% view Clinton positively (while 48% view her negatively). That's George W. Bush territory. A big reason for her drop is that African Americans seem to be blaming her for playing politics with the Wright story as her favorability rating dropped 12% among that group. Many African Americans weren't voting for her but still viewed her favorably, but now that seems to be changing. The interesting thing is that 51% of African Americans still view her favorably, which means her 37% favorability rating is actually deceptive because her average is being pulled up by a group that is voting almost exclusively against her. By comparison, 49% view Obama favorably (32% view him negatively). Obama's favorable rating is even higher than John McCain's 45% which is stunning considering that McCain isn't even in a heated race anymore. Though McCain does have a lower negative rating of 25%.

The reason why this is such a huge problem for Clinton is that it undercuts one of her main arguments to superdelegates -- that they should overturn the results of the election and make her the nominee because she is more electable. If she was the nominee, she'd start off at a HUGE disadvantage considering her negative rating is almost DOUBLE what McCain's is. If it was obvious from EVERY poll and every data source that Clinton would be a sure-fire winner over McCain and Obama would be a sure-fire loser, the superdelegates might think twice before giving the nomination to Obama, but no polls show that.


So, if in the course of her bid to become president, Clinton is actually sinking in popularity, what does this say about her chances of actually winning in the general election?

More numbers:


When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton.


As someone who voted twice for Hillary's husband, and once for the former first lady herself, in the state of New York (I would have twice, but I moved to Florida before the second election), these negatives jumped out as a big concern when our present contest began. The fact is that Clinton remains a polarizing figure in American politics, and nothing she has done in this campaign so far has significantly revised this perception.

Are there good reasons to vote for her, sure, just as there are good reasons to vote for Obama and McCain. But it seems fairly clear to me that in the remaining months of what has devolved into a negative campaign, her approval ratings will only slip further away from that magic 50%. Simply put, it just isn't possible to win the presidency with a 37% approval rating.

This goes back to what we have all been saying for a while now. People will vote AGAINST Hillary rather than for McCain. She is polarizing and not well liked. The more she tries to muddy up Obama the worse it looks for her. Let this keep going on and she'll get caught in more lies which will bring her negatives up even more. People who do not like you will not vote for you, regardless of the issues. This is true from POTUS down to class president of your middle school. Don't give me that bullshit about "missteps" again. Hillary flat out lied, and lied on a continual basis about the same thing. She's been caught in three lies so far, and her opportunism on the Wright thing backfired greatly. Regardless of what trial heats say right now, you cannot escape favorability. How did Bush win a second term even though his approval ratings were not very good? At the very same time his favorability numbers were still above 50%. That and some help from Rove and the Swiftboaters . People have seen what Hillary has to offer since 1992 and guess what? The reject her and do not like her. In the end it still is a popularity contest. At this point Hillary is less popular than a 350 lb. Albino chick with braces, coke bottle glasses, acne on top of acne, and the bubonic plague.

Just heard an interview with Clinton on the radio.

I'd have at least one question if I were conducting it:

If pledged delegates are under no obligation whatsoever to vote a certain way, why the heck are the tax payers in each state paying for multi-million dollar primary elections?

Just heard an interview with Clinton on the radio.

I'd have at least one question if I were conducting it:

If pledged delegates are under no obligation whatsoever to vote a certain way, why the heck are the tax payers in each state paying for multi-million dollar primary elections?

To give the election of Our Glorious Leader some sense of legitimacy?

The Pensylvania primary is fast approaching. 2009 has already cost political parties in the U.S. more than any other election. At the start of the race, I was very excited about the Democrats' potential. I feel like the democratic contest at this point is just exposing flaws in the candidates. Is the American public going to get tired of the democrats before the election even happens?

its not as nasty as it could be and its not as nasty as it WILL be when the nominee is decided and they start bringing out the big guns.

I certainly don't think the polls are gospel.....anything but.

WOW!! Just WOW!!

Go to the other thread.

Also, the article I had linked to.

Thank you for your kind consideration. You are a person of great honor and intellect ;)

I certainly don't think the polls are gospel.....anything but.
But you repeatedly state that the polls clearly show that Hillary is more electable and basically should be taken as gospel truth. Who do you think you are? John Kerry?

No, it is called confusion or selectivie reasoning?
Neither. It is doublethink. Unlike what you do: selective arguing. That is, you only state what supports you and ignore everything else.

What do you mean that they are never reported?
They never say "11% of the voters are undecided". It's misleading.

The democrat process is a problem?
There is no democratic way Clinton can win the nomination at this point.

IF Clinton is nominated then that would be part of the democratic process?
No, it would be a dirty and sneaky plan of getting the party elite to swing the nomination to her.

No he didn't. In 1996, Clinton lost Montana, Colorado, and Georgia, because the majority of Moderate and Conservative Republican votes that were gobbled up by Perot in 1992 went to Dole in 1996. Which further proves my point.
I'm not talking about those states. Stop selectively picking three states that qualify your argument and look at the whole picture.

Polls are polls and guess what, he didn't win. It is only speculation as to whether he could have won or not. I sincerely doubt it. BTW, the year that he dropped out and went back in (1996), is not the same election where he was high in the polls (1992).
Nope, it was 1992.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1992)
In June, Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).[4] Perot severely damaged his credibility by dropping out of the presidential contest in July and remaining out of the race for several weeks before re-entering.

Perot was second in quite a few states.

Ummm yes. I do not think Obama will beat McCain.
Ummm yes. I do not think Hillary will beat McCain. You have been repeatedly shown the facts that indicate Obama will beat McCain. His superior message, his superior organization, and his bringing in all these new voters. Don't forget that dark-skinned individuals will turn out in freaking droves to vote for him while they have the chance. He's gonna win at least one southern state, if not a few.

Hillary is far too decisive, poorly organized, and lies too much. Plus, half the country hates her.

I think Cat Tribe had the correct reply for you on this issue:
I'm not against the party. I never said that. In fact, I'm not against either party.

I thought it was reported that Obama fit more closely with the wine drinking crowd?
This isn't wine vs. beer. This is likability and who you'd want to be with for the afternoon.

Again, I don't see Obama as a transformative kinda guy.
Why not? Hillary definitely won't be any better. She's a blast from the past, she's considered old politics. How is that change?

The good speech writer is a plus, but I think the Obama fixation will drain off.
There is no fixation. The only fixation is on Hillary.

Obama holds the "establishment" in less blue states than Hillary. Polls in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida certainly favour Hillary moreso than Obama.
Just ignore the other 47 states.

Obama has really proven nothing so far.
BS. He has shown that a strategy of racking up votes and not sitting around expecting it all to come into place does work. Bush showed this in 2004 and especially 2000.

In many states that he clobbered Clinton, he polls less favourably than Clinton against McCain.
Ok, you are a GODDAMN FUCKING LIAR. "I don't take polls as gospel truth, but the polls show Hillary as better than Obama, so Hillary is more electable" I can understand why you support Hillary. Liars support liars.

There is a multitude of reasons that more people are coming out to vote. It is not all about Obama.
If it isn't about Obama, why are so many small donators donating to him? If it isn't about Obama, why did he win Iowa? If it isn't about Obama, why is he winning the nomination?

Also, primary/caucus votes do not necessarily translate into general election votes as the various polls undoubtedly prove.
What polls? The CH one-man poll?

That makes zero sense.
How so? You say Obama can't win the states. Hillary can't win them either.

Primary/caucus votes do not equal general election votes. My prediction is that the only States/Districts that Obama will win south of the Mason Dixon Line and east of the Mississippi is Maryland and DC.
Well, you're gonna be wrong when at least one of them goes for Obama on the backs of the dark-skinned population. Louisiana is one-third dark-skinned and they sure as hell don't want the establishment running things.

john mccain is a crazy fucking old man that is running to continue the bush movement for a few more years
Would you people stop with that? McCain =/= Bush. I'm getting sick of this utter bullshit that has ZERO basis in fact. I never thought Republicans Are Evil Syndrome was so rampant.

WOW!! Just WOW!!
I know, right?

Thank you all for sorting the threadjack out yourselves. The thread Heikoku has started on the newspaper article is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553757).

Would you people stop with that? McCain =/= Bush. I'm getting sick of this utter bullshit that has ZERO basis in fact. I never thought Republicans Are Evil Syndrome was so rampant.

mccain has consistently toed the bush line on most everything important. on his one supposed difference, torture, he showed his true toady colors and joined them anyways. and he's even more of an imperialist retard than bush is. mccain's alleged 'maverick' status is more a result of him not immediately asking how high when the conservative movement says jump. he does jump in the end though.

mccain has consistently toed the bush line on most everything important. on his one supposed difference, torture, he showed his true toady colors and joined them anyways. and he's even more of an imperialist retard than bush is. mccain's alleged 'maverick' status is more a result of him not immediately asking how high when the conservative movement says jump. he does jump in the end though.



Wow. Can you link that? I havent heard that yet.


I dont doubt it though, since McCain is a bootlick.

Thank you all for sorting the threadjack out yourselves. The thread Heikoku has started on the newspaper article is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553757).
There's hope yet for NSG.

Obama gaining on Clinton in Pennsylvania (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/08/democrats.pennsylvania/index.html)

Rut Ro George

Sen. Barack Obama continues to chip away at Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead in the crucial state of Pennsylvania, a new Quinnipiac poll out Tuesday showed.

The New York senator's lead over Obama now stands at 6 points in the new poll, 50-44 percent.

That compares to the 9-point lead Clinton held in a similar survey released five days ago, and an 11-point lead in a Quinnipiac survey late last month.

Even Quinnipiac is saying that the gap is closing! Could Obama actually take the state? Time will tell.

The Pensylvania primary is fast approaching. 2009 has already cost political parties in the U.S. more than any other election. At the start of the race, I was very excited about the Democrats' potential. I feel like the democratic contest at this point is just exposing flaws in the candidates. Is the American public going to get tired of the democrats before the election even happens?

1) I am proud to see your thread merged with this one so welcome

2) Never start a sentence with a number. Spell the number out if you are going to do so.

3) Its 2008 and not 2009

4) Probably not.

It cracks me up watching all this. Hopefully democrats have finally learned that a candidate who is strong on issues but weak on being likeable will lose. I mean, come on, if Gore couldn't beat Bush, the people need to wake up and realize that someone as dislikeable as Clinton isn't going to beat the golden boy McCain.

Like it or not, Obama is likeable. People don't JUST agree with him, but people genuinely like him.

There is just no way Clinton is capable of beating him. The more I think about it the more my gut feeling is that Obama is the only one who can win this. /thread

Obama gaining on Clinton in Pennsylvania (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/08/democrats.pennsylvania/index.html)

Rut Ro George



Even Quinnipiac is saying that the gap is closing! Could Obama actually take the state? Time will tell.

I don't know. This has been true to his pattern, as he campaigns the polls get closer, he leads with people who decided between 30 days and 3 days before, when Clinton picks back up again. The arch of his closing will peak in about a week, then there'll be a slight Clinton washback and the state will be close (single digits) for Clinton but since four days before half the polls were split with him edging out wins, the wash back will provide the vindication for her campaign to continue on to North Carolina and Indiana.

I thought it was reported that Obama fit more closely with the wine drinking crowd?
While Hilary fits better with the lemon-juice crowd?

WARNING! PEDANTIC HIJACK ALERT!

Never start a sentence with a number. Spell the number out if you are going to do so.
Starting a sentence with a year is perfectly fine. And it would look bizarre to write, ‘Two thousand and nine has already cost political parties...’.

And, yes, I realise I've started a sentence with and. And that one. And that one. And that one...

WARNING! PEDANTIC HIJACK ALERT!


Starting a sentence with a year is perfectly fine. And it would look bizarre to write, ‘Two thousand and nine has already cost political parties...’.

And, yes, I realise I've started a sentence with and. And that one. And that one. And that one...

Grammar Nazism is an enigma wrapped in a mystery wrapped in a burrito.

We interrupt the previously scheduled comment on the US elections to bring you this special English teacher's bulletin:

Starting a sentence with a year is perfectly fine. And it would look bizarre to write, ‘Two thousand and nine has already cost political parties...’.

Indeed correct.

Starting a Sentence with a Year

And what about starting a sentence with a number? Although the general rule is that you shouldn't start a sentence with an arabic number, some (but not all (9, 10)) sources make exceptions for years (11). Therefore, some people may object, but you wouldn't be completely out of line to write a sentence like 2008 will be the year I keep my resolutions, with 2008 written as a number instead of written out with words. Still, if you want to be safe, it's better to rephrase the sentence so the year isn't at the beginning.
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/writing-dates.aspx

Spell out numbers, no matter how large, when they begin sentences; rephrase the sentence if long numbers are awkward. Exception: When starting a sentence with a year, do not write it out.
http://www.wwu.edu/journalism/syllabi/207labmanual.htm

And, yes, I realise I've started a sentence with and. And that one. And that one. And that one...

Starting a sentence is with "and" is now considered acceptable. (Note however that your last three "sentences" are not actually sentences but sentences but sentence fragments.)

In the past, schools were rigid in their ruling that sentences could not start with conjunctions, such as "And" or "But". However, nowadays, this practice is considered acceptable.
I was certain he did it for the money. But, having read his diary, I
have a new theory.

The two most common conjunctions used in this way are "And" (meaning "In addition") and "But" (meaning "However"). It is usual to follow each with a comma.

Whilst it is acceptable to use "And" or "But" to start a sentence, this practice should be limited and only used for effect and impact. If you find yourself using them too often, you should consider changing the style of your writing.
http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/conjunctions_lessons.htm

We no return you to the regularly schedualed program.

Snip.

Four hundred and ninety-seven quintillion, nine hundred and thirty-one quadrillion, three hundred and sixty-nine trillion, eight hundred and fifty-two billion, two hundred and sixty four million, nine hundred and ten thousand, five hundred and eleven is a bigger number than 497,931,369,852,264,910,510.

While Hilary fits better with the lemon-juice crowd?

sour puss? Bitter beer face?

We interrupt the previously scheduled comment on the US elections to bring you this special English teacher's bulletin:



Indeed correct.


http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/writing-dates.aspx


http://www.wwu.edu/journalism/syllabi/207labmanual.htm



Starting a sentence is with "and" is now considered acceptable. (Note however that your last three "sentences" are not actually sentences but sentences but sentence fragments.)


http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/conjunctions_lessons.htm

We no return you to the regularly schedualed program.

threadjack steeeeerrrrriiiiiiikkkkkkkeeeee 2. "We would like to draw your attention to the area behind homeplate where Corny has been ejected for boring the living hell out of us." :D

Four hundred and ninety-seven quintillion, nine hundred and thirty-one quadrillion, three hundred and sixty-nine trillion, eight hundred and fifty-two billion, two hundred and sixty four million, nine hundred and ten is a bigger number than 497,931,369,852,264,909.About a thousand times bigger, in fact :D

Four hundred and ninety-seven quintillion, nine hundred and thirty-one quadrillion, three hundred and sixty-nine trillion, eight hundred and fifty-two billion, two hundred and sixty four million, nine hundred and ten is a bigger number than 497,931,369,852,264,909.

G. Also known as Graham's Number. Try writing THAT out.

As Clinton makes her slight rebound (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html) (PPP had Obama winning, now Clinton is back up by 3, Survey USA's outlier number of 18 is up from a big dip last week) she starts her 'Greatest Hits' tour.

First up, Someone in the Obama campaign might have said something contrary in Canada to someone! (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/elections/20080409_Candidates__positive_ads_mask_trash-talk_reality.html)
On the same day, though, her campaign communications director, Howard Wolfson, urged reporters in a conference call to write negative stories about rival Barack Obama, saying that Obama "dissembled, didn't provide the truth, wasn't candid" about an economic adviser's statements to Canadian officials last month.
This rocked the house in O-hi-O, it's part of the tour.

And then, who could forget, "Why's everyone always pickin' on me?" (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/clinton-rips-me.html)

"When you hear that," Norris continued, "what does that mean to you? How do you react to that?"

"Well, I don't know what it means because there is no way for Senator Obama to win unless he also obtains a significant number of superdelegates," said Clinton. "I understand that there has been, throughout this campaign, something of a double standard. I accept it; I live with it."

Asked what the double standard is, Clinton at first demurred.

"Well, I think that it's pretty obvious to anybody who has followed it," said Clinton.

When Norris followed-up again, saying, "Just in case it's not clear to someone, I don’t want to assume. I just want you to tell me what you think the double standard is because I don't want to assume," Clinton unloaded.

"No, but you know – for example, why is the question directed at me?" she said. "I mean, neither of us has the number of delegates to win. It is a problem for both of us. And Senator Obama's supporters refuse to support a revote in Michigan, which I thought was rather odd for the Democratic Party to be against another vote. Senator Obama's supporters wanted to end this contest and short circuit it so that the votes of the people in the next upcoming contest wouldn't count because he has a slight lead. And it's by no means definitive. It would have been like calling the championship game last night with two minutes left to go because somebody was ahead. And that’s not how it turned out."

Ah yes, it is a double standard to ask the person who has a statistically narrow margin in which she can even appear to win who would have to apply destructive tactics to win about it and not ask the guy with a statistical advantage who simply needs to carry on as he has in order to win by every reasonable measure. Those are exactly the same situations.

Must be closing on a primary Clinton hasn't written off.

Given Obama's recent flaps - saying how his private financing really qualifies as "public," denying that he lies about the 100 years of war - it seems like whichever Democrat wins, a Clinton is on the ticket.

Given Obama's recent flaps - saying how his private financing really qualifies as "public," denying that he lies about the 100 years of war - it seems like whichever Democrat wins, a Clinton is on the ticket.

:confused:

Starting a sentence is with “and” is now considered acceptable. (Note however that your last three “sentences” are not actually sentences but sentences but sentence fragments.)
*gives props to Daistallia-sensei*

G. Also known as Graham's Number. Try writing THAT out.
Graham's number (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/cyc/g/graham.htm) is approximately the number of votes Hillary needs to win by in Pennsylvania, to have a realistic shot at the nomination. Just trying to get back on topic, here, before Liuzzo has a fit

About a thousand times bigger, in fact :D

Fixed it.

Thanks for pointing that out. ;)

Graham's number (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/cyc/g/graham.htm) is approximately the number of votes Hillary needs to win by in Pennsylvania, to have a realistic shot at the nomination. Just trying to get back on topic, here, before Liuzzo has a fit

You rang? Anyhow, I'm going to get out a short aside of my own that I may or may not think warrants its own thread. A soldier died two days ago and I'd like to ask for a moment of silent prayer for him, his family, and his young child. He is a casualty of the war in Iraq, but you'll never see him counted in the official death toll. After two long tours in Iraq this soldier came home and tried to regain a normal life. He became a federal officer for the NSA and was trying to make a new life from the shards he had left. Two days ago he put a gun in his mouth and ended his life. I'd like To honor this loyal servant, Joseph Pushkal. This Marine says Semper Fi brave soldier. Hoo-ah! Here goes the end of my threadjack.

Four hundred and ninety-seven quintillion, nine hundred and thirty-one quadrillion, three hundred and sixty-nine trillion, eight hundred and fifty-two billion, two hundred and sixty four million, nine hundred and ten thousand, five hundred and eleven is a bigger number than 497,931,369,852,264,910,510.

Indeed.

*gives props to Daistallia-sensei*

:::Takes a bow.:::

Indeed.



:::Takes a bow.:::

When good numbers go bad!!!

Hillary and Walmart. More on the past business dealings of the "activist" Hillary Clinton.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/clintonwalmart/

This is Hillarious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc&feature=related

Hillary and Walmart. More on the past business dealings of the "activist" Hillary Clinton.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/clintonwalmart/

i just dont find it odd that the first lady of arkansas would have been on the board of a major corporation headquartered in arkansas. can you point to things done by walmart between 1986 and 1992 that were so awful that she should have resigned her seat?

i just dont find it odd that the first lady of arkansas would have been on the board of a major corporation headquartered in arkansas. can you point to things done by walmart between 1986 and 1992 that were so awful that she should have resigned her seat?

I'm sorry, that was not the intent of why I posted this. I'm simply referring to her 35 years of public service she is always talking about. I'm not even saying she should have resigned. I'm just pointing out the difference between her "stories" and the actual facts that can be proven via video, etc. She tries to make more of her career than is actually there. I don't even hate Walmart in the least. I think they should be a better corporate steward, but that's about all.

I'm sorry, that was not the intent of why I posted this. I'm simply referring to her 35 years of public service she is always talking about. I'm not even saying she should have resigned. I'm just pointing out the difference between her "stories" and the actual facts that can be proven via video, etc. She tries to make more of her career than is actually there. I don't even hate Walmart in the least. I think they should be a better corporate steward, but that's about all.

she is inflating her credentials. i dont have a big problem with that either since all politicians do it and her actual experience is obvious.

i do wish she were better at massaging her resume. its annoying when we have to spend days on whether or not she was in danger in bosnia or if a story about a womans medical history was true.

Colin Powell (shah, like he knows anything about military engagements) says we cannot sustain the military presence we have now. How does this square with John McCain's assessment of the situation. It's just impossible to continue rotating troops at this rate. We either need to expand the military, or we need to start phased redeployments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/ap_on_el_pr/powell_iraq

More on the Clinton's greatest hits tour,that old chestnut, adjusted expectations-
Given Clinton's advantage in Pennsylvania, early speculation was that Obama would not expend a lot of effort in the state, so that he could concentrate on May 6 primaries in North Carolina and Indiana—and so that a defeat wouldn't look so bad.

But Obama was back in Pennsylvania on Wednesday and was also pouring millions of dollars into television ads that inspired a furious Clinton response.
...
Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said Obama has spent $6.5 million on TV ads in Pennsylvania, while the Clinton campaign has spent $2.5 million.

"He is doing everything he can to win in Pennsylvania," Wolfson said. "And if he doesn't win, it will be a significant defeat for him."

Yep, closed and average 16 point lead in three week, ahead by every metric, but now this is the must win state for him.

Does she think she can do this stuff in the General election? "We're only counting these eight states, and if you don't by more than 15%, I actually win. Oh! And I can totally change which states we're counting after the votes are tallied."

More on the Clinton's greatest hits tour,that old chestnut, adjusted expectations-


Yep, closed and average 16 point lead in three week, ahead by every metric, but now this is the must win state for him.

Does she think she can do this stuff in the General election? "We're only counting these eight states, and if you don't by more than 15%, I actually win. Oh! And I can totally change which states we're counting after the votes are tallied."

The same technique appears to be working for Mugabe, lol...

Obama is trying to try to win in Pennsylvania? That evil bastard.

Obama is trying to try to win in Pennsylvania? That evil bastard.

You see why he is leading in the popular vote? :D

Polls: Clinton's lead down to 4 points in Pennsylvania (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/10/polls-clintons-lead-down-to-4-points-in-pennsylvania/)

CNN) — Sen. Hilary Clinton's lead over Sen. Barack Obama in the crucial primary state of Pennsylvania has dwindled to 4 points, a CNN average of recent polls calculated Thursday shows.

The New York senator now holds a 4 point advantage over her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, 46 to 42 percent. Twelve percent of likely Democratic voters there remain unsure.

Recent CNN "poll of polls" suggest the race in Pennsylvania is tightening before the state's April 22 primary. A poll of polls calculated two days ago showed Clinton with a 6 point lead in Pennsylvania, and a poll of polls last Friday showed her on top by 11 points.

I am so hoping Obama wins Pennsylvania so that Clinton can finally take a hint that she's lost.

When good numbers go bad!!!

Indeed.

Colin Powell (shah, like he knows anything about military engagements) says we cannot sustain the military presence we have now. How does this square with John McCain's assessment of the situation. It's just impossible to continue rotating troops at this rate. We either need to expand the military, or we need to start phased redeployments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/ap_on_el_pr/powell_iraq

Or better yet, both.

(And my sympathies. If I read between the lines re your "threadjack" post, the person in question was someone known to you personally, in which case, nothing said by some random poster like here like myself will really help. I'll simply say that such occurances are all too common. There needs to be more PTSD support, and that includes dissolving the military's stigma, whether real or simply precieved, that prevents our fine fighting men from getting the help they need.)

The same technique appears to be working for Mugabe, lol...

So it does. Heheh

Obama is trying to try to win in Pennsylvania? That evil bastard.

Indeed. Let us ressurect the SC strategy - teh ebil Black Magic darkie candidate!

:confused:

I was just taking it off the RCP News page. While he hasn't actually denied public financing yet, while McCain is going to accept it, most people think Obama is most likely to backtrack on that (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us/politics/10campaign.html?ex=1365566400&en=4ac9f4c84abc1df0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).

And for the other part... McCain's full statement about the 100 years of war ended with " as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/politics/27check.html) Meaning... he wanted a station like Korea or Japan, which he also said. So some reporter called him out on it and he just said she 'wasn't accurate' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts3U939CD3g.

Not that I expect Obama to not lie. He's a politician... but he's definately not something "new" nor will he be a "uniter."

I was just taking it off the RCP News page. While he hasn't actually denied public financing yet, while McCain is going to accept it, most people think Obama is most likely to backtrack on that (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us/politics/10campaign.html?ex=1365566400&en=4ac9f4c84abc1df0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).

So because some people think that he might deny public financing, he has?
That's rather idiotic.

she is inflating her credentials. i dont have a big problem with that either since all politicians do it and her actual experience is obvious.

i do wish she were better at massaging her resume. its annoying when we have to spend days on whether or not she was in danger in bosnia or if a story about a womans medical history was true.

Inflating your resume is one thing. What she does is pure fabrication. Saying that you were in danger of death when it was really a cake walk is lying. It's the equivalent of going on a "milk run" during WW2 and claiming you were part of the blitzkrieg.

Indeed.



Or better yet, both.

(And my sympathies. If I read between the lines re your "threadjack" post, the person in question was someone known to you personally, in which case, nothing said by some random poster like here like myself will really help. I'll simply say that such occurances are all too common. There needs to be more PTSD support, and that includes dissolving the military's stigma, whether real or simply precieved, that prevents our fine fighting men from getting the help they need.)

Your words are greatly appreciated. War changes you in ways that you may never even realize. The suicide rates for soldiers on the front lines are extremely high. They are inflicting harm on themselves while in theater. Then they come home and find a world they don't recognize anymore. With nightmares that eat at their psyche that they cannot shake. Even I have nights where it is hard to shake the memories of what I have witnessed. Being an intelligence officer, I've not even come close to what happens to the grunts. Watching a human being get blown to pieces is not something you'll ever forget. When that person is a buddy of yours it makes it all that much harder.

my friends, i have just been reading talk left. quick, somebody say something intelligent about the primaries, my brain needs it to counteract the horror.

While he hasn't actually denied public financing yet, while McCain is going to accept it, most people think Obama is most likely to backtrack on that (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us/politics/10campaign.html?ex=1365566400&en=4ac9f4c84abc1df0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).

as well he should. while public financing may be the way to go in principle, the current system fucking sucks. on top of that, it is vitally important that the bush movement and its cronies be utterly annihilated. now is not the time to disarm. from a purely strategic standpoint it would be stupid to do so - especially given obama's ridiculous level of grassroots donor support, but even if he gets assassinated or caught in bed with kim jong il and clinton is in.

when the party that stridently opposes freedom, equality, democracy, and rule of law is weak, you go for the fucking kill. even if you do it in obama's nice guy way. you don't offer them an unearned even playing field.

as well he should. while public financing may be the way to go in principle, the current system fucking sucks. on top of that, it is vitally important that the bush movement and its cronies be utterly annihilated. now is not the time to disarm. from a purely strategic standpoint it would be stupid to do so - especially given obama's ridiculous level of grassroots donor support, but even if he gets assassinated or caught in bed with kim jong il and clinton is in.

when the party that stridently opposes freedom, equality, democracy, and rule of law is weak, you go for the fucking kill. even if you do it in obama's nice guy way. you don't offer them an unearned even playing field.

Especially when they're doing everything they can to tilt it. Staying away from PAC money is admirable but denying financing from the general public, small amounts from the people are going to vote for you, misses the point.

The point was to take the power away from big business, and both ways accomplish that. McCain is making it seem like it was more about making sure Obama doesn't outspend him.

I am so hoping Obama wins Pennsylvania so that Clinton can finally take a hint that she's lost.

In all probability, (aside from what he might say) Obama is probably hoping Hillary takes Pennsylvania, to be honest.

It is absolutely in the best interests of both Obama AND Clinton (at this point) that this contest runs as far as it can.

It is absolutely in the best interests of both Obama AND Clinton (at this point) that this contest runs as far as it can.

Really? Because all the recent polls are suggesting this long contest in helping McCain.

Like a recent poll that has McCain beating Obama... in New York.

Really? Because all the recent polls are suggesting this long contest in helping McCain.

That is because no Democrat candidate has been 'elected' yet.

McCain is dying at the moment. He's starved of limelight, and he's having to pay for almost everything he gets - he's just not 'news'.

On the other hand, every tear Hillary spills is still an issue. Every rousing rhetoric Obama utters is news. This primary for the Dems is the best pre-Presidential publicity they could get - not only bnecause it is everywhere... but because they don't have to pay for front-page attention. Hell, they don't even have to look for it - we're chasing them for it.

Like a recent poll that has McCain beating Obama... in New York.

Well whoever conducted that poll should be shot. Thats as believable as Obama taking Texas from McCain.

Well whoever conducted that poll should be shot. Thats as believable as Obama taking Texas from McCain.

Indeed.

Right now, the only poll worth reporting is that of Pennsylvania. Who cares about all other polls at the moment.

Right now, the only poll worth reporting is that of Pennsylvania.
Yup....and SurveyUSA has Clinton up by 18%.

Geography Surveyed: Pennsylvania (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=c79e5bab-a424-49f6-86d6-50c61cf729b7)

Data Collected: 04/05/2008 - 04/07/2008

Also with crosstabs (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c79e5bab-a424-49f6-86d6-50c61cf729b7).

Both sides love unnecissary war. It has to do with increasing power.

America has been in two, arguablly three "necissary" wars since our revolution.

Civil War (this one I guess is argueable as well): Presided over by a Republican back when they were liberal


Pretty much right. There were people on both sides who questioned the legitimacy of the war. Granted, the South fired the first shots, but the North provoked them to do(Practically begging them to do, it really). Now, I'm not of the opinion that it was not unnecessary, but there is a half-assed decent argument to be made of it all.


World War II: Democrat

I would like to take this time to say that the historical Democratic party and the modern day democratic party are two different identities. As well, WWII is not universally accepted as a necessary war(Both now and in the past). There are a few(Very few) who considered the US provoking Japan into attacking us, intentionally, and we should have just stayed out of it. Not of this opinion, and I feel the argument holds little water, if any.


Debatable:
World War I: Democrat, but too much a facist to count for either party.

Eh, WWI was just a massive dose of buggery, which escalated into a massive clusterfuck, very, very quickly. Whether or not it was necessary... well... yeah... It was just a clusterfuck of whatdafucks.

Yup....and SurveyUSA has Clinton up by 18%.

Geography Surveyed: Pennsylvania (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=c79e5bab-a424-49f6-86d6-50c61cf729b7)

Data Collected: 04/05/2008 - 04/07/2008

Also with crosstabs (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c79e5bab-a424-49f6-86d6-50c61cf729b7).

Can you say outlier? RCP average (a true indication of a trend) has mostly 3-8 point spreads. Throwing the %18 in there skews the numbers. Also, what is it with you and surveyusa? Is it the only polling info that really plays to your argument? I don't get it. Also, like I said earlier, Hillary cannot get elected because her negative (favorability) numbers are horrible. Sad as it may seem, most people will vote against you rather than for you.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

Obama now up 10 in gallup daily tracking poll. Largest lead yet.http://www.gallup.com/poll/105841/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-52-Clintons-42.aspx

WARNING! PEDANTIC HIJACK ALERT!


Starting a sentence with a year is perfectly fine. And it would look bizarre to write, ‘Two thousand and nine has already cost political parties...’.

And, yes, I realise I've started a sentence with and. And that one. And that one. And that one...
I'm of the opinion that you can use a year, but try to avoid it at all costs.

You rang? Anyhow, I'm going to get out a short aside of my own that I may or may not think warrants its own thread. A soldier died two days ago and I'd like to ask for a moment of silent prayer for him, his family, and his young child. He is a casualty of the war in Iraq, but you'll never see him counted in the official death toll. After two long tours in Iraq this soldier came home and tried to regain a normal life. He became a federal officer for the NSA and was trying to make a new life from the shards he had left. Two days ago he put a gun in his mouth and ended his life. I'd like To honor this loyal servant, Joseph Pushkal. This Marine says Semper Fi brave soldier. Hoo-ah! Here goes the end of my threadjack.
*sigh* :(

This is Hillarious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc&feature=related
I refuse to click that.

she is inflating her credentials. i dont have a big problem with that either since all politicians do it and her actual experience is obvious.
Not as obvious as it should be. A lot of people are deluded by her claims of experience. Would you let a surgeon's wife operate on you just because she said she had the experience to do so?

More on the Clinton's greatest hits tour,that old chestnut, adjusted expectations-


Yep, closed and average 16 point lead in three week, ahead by every metric, but now this is the must win state for him.

Does she think she can do this stuff in the General election? "We're only counting these eight states, and if you don't by more than 15%, I actually win. Oh! And I can totally change which states we're counting after the votes are tallied."
He's not trying to win. They don't seem to get that. He's trying to rack up delegates. And that's why he's going to do better than her in the General. You rack up electoral votes, not states.

I was just taking it off the RCP News page. While he hasn't actually denied public financing yet, while McCain is going to accept it, most people think Obama is most likely to backtrack on that (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us/politics/10campaign.html?ex=1365566400&en=4ac9f4c84abc1df0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).
I doubt many voters really care about that. I personally don,t Public financing is a great idea, but it won't go down well in the US.

And for the other part... McCain's full statement about the 100 years of war ended with " as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/politics/27check.html) Meaning... he wanted a station like Korea or Japan, which he also said. So some reporter called him out on it and he just said she 'wasn't accurate' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts3U939CD3g.
I think the media and pundits drew that out more than Obama or Hillary.

Not that I expect Obama to not lie. He's a politician... but he's definately not something "new" nor will he be a "uniter."
What do you have to do to be new? He will be a uniter a great one.

Obama now up 10 in gallup daily tracking poll. Largest lead yet.http://www.gallup.com/poll/105841/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-52-Clintons-42.aspx

outdated

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106402/Gallup-Daily-Obama-50-Clinton-42.aspx
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/041008DailyUpdateGraph1yuiklmn.gif

Yup....and SurveyUSA has Clinton up by 18%.

Geography Surveyed: Pennsylvania (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=c79e5bab-a424-49f6-86d6-50c61cf729b7)

Data Collected: 04/05/2008 - 04/07/2008

Also with crosstabs (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c79e5bab-a424-49f6-86d6-50c61cf729b7).

Yup. Same site that has Obama up and down in PA, but crushing Hillary by 10% in NC and Oregon consistently. Keep citing that site. If they're correct, Obama is not only the best candidate in the general, but he's going to clinch the nomination for sure. Thanks for informing us!!

Yup....and SurveyUSA has Clinton up by 18%.

Geography Surveyed: Pennsylvania (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=c79e5bab-a424-49f6-86d6-50c61cf729b7)

Data Collected: 04/05/2008 - 04/07/2008

Also with crosstabs (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c79e5bab-a424-49f6-86d6-50c61cf729b7).

And Quinnipiac had her up by four. What's your poin

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1165t?

And Rasmussen had her up by 5 points

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary

And the American Research Group has them tied:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

Can you say outlier?
Is it though? Perhaps you can provide some info that demonstrates that to be a fact?

RCP average (a true indication of a trend) has mostly 3-8 point spreads.
RCP is not a poll....it is an average of polls and as such is only as reliable as the polls that it averages. There is certainly nothing scientific about RCP.

Throwing the %18 in there skews the numbers.
Yet it may in fact be accurate?

Also, what is it with you and surveyusa? Is it the only polling info that really plays to your argument? I don't get it.
I believe that CTOAN was the first to bring SurveyUSA (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13466972&postcount=202)to this thread, and included many state polls from that site.

Then Tongass made an interesting post using SurveyUSA data (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13507772&postcount=1394)that suggested that Obama would beat McCain 280 to 258, and that Hillary would beat McCain 276 to 262.

Note: I had a lot of fun working with those figures and made quite a few arguments/posts based on those numbers, that Hillary was actually more electable than Obama when looking at those numbers.

Note 2: I also claimed that it was only one poll and as such was suspect, even though it augmented my argument (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13508175&postcount=1413).

Then Jocabia got into supporting SurveyUSA's numbers (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510064&postcount=1471)to a degree. Of course the degrees were differeing than mine. :D

Then Jocabia got pissed when I used those numbers to show that Clinton overall has better numbers in the Southern States against McCain then did Obama (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510147&postcount=1478). Those numbers also supported my claims that Hillary could win Southern red States that Obama couldn't (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510132&postcount=1479), such as West Virginia, Arkansas, and Florida and was in a statisical tie with McCain in Tennessee. Note that Joc's comments are in bold.

Of course I countered his findings with this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510220&postcount=1490).

There has been lots of posts written that reference SurveyUSA.

Also, like I said earlier, Hillary cannot get elected because her negative (favorability) numbers are horrible. Sad as it may seem, most people will vote against you rather than for you.
Those numbers like any poll numbers can change and they do change. We have seen what happens when a candidate has a bad week.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html
Again, RCP is not scientific polling.

And Quinnipiac had her up by four. What's your poin

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1165t?

And Rasmussen had her up by 5 points

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary

And the American Research Group has them tied:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/
Therefore, 2 out of those 3 are definitely wrong and perhaps all 3 are wrong?

Therefore, 2 out of those 3 are definitely wrong and perhaps all 3 are wrong?

So, they're wrong because they're not YOUR favored research, even though two of them are pretty close to one another and far from YOURS? Because YOURS could be wrong too. And given the samples in the number of researches, tell me: Which do you think is more LIKELY wrong?

So, they're wrong because they're not YOUR favored research, even though two of them are pretty close to one another and far from YOURS? Because YOURS could be wrong too. And given the samples and the number of research, tell me: Which do you think is more LIKELY wrong?
All I did was state a fact, and it has nothing to do with whether I liked them or not. That is the trouble with US polls. There are too many, too often, and too volatile. Some are right out to lunch, and some will be close to the mark.

Given the information in the SurveyUSA poll (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=c79e5bab-a424-49f6-86d6-50c61cf729b7), I tend to back their sampling, partly because I like it and partly for their extensive breakdown. I would like to see more of the polls detailing their polling in this fashion.

Could it be wrong? Absolutely, but I am hoping that they are right for personal reasons. :)

Could it be wrong? Absolutely, but I am hoping that they are right for personal reasons. :)

Because you want to see Clinton losing to McCain?

Because you want to see Clinton losing to McCain?

Thats the funniest bit about this. CH is Canadian. If McCain wins, all he has do to is be a little disappointed for maybe a moment and say "Meh, oh well".


We have to live with it for four fucking years. Foreigers like you who are more likely to be directly impacted by his policies also have more of a cause to worry then he does.


Thats the most infuriating part about his Hillary defense. In the end, this isnt a big deal to him. The US isnt going to do anything to Canada. Its easy to just view this as a game when it wont affect you.

Because you want to see Clinton losing to McCain?
Of course not. Where do you get that?

Of course not. Where do you get that?

Because that's what will happen if she gets nominated.

Independents have consistently sided with McCain against Hillary and with Obama against McCain.

Well, the economy of his country is directly tied to that of the US and also strongly tied to NAFTA. So it is in his best interest to see Obama and Clinton defeated.

Well, the economy of his country is directly tied to that of the US and also strongly tied to NAFTA. So it is in his best interest to see Obama and Clinton defeated.

Chances are, neither of them would end NAFTA anyway.

Thats the funniest bit about this. CH is Canadian. If McCain wins, all he has do to is be a little disappointed for maybe a moment and say "Meh, oh well".

We have to live with it for four fucking years. Foreigers like you who are more likely to be directly impacted by his policies also have more of a cause to worry then he does.

Thats the most infuriating part about his Hillary defense. In the end, this isnt a big deal to him. The US isnt going to do anything to Canada. Its easy to just view this as a game when it wont affect you.
A game? Obviously you know very little about US/Canada political/economic ties? Canada is far more "impacted"by US politics than Brazil, by a longshot.

I cannot believe that you would make such a post. Totally unbelieveable.

A game? Obviously you know very little about US/Canada political/economic ties? Canada is far more "impacted"by US politics than Brazil, by a longshot.

I cannot believe that you would make such a post. Totally unbelieveable.



Really? Pray tell, what is the worst thing the US would ever do to Canada?


Brazil is in South America. Venezuala is in South America. With all Hillary and McCains saber rattling at Chavez, it is understandable that Heikou would have reason to fear a destabilizing force entering the region.

outdated

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106402/Gallup-Daily-Obama-50-Clinton-42.aspx
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/041008DailyUpdateGraph1yuiklmn.gif

Thank you kind sir.

Well, the economy of his country is directly tied to that of the US and also strongly tied to NAFTA. So it is in his best interest to see Obama and Clinton defeated.

1- Obama has a better economic plan than McCain. So does Hillary.

2- I could care less about the economy, what I fear is four more years of dickwaving by the US, ESPECIALLY given that Venezuela shares a border with Brazil!

All I did was state a fact, and it has nothing to do with whether I liked them or not. That is the trouble with US polls. There are too many, too often, and too volatile. Some are right out to lunch, and some will be close to the mark.

Given the information in the SurveyUSA poll (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=c79e5bab-a424-49f6-86d6-50c61cf729b7), I tend to back their sampling, partly because I like it and partly for their extensive breakdown. I would like to see more of the polls detailing their polling in this fashion.

Could it be wrong? Absolutely, but I am hoping that they are right for personal reasons. :)

So you're saying "the poll I cited are more accurate than the ones you cited because my citation supports me."

And seriously, when most polls are showing 5-10% gap, an 18% gap is probably "right out to lunch."

Is it though? Perhaps you can provide some info that demonstrates that to be a fact?


RCP is not a poll....it is an average of polls and as such is only as reliable as the polls that it averages. There is certainly nothing scientific about RCP.


Yet it may in fact be accurate?


I believe that CTOAN was the first to bring SurveyUSA (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13466972&postcount=202)to this thread, and included many state polls from that site.

Then Tongass made an interesting post using SurveyUSA data (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13507772&postcount=1394)that suggested that Obama would beat McCain 280 to 258, and that Hillary would beat McCain 276 to 262.

Note: I had a lot of fun working with those figures and made quite a few arguments/posts based on those numbers, that Hillary was actually more electable than Obama when looking at those numbers.

Note 2: I also claimed that it was only one poll and as such was suspect, even though it augmented my argument (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13508175&postcount=1413).

Then Jocabia got into supporting SurveyUSA's numbers (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510064&postcount=1471)to a degree. Of course the degrees were differeing than mine. :D

Then Jocabia got pissed when I used those numbers to show that Clinton overall has better numbers in the Southern States against McCain then did Obama (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510147&postcount=1478). Those numbers also supported my claims that Hillary could win Southern red States that Obama couldn't (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510132&postcount=1479), such as West Virginia, Arkansas, and Florida and was in a statisical tie with McCain in Tennessee. Note that Joc's comments are in bold.

Of course I countered his findings with this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510220&postcount=1490).

There has been lots of posts written that reference SurveyUSA.


Those numbers like any poll numbers can change and they do change. We have seen what happens when a candidate has a bad week.


Again, RCP is not scientific polling.

Wow, you really know jack shit about stats. Survey USA is one poll. Taking an average of the polls (rcp) is indicative of the overall sentiment moreso than 1 poll. If there are 10 polls taken and all of them, except 1 is in the 0-8, that's called an outlier. Do you think it's more likely that 1 poll is more correct than 9 others? Try and answer that seriously without bias. Here ends statistics 101 for you and an answer to your "can you in fact say this is true?" My point is that by you using only the surveryUSA poll numbers, which favor your position, you are doing a disservice to statistical analysis and truth as a whole. RCP is an average of the polls, which is more indicative of a trend than 1 poll. Get it now? As for it not being scientific... If the rcp average is not scientific it would mean that the surveys used to get that average were not scientific either. That means your surveyUSA poll is nothing more than rubbish. In summation, your use of 1 polling metric as proof of electability is nonsensical. Hillarys negative numbers are far worse than "a bad week." Here's information running back to 1998 on her favorability. (http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary)

Here are Barack's numbers (http://www.pollingreport.com/o.htm)

Here are McCain's numbers. (http://www.pollingreport.com/l.htm#McCain) Barack has the highest numbers (historically and present) out of all of them.

All I did was state a fact, and it has nothing to do with whether I liked them or not. That is the trouble with US polls. There are too many, too often, and too volatile. Some are right out to lunch, and some will be close to the mark.

Given the information in the SurveyUSA poll (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=c79e5bab-a424-49f6-86d6-50c61cf729b7), I tend to back their sampling, partly because I like it and partly for their extensive breakdown. I would like to see more of the polls detailing their polling in this fashion.

Could it be wrong? Absolutely, but I am hoping that they are right for personal reasons. :)

Bold parts QFT

So you're saying "the poll I cited are more accurate than the ones you cited because my citation supports me."

And seriously, when most polls are showing 5-10% gap, an 18% gap is probably "right out to lurch."
Don't put words in my mouth. I don't claim that ANY polls are accurate. I like certain polls over others, just as other posters here have their preferences.

Is the 18% lead accurate? Who knows?

How about comparing polling accuracy?

Here is one:

SurveyUSA 2006 Mid-Term Election Report Card (http://surveyusa.com/Scorecards/SUSA2006ElectionReportCard.htm)

Be my guest and find more.

Therefore, 2 out of those 3 are definitely wrong and perhaps all 3 are wrong?

I provided three polls to your one. Please tell me why my polls are definitely wrong?

Because that's what will happen if she gets nominated.

Independents have consistently sided with McCain against Hillary and with Obama against McCain.

A very true statement.

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't claim that ANY polls are accurate. I like certain polls over others, just as other posters here have their preferences.

Is the 18% lead accurate? Who knows?

How about comparing polling accuracy?

Here is one:

SurveyUSA 2006 Mid-Term Election Report Card (http://surveyusa.com/Scorecards/SUSA2006ElectionReportCard.htm)

Be my guest and find more.

Hmm...based of that report card, I think I"ll trust Polls done by schools and polling places inside the state than SurveyUSA.

I don't claim that ANY polls are accurate

Ah, sorry, you claimed it "may" be accurate.

Yet it may in fact be accurate?

I provided three polls to your one. Please tell me why my polls are definitely wrong?
Two of the polls have to be wrong and the 3rd one could also be wrong?

Ah, sorry, you claimed it "may" be accurate.
Thank you. :)

Hmm...based of that report card, I think I"ll trust Polls done by schools and polling places inside the state than SurveyUSA.
Over a professional polling firm? In other words you want to "trust" polls that more accurately reflect what you want to see?

Over a professional polling firm? In other words you want to "trust" polls that more accurately reflect what you want to see?

...he said, a few posts after doing the same.

Given the information in the SurveyUSA poll (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=c79e5bab-a424-49f6-86d6-50c61cf729b7), I tend to back their sampling, partly because I like it and partly for their extensive breakdown. I would like to see more of the polls detailing their polling in this fashion.

Could it be wrong? Absolutely, but I am hoping that they are right for personal reasons. :)

you are aware that neither finding it pleasing or the inclusion of the cross-tabs is reason to think a poll better than others, right? what really matters is whether their sample and turnout model wind up being close to the actual turnout. do you have reason to think so?

...he said, a few posts after doing the same.

Ahhh, stop stealing my thoughts you Brazillian bastard!!!!!! Now we must fight to the death. :p

Chances are, neither of them would end NAFTA anyway.
Canadians are far more "impacted" by the US than just the NAFTA agreement.

How about NATO, NORAD, war in Afghanistan (any Brazilians getting shot there?), the longest common border in the world, environmental concerns, G8, and a raft of others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-United_States_relations#Common_memberships).

Also drugs and weapons are part of our continuing struggles.

Not to mention that over 16 Million Canadians visited the US in 2005.

Two of the polls have to be wrong and the 3rd one could also be wrong?

Why does 2 of them have to be wrong? As has been stated, what makes yours right and the others wrong?

Over a professional polling firm? In other words you want to "trust" polls that more accurately reflect what you want to see?

Oh please tell me how you drew that conclusion when all I stated and I quote:

"I think I'll trust those done by schools and polling places inside the state."

And yes. Quinnipiac is a professional polling firm as they constantly release polls dealing with politics inside the state of Pennsylvania and some national contests.

...he said, a few posts after doing the same.
However, I am not in denial like most of you here. :p

Oh please tell me how you drew that conclusion when all I stated and I quote:

"I think I'll trust those done by schools and polling places inside the state."

And yes. Quinnipiac is a professional polling firm as they constantly release polls dealing with politics inside the state of Pennsylvania and some national contests.
And Quinnipiac is more reliable than SurveyUSA?

And Quinnipiac is more reliable than SurveyUSA?

Is SurveyUSA anymore reliable than Quinnipiac?

Known for its exactness and thoroughness, the Quinnipiac poll was selected a "winner" by the New York Post for the most accurate prediction on the Schumer-D'Amato Senate race in 1998, and results are featured regularly in The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and on national network news broadcasts.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x271.xml

Why does 2 of them have to be wrong? As has been stated, what makes yours right and the others wrong?

He is reffering to the fact that if Poll A, Poll B, and Poll C show different percentages for one race than at least two of them must be wrong [as you can't have two different percentages be true.]

Which is, of course, why we look a range of percentages (we're seeing about 5-10% advantage for Clinton right now) or an average: no single poll is perfect. A group of polls is often more accurate.

He is reffering to the fact that if Poll A, Poll B, and Poll C show different percentages for one race than at least two of them must be wrong [as you can't have two different percentages be true.]

Which is, of course, why we look a range of percentages (we're seeing about 5-10% advantage for Clinton right now) or an average: no single poll is perfect. A group of polls is often more accurate.

Which CH is denying in favor of the SurveyUSA poll with Clinton up by 18.

1- Obama has a better economic plan than McCain. So does Hillary.

2- I could care less about the economy, what I fear is four more years of dickwaving by the US, ESPECIALLY given that Venezuela shares a border with Brazil!

I didn't know raising taxes and protectionism were considered good economic plans.

However, I am not in denial like most of you here. :p

I was hoping it didn't have to come to this...

***7th Flush***

You are in denial about the fact that Obama is winning the popular vote.

You are in denial about the fact that the polls aren't showing Hillary doing nearly as well as you wish, in her pseudo-slam-dunk state of Pennsylvania.

You are in denial about the fact that Obama fares better than Hillary against McCain in nearly all polls.

You are in denial about the fact that Obama has more pledged delegates than Hillary and that's not going to change.

You are in denial about the fact that Hillary has very little chance of getting nominated.

You are in denial about the fact that Hillary's scorched-earth techniques are harming the entire Democratic Party.

You are in denial about the fact that the only way Hillary could get nominated would be by getting superdelegates or, worse, PLEDGED delegates, to eschew the will of the voters and doom the Democrats and the world to four more years of Republican presidency.

Your move, sir?

I didn't know raising taxes and protectionism were considered good economic plans.

***To show my opponent's folly by replicating his arguing style and using it against him.***

***Mirror, Mirror***

I didn't know letting corporations run amok and sitting idly by while your economy goes to waste were considered good economic plans.

You are in denial about the fact that the only way Hillary could get nominated would be by getting superdelegates to eschew the will of the voters and doom the Democrats and the world to four more years of Republican presidency.

Don't forget getting pledged delegates to switch votes as well, making the primary and caucus votes essentially useless.

I didn't know raising taxes and protectionism were considered good economic plans.

I didn't know closing tax loopholes and offering a tax cut for most brackets was considered "raising taxes."

I also didn't know that advocating free trade agreements that are actually fair and promote true freed trade was considered "protectionism".

Don't forget getting pledged delegates to switch votes as well, making the primary and caucus votes essentially useless.

Fixed it. Wouldn't add another one because, well, it's called SEVENTH Flush for a reason.

However, I am not in denial like most of you here. :p

No one's really in denial. The posting was just pointing out your hypocrisy. If you would like to study scientific statistical analysis and learn what an outlier is I'll be happy to teach you. If most polls have it at 3-10, and one poll has it at 18, that poll is an outlier.

***To show my opponent's folly by replicating his arguing style and using it against him.***

***Mirror, Mirror***

I didn't know letting corporations run amok and sitting idly by while your economy goes to waste were considered good economic plans.

We should let the US economy go to waste more often if it leads to about 2 trillion dollars of real GDP growth.

We should let the US economy go to waste more often if it leads to about 2 trillion dollars of real GDP growth.

And that's why there are many, MANY Americans losing their HOUSES?

He is reffering to the fact that if Poll A, Poll B, and Poll C show different percentages for one race than at least two of them must be wrong [as you can't have two different percentages be true.]

Which is, of course, why we look a range of percentages (we're seeing about 5-10% advantage for Clinton right now) or an average: no single poll is perfect. A group of polls is often more accurate.

You mean like an RCP average? That shit isn't scientific though, even if it's based on scientific polls themselves. Now if they said Clinton was ahead by 3,103,230% then they'd be more accurate.

And that's why there are many, MANY Americans losing their HOUSES?

There was a housing bubble, just like at the end of the Clinton presidency there was a technology bubble. Just as the latter didn't spell doom for the economy then, there aren't going to be major problems now, either. Home ownership rates are still slightly above what they were when GWB came to office and of course in absolute numbers are above what they were seven years ago.

There was a housing bubble, just like at the end of the Clinton presidency there was a technology bubble. Just as the latter didn't spell doom for the economy then, there aren't going to be major problems now, either. Home ownership rates are still slightly above what they were when GWB came to office and of course in absolute numbers are above what they were seven years ago.

And CH claims that I am in denial...

We should let the US economy go to waste more often if it leads to about 2 trillion dollars of real GDP growth.

Check out the gdp rates and ranks for the us economy. Hardly stellar, especially for the world's largest economy.

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

The US is ranked 140th

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=us&v=66

I didn't know closing tax loopholes and offering a tax cut for most brackets was considered "raising taxes."

I also didn't know that advocating free trade agreements that are actually fair and promote true freed trade was considered "protectionism".

Closing a loophole is effectively raising or lowering a tax. Since politicians often suggest "closing tax loopholes" as a way to generate more revenue, I imagine that is what Obama is referring to as well - closing loopholes to tax people more. Whether or not the actual rates go up or not is irrelevant in this regard, since people will be paying more.

I imagine that "closing loopholes" is how he plans to pay for his $500 tax cut for 150 million Americans. That and, well, letting the majority of the Bush tax cuts expire.

And yes I believe that calling for "fair" trade is really another version of protectionism. It's an excuse to get environmental, labor, and human rights issues involved with trade. Since the USA, presumably, is going to have higher standards on this issues than China or the Central American countries, it is, in effect, a way to help the US at the expense of others.

Closing a loophole is effectively raising or lowering a tax.

In much the same way that proper enforcement of a law is writing a new one?

Since politicians often suggest "closing tax loopholes" as a way to generate more revenue, I imagine that is what Obama is referring to as well - closing loopholes to tax people more. Whether or not the actual rates go up or not is irrelevant in this regard, since people will be paying more.

Very few people utilize tax loopholes. Problem is, those that do are the corporations with the most money. They have the money to pay someone to find them ways out of paying their taxes, so they do.

I imagine that "closing loopholes" is how he plans to pay for his $500 tax cut for 150 million Americans. That and, well, letting the majority of the Bush tax cuts expire.

That's part of it. He also plans to stop spending billions of dollars on an ill-conceived war and cut down on pork-barrel budgeting.

And yes I believe that calling for "fair" trade is really another version of protectionism. It's an excuse to get environmental, labor, and human rights issues involved with trade. Since the USA, presumably, is going to have higher standards on this issues than China or the Central American countries, it is, in effect, a way to help the US at the expense of others.

Not at all. It's a way of promoting free trade. Free trade necessitates that all parties are a part of the same market. If one of the countries is subsidizing businesses and the other isn't, there can be no free trade. Companies in one of those countries will have an advantage that has nothing to do with the market. Same goes for having human rights regarding labor respected in one country and not in the other.

The existence of free trade relies on market forces pushing economic changes. If other concerns are pushing these things, you do not have free trade. If these things are "protectionism", then promotion of actual free trade is "protectionism."

Edit: Or, rather, practical free trade. True free trade would necessitate completely open borders and allowance of actual slave labor.

Check out the gdp rates and ranks for the us economy. Hardly stellar, especially for the world's largest economy.

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

The US is ranked 140th

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=us&v=66


This is what should be expected of the world's largest developed economy. Look at the countries below the US - Austria, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands, Japan, Australia, Canada, UK, Belgium, Faroe Islands, Germany, France, New Zealand, Italy, Portugal, Malta and Monaco. Of the 34 states classified as developed countries by the CIA, 32 discounting the USA and Vatican City, 18 have slower growth rates than the USA.

Closing a loophole is effectively raising or lowering a tax. Since politicians often suggest "closing tax loopholes" as a way to generate more revenue, I imagine that is what Obama is referring to as well - closing loopholes to tax people more. Whether or not the actual rates go up or not is irrelevant in this regard, since people will be paying more.

I imagine that "closing loopholes" is how he plans to pay for his $500 tax cut for 150 million Americans. That and, well, letting the majority of the Bush tax cuts expire.

And yes I believe that calling for "fair" trade is really another version of protectionism. It's an excuse to get environmental, labor, and human rights issues involved with trade. Since the USA, presumably, is going to have higher standards on this issues than China or the Central American countries, it is, in effect, a way to help the US at the expense of others.

I believe that people should pay the taxes that they legally should pay, and no more. I propose that everyone do their fair share and be rewarded based on their merits. I'm for an end to corporate welfare in all its forms. The free market should dictate which businesses die and which live. Your ability to earn an income should be based upon the skills you have and use. We should not be giving subsidies to oil companies that post record profits every quarter. We should not reward CEO's with huge packages to leave companies after they've screwed their employees and shareholders. These guys preside over huge losses and shady business practices, and then are rewarded with multi-billion dollar severance packages. CEO's pay should be linked to their employees pay. If the CEO wants to give himself a 30% raise, then he gives a 30% raise to the guy working in the mail room. If this were the case you'd see a lot of cases of CEO's actually compensating their employees fairly, while working to earn those multi-million dollar packages they get. This will do well to fix the income gap in America. Expecting that people be paid a living wage for their hard work is not too much to ask. People constantly talk about America being build on Christian principles, (I don't necessarily agree) but get mad when policies that actually fall in line with Christianity are put into place. So if you're for bringing more income equality to America I'm for it. This is one of the reasons I support Obama.

This is what should be expected of the world's largest developed economy. Look at the countries below the US - Austria, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands, Japan, Australia, Canada, UK, Belgium, Faroe Islands, Germany, France, New Zealand, Italy, Portugal, Malta and Monaco. Of the 34 states classified as developed countries by the CIA, 32 discounting the USA and Vatican City, 18 have slower growth rates than the USA.

So... you're making the same kind of claim made by a guy that goes "I can't lift this weight because I'm too strong to manage"?

Wow.

In much the same way that proper enforcement of a law is writing a new one?
Essentially. It isn't writing in the literal sense, but enforcing a long-forgotten law and writing (and enforcing) a new law that is the same as the old one has the same result. Something that was not wrong before is now wrong.



Very few people utilize tax loopholes. Problem is, those that do are the corporations with the most money. They have the money to pay someone to find them ways out of paying their taxes, so they do.

I don't see what the problem is. While ideally there wouldn't be a loophole in the first place, if someone is able to take advantage of it they should. Corporate taxes in the USA are already among the highest in the world, so I don't really think corporations need to be taxed more.


That's part of it. He also plans to stop spending billions of dollars on an ill-conceived war and cut down on pork-barrel budgeting.

Thats good, but unfortunately most of those billions will probably have to go towards an even more ill-conceived social security and welfare system. Plus, it is fairly doubtful that a Democratic president would veto pork-barrel items in what is likely to be a heavily Democratic congress. If he does, he deserves credit. Its not without precedent (Ronald Reagan frequently vetoed non-military spending bills in a Republican era).


Not at all. It's a way of promoting free trade. Free trade necessitates that all parties are a part of the same market. If one of the countries is subsidizing businesses and the other isn't, there can be no free trade. Companies in one of those countries will have an advantage that has nothing to do with the market. Same goes for having human rights regarding labor respected in one country and not in the other.

The existence of free trade relies on market forces pushing economic changes. If other concerns are pushing these things, you do not have free trade. If these things are "protectionism", then promotion of actual free trade is "protectionism."

Edit: Or, rather, practical free trade. True free trade would necessitate completely open borders and allowance of actual slave labor.

It goes both ways, though. The American farm system is heavily subsidized and farm exports are growing at a fast rate and make up a large part of overall exportations. Moreover, expecting undeveloped countries to have high standards is unrealistic. The US didn't ban child labor until 1938 and many parts of a high standard of living are simply luxuries unaffordable to the majority of people at this time. Much like democracy can't be forced upon a culture that isn't ready, human rights standards can't be forced upon an economy built on child labor and pitiful work conditions.

So... you're making the same kind of claim made by a guy that goes "I can't lift this weight because I'm too strong to manage"?

Wow.

This is how modern economies tend to work. Unless you have a real response don't reply.

I believe that people should pay the taxes that they legally should pay, and no more. I propose that everyone do their fair share and be rewarded based on their merits. I'm for an end to corporate welfare in all its forms. The free market should dictate which businesses die and which live. Your ability to earn an income should be based upon the skills you have and use. We should not be giving subsidies to oil companies that post record profits every quarter. We should not reward CEO's with huge packages to leave companies after they've screwed their employees and shareholders. These guys preside over huge losses and shady business practices, and then are rewarded with multi-billion dollar severance packages. CEO's pay should be linked to their employees pay. If the CEO wants to give himself a 30% raise, then he gives a 30% raise to the guy working in the mail room. If this were the case you'd see a lot of cases of CEO's actually compensating their employees fairly, while working to earn those multi-million dollar packages they get. This will do well to fix the income gap in America. Expecting that people be paid a living wage for their hard work is not too much to ask. People constantly talk about America being build on Christian principles, (I don't necessarily agree) but get mad when policies that actually fall in line with Christianity are put into place. So if you're for bringing more income equality to America I'm for it. This is one of the reasons I support Obama.


I agree with you in part. I think that the estate tax ("death tax") should be brought back to a high amount on the super rich. This would help to eliminate, somewhat, inherited wealth and help promote meritocracy. But I don't think an income gap in itself is a bad thing.

This is how modern economies tend to work. Unless you have a real response don't reply.

1- I will reply to you whenever I see fit. And there's nothing you can do about it.

2- YOUR replies so far have denied facts, inverted logic, lacked coherency and been, in short, thoroughly and unmistakably WRONG.

I should say before I go that I think environmental concerns and human rights violations are a problem, but that trying to fix them via trade policy isn't going to do anything. The best solution, in my opinion, would be worldwide population control and gradual raising of standards. Then again, some people consider having as many kids as you want a human right, but the alarming rate of population growth the world is seeing is something no politician wants to touch but unfortunately is turning into a very severe problem.

1- I will reply to you whenever I see fit. And there's nothing you can do about it.

2- YOUR replies so far have denied facts, inverted logic, lacked coherency and been, in short, thoroughly and unmistakably WRONG.

The good part about #1 is that it both allows high school ideologues to post on this forum and for others to ignore them.

The good part about #1 is that it both allows high school ideologues to post on this forum and for others to ignore them.

However, I did not see fit to ignore you.

For that matter, how old are YOU?

I'm 26, and a college graduate.

However, I did not see fit to ignore you.

For that matter, how old are YOU?

I'm 26, and a college graduate.

19 and in college (hence the location).

Believe it if you want, I know when I was younger I used to lie about my age online. Its the smart thing to do.

19 and in college (hence the location).

Believe it if you want, I know when I was younger I used to lie about my age online. Its the smart thing to do.

The problem, kid, is the fact that most people who know me here know that I graduated. And at least some know my age.

G. Also known as Graham's Number. Try writing THAT out.

6. Or six if you prefer.

I should say before I go that I think environmental concerns and human rights violations are a problem, but that trying to fix them via trade policy isn't going to do anything. The best solution, in my opinion, would be worldwide population control and gradual raising of standards. Then again, some people consider having as many kids as you want a human right, but the alarming rate of population growth the world is seeing is something no politician wants to touch but unfortunately is turning into a very severe problem.

How else do you fix them then? The prospect of trade deals contingent on democratization has pushed countries with human rights abuses to adopt reforms in the past. Look at the EU, for instance, which requires that member countries be democracies. Prospective members have adopted democratic reforms in order to gain entrance, such as Romania, Greece, and most recently, Turkey (which hasn't been accepted yet, but that's a whole other ball of wax). Trade organizations have been demonstrated to work when it comes to pushing countries to curb human rights abuses; what other strategies are there that have proven to be as viable?

And as for your point about worldwide population control, how does that relate to human rights abuses and environmental concerns?

Jeremiah Wright . . . William Ayers . . . and now this:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/11/obama-draws-fire-for-comments-on-small-town-america/

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Even Democrat strategists are backing away from this:

"It comes off very badly,” Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers said of Obama’s small-town America remarks. “They are things that I think in a liberal world sound totally normal, and outside of that world I don’t know that he appreciates how it sounds. And it just sounds very elitist, and it sounds like he’s looking down on people.”

Looks like the real Obama isn't who he's being promoted as being, doesn't it?

Ooh, nice, a Fox news article. I mean it's not like Fox is conservatively biased or somethintg like that. :rolleyes:

I was hoping it didn't have to come to this...

***7th Flush***

You are in denial about the fact that Obama is winning the popular vote.
Obama is winning the popular vote despite the real possibility that Hillary could be tied or ahead IF Florida and Michigan primaries had not been disqualified. Also, I do believe that Hillary still has the ability to catch up on the popular vote.

You are in denial about the fact that the polls aren't showing Hillary doing nearly as well as you wish, in her pseudo-slam-dunk state of Pennsylvania.
Depending which polls are accurate, Hillary could be doing really well or just average.

You are in denial about the fact that Obama fares better than Hillary against McCain in nearly all polls.
That is where you are in denial (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm). :)

You are in denial about the fact that Obama has more pledged delegates than Hillary and that's not going to change.
Obama does have more pledged delegates and yes it is going to change. She might not catch Obama, but the numbers will definitely change.

You are in denial about the fact that Hillary has very little chance of getting nominated.
Her chances may be slim, but I am behind her all the way.

You are in denial about the fact that Hillary's scorched-earth techniques are harming the entire Democratic Party.
Most Democrats, in a recent poll, stated that neither should quit. Your proof that "Hillary's scorched-earth techniques are harming the entire Democratic Party"???

You are in denial about the fact that the only way Hillary could get nominated would be by getting superdelegates or, worse, PLEDGED delegates, to eschew the will of the voters and doom the Democrats and the world to four more years of Republican presidency.
IF Hillary wins the nomination, then it will have been accomplished in a democratic manner. You might not like the manner, but it still will be democratic. Your suggestion that her nomination will "doom the Democrats and the world to four more years of Republican presidency", is purely speculative. :D

Obama is winning the popular vote despite the real possibility that Hillary could be tied or ahead IF Florida and Michigan primaries had not been disqualified. Also, I do believe that Hillary still has the ability to catch up on the popular vote.




According to RCP he's still ahead in popular vote counting Michigin/Florida. Even with the fact that he wasn't on the Michigin ballot


2008 Democratic Popular Vote





Popular Vote Count

State Date Obama Clinton Spread
Popular Vote Total 13,355,209 49.5% 12,638,123 46.9% Obama +717,086 +2.6%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 13,689,293 49.6% 12,861,985 46.6% Obama +827,308 +3.0%

Popular Vote (w/FL) 13,931,423 48.5% 13,509,109 47.1% Obama +422,314 +1.4%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 14,265,507 48.6% 13,732,971 46.8% Obama +532,536 +1.8%

According to RCP he's still ahead in popular vote counting Michigin/Florida. Even with the fact that he wasn't on the Michigin ballot
I am not disputing that, but I did state:

IF Florida and Michigan primaries had not been disqualified
There is a difference. Many did not go to the polls because they knew their vote would not count.

I am thankful we don't have the low level of debate here as on comment sections for articles. For example: as far as lies how about this WHOPPER - obama is not african american THAT IS RIGHT OBAMA IS NOT AFRICAN AMERICAN - he is ARAB AMERICAN - he lied to get into harvard - he is lying now

:headbang:

I am not disputing that, but I did state:


There is a difference. Many did not go to the polls because they knew their vote would not count.

Note that Obama would probably get far, far more votes than under the current situation because he would actually have votes for him in Michigin.

Jeremiah Wright . . . William Ayers . . . and now this:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/11/obama-draws-fire-for-comments-on-small-town-america/

context (http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1037#comment-16544):

OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people are most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre…they’re misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to ‘white working-class don’t wanna work — don’t wanna vote for the black guy.’ That’s…there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it’s sort of a race thing.

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism.

But — so the questions you’re most likely to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What is the concrete thing?’ What they wanna hear is so we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — to close tax loopholes, uh you know uh roll back the tax cuts for the top 1%, Obama’s gonna give tax breaks to uh middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide healthcare for every American.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you’ll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.

Note that Obama would probably get far, far more votes than under the current situation because he would actually have votes for him in Michigin.
He might have got more, he might have got less? We will also never know because that moment has forever passed.

According to this poll (http://www.gambling911.com/Hillary-Clinton-Michigan-Primary-Obama-011308.html), he would have got less:

It's not known how many Democrats unhappy with their choice will choose the Republican ballot. Obama and Edwards supporters are urging a vote for "uncommitted."

Clinton easily beats "uncommitted," 56% to 30%.

If the other major contenders were on the ballot, Clinton would still win with 46% of the vote. Obama would receive 23% and Edwards would get 13%.


The uncommitted votes were cast because the voters were angry and wanted either Obama or Edward to get their votes. (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/248915/Michigan_Republican_vote_goes_to_Mitt_Romney)

More (http://www.oriondems.com/):

Supporters of Joe Biden, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson are urged to vote "uncommitted " instead of writing in their candidates' names because write-in votes for those candidates will not be counted.

Paid for by the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee, 606 Townsend Lansing, MI 48933, 517-371-5410 and not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

He might have got more, he might have got less?

how the fuck does one get negative votes?

He might have got more, he might have got less? We will also never know because that moment has forever passed.

According to this poll (http://www.gambling911.com/Hillary-Clinton-Michigan-Primary-Obama-011308.html), he would have got less:






More (http://www.oriondems.com/):

The RCP (and official) figures count Michigin as 0 for Obama so he would be hard pressed to get *less* than 0 votes.

Ooh, nice, a Fox news article. I mean it's not like Fox is conservatively biased or somethintg like that. :rolleyes:

The same can be said of any news article from the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, NBC, MSNBC or any other liberally biased media outlet. In either event, so what? The words were either spoken or they weren't.

Unfortunately for you, it appears that they were.

I'll say it again: I am so going to enjoy watching McCain winning in November :D

The same can be said of any news article from the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, NBC, MSNBC or any other liberally biased media outlet. In either event, so what? The words were either spoken or they weren't.

Unfortunately for you, it appears that they were.

See above context for the entirety of the remark.

I take MSNBC, etc. with a grain of salt. I don't trust Fox News to provide a "fair and balanced" view of the weather, much less the election
If you want to take out of context quotes I'm fine with it. "Bomb Iran" and "Stay in Iraq for a hundred years" are perfectly fair if we allow out-of-context quotes about Obama.

If you want to take out of context quotes I'm fine with it. "Bomb Iran" and "Stay in Iraq for a hundred years" are perfectly fair if we allow out-of-context quotes about Obama.

of course, adding the context back to those only makes them all the worse.

"make it a million!"

Then Tongass made an interesting post using SurveyUSA data (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13507772&postcount=1394)that suggested that Obama would beat McCain 280 to 258, and that Hillary would beat McCain 276 to 262.
So, Obama winning 280 votes and Hillary winning 276 votes makes him less electable? Just to be sure I understand what you are asying.

All I did was state a fact, and it has nothing to do with whether I liked them or not. That is the trouble with US polls. There are too many, too often, and too volatile. Some are right out to lunch, and some will be close to the mark.
Since when is more samples worse than less samples?

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't claim that ANY polls are accurate. I like certain polls over others, just as other posters here have their preferences.
We don't favor any specific poll. We favor all polls available.

Two of the polls [B]have to be wrong
WTF? :confused:

However, I am not in denial like most of you here. :p
It must be Opposite Day.

He is reffering to the fact that if Poll A, Poll B, and Poll C show different percentages for one race than at least two of them must be wrong [as you can't have two different percentages be true.]
That makes no sense. The only poll that is accurate is the one on election day. The rest are just samplings that take different representations.

Obama is winning the popular vote despite the real possibility that Hillary could be tied or ahead IF Florida and Michigan primaries had not been disqualified. Also, I do believe that Hillary still has the ability to catch up on the popular vote.
If they had not been disqualified, the results would have been more favorable to Obama than they are now. In fact, Obama full well could have won Michigan.

Obama does have more pledged delegates and yes it is going to change. She might not catch Obama, but the numbers will definitely change.
Indeed. Obama will get more and expand his lead.

IF Hillary wins the nomination, then it will have been accomplished in a democratic manner. You might not like the manner, but it still will be democratic. Your suggestion that her nomination will "doom the Democrats and the world to four more years of Republican presidency", is purely speculative. :D
Because party elites overturning the actual vote is obviously democratic.

There is a difference. Many did not go to the polls because they knew their vote would not count.
A lot of whom were Obama supporters, especially in Michigan.

Methinks CH is trolling...:rolleyes:

of course, adding the context back to those only makes them all the worse.

"make it a million!"

Or if cutting and pasting parts of a speech together are allowed, how about "Bomb America!"

I'm sure McCain said both of those words at some point of time.

context (http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1037#comment-16544):

also, response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow

Is it though? Perhaps you can provide some info that demonstrates that to be a fact?


RCP is not a poll....it is an average of polls and as such is only as reliable as the polls that it averages. There is certainly nothing scientific about RCP.


Yet it may in fact be accurate?


I believe that CTOAN was the first to bring SurveyUSA (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13466972&postcount=202)to this thread, and included many state polls from that site.

Then Tongass made an interesting post using SurveyUSA data (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13507772&postcount=1394)that suggested that Obama would beat McCain 280 to 258, and that Hillary would beat McCain 276 to 262.

Note: I had a lot of fun working with those figures and made quite a few arguments/posts based on those numbers, that Hillary was actually more electable than Obama when looking at those numbers.

Note 2: I also claimed that it was only one poll and as such was suspect, even though it augmented my argument (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13508175&postcount=1413).

Then Jocabia got into supporting SurveyUSA's numbers (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510064&postcount=1471)to a degree. Of course the degrees were differeing than mine. :D

Then Jocabia got pissed when I used those numbers to show that Clinton overall has better numbers in the Southern States against McCain then did Obama (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510147&postcount=1478). Those numbers also supported my claims that Hillary could win Southern red States that Obama couldn't (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510132&postcount=1479), such as West Virginia, Arkansas, and Florida and was in a statisical tie with McCain in Tennessee. Note that Joc's comments are in bold.

Of course I countered his findings with this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510220&postcount=1490).

There has been lots of posts written that reference SurveyUSA.


Those numbers like any poll numbers can change and they do change. We have seen what happens when a candidate has a bad week.


Again, RCP is not scientific polling.


Jocabia got pissed, huh? Jocabia ate you for dinner and your specious claims for dessert.

You selectively chose states and pretended this makes her more electable. Selective evidence can prove anything. It's unscientific, illogical, and plainly stupid to claim that if you pick the right evidence and throw out anything that disagrees with you, then you've made an decent argument.

Do I need to evidence that you're selectively choosing some evidence and just ignoring others? I mean, I could just quote you admitting that you "like" the polls that agree with you, whether the evidence suggests they are more accurate or not.

As far as CH's attempt to suggest the poll cited actually supports his claims. Here's the reply he selectively left out of his little diatribe.

Um, you mean that if you pick out all of the states that favor her, then all the states favor her? Really? I'm shocked. What happens when you don't cherrypick your evidence, hmmm?

Well, let's see.
States where Obama does better than Hillary:
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Deleware
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oregon
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming


States where Hillary does better than Obama:
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Kentucky
Lousiana
Massachussetts
Mississippi
Missouri
New Jersey
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
West Virginia


Now, let's look at all of the states and see how many Obama does 10% better relative to McCain than Hillary and vice versa:

Obama does better than Hillary by 10% or more:
Alaska
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Oregon
Utah
Virginia
Vermont
Washington
Wyoming

Hillary does better than Obama by 10% or more:
Arkansa
Florida
Oklahoma
Tennessee
West Virginia


By the way, nice catch on a couple of those. I kind of glanced at the numbers and misread them. I'll admit I didn't care much, because there was no argument being made. (See what I did there. It's okay to make mistakes if you admit to them. It's dishonest when you keep arguing the point when it's been shown it's not true.)

"Nearly every state" was an exaggeration, but you did cherrypick the data, and then in reply to me pointing out you were clinging to the few states where she outperformed Obama, you did it again.

What you see by looking at ALL the data is that Obama did better in more states, that Obama did WAAAY better in more states, and that Obama does better in electoral votes.

What also see is that you told me to take a "hard look at the data" and when I did, it disagreed with you.

Go Hillary, indeed. She does have some astonishing numbers. A good one to look at is that Obama blew her out in 17 states to her 5. She did better than Obama in 15 out of 50 states. Obama did better than her in 33 states and they tied in 2. Those are some astonishing numbers.

You'll note that the same poll he listed there has Obama doing better than her in 33 states. She does better than him in 15, most of which he listed there to give a false impression that the poll supports that she is more electable. The poll also had Obama blowing her out in 17 states and her blowing him out in 5. It also had him with more electoral college votes. It also, if you remove the states within the margin of error, makes the picture MUCH worse for her.

But, hey, why not go ahead and keep pretending like that poll supported you, CH. I mean, why start looking at evidence as a whole? Why should today be any different than every other day?

19 and in college (hence the location).

Believe it if you want, I know when I was younger I used to lie about my age online. Its the smart thing to do.

We have one thing in common that I can see right away. We both went (you still go) to an ivy. I think we can agree on more than we will disagree on.

We have one thing in common that I can see right away. We both went (you still go) to an ivy. I think we can agree on more than we will disagree on.

You and I have something in common as well. I'm also a former Marine.

You and I have something in common as well. I'm also a former Marine.

And I've been to Marine World/Africa USA, so we're...









okay, I'll just go now...

And as for your point about worldwide population control, how does that relate to human rights abuses and environmental concerns?

It would be nearly impossible for someone to live a modern (Western) lifestyle without being a net negative on the environment in terms of carbon footprint. Unless the human population is scaled back, something is going to have to give. For the basic premise : http://www.radicalsimplicity.org/footprint.html

The impact people have on the environment goes much farther than which type of car they drive or how long they keep the lights on.

And I've been to Marine World/Africa USA, so we're...









okay, I'll just go now...

You don't like to reply to TG's, I see.

After complaints that this thread had become so unwieldy it discouraged new posters, it has been replaced by three specific topic threads, available here (election issues) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13604777#post13604777), here (Clinton vs Obama) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554117) and here (polls, graphs and number-crunching) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13604800#post13604800).

I'm moving the last 12 posts to the poll thread to give you an easy link if you've subscribed to the topic.