NationStates Jolt Archive

Obama is going to get elected, but Dr. Ron Paul is our only real hope.

Obama tried to cheat in Texas.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/05/team-clinton-charges-obama-supporters-of-hijacking-caucuses/

Your link doesn't support your claim. It supports a claim that Clinton made the accusation.

Thats what Clinton's camp claims........

I'm going to give this a day or so to cook. It could be blown out of proportion, it could be worse than originally thought.

It wasn't mandatory? Wish it wasn't for me - boy, what a flake my professor for GE 'politics and policy' was. :p

I did a lot of creative maneuvering with my GE. It's not that I wasn't interested, but there was a more interesting path. I can't remember how I did this (ah, GE...), but I did.

Texas Primary

82 percent reporting

Clinton 51%
Obama 48%


Texas Caucuses

13 percent reporting

Obama 54%
Clinton 46%

I'm going to give this a day or so to cook. It could be blown out of proportion, it could be worse than originally thought.

Indeed - now that I've read up on the caucuses, these become very politically charged.

Senator Clinton has been looking for ways to have the caucuses discounted, she claims they're unfair for many reasons - well, there's arguments both sides but it's certainly complicated and there is cause for calling them undemocratic.

This is a good explanation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/confusion-rampant-over-te_b_89548.html) - previously put in wrong link

So I'd say the main tactic here is to question the legality of these caucuses in a bid to have them discounted as delegate votes - essentially throwing out 67 delegates, the majority of whom would likely be Senator Obama's.

I suspect it will indeed be a big story because I can't see Senator Clinton letting it go - scorched earth policy indeed.

Still, don't worry, Free Soviets has provided a handy link to show that Senator Obama gains more delegates - 64-62 at the moment I think.

EDIT: Oops, it seems to have changed: 65-61 for Senator Clinton

Link (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJ0M6W5tNQCPLz7oU3-llfg)

yeah, looks like we're waiting to see if clinton actually gets a few of those it currently has splitting 3-1 for her. a few of them are within a percent or three of being 2-2 with lots of votes left to count.

He utterly failed to focus on the justified war and to accomplish any of our goals. Neither country is remotely stable, none of our goals have been accomplished, terrorism continues to be a threat, Bin Laden walks the earth free and 100,000 people are dead. Yup. You're right. All good outcomes really.


I never called any of those things 'good;' if you go back about four posts or so, you'll see that that was exactly the point - the difference between consequences and intention, and how that's used to steer the discourse about the presidency. I was making a generalization for the sake of humor - that's not a good starting point for a debate, and I wasn't looking to extrapolate from it. ;)

On topic: looks like Clinton's over the top as far as the popular vote goes in TX, unless the caucuses are significantly different.

Apparently not. The primary goes to Clinton. (at least according to CNN)

The caucus looks to be going to Obama.

Yep, looks like I underestimated the effect of uncounted votes in rural Texas. Should've stuck with the original prediction, I suppose.

Caucus is going to Obama at the moment, but he was leading the primary at roughly this point in the count as well. We'll see.

At any rate, I'm not convinced this is as big a win for Clinton as the pundits are claiming. She won two states everyone knew she was going to win and had a narrow victory in another where she had a big lead a week ago. She didn't get knocked out, but no one who was paying attention should have expected her to.

Jesus Christ, does no one have a dimmer? Is everything a switch to you people? 51-49% in a state that had double digits leads three weeks ago doesn't really mean that he's 'derailed.' Yes, it's a big win for Clinton, yes it will give her some strength into the next races, but seriously, 'derailed'? Is anyone capable of thinking in degrees instead of all or nothing?

Yeah, I keep wondering this as I watch the results come in.

Okay, here's somethings I don't get in the talking heads so far...

The first argument: Obama can't close and this reflects badly on him and questions his legitimacy.

Okay, it is in fact true-he can't seem to close and for that I apologize to the non-US population of NSG, that means this thread and threads like it will continue. To borrow from Clinton the Bill, I feel your pain.

However, while it is true that Obama can't close, Clinton can barely keep her head above water, if not being able to close reflects badly on Obama, how does it not reflect even worse on Clinton that it's all she can do to not get knocked out of the race?

The second is Obama's Glass Jaw-Just four days ago he was teflon and now he has a glass jaw? He was hit by two things literally a day before the election and because he couldn't respond in 48 hours he instantly goes from teflon to a glass jaw? Do we have the memory of goldfish?

Look, she held her ground, so she gets another turn, sort of like drifting past the checkpoint after the timer has gone out-but when you do that you know you have to book it to the next one because you don't have a cushion, your survived but your ass is still on the line. You don't start telling people you're the master of the game.

What? I'm not the only one who plays arcade racers...this is the internet, I know you're out there...

EDIT: Also, who thinks that the 'best political team on television' on CNN with those computers in front of them are really just updating their MySpace pages: "OMG!!! Anderson Cooper is sooooooooooooo cute! I want to bake him cookies!!! AC&TC4E!!!!!"

Yep, looks like I underestimated the effect of uncounted votes in rural Texas. Should've stuck with the original prediction, I suppose.


57-43% women-to-men probably tells the story. Pretty strong showing for the female electorate.

Okay, it is in fact true-he can't seem to close and for that I apologize to the non-US population of NSG, that means this thread and threads like it will continue. To borrow from Clinton the Bill, I feel your pain.

Clinton's job now is to spin her swing-state cred, which she's already off like a greyhound at. That, and the whole FL/MI thing that seems kinda dubious, but 'meh' to that, I say.

However, while it is true that Obama can't close, Clinton can barely keep her head above water, if not being able to close reflects badly on Obama, how does it not reflect even worse on Clinton that it's all she can do to not get knocked out of the race?

The second is Obama's Glass Jaw-Just four days ago he was teflon and now he has a glass jaw? He was hit by two things literally a day before the election and because he couldn't respond in 48 hours he instantly goes from teflon to a glass jaw? Do we have the memory of goldfish?

Your memory isn't supposed to be longer than the most recent news cycle, remember. :p Anything beyond that is ancient history.

EDIT: Also, who thinks that the 'best political team on television' on CNN with those computers in front of them are really just updating their MySpace pages: "OMG!!! Anderson Cooper is sooooooooooooo cute! I want to bake him cookies!!! AC&TC4E!!!!!"

Dunno - I was watching Karl and the gang. :cool: He called it, of course.

Thankfully for Obama, it wasn't a complete disaster. He did well in the texas primary, better then polls expected

lol

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c119/the_rooster_1986/brosbeforehoes.gif

Thankfully for Obama, it wasn't a complete disaster. He did well in the texas primary, better then polls expected

Depending on what polls you were looking at. The last one I looked at had it at a heat.

Here's another useful link - a delegate calculator (http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/) and, as everyone points out, there's simply no way for Senator Clinton to make this up - no matter what happens, she's going into the convention down on delegates and it's up to the super delegates to choose.

Try and make up the numbers without breaking the bounds of possibility - it's simply not workable.

I wonder what betting odds are - the best time to bet is when belief does not accord with the odds and I'm thinking this might be that time.

Your link doesn't support your claim. It supports a claim that Clinton made the accusation.

I dunno. She seems trustworthy. I mean, it isn't like she has any ulterior motive that would cause her to lie.

Here's another useful link - a delegate calculator (http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/) and, as everyone points out, there's simply no way for Senator Clinton to make this up - no matter what happens, she's going into the convention down on delegates and it's up to the super delegates to choose.

Try and make up the numbers without breaking the bounds of possibility - it's simply not workable.

I wonder what betting odds are - the best time to bet is when belief does not accord with the odds and I'm thinking this might be that time.

Now would be a great time to bet, since apparently, as noted, people have goldfish memories so the fact that Obama won 11 states in a row by wide margins is completely erased by two close victories and one big one. So obviously now it's all her...

EDIT: Let me amend, looking at CNN (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/dates/index.html#20080304) Ohio isn't actually that close. That's not a qualified win for Clinton, that's a win. (with 92% reporting) Also, the little blue thing on the side of the screen scrolls the page ALL the way down...I'm new to the internetz...(it doesn't have to make sense, just understand I made a stupid stupid mistake...)

EDIT II: Really? Rhode Island has more delegates than Vermont? Just goes to show, once again, I know jack/shit about the east coast...

Depending on what polls you were looking at. The last one I looked at had it at a heat.

I remember Clinton had a 15% lead 3 weeks ago.........

EDIT II: Really? Rhode Island has more delegates than Vermont? Just goes to show, once again, I know jack/shit about the east coast...

That's what caught your attention?

But...but...Puerto Rico?

Wha...?

EDIT: Colour me previously ignorant as to Puerto Rico's status, you bastards should give it full statehood.

That's what caught your attention?

But...but...Puerto Rico?

Wha...?

EDIT: Colour me previously ignorant as to Puerto Rico's status, you bastards should give it full statehood.
My understanding is that they don't really want it, territory thing is working out just fine for them. Plus, imagine what that would do to that whole "English should be the official language" chest thumping if we gave statehood to a Spanish speaking territory?

I'm not entirely certain why we still have territories at all, but I'm sure thinking about it too hard will either give me a headache or make me want to cry...

That's what caught your attention?

But...but...Puerto Rico?

Wha...?

EDIT: Colour me previously ignorant as to Puerto Rico's status, you bastards should give it full statehood.

i thought they turned down statehood when it was offered?

I remember Clinton had a 15% lead 3 weeks ago.........

Don't make me mention the goldfish thing again...

My understanding is that they don't really want it, territory thing is working out just fine for them. Plus, imagine what that would do to that whole "English should be the official language" chest thumping if we gave statehood to a Spanish speaking territory?

I'm not entirely certain why we still have territories at all, but I'm sure thinking about it too hard will either give me a headache or make me want to cry...

so we can conduct military operations there....do we still have a military base there?

My understanding is that they don't really want it, territory thing is working out just fine for them. Plus, imagine what that would do to that whole "English should be the official language" chest thumping if we gave statehood to a Spanish speaking territory?

I'm not entirely certain why we still have territories at all, but I'm sure thinking about it too hard will either give me a headache or make me want to cry...

Still, 28 delegates - if I was a politician I'd be scouring the beaches hunting for votes, well 'scouring' might be a bit harsh but I'd certainly lie on some sort of, oh I don't know, a towel or something.

It will be hot so I'd better wear some Bermuda shorts, should really put on some lotion and sunglasses, some kind of tropical alcoholic drink might quench this thirst...

'Ooh, is that some surfers out there?'

*heads out with surfboard*

so we can conduct military operations there....do we still have a military base there?

Dude, we have a military base in Cuba, I don't think we need territory status for that...

i thought they turned down statehood when it was offered?

They did, multiple times. It comes up for vote in their local gov't every so often and gets voted down every time.

TX (C) 36%Obama 52%Clinton 48%

That's were it stands right now.

Come on Obama.

because ohio will be within 10, and it is probably a tie if not an outright win for him in the texas primary - a large part of hc votes came in from districts with few delegates, while obama did quite well where the delegates are (see, for example, here (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJ0M6W5tNQCPLz7oU3-llfg)). add in the almost certain win in the texas caucuses and i'm betting on positive numbers overall.

my bet still holds until they finish counting shit, but it looks like the current estimate is that hc creates a huge 1 delegate gain for the night for herself. so that sort of rate means that she can still pull off a delegate victory, provided we have another 56,000 pledged delegates to allocate. unfortunately there are only 611. but, if every contest from here out goes just as well for her, she should be able to get within 145 delegates. giuliani firewall strategy ftw!

The Race for Delegates
Democrats Needed to Win = 2,025
Candidate Pledged Superdels. Total

Obama 1257 194 1451

Clinton 1127 238 1365

These are the numbers as of right now. This is going down to convention night ladies and gentlemen.

my bet still holds until they finish counting shit, but it looks like the current estimate is that hc creates a huge 1 delegate gain for the night for herself. so that sort of rate means that she can still pull off a delegate victory, provided we have another 56,000 pledged delegates to allocate. unfortunately there are only 611. but, if every contest from here out goes just as well for her, she should be able to get within 145 delegates. giuliani firewall strategy ftw!

Obama: 1,451
Clinton: 1,365

These numbers will change but that is what we have right now.

Obama: 1,451
Clinton: 1,365

These numbers will change but that is what we have right now.

those numbers include supers, yeah? my policy is to ignore them, on the grounds that not even the democrats are stupid enough to have the supers flat out overthrow the results of the primaries. support offered up last august doesn't ultimately mean anything.

those numbers include supers, yeah? my policy is to ignore them, on the grounds that not even the democrats are stupid enough to have the supers flat out overthrow the results of the primaries. support offered up last august doesn't ultimately mean anything.

Obama: 1,257Pledged
Clinton: 1,127Pledged

130 pledged candidate lead for Obama at the last number update.

The Race for Delegates
Democrats Needed to Win = 2,025
Candidate Pledged Superdels. Total

Obama 1257 194 1451

Clinton 1127 238 1365

These are the numbers as of right now. This is going down to convention night ladies and gentlemen.

As far as the caucus goes it is still a tight race. I think Obama will pull it out but we must see. I'm going to link a few things I found that are of interest to me regarding the race.

First (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/campaign_rdp), there's Hillary hinting at a shared ticket with Obama as long as she's on top. I don't think this makes sense considering he's 130 pledged delegates ahead and will pull out further after the TX caucus votes are in. IMO that is.

The superdelegate count is far closer now than it has been. SDs have been switching sides from Clinton to Obama and it looks like it may be possible for him to actually eek past her in SDs.

This article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_analysis) gives an interesting take on the race going forward. It's pretty much what we all thought.

I'll be interested to see the caucus results and where the delegates go. Remember, larger areas have more delicates and if it's a place where Democrats are holding I believe they get more. Or maybe my understanding of that little part is wrong. I welcome someone helping me out as far as the technical data is concerned.

I wonder how many Republicans crossed lines to vote in the Democratic Primary.

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh was encouraging Republicans to do just that where possible and vote for Hillary.

Obama is seen by Republican pundits as having the race sewn up against Republicans - some Republicans even like him.

Hillary is someone that Republicans universally hate - and the Republican pundits seem to see her as vulnerable in the sense that any attack on her will provoke the shrill, mean, "sense of entitlement" Hillary we've seen in the past few months.

more extremely back of the envelope calculations. if you'll recall form one of these threads somewhere, 1627 is the magic number in terms of pledged delegates. after the results of yesterday it looks like hc needs to pull out about 65% of the remaining delegates to come out on top. which, due to the way delegate distribution works, requires winning the rest of the contests not just by obamaesque landslides, but by saddam hussein and fidel castroesque ones.

more extremely back of the envelope calculations. if you'll recall form one of these threads somewhere, 1627 is the magic number in terms of pledged delegates. after the results of yesterday it looks like hc needs to pull out about 65% of the remaining delegates to come out on top. which, due to the way delegate distribution works, requires winning the rest of the contests not just by obamaesque landslides, but by saddam hussein and fidel castroesque ones.

I think it was determined a while ago that neither of them could reach watershed and that it was going to come down to the superdelegates. The goal now is to have enough of a pledged delegate lead to make their decision obvious.

more extremely back of the envelope calculations. if you'll recall form one of these threads somewhere, 1627 is the magic number in terms of pledged delegates. after the results of yesterday it looks like hc needs to pull out about 65% of the remaining delegates to come out on top. which, due to the way delegate distribution works, requires winning the rest of the contests not just by obamaesque landslides, but by saddam hussein and fidel castroesque ones.

She can't win with delegates, period, and she knows it. That's why she's been picking her battles around the big states: she's making a case. She's won Ohio and more than likely Texas, so now she can go to the convention and say "well I won the big states." The only reason it could work is because Obama probably won't hit the magic number either, so it's going to come down to the superdelegates at the convention, which is what she wants. Instead of convincing thousands and thousands of voters that she's the right candidate, she just has to convince some superdelegates to vote for her.

I think it was determined a while ago that neither of them could reach watershed and that it was going to come down to the superdelegates. The goal now is to have enough of a pledged delegate lead to make their decision obvious.

Well, it looks like she'll still be down about 140 after it's all counted. At this point, she cannot catch him and in order for it not to be an event that shreds the party, she'll have to close the gap to under 80, I'd say. (They keep saying 100, but that seems a bit high to me. I'm saying 5%.) I don't see how she's going to win the remaining contests by over 10%. She's not done that on any particular day nor has she ever averaged that kind of a lead on Obama. She's only won a couple of states with that big of a lead and yesterday 10% was her big win. I sincerely doubt she's going to close by enough.

Any ticket, at this point, that doesn't have Obama on it is going to cause a huge problem at this point. That's why she's offering to share the ticket with him for the first time in the race.

neither can reach the 2024 number. but unless we are willing to believe that the democrats are in fact stupid enough to overturn the more-or-less democratic portion of their nominating process, then the superdelegates don't actually matter. they'll line up behind the winner of the primaries. there are 3253 delegates to be won in primaries (including the territorial half delegates), so 50% +0.5 is 1627.

I'm willing to believe it. Hillary and her staff have openly discussed the superdelegate option, and have bragged about turning superdelegates.

Hillary even pimped her own daughter to go out with a guy to get his vote (she didn't succeed).

Like the Republicans, the Democrats have plenty of stupidity, crassness, and an overdeveloped sense of entitlement to spare.

I think it was determined a while ago that neither of them could reach watershed and that it was going to come down to the superdelegates. The goal now is to have enough of a pledged delegate lead to make their decision obvious.

neither can reach the 2024 number. but unless we are willing to believe that the democrats are in fact stupid enough to overturn the more-or-less democratic portion of their nominating process, then the superdelegates don't actually matter. they'll line up behind the winner of the primaries. there are 3253 delegates to be won in primaries (including the territorial half delegates), so 50% +0.5 is 1627.

The only reason it could work is because Obama probably won't hit the magic number either

in terms of just pledged delegates, he could lose slightly worse than he did yesterday in every race and still get there fairly easily. though i don't recommend that as a strategy...

also, he presumably gets a couple more big wins in wyoming and mississippi in the next week, which bumps his lead up even further and makes it all the more difficult for clinton.

If Hillary and Obama don't come to an accomodation soon, and they fight it out on the convention floor, and do the superdelegate switching thing, there will be two outcomes:

1. A replay of the 1968 riots at the Democratic Convention
2. A bad taste in the mouth from the suborning of the democratic process through backroom deals and the exchange of money and promises of power to superdelegates.

in terms of just pledged delegates, he could lose slightly worse than he did yesterday in every race and still get there fairly easily. though i don't recommend that as a strategy...

also, he presumably gets a couple more big wins in wyoming and mississippi in the next week, which bumps his lead up even further and makes it all the more difficult for clinton.

err, the Party's magic number, 2024. I keep forgetting that we love our 2/3 majorities here.

Hillary even pimped her own daughter to go out with a guy to get his vote (she didn't succeed).

Gonna want a source on that. A verifiable one, too, not a rumor mill, pundit, or blog.

Gonna want a source on that. A verifiable one, too, not a rumor mill, pundit, or blog.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4273078&page=1

Not a rumor mill, pundit, or blog.

If Hillary and Obama don't come to an accomodation soon, and they fight it out on the convention floor, and do the superdelegate switching thing, there will be two outcomes:

1. A replay of the 1968 riots at the Democratic Convention
2. A bad taste in the mouth from the suborning of the democratic process through backroom deals and the exchange of money and promises of power to superdelegates.

It'll likely be more like 1984 than '68.

Any idea how the Texas Caucus is going? It seems to be stuck at 36%.

I'm willing to believe it. Hillary and her staff have openly discussed the superdelegate option, and have bragged about turning superdelegates.

well, if she doesn't pull close to winning the pledged delegate race, she'll need lots of supers to make up for it. there are 794 superdelegate votes to be had, and at 1627 pledged delegates you just need half of them to wrap it up. therefore for every pledged delegate down someone is, they need to pick up another super to catch back up.

has the clinton camp actually gained any more supers announcing for them since january?

well, if she doesn't pull close to winning the pledged delegate race, she'll need lots of supers to make up for it. there are 794 superdelegate votes to be had, and at 1627 pledged delegates you just need half of them to wrap it up. therefore for every pledged delegate down someone is, they need to pick up another super to catch back up.

has the clinton camp actually gained any more supers announcing for them since january?

I would imagine any gains would be secret information.

I would imagine any gains would be secret information.

I really doubt that's something the Clinton camp would keep quiet about. Look at the way she's tooting her own horn about yesterday's wins.

I would imagine any gains would be secret information.

i wouldn't. it wouldn't make any sense to keep it secret.

edit: wiki to the rescue! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_superdelegates%2C_2008#Seated_superdelegates) (resort it by clicking the arrow a couple times to get them listed by endorse date)

looks like she did pick up a couple in feb. not many though, especially not compared to the wave that followed along with the obama sweep. almost all of her superdelegate support comes from last year - i wouldn't put any money at all on how committed they actually are to her at this point.

Obama: Superdels: 194

Clinton: Superdels: 238

That's the super delegate count currently.

yeah, but my point is that clinton's number has been essentially static since the start of the primary season, while obama has gotten most of his supers since he started winning races. or, to put it another way, its the same name-recognition lead that clinton has held everywhere early on.

has the clinton camp actually gained any more supers announcing for them since january?

Obama: Superdels: 194

Clinton: Superdels: 238

That's the super delegate count currently.

well, if she doesn't pull close to winning the pledged delegate race, she'll need lots of supers to make up for it. there are 794 superdelegate votes to be had, and at 1627 pledged delegates you just need half of them to wrap it up. therefore for every pledged delegate down someone is, they need to pick up another super to catch back up.

has the clinton camp actually gained any more supers announcing for them since january?

She's down nearly 10% of the total delegates they'll have at the end. There is no way SD's overcome that. It would be the biggest error in the history of the party, and this is the party that selected John Kerry.

She's down nearly 10% of the total delegates they'll have at the end. There is no way SD's overcome that. It would be the biggest error in the history of the party, and this is the party that selected John Kerry.

Just when the Republicans can't do anything dumber than squander their majority in the House and Senate, they re-nominate Bush...

Just when the Democrats can't do anything dumber than nominate Kerry...

I swear, the two US political parties are experts at doing stupider and dumber things every year...

She's down nearly 10% of the total delegates they'll have at the end. There is no way SD's overcome that. It would be the biggest error in the history of the party, and this is the party that selected John Kerry.

exactly. i have a really hard time believing that even the democrats could screw up that badly, and i have high expectations of democratic screwups.

exactly. i have a really hard time believing that even the democrats could screw up that badly, and i have high expectations of democratic screwups.

I think she sees that, too.

I'm really generally disappointed. "Obama is a liar and a cheater and should be my running mate." "Fuck the rest of the country, I won Ohio. I'm your candidate." It such nonsense. Who could possibly think that she's going to get the nod and win the general election at this point?

Speaking of which, where's CH?

I think she sees that, too.

I'm really generally disappointed. "Obama is a liar and a cheater and should be my running mate." "Fuck the rest of the country, I won Ohio. I'm your candidate." It such nonsense. Who could possibly think that she's going to get the nod and win the general election at this point?

Speaking of which, where's CH?

It reeks of a sense of entitlement from her.

Which is what bothers me. I am not getting that sense of entitlement from Obama.

"Obama is a liar and a cheater and should be my running mate."

ah, ticket balancing.

I think she sees that, too.

I'm really generally disappointed. "Obama is a liar and a cheater and should be my running mate." "Fuck the rest of the country, I won Ohio. I'm your candidate." It such nonsense. Who could possibly think that she's going to get the nod and win the general election at this point?

Like I said, she's literally handing the Republicans ammo to use against her in a general election.


Speaking of which, where's CH?

I was going to say something snide here, but I'll be nice and just assume "not paying attention."

You guys don't understand... The ENTIRE democratic party is having second thoughts about Obama. Nevermind the fact that more polls show people believing that Obama has the greatest chance to beat McCain. Hillary won Ohio so therefore Obama is unelectable.

You guys don't understand... The ENTIRE democratic party is having second thoughts about Obama. Nevermind the fact that more polls show people believing that Obama has the greatest chance to beat McCain. Hillary won Ohio so therefore Obama is unelectable.

I hope you're kidding.

She made that nonsense statement about how you can't win the general election unless you win the Ohio primary, but since it rarely goes to the Ohio primary, it's meaningless. You can't win the general election unless you win the Texas caucus, and Vermont by the same standards.

Like I said, she's literally handing the Republicans ammo to use against her in a general election.



I was going to say something snide here, but I'll be nice and just assume "not paying attention."

Frankly, he should be cheering. I would say yesterday was a good day for Clinton by any standards. She's definitely got a reason to stay in and really just a couple days earlier that was the best she could hope for.

Frankly, he should be cheering. I would say yesterday was a good day for Clinton by any standards. She's definitely got a reason to stay in and really just a couple days earlier that was the best she could hope for.

At least Shalrirchoria didn't disappoint. Cheerleading within 15 minutes of Ohio and Rhode Island being called.

I would agree that she's got a reason to stay in the race, but I wouldn't agree that it's a very good one. Everything she's done in this race an opponent can point to and say "that's who you're really voting for."

I can see the campaign commercial now: a map fades in with the 11 states that Clinton abandoned to work on her "firewall." A voiceover starts: "Rather than campaign in these states, Hilary Clinton chose to skip every one of them to focus on Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Why? Don't the citizens of these states matter?

They matter to John McCain."

Or somesuch.

At least Shalrirchoria didn't disappoint. Cheerleading within 15 minutes of Ohio and Rhode Island being called.

I would agree that she's got a reason to stay in the race, but I wouldn't agree that it's a very good one. Everything she's done in this race an opponent can point to and say "that's who you're really voting for."

I can see the campaign commercial now: a map fades in with the 11 states that Clinton abandoned to work on her "firewall." A voiceover starts: "Rather than campaign in these states, Hilary Clinton chose to skip every one of them to focus on Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Why? Don't the citizens of these states matter?

They matter to John McCain."

Or somesuch.


As a McCain aid reads that and runs off to tell his boss "his" new idea...


I dont know how Id feel about a Clinton/Obama ticket. I think Id bite the bullet and vote for it, just because then Obama's imaginary lack of experiance cannot be brought up when he runs again.

But if Clinton heads any ticket but that one above, I am voting for third party. I vowed Id never vote for a corperate whore again, and being a corperate lawyer, on the WALMART board, and getting most of your money for corperations or those with their hands in big business is as bad as it gets. Dubya hardly had more "impressive" big business credentials.

As an aside, I really think the party should put some pressure on one of them to concede. Taking this thing to the convention is a bad idea. Combine that with the potential to give Hillary the nomination even though she has less delegates...

If the above happened Id activelly campaign against her.

As a McCain aid reads that and runs off to tell his boss "his" new idea...

I've been discovered!

Quick! To the McCain-mobile!

*throws smoke pellets*

*is still standing there when smoke clears*

*walks away*


I dont know how Id feel about a Clinton/Obama ticket. I think Id bite the bullet and vote for it, just because then Obama's imaginary lack of experiance cannot be brought up when he runs again.

I won't happen, at all. The only reason she brought it up is because it helped her "winner" image yesterday. Now she looks like she's giving Obama a break because his momentum appeared to have stalled.

Or, barring that, it makes her look like the peacemaker and Obama look like the overly-ambitious one.

I'll try harder to make that more obvious next time.

I kind of figured, SB, but your statement wasn't that far-fetched.

I hope you're kidding.

I'll try harder to make that more obvious next time.

Any idea how the Texas Caucus is going? It seems to be stuck at 36%.

just now it moved to 37%

I just want to say Obama-rama, so that I never have to say or think such a stupid thing again. That felt good. It's seriously been trying to get out of my head for about two years now but I was always to much a coward to actually let it out. This is healing. This is good. Thank-you.

I think she sees that, too.

I'm really generally disappointed. "Obama is a liar and a cheater and should be my running mate." "Fuck the rest of the country, I won Ohio. I'm your candidate." It such nonsense. Who could possibly think that she's going to get the nod and win the general election at this point?

Speaking of which, where's CH?

Don't summon him. He'll somehow try to turn that Hillary won 3 of 4 yesterday into his argument being right. He'll be wrong, but that never stopped him before.

I hope you're kidding.

She made that nonsense statement about how you can't win the general election unless you win the Ohio primary, but since it rarely goes to the Ohio primary, it's meaningless. You can't win the general election unless you win the Texas caucus, and Vermont by the same standards.

I sense sarcasm there. I could be wrong.

At least Shalrirchoria didn't disappoint. Cheerleading within 15 minutes of Ohio and Rhode Island being called.

I would agree that she's got a reason to stay in the race, but I wouldn't agree that it's a very good one. Everything she's done in this race an opponent can point to and say "that's who you're really voting for."

I can see the campaign commercial now: a map fades in with the 11 states that Clinton abandoned to work on her "firewall." A voiceover starts: "Rather than campaign in these states, Hilary Clinton chose to skip every one of them to focus on Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Why? Don't the citizens of these states matter?

They matter to John McCain."

Or somesuch.

Priceless and correct. As, tell Schaladoria that winning 3out of 15 isn't really a good record and Hillary is still getting pounded in delegates which count the most. Let her have her day of joy to be disappointed in 4 days again.

Priceless and correct. As, tell Schaladoria that winning 3out of 15 isn't really a good record and Hillary is still getting pounded in delegates which count the most. Let her have her day of joy to be disappointed in 4 days again.

I think the prime factor that people use in choosing a candidate is "likeability" in situations where their positions on major issues are not very far apart.

I think that Obama has the likeability thing down pat. Hillary, on the other hand, has a public history of being shrill, overbearing, etc. Sure, she can behave for a little while, but under pressure, the bitch comes out for all to see.

I'd rather vote for Obama, thank you.

As a McCain aid reads that and runs off to tell his boss "his" new idea...


I dont know how Id feel about a Clinton/Obama ticket. I think Id bite the bullet and vote for it, just because then Obama's imaginary lack of experiance cannot be brought up when he runs again.

But if Clinton heads any ticket but that one above, I am voting for third party. I vowed Id never vote for a corperate whore again, and being a corperate lawyer, on the WALMART board, and getting most of your money for corperations or those with their hands in big business is as bad as it gets. Dubya hardly had more "impressive" big business credentials.

As an aside, I really think the party should put some pressure on one of them to concede. Taking this thing to the convention is a bad idea. Combine that with the potential to give Hillary the nomination even though she has less delegates...

If the above happened Id activelly campaign against her.

I'll vote McCain over a Hillary/X ticket. Put Obama on the top of the ticket and I probably vote for him even with her. Put her at the top and it's about an even chance for me. I'd probably still vote for McCain with Hillary on top.

Priceless and correct. As, tell Schaladoria that winning 3out of 15 isn't really a good record and Hillary is still getting pounded in delegates which count the most. Let her have her day of joy to be disappointed in 4 days again.

Wyoming is coming up on Saturday.

Wyoming is coming up on Saturday.

exactly

I'd probably still vote for McCain with Hillary on top.
You're never ever allowed to make porn. Ever.

You're never ever allowed to make porn. Ever.

Thanks for the gross mental picture there...

Wyoming is coming up on Saturday.

ok, what takes so long in Texas that we can only get a 1% increase in reporting in hours?

ok, what takes so long in Texas that we can only get a 1% increase in reporting in hours?

I keep hearing they have some sort of two-stage voting process. I could understand if they had a lot of people using absentee ballots to vote in advance, and they only started counting after the regular election was over.

Counting by hand is slow work.

We're talking about the Texas Caucus Sanmartin. The Primary is already over but we are waiting on the Caucus result.

As far as I know the Caucus is not a hand count. Hand counts are generally done only in recounts. Yes, there is a two step process, but why so slow?

We're talking about the Texas Caucus Sanmartin. The Primary is already over but we are waiting on the Caucus result.

Well, the total delegate count (overall) for Obama is still ahead of Hillary.

So how is she talking about how she's winning? When she's not.

As far as I know the Caucus is not a hand count. Hand counts are generally done only in recounts. Yes, there is a two step process, but why so slow?

i heard on CNN yesterday that the local caucus officials have until friday to mail in their results.

I keep hearing they have some sort of two-stage voting process. I could understand if they had a lot of people using absentee ballots to vote in advance, and they only started counting after the regular election was over.

Counting by hand is slow work.

We're talking about the Texas Caucus Sanmartin. The Primary is already over but we are waiting on the Caucus result.

I still might vote Hillary, but I wouldn't be nearly as excited about it as I would to be able to vote for Obama.

Well, the total delegate count (overall) for Obama is still ahead of Hillary.

So how is she talking about how she's winning? When she's not.

Because Hillary is a complete nut as we already know it. We have Wyoming coming up next and then good ole Mississippi after that. The last big state is Pennsylvania so I'm bracing for the democratic deluge that is going to occur here very soon.

She can claim victory yesterday but she still has a big hill to climb if she is going to take the nomination.

while im disappointed that clinton did so well yesterday it IS a good opportunity for the country to see how obama will act when he is "the underdog" (hard to really be the underdog when he is ahead in delegates but whatever). is he going to go negative like she did? can he keep his positive message going? is he going to get pissy?

its valuable information about a man who has a very good chance to be the next president of the united states.

i heard on CNN yesterday that the local caucus officials have until friday to mail in their results.

As far as I can tell that's just the time for them to have them certified and handed in. It has nothing to do with the actual counting of the caucus goers. It's all but a done deal when they count, but officially it doesn't count until they are certified and turned over.

As far as I can tell that's just the time for them to have them certified and handed in. It has nothing to do with the actual counting of the caucus goers. It's all but a done deal when they count, but officially it doesn't count until they are certified and turned over.

something like that. so perhaps certain locals are reluctant to give unofficial results. surely they all know how their own caucus went.

TX (C) 38%Obama 56%Clinton 44%

Obama now has a 12% lead in the Texas Caucus.

Except that we've already seen him as the underdog. He was the underdog until very recently.

yes but its that reversal that is telling. just as when mrs clinton was down (as she still is) we saw just how far she would go to win, so we might see if mr obama will take the same low road now.

while im disappointed that clinton did so well yesterday it IS a good opportunity for the country to see how obama will act when he is "the underdog" (hard to really be the underdog when he is ahead in delegates but whatever). is he going to go negative like she did? can he keep his positive message going? is he going to get pissy?

its valuable information about a man who has a very good chance to be the next president of the united states.

Except that we've already seen him as the underdog. He was the underdog until very recently.

yes but its that reversal that is telling. just as when mrs clinton was down (as she still is) we saw just how far she would go to win, so we might see if mr obama will take the same low road now.

I don't think he has to, but wouldn't blame him for doing it. I was going to post the new caucus results but I was beaten to the punch. We've now gone three whole percentage points in an hour. Hopefully it'll start rolling along now and Obama will win, stunting Hillary's newfound "momentum."

Edit: Oooh, I have it at 39%, I'm better than 38%

TX (C) 39%
Obama 56%
Clinton 44%

I don't think he has to, but wouldn't blame him for doing it. I was going to post the new caucus results but I was beaten to the punch. We've now gone three whole percentage points in an hour. Hopefully it'll start rolling along now and Obama will win, stunting Hillary's newfound "momentum."

Edit: Oooh, I have it at 39%, I'm better than 38%

TX (C) 39%
Obama 56%
Clinton 44%

I would blame him if he went as negative as she has. It's not necessary and tarnishes his message. It might not be enough for me to change positions, but would do a lot to kill enthusiasm, and enthusiasm is Obama's best tool.

I would blame him if he went as negative as she has. It's not necessary and tarnishes his message. It might not be enough for me to change positions, but would do a lot to kill enthusiasm, and enthusiasm is Obama's best tool.

same here

Yes, exactly. He's genuinely missing the point. He's already talking about taking the fight to her, but part of what has been so great about Obama throughout all the time I've been watching him is his ability to rise above the fray. She's sinking and desperately trying to pull him into the fray. Letting her is the only way he loses.

Rise above, Obama. She's already lost. Keep your eye on the general election and the fact that you've got a whole generation enthusiastic about someone who avoids ending up in the muck.

The problem is he has too many advisor's telling him that going negative is the only thing that will work.

I think he is succumbing to group think.

Yes, exactly. He's genuinely missing the point. He's already talking about taking the fight to her, but part of what has been so great about Obama throughout all the time I've been watching him is his ability to rise above the fray. She's sinking and desperately trying to pull him into the fray. Letting her is the only way he loses.

Rise above, Obama. She's already lost. Keep your eye on the general election and the fact that you've got a whole generation enthusiastic about someone who avoids ending up in the muck.

I have no problem with him aggressivly going after her policies but as long as its not dishonost or fearmongering like what she has been doing, and as long as its not the "Hillary is teh baby eaterz!!!111!!11!" attacks.

I would love to see him just hit her where it hurts.

"Look, folks, I'm not going to get dragged into this nonsense. We want to talk about policies. We want you to be able to see what is different about us so you can make wise choices. We don't want you to make decisions based on false accusations made a day before the election. That's trying to undermine the value of your vote.

We differ on health care. *lists the ways*

We differ on the war, particularly in wether or not we ever supported it. *lists the ways*

And we have a lot of commonalities as well. We're very similar on NAFTA. NOW. She's accused me of lying about this or doing the wink, wink, but I think it's evident that she's trying to trick. Truthfully, we have very similar approaches to NAFTA. NOW. I question how genuine this approach is however. She claims she never supported NAFTA. Well, let's ask her. *pulls out her book. Reads the part where she claims it was a victory for her husband's administration. The administration she is taking credit for.*"

I would put her book on the table at every debate and I would read excerpts regularly. It undermines her ability to claim she never supported NAFTA AND her ability to claim that she is experienced because she was doing so much work during his administration. But it's not really negative. It's simply forcing her to stick to the facts.

I would love to see him just hit her where it hurts.

"Look, folks, I'm not going to get dragged into this nonsense. We want to talk about policies. We want you to be able to see what is different about us so you can make wise choices. We don't want you to make decisions based on false accusations made a day before the election. That's trying to undermine the value of your vote.

We differ on health care. *lists the ways*

We differ on the war, particularly in wether or not we ever supported it. *lists the ways*

And we have a lot of commonalities as well. We're very similar on NAFTA. NOW. She's accused me of lying about this or doing the wink, wink, but I think it's evident that she's trying to trick. Truthfully, we have very similar approaches to NAFTA. NOW. I question how genuine this approach is however. She claims she never supported NAFTA. Well, let's ask her. *pulls out her book. Reads the part where she claims it was a victory for her husband's administration. The administration she is taking credit for.*"

I would put her book on the table at every debate and I would read excerpts regularly. It undermines her ability to claim she never supported NAFTA AND her ability to claim that she is experienced because she was doing so much work during his administration. But it's not really negative. It's simply forcing her to stick to the facts.




Email that to him. Give him permission to use it. Who knows...

Main differences between Obama and Clinton boil down to this:

Clinton is for the poor
Obama is for the super rich.

Email that to him. Give him permission to use it. Who knows...

It would be classic.

Hillary: I was talking about it being a victory for my husband's administration. And it was. I wasn't talking about it's merits.
Obama: Was it a victory for you?
Hillary: No, I never supported NAFTA.
Obama: I agree. You are not responsible for the achievements during his administration.
Hillary: Uh, but, uh. *channels CH* Nuh-uh.

Main differences between Obama and Clinton boil down to this:

Clinton is for the poor
Obama is for the super rich.



Ummm....prove it? Because, there is plenty of evidence that the opposite is true.


Besides, if Obama is a dirty leftist commie who is just like Chavez as you claimed in another topic, wouldnt that make him against the super rich?


You really just went beyond failing. Like...seriously...its not even funny how bad you fail. Watching you flail around trying to make a decent arguement is like watching baby pigs get slaughtered. Its just horrific and painful to behold.

Main differences between Obama and Clinton boil down to this:

Clinton is for the poor
Obama is for the super rich.

Wow, this almost passes for an argument. I mean, the fact that Hillary counts her time as a corporate lawyer as her 35 years of serving the people and Obama counts living just above poverty while he worked directly with the poor of Chicago to improve their conditions is obviousl in support of your theory.

Wow, this almost passes for an argument. I mean, the fact that Hillary counts her time as a corporate lawyer as her 35 years of serving the people and Obama counts living just above poverty while he worked directly with the poor of Chicago to improve their conditions is obviousl in support of your theory.

Joc, go look at his thread "Obama offers support to terrorist group FARC", its quite amussing.

Joc, go look at his thread "Obama offers support to terrorist group FARC", its quite amussing.

No need, if he's going to bring his idiocy here (which he should've done in the first place), then it should follow him:

Reference to Obama
Writing two days before his death, Reyes tells his secretariat comrades that “the gringos,” working through Ecuador’s government, are interested “in talking to us on various issues.”

“They say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama,” noting that Obama rejects both the Bush administration’s free trade agreement with Colombia and the current military aid program.

Reyes said the response he relayed is that the United States would have to publicly express that desire.

Another message, to Reyes from a lower-ranking commander and dated Feb. 16, includes mention of a possible purchase of 50 kilos — 110 pounds — of uranium.

Uribe’s government has claimed that means the FARC was seeking to build a dirty bomb. But the message discusses a different motive: selling the uranium at a profit.


Unequivicable evidence that Obama is in league with the FARC and has plans to steal the election from the Glorious Clinton. Note the "will be president." Clearly is shows his nefarious intent.

Nevermind that no one attached to Obama in any way is quoted in the article, the evidence is foolproof I say! FOOLPROOF!

rolling stone has an excellent look into the obama ground game that everyone interested in either activist organizing or just understanding the obama campaign's operation ought read.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/19106326

Obama's army of organizers has enabled him to repeatedly outman and outwit his opponents — especially in states that vote by caucus. "The Clinton campaign is the last, antiquated vestige of the top-down model," says Trippi. "The top cannot organize caucus states; the bottom can."

As Super Tuesday approached, the Obama campaign understood that the Clinton strategy was to try to deliver a deathblow by winning big states like California, New York and New Jersey through a traditional campaign driven by thirty-second TV spots and tarmac-to-tarmac appearances by the candidate and her surrogates. The Obama team was confident that it had both the ad budget and the precinct-by-precinct support to capture delegates in states like California, whether or not they won the popular vote. They also recognized that, even with her paid staff of 700, Clinton didn't have the manpower to compete against Obama's grass-roots organizers in the caucus states. "

So in the lead-up to Super Tuesday, Obama spent only a day and a half in California. "The decision was made to pull Obama out and send him to those caucus states and run up the score," says Figueroa. In Idaho, the Obama campaign ramped up its staff to twenty paid organizers split among five field offices. It also brought in the candidate to pack the Taco Bell Arena in Boise with more than 13,000 supporters — each of whom was added to the campaign's get-out-the-caucus list. The Clinton campaign, apparently, failed to hire a single staffer in the state. The result: Obama won with eighty percent of the vote, netting fifteen of the state's eighteen delegates. While Clinton was spending lavishly to win New Jersey with 600,000 votes, Obama more than offset his delegate loss there simply by mobilizing 17,000 Idahoans to caucus for him. "The Clinton campaign made a fundamental mistake by writing states off," says Hildebrand.
...
"We saw early that, because of the energy that we were evoking, the caucuses would be a great opportunity for us," says Axelrod. "And not just in Iowa. So for months out, we had organizers in these caucus states, and the Clinton campaign had . . . nothing." By contrast, says Figueroa, "the philosophy of our campaign from the beginning was to compete for every vote. Not cede any precinct, any county, anywhere. And it got us to where we are now." Clinton has since complained that caucuses are "dominated by activists" who "don't represent the electorate." But that bellyaching, says Trippi, "is pure cover for 'We blew it.' If you can win a precinct just by getting ten people there — and that's true — then why the hell didn't she get ten people there?"

Adds Moulitsas of Daily Kos, "I don't know how a candidate can say she'll be ready to lead on Day One, when she can't even organize a simple caucus."

haha, i had forgotten that obama picked up more net delegates in idaho than hc managed yesterday.

Thanks for the gross mental picture there...

You all are so welcome.

I am treating this as the current US election thread. When both major parties have a single candidate, it should be time for a new thread. In the meantime, please note:

Supporting Clinton is not automatic proof of idiocy, deviance or any undesirable traits.

Supporting McCain is not automatic proof of idiocy, deviance or any undesirable traits.

Supporting Obama is not automatic proof of idiocy, deviance or any undesirable traits.

(And these are in alphabetical order, so don't call bias if your choice isn't at the head of the queue.)

Kindly keep responses on-topic by dealing with the post's argument, not the poster's presumed failings.

(This is a Mods' Sanity Department public health announcement.)

Ummm....prove it? Because, there is plenty of evidence that the opposite is true.


Besides, if Obama is a dirty leftist commie who is just like Chavez as you claimed in another topic, wouldnt that make him against the super rich?


You really just went beyond failing. Like...seriously...its not even funny how bad you fail. Watching you flail around trying to make a decent arguement is like watching baby pigs get slaughtered. Its just horrific and painful to behold.

Let's try not to feed the trolls. This troll got into this thread and made another one as well.

The President can introduce legislature-- you are aware of that, aren't you?

Fail. The President can suggest a law but it has to be introduced by a member of Congress.

Ummm....prove it? Because, there is plenty of evidence that the opposite is true.


Besides, if Obama is a dirty leftist commie who is just like Chavez as you claimed in another topic, wouldnt that make him against the super rich?


You really just went beyond failing. Like...seriously...its not even funny how bad you fail. Watching you flail around trying to make a decent arguement is like watching baby pigs get slaughtered. Its just horrific and painful to behold.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/05/politics/main3907555.shtml

"Clinton's base came through for her strongly today, as it has at other times in the past. She enjoyed solid support among women, older voters, the less educated and less well-off, and those who consider themselves Democrats. Obama demonstrated his base support among the wealthier, African-Americans, independents and liberals, and the young. "

Note that it says that the poor support Clinton while the wealthy support Obama.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/05/politics/main3907555.shtml

"Clinton's base came through for her strongly today, as it has at other times in the past. She enjoyed solid support among women, older voters, the less educated and less well-off, and those who consider themselves Democrats. Obama demonstrated his base support among the wealthier, African-Americans, independents and liberals, and the young. "

Note that it says that the poor support Clinton while the wealthy support Obama.



Obama's average donation is $100. Clinton's is $2,300. Clinton was a corperate lawyer and sat on the board of Walmart. And the support they maintain from blue collar workers has fluctuated. At the begining, they supported Clinton. Then Obama. Now Clinton again. If you look at each candidates past, including upbringing, the legistlation theyve backed, their former occupations, and their stance on economic issues, rahter than just what some piss ant reporter for CBS says, it is CLEAR who is more likely to want to help the poor.

Notice how it says the educated support Obama. Take that is it is.


Sorry MODs, couldnt resist.


EDIT: Oh, and by the way, again your reading comprehension fails you. It says "wealthier" not "wealthy". A sublte language difference, but a difference none the less. You know why that is? The educated tend to support Obama, and the educated tend to be better off economically. No where does it says "The super rich support Obama." You know why? Because they either support Republicans or Clinton. It also says "the less well off". The "less well off" =/= poor all the time. Yes, Im arguing samantics, but you dont seem to understand language, so I need to do that with you.

Are you sure you're not Sean Hannity?

Fail. The President can suggest a law but it has to be introduced by a member of Congress.

I have to agree with you here. Hey, did I really just say that?

Funny thing here. Someone earlier said that McCain would run an ad against Clinton and that Obama should say x. Well..."We think we'll do well this week," Obama said. "We feel that there's a strong possibility that we gain substantially more delegates out of Wyoming and Mississippi than Sen. Clinton gained last night. So we will continue to build our delegate lead. We will continue to campaign in every state. We will not be cherry picking which states we deem important, because our attitude is every state is important...And I think that going into the convention with more votes, more states, more primaries, more caucuses, more delegates, we're going to be in a pretty strong position."

"We're going to be on the road for a few more weeks guys," Obama said, returning to his seat to catch some sleep.

Obama picked up on it before we had to tell him.

As for the idea that Hillary is somehow the voice of the "common man..."

Right now, the front line for the Washington Establishment is Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, which has been stunned by Obama’s political skills as well as his extraordinary ability to raise money over the Internet. Obama’s grassroots donations have negated Clinton’s prodigious fundraising advantage with big donors.

Powerful lobbies – from AIPAC to representatives of military and other industries – also are recognizing the value of keeping their dominance over campaign cash from getting diluted by Obama’s deep reservoir of small donors. It’s in their direct interest to dent Obama’s momentum and demoralize his rank-and-file supporters as soon as possible.

So, neoconservatives and other ideological movements – heavily dependent on grants from the same special interests – are now joining with the Clinton campaign to tear down Obama by depicting him as unpatriotic, un-vetted, possibly a “closet Muslim.”

So, there's a new poll out showing Obama beating McCain by 12 and Hillary beating him by 6.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030502646.html

That link plays to the electability aspect people have been arguing.

As far a delegates go...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/campaign_rdp;_ylt=AnXWYJSPQ50sVdX84l08u1Ks0NUE

and

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_delegates;_ylt=An4rZ.znE0rnAA2CrLL3BsOs0NUE

I'm just throwing all of this out there for people to see. Make your own assessments of the info and debate as you would like. My opinion is that Clinton is nowhere near her self described "comeback kid" moniker.

Someone should check my figures but, taken from here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914), I have the overall popular vote as:

Obama: 12, 575, 485
Clinton: 12, 705, 753

I am notorious for screwing up these things and will recheck but, if these are correct, couldn't Senator Clinton claim the popular vote despite delegates?

Sure, rules and rules and delegates count but then she could reply with, well rules are rules, super delegates are free to vote for who they think best and I have the more votes so...

I'm surprised, again given these figures are correct, which is 50/50 with me, that nothing's been made of them - my guess is that it's not politically clever to do so yet - better to wait for the final count and argue then.

EDIT: Actually, it seems I'm wrong:

Obama: 12,989,852
Clinton: 12,403,174

So my figures are wrong but how about we play the hypothetical - is there an argument for her?

Someone should check my figures but, taken from here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914), I have the overall popular vote as:

Obama: 12, 575, 485
Clinton: 12, 705, 753

I am notorious for screwing up these things and will recheck but, if these are correct, couldn't Senator Clinton claim the popular vote despite delegates?

Sure, rules and rules and delegates count but then she could reply with, well rules are rules, super delegates are free to vote for who they think best and I have the more votes so...

I'm surprised, again given these figures are correct, which is 50/50 with me, that nothing's been made of them - my guess is that it's not politically clever to do so yet - better to wait for the final count and argue then.

EDIT: Actually, it seems I'm wrong:

Obama: 12,989,852
Clinton: 12,403,174

So my figures are wrong but how about we play the hypothetical - is there an argument for her?
That actually has been an element of her argument, that when the super delegates make their decision about the 'will of the people' what should be used to measure that will?

As for the idea that Hillary is somehow the voice of the "common man..."

Right now, the front line for the Washington Establishment is Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, which has been stunned by Obama’s political skills as well as his extraordinary ability to raise money over the Internet. Obama’s grassroots donations have negated Clinton’s prodigious fundraising advantage with big donors.

Powerful lobbies – from AIPAC to representatives of military and other industries – also are recognizing the value of keeping their dominance over campaign cash from getting diluted by Obama’s deep reservoir of small donors. It’s in their direct interest to dent Obama’s momentum and demoralize his rank-and-file supporters as soon as possible.

So, neoconservatives and other ideological movements – heavily dependent on grants from the same special interests – are now joining with the Clinton campaign to tear down Obama by depicting him as unpatriotic, un-vetted, possibly a “closet Muslim.”
Source?

more extremely back of the envelope calculations. if you'll recall form one of these threads somewhere, 1627 is the magic number in terms of pledged delegates. after the results of yesterday it looks like hc needs to pull out about 65% of the remaining delegates to come out on top. which, due to the way delegate distribution works, requires winning the rest of the contests not just by obamaesque landslides, but by saddam hussein and fidel castroesque ones.

heh, somebody busted out a bigger envelope to calculate on.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751

Here's another fun one, just to truly show how impossible this catching up notion is. I ran the numbers for winning all 82 races (70 CDs + Guam + the 11 statewide splits) by a whopping 24.9%. Her gain? Only 110 delegates. Obama still leads by 50.

heh, somebody busted out a bigger envelope to calculate on.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751

In order to take the delegate lead, she would need to win every remaining precinct by 20%, and if FL and MI revoted, she would need to win by 27% in FL and 15% in MI.

That actually has been an element of her argument, that when the super delegates make their decision about the 'will of the people' what should be used to measure that will?

of course, the only way she is going to win the 'popular vote' total is if we include the non-races or the obama campaign implodes. not to mention that switching to total popular vote as the metric of choice is a bit like comparing the number of yards run in a football game. good to know, but not really all that directly relevant.

McCain is being hurt by his age. A lot of people are saying they don't want an old man in the white house.

Just out of interest, here are, essentially, the basis of the two arguments being laid out. I'll place in separate posts.

Here's Senator Clinton's - figures from point 2 have been taken out as they're a table and thus borked when c+p'd - they do have the problem of placing Florida and Michigan numbers when assessing the popular vote - I can accept Florida but certainly not Michigan.

With last night’s victories in Ohio and Texas, one thing is clear: the momentum has swung back to Hillary Clinton. Voters in both states agreed that Hillary Clinton would be the best Commander-in-Chief and the strongest steward of our economy. In fact, according to last night’s polls, those who decided who to vote for in the last three days overwhelmingly favored Hillary [CNN exit polls, 3/4/08]. It’s time for a second look.

1. Ohio is the barometer: Hillary was successful in Ohio, the state that for the last quarter century has picked our president. As everyone knows: As Ohio goes, so goes our country. Historically, it’s one of the bellwether states and it decided the last election. And the demographics of the upcoming contests in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana and Kentucky closely mirror those in Ohio. Hillary looks strong in all four states.
* In recent years, every President has won two of the three following states: Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Hillary has already won two of those and, according to all polls, is leading in the third – Pennsylvania.

2. This race is extremely close and more than 5 million Democrats are likely to vote. After 28 million votes have been counted, the popular vote contest in the Democratic primary is within one-tenth of one percent. Applying the same level of turnout to the remaining contests, there are still more than 5 million Democratic voters – 17 percent of the total – who are likely to participate in this contested primary race. After 41 primaries and caucuses, the delegate count is within roughly 2 percent.

3. In the primaries, Hillary has demonstrated that she is the best positioned candidate to carry the core battleground states essential to a general election victory -- particularly the large industrial states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and the critical swing contests in Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and New Jersey.

4. The vetting of Obama has just begun. The press has only begun to scrutinize Senator Obama and his record. The corruption trial of Tony Rezko is getting underway this week, yet many questions about Obama’s relationship with him remain unanswered. Hillary, on the other hand, has withstood fifteen years of substantial media and Republican scrutiny, including many months of sharper scrutiny as the front-runner. If the primary contest ends prematurely and Obama is the nominee, Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy.

5. Several of Hillary's base constituencies (women, Hispanic, labor, elderly and under $75,000) are key to a Democratic victory in November. Senator Obama has not brought these voters out in the same numbers.
* The two groups that fueled President Bush’s victory in ‘04 were women and Hispanics, and they are among Hillary Clinton’s strongest supporters. From 2000 to 2004, Bush’s support among Hispanics rose from 35% to 44%. And Bush’s support among women rose from 43% to 48%. That five point gain among women and nine point gain among Latinos gave Bush his victory in 2004.
* Women reached an all-time presidential election high of 54% of voters in ’04. As a factual matter, an outpouring of women for the first woman president alone can win the election. Hillary leads all candidates among women.
* These political and demographic trends project positively into the general election and strongly favor Hillary.

6. The Red States: The central strategic argument of the Obama campaign is flawed. Senator Obama argues that his success in Democratic primary contests held in long-time Red States means he will carry those states in a general election. In reality, there are no “Red States” in a Democratic primary – there are only Democratic voters who live in Republican states and represent a small percentage of the general election population.
* Of the eleven core Republican states that have gone to the polls, Sen. Obama has won ten: Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. John Kerry lost each of these states by fifteen points or more.
* The last time a Democratic nominee won Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas, and Alaska in the general election was 1964.
* Even if Obama is “transcendent,” as his campaign has argued, the historic electoral trends and the current political environment suggest that translating those primary wins into November success will be close to impossible.
* In short: Hillary is better positioned to carry the battle ground states that Democrats need to win in November and Obama’s victories in deep red states do not .

7. Hillary is the only Democrat with the strength, leadership, and experience to defeat John McCain. Senator Clinton is seen as the best prepared to be Commander-in-Chief.
* Nationally, 57% say Hillary Clinton is best prepared to be president, 39% Obama [CBS/ NYT, February 24]
* Hillary Clinton is seen as best able to take on the Republicans on their own turf – national security and terrorism. She is seen as a strong and decisive leader (a seven point advantage over Obama nationally).
* Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done – leading Obama nationally by 13 points [USA Today/ Gallup, 2/24].
* Hillary is seen as the candidate to solve the country’s problems, leading Obama by 10 points [USA Today/ Gallup, 2/24].

8. John McCain will diminish any perceived advantage Obama has with independents. As has been widely discussed, one of John McCain’s key constituents is independents. And against McCain, Obama will be framed by the Republicans as too liberal (he was ranked by the National Journal as the most liberal Senator); untested on national security; and vulnerable on issues that would make him unelectable in November. These issues may be surmountable in a Democratic primary but will be an Achilles heel with independents in a general election.

9. The McCain Roadmap: McCain has already foreshadowed his campaign’s construct against Obama: His vulnerability is experience and judgment on national security.
* McCain: Obama’s ‘meet, talk and hope approach’ is ‘dangerously naïve in international diplomacy.’ “Meet, talk, and hope may be a sound approach in a state legislature, but it is dangerously naive in international diplomacy where the oppressed look to America for hope and adversaries wish us ill.” [McCain, NYT’s The Caucus, 2/22/08]
* McCain: Obama is an ‘inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists.’ “Each event poses a challenge and an opportunity. Will the next president have the experience -- the judgment, experience informs and the strength of purpose to respond to each of these developments in ways that strengthen our security and advance the global progress of our ideals? Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons? I think you know the answer to that question.” [Post-Wisconsin Primary Victory Speech, 2/19/08]

10. Steward of the economy. Hillary Clinton leads both John McCain and Barack Obama on the economy and health care. In the latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll (1/22), Hillary leads McCain 52/28 on health care and 43/34 on the economy.
* Hillary leads Barack Obama on health care by 21 points nationally [USA Today/Gallup, 2/24].

11. Florida. There is an additional reality that must be considered – the 1.75 million voters in Florida whose votes will not be represented at the Democratic convention. How we handle this swing state will affect our Party’s potential of carrying it in November (Democrats lost Florida in 2004). This is a state where the playing field was level – all of the candidates had their names on the ballot and none campaigned in the state.

12. Michigan. Nearly 600,000 Democrats voted in Michigan, but right now their votes are not being counted. Democrats barely carried Michigan in 2004 (by only 3% -- 51 to 48). If our party refuses to let them participate in the convention, we will provide a political opportunity for the Republicans to win both Florida and Michigan. Recognizing their importance to Democratic success in November, Hillary has called for the delegates of both states to be seated at the convention.

13. Hillary has the money to compete. In February, the Clinton campaign raised approximately $35 million – averaging more than a million dollars a day. This deep level of support gives Hillary the resources she needs to compete between now and the Convention.

Here's Obama:

Our projections show the most likely outcome of yesterday's elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and we gained 183.

That's a net gain of 4 delegates out of more than 370 delegates available from all the states that voted.

For comparison, that's less than half our net gain of 9 delegates from the District of Columbia alone. It's also less than our net gain of 8 from Nebraska, or 12 from Washington State. And it's considerably less than our net gain of 33 delegates from Georgia.

The task for the Clinton campaign yesterday was clear. In order to have a plausible path to the nomination, they needed to score huge delegate victories and cut into our lead.

They failed.

It's clear, though, that Senator Clinton wants to continue an increasingly desperate, increasingly negative -- and increasingly expensive -- campaign to tear us down.

That's her decision. But it's not stopping John McCain, who clinched the Republican nomination last night, from going on the offensive. He's already made news attacking Barack, and that will only become more frequent in the coming days.

Right now, it's essential for every single supporter of Barack Obama to step up and help fight this two-front battle. In the face of attacks from Hillary Clinton and John McCain, we need to be ready to take them on.

The chatter among pundits may have gotten better for the Clinton campaign after last night, but by failing to cut into our lead, the math -- and their chances of winning -- got considerably worse.

Today, we still have a lead of more than 150 delegates, and there are only 611 pledged delegates left to win in the upcoming contests.

By a week from today, we will have competed in Wyoming and Mississippi. Two more states and 45 more delegates will be off the table.

But if Senator Clinton wants to continue this, let's show that we're ready.

This nomination process is an opportunity to decide what our party needs to stand for in this election.

We can either take on John McCain with a candidate who's already united Republicans and Independents against us, or we can do it with a campaign that's united Americans from all parties around a common purpose.

We can debate John McCain about who can clean up Washington by nominating a candidate who's taken more money from lobbyists than he has, or we can do it with a campaign that hasn't taken a dime of their money because we've been funded by you.

We can present the American people with a candidate who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with McCain on the worst foreign policy disaster of our generation, and agrees with him that George Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt on Iran, or we can nominate someone who opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning and will not support a march to war with Iran.

John McCain may have a long history of straight talk and independent thinking, but he has made the decision in this campaign to offer four more years of the very same policies that have failed us for the last eight.

We need a Democratic candidate who will present the starkest contrast to those failed policies of the past.

And that candidate is Barack Obama.

Thank you,

David

David Plouffe

Note that I have deleted the campaign contribution requests from Senator Obama's mailing.

of course, the only way she is going to win the 'popular vote' total is if we include the non-races or the obama campaign implodes. not to mention that switching to total popular vote as the metric of choice is a bit like comparing the number of yards run in a football game. good to know, but not really all that directly relevant.

Not necessarily, the delegate metric has ingrained in it the watershed mark. Failing that, the race is up to any measuring stick they want, really. If you're going to bill it as the 'will of the party' then straight popular vote is arguably the best measure. It removes the protection smaller states have from larger states by delegates, and you can argue that is the reason to toss out popular vote in favor of state count or delegate count. But it's a fair argument to have.
McCain is being hurt by his age. A lot of people are saying they don't want an old man in the white house.
That's what they said about Reagan, producing one of the more famous debate zingers in history.

On to the issue of Florida and Michigan, which becomes relevant once again since it doesn't seem that the threshold can be reached with the remaining contests-Back in the mix (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/06/florida.michigan/index.html)

Political leaders from Florida and Michigan were busy Wednesday talking about plans to make sure that voters in their states are heard in picking a Democratic nominee.
Gotta dig Howard Dean on this-
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said the states can either come up with a new plan to choose a slate of delegates or appeal to the party's credentials committee when the convention opens in August.

"Out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game," Dean said in a written statement Wednesday.
Of course, the states haven't softened
On Wednesday, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican, and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, called on the Democratic National Committee to seat their states' delegations. They accused the party in a statement of silencing "the voices of 5,163,271 Americans" who voted in their primaries.

"It is intolerable that the national political parties have denied the citizens of Michigan and Florida their votes and voices at their respective national conventions," they wrote.

And at a news conference in Tallahassee, Crist -- who signed the bill that changed Florida's primary date -- pointed fingers outside the state.

"It's unconscionable to me that some party boss in Washington is not going to permit the people to be heard," he said. "That's not what America is all about, and it's wrong."
Yeah, I used to bitch about being sent to my room, too.

Not everyone is throwing their toys, though-
"Both delegations feel very, very strongly -- adamantly -- that our delegations be seated at the national conventions," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz of Florida.

Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan said he's not sure of the best way to resolve the dispute but that voters from Florida and Michigan should have their voters counted.

"I think the key is the voice of Michigan and Florida is heard and there's a procedure that is fair to the residents and fair to the two candidates," he said.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan suggested Wednesday that his state could hold caucuses to select its delegates.

Participants declined to say whether there is general agreement on a way forward -- for example, whether the two states should redo the votes there or use results from the previous primaries. They pledged to continue discussions, though no formal meeting has been scheduled.

Even Crist isn't intractable-
The Democrats' next big primary is seven weeks away in Pennsylvania, where 158 delegates are at stake. Adding new contests to the mix could prolong the Democrats' heated battle for the nomination while giving McCain more freedom to focus on November's general election.

Crist told CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday that he supported holding another primary to resolve the dispute. But Wednesday, he said the state would not pay for a second contest.

The Florida Democratic Party estimates that a new primary could cost as much as $18 million -- and Sen. Bill Nelson said the DNC should pick up the tab.

"There's no way the state legislature is going to fund another election when they are in economic cardiac arrest right now," said Nelson, a Florida Democrat. "They are cutting payments to health care, education, social services and payments to the cities and counties.

"There's no way that they're going find an additional $18 million to fund another election, nor should they. This shouldn't be the burden of the taxpayers of Florida -- this should be the burden of the Democratic National Committee."
Now, he has a point to a degree. This is a Democratic Party problem and it's hard to argue that they should pass the bill on to people not necessarily involved. Not to mention that the candidates are pulling in way more than that-last month Obama did $50mil and Clinton did $35. Surely everyone involved can split the bill?

Apparently not-
Party officials have said they will not pay for Florida to hold a new primary because they warned the state not to move up its primary.

"The Democratic nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules," Dean said. But he emphasized that his goal was to maintain party unity, and called the statement by Crist and Granholm "good news."

"We look forward to receiving their proposals, should they decide to submit new delegate selection plans, and will review those plans at that time," he said.

Nelson brings up a good point-
But Nelson said the party's stance was unfair, since it was Republican lawmakers in Tallahassee and a Republican governor, Crist, who decided to move up the state's primary over the opposition of Democrats.
That's nothing compared to this 'pull down the cathedral' move-
And if the state's decision to move the primary remains controversial, it pales in comparison to a bill two Florida state senators are discussing. Sen. Nan Rich, a Clinton backer, is proposing that the state remove the party's eventual presidential nominee from the state's ballot unless it seats Florida's delegates.

"That's one option," Rich said.

Legal scholars say they doubt removing the Democratic or Republican nominee's name from the ballot would be constitutional.
Crazy.
But state Senate Democratic leader Steve Geller said he been approached by Republicans promoting the bill.
No kidding, really?

So now it's up to, really, who is gonna pay for the new contest, since that really seems like the only way out. Or 'supering' their delegates. That one just occurred to me. Don't like it, but it's cheap.

So, here's my take, hinted at earlier, the campaigns can reach out and spend some of that huge war chest of theirs, tell the voters of Michigan and Florida that they matter so much to them that they're willing to foot the bill for a new and fair election. They could even make it a separate part of their fund raising.

13. Hillary has the money to compete. In February, the Clinton campaign raised approximately $35 million – averaging more than a million dollars a day. This deep level of support gives Hillary the resources she needs to compete between now and the Convention.[/I]

They keep saying that like no one will notice that Obama raised almost twice that...

They keep saying that like no one will notice that Obama raised almost twice that...

Well, I'm not sure even they can deny it - I think it's more to counter the idea that she doesn't have the money to compete.

Obama raised about 188 million USD total so far, thats a huge amount of money :eek:

Obama raised about 188 million USD total so far, thats a huge amount of money :eek:

That's actually a little disturbing...especially when it's mostly small donations...

Today, we still have a lead of more than 150 delegates, and there are only 611 pledged delegates left to win in the upcoming contests.
An therein lies Obama's problem?

Assuming that the delegate totals on CNN are accurate, the totals for each candidate is:

Obama: 1520

Clinton: 1424

IF they evenly split the remaining 611 delegates say Obama 306, and Clinton 305, their FINAL totals would be:

Obama: 1826

Clinton: 1729

I realize that there are still some 67 delegates to be divided from the Texas caucus, but the fact remains that neither would be able to go to the convention with the requisite number (2025) to be the nominee.

Perhaps there will be a re-vote in Florida and/or Michigan, but even still if that happened, the number of delegates required to win the nomination would increase to 2208.

Yeah, it will get interesting, despite all the posturing by the Obama side.

Hillary has every right to hang in there and if she finishes strong......:)

An therein lies Obama's problem?

Assuming that the delegate totals on CNN are accurate, the totals for each candidate is:

Obama: 1520

Clinton: 1424

Obama Pledged: 1,321
Clinton Pledged: 1,186

Those are the pledged numbers CH.

When he made that speech, it was 150. Now it is 135 pledged delegate lead.

Not necessarily, the delegate metric has ingrained in it the watershed mark. Failing that, the race is up to any measuring stick they want, really. If you're going to bill it as the 'will of the party' then straight popular vote is arguably the best measure. It removes the protection smaller states have from larger states by delegates, and you can argue that is the reason to toss out popular vote in favor of state count or delegate count. But it's a fair argument to have.

the problem is that if the state parties had thought popular vote totals were gonna be relevant, not a single one of them would have held a caucus over a primary. also, as far as i know we don't actually have the participant counts from a number of caucus states, just the state delegates selected by them. which means that the 'popular vote' total isn't even the actual popular vote total.

Ive made a decision.


If it comes down to Hillary and McCain, Im voting third party.


*goes off to research third party candidates*

That's my plan as well.

I have no problem with him aggressivly going after her policies but as long as its not dishonost or fearmongering like what she has been doing, and as long as its not the "Hillary is teh baby eaterz!!!111!!11!" attacks.

Here's an interesting article about Hillary's unanswered questions regarding Chinatown fundraising. Just putting it out there for people to peruse and comment on.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-donors19oct19,0,4231217.story

That's actually a little disturbing...especially when it's mostly small donations...

Over 1 million donors now - more donors than any other candidate has brought into their campaign.

Source?

gladly

To the article (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/022608.html) described

and here's a link (http://www.consortiumnews.com/) to the main site. Notice, there are articles there which are critical of Obama as well. It's not an "attack Hillary" site.

The author is Robert Parry

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.

I think it would be brilliant for either campaign to head into FL and offer to pay for another primary, per CTOAN's idea. Totally brilliant. And whichever one does it first has practically guaranteed a win in that state.

If FL tries to remove the democratic candidate as punishment for their refusal to abide by the rules of BOTH parties, I'd imagine, that FL will be shooting itself in the foot, but I'm not sure it's Dems who will suffer. As an independent who has voted from that state as often as not, I'm pretty piissed at the legislature for already essentially removing FL's status as a decider state by inane political posturing.

They remove one of the delegates and you can bet that I and everyone I know will ensure that everyone responsible suffers for it in the next election. Those people are committing suicide and whoever made this happen will certainly feel the brunt of it come election time.

Someone should check my figures but, taken from here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914), I have the overall popular vote as:

Obama: 12, 575, 485
Clinton: 12, 705, 753

I am notorious for screwing up these things and will recheck but, if these are correct, couldn't Senator Clinton claim the popular vote despite delegates?

Sure, rules and rules and delegates count but then she could reply with, well rules are rules, super delegates are free to vote for who they think best and I have the more votes so...

I'm surprised, again given these figures are correct, which is 50/50 with me, that nothing's been made of them - my guess is that it's not politically clever to do so yet - better to wait for the final count and argue then.

EDIT: Actually, it seems I'm wrong:

Obama: 12,989,852
Clinton: 12,403,174

So my figures are wrong but how about we play the hypothetical - is there an argument for her?

Popular Vote Total - - 12,992,769 12,406,988
Popular Vote (w/FL) - - 13,568,983 13,277,974
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* - - 13,568,983 13,606,283

From realclearpolitics. Counting Fl would be almost relevant since at least his name was on the ballot. Counting Mi without him on the ballot would just be stupid grandstanding.

An therein lies Obama's problem?

Assuming that the delegate totals on CNN are accurate, the totals for each candidate is:

Obama: 1520

Clinton: 1424

IF they evenly split the remaining 611 delegates say Obama 306, and Clinton 305, their FINAL totals would be:

Obama: 1826

Clinton: 1729



I realize that there are still some 67 delegates to be divided from the Texas caucus, but the fact remains that neither would be able to go to the convention with the requisite number (2025) to be the nominee.

Perhaps there will be a re-vote in Florida and/or Michigan, but even still if that happened, the number of delegates required to win the nomination would increase to 2208.

Yeah, it will get interesting, despite all the posturing by the Obama side.

Hillary has every right to hang in there and if she finishes strong......:)

You are looking at total delegates. Please look at pledged delegates and the popular vote to see why Obama is not having the problem you suggest. It's possible to be a problem only is Hillary starts posting 20 points wins in remaining states. She'll most likely lose Saturday and is destined to lose NC. This bodes well for Obama.


State Date % Vote In Obama Clinton
Popular Vote Total - - 12,992,769 12,406,988

State Date DelegatesObama Clinton
Total - 1573 1464
Super Delegates - 795 207 242
Pledged Delegates - 2642 1366 1222

You are looking at total delegates. Please look at pledged delegates and the popular vote to see why Obama is not having the problem you suggest. It's possible to be a problem only is Hillary starts posting 20 points wins in remaining states. She'll most likely lose Saturday and is destined to lose NC. This bodes well for Obama.


State Date % Vote In Obama Clinton
Popular Vote Total - - 12,992,769 12,406,988

State Date DelegatesObama Clinton
Total - 1573 1464
Super Delegates - 795 207 242
Pledged Delegates - 2642 1366 1222

Not to mention the Texas caucus isn't counted into that and he's leading that by 12%. By tomorrow that will be counted, and by Saturday, you can bet his lead will be over 160 again. That's an insurmountable lead by almost any scenario.

Not to mention the Texas caucus isn't counted into that and he's leading that by 12%. By tomorrow that will be counted, and by Saturday, you can bet his lead will be over 160 again. That's an insurmountable lead by almost any scenario.

Indeed, this is why her victories are little more than symbolic. If you want to talk about momentum, 12-3 still has the old mo in favor of 12. Put another two wins on the board the next two stop and Hillary will have all but petered out. She'll keep slinging mud and he needs to return fire like he did on his plane yesterday. More "disagreeing without being disagreeable."

Indeed, this is why her victories are little more than symbolic. If you want to talk about momentum, 12-3 still has the old mo in favor of 12. Put another two wins on the board the next two stop and Hillary will have all but petered out. She'll keep slinging mud and he needs to return fire like he did on his plane yesterday. More "disagreeing without being disagreeable."

It is funny how some are spinning this, though. I actually saw an article claiming that Hillary "walloped" Obama on Tuesday. She barely won the Texas primary vote and lost the Texas caucus. She was always projected to win RI and Ohio, although she did win Ohio by a larger margin than predicted (likely due to the NAFTA nonsense). Of course, that margin is significantly less than the margins by which Obama has won multiple states.

So where is the "walloping"?

I just read Barr's post. Any post that claims that Hillary "won" MI is not actually attempting to approach the problems rationally. It ignore name recognition in FL. It ignores that most of the voters would be willing to support either candidate. It ignores that while Hillary is beating Obama on National Security and Terrorism, McCain is kicking her ass. If the Dems fight on the Republican's turf like they did in 2004, they can expect the same outcome. And the nonsense about "Obama hasn't really been involved in any controversy which makes him a lightning rod for criticism, but Hillary has been in the middle of scandals for decades so we know she can weather anything" is so wildly stupid, I don't know what to say.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/05/texas.caucus.count/index.html

Apparently, her win in the primary is going to count for less delegates than Obama. And Obama is winning the caucuses.

In what pundits have dubbed the "Texas two-step," the state's Democratic Party hosts both a primary election, in which 126 delegates are awarded, and a post-election caucus in which another 67 are awarded.

It's possible for the loser of the primary to win more delegates with a strong showing in the caucuses. And Texas' method of awarding delegates in the primary -- with more delegates coming from large population centers like Houston, Dallas and Austin -- further complicates the matter.

"Those [districts] that have supported the Democratic ticket [in the presidential election] well in the past tend to get up to as many as eight delegates, those who have not get as few as two," said Texas Monthly's Paul Burka.

"Sen. Clinton tended to carry the rural areas where the Republicans are very strong in the suburbs, so her districts are worth fewer delegates and Obama has won districts that are in urban areas that have been very strong for Democrats, so he gets more delegates."

I keep hearing on the radio that Clinton does better with less-educated whites, and Obama does better with more educated people of any group, and very well with blacks and younger people.

It is funny how some are spinning this, though. I actually saw an article claiming that Hillary "walloped" Obama on Tuesday. She barely won the Texas primary vote and lost the Texas caucus. She was always projected to win RI and Ohio, although she did win Ohio by a larger margin than predicted (likely due to the NAFTA nonsense). Of course, that margin is significantly less than the margins by which Obama has won multiple states.

So where is the "walloping"?

Well, particularly since it was supposed to a firewall. She was supposedly skipping the contests that would make little difference for the ones that would really swing things her way. Except, some of the states she skipped gave a larger net delegate count to Obama than all the states did on Tuesday for Hillary. That doesn't make any sense.

And the nonsense from pundits about Obama has a glass jaw. He was teflon the day before. She presents a lie and there's not enough time to entirely counter it IN ONE STATE and he now has a glass jaw. I just love how they keep changing the yardstick to give us the impression this is a closer race than it is.

ONE HUNDRED SIXTY delegates. That's the likely lead for Obama by weeks end. That's roughly 7% of the delegate count so far. That's HUGE and too big for her to overcome. She can switch the momentum as much as she likes in PA (which is yet to be seen) but clearly, she's unable to win this election unless the SD's override both the pledged delegates and the popular vote.

Obama Pledged: 1,321
Clinton Pledged: 1,186

Those are the pledged numbers CH.

When he made that speech, it was 150. Now it is 135 pledged delegate lead.

the obama campaign's count, which includes their estimates for as-yet-unassigned-but-already-voted-for delegates, has it at 1386 to 1230, and they have been solid so far. basically it is down from 160 to 156 after clinton's better than i expected 4 delegate gain.

so taking CH's even splitting of the remaining 611 delegates (unlikely given the two additional obama landslides likely over the next few days, but we'll run with it), that closes out the winnable delegates at 1692 obama to 1535 clinton. that leaves obama needing 332 more delegates (40.5% of the supers and edwards' delegates) and clinton needing 489 (59.6%). which means that clinton would need to convince an extra 157 delegates to help her overcome her 157 delegate/13 contest/total caucus vote/total primary vote losses. clinton would need to pull off an obamaesque landslide among supers and edwards delegates to overturn the results and get the win, while obama just needs an anemic clintonesque loss among them to pull it off for himself.

now i know that the democratic party can usually find a way to fuck themselves over, but i really have a hard time believing that even they would go along with an idea as bad as using a party insider landslide to favor the clear loser. the only way it would go is if obama has a string of heavy losses from here out.

Not to mention the Texas caucus isn't counted into that and he's leading that by 12%. By tomorrow that will be counted, and by Saturday, you can bet his lead will be over 160 again. That's an insurmountable lead by almost any scenario.

So very true

hey, did we all see this?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home


'NAFTAgate' began with remark from Harper's chief of staff

ALEXANDER PANETTA

The Canadian Press

March 5, 2008 at 8:53 PM EST

OTTAWA — If the Prime Minister is seeking the first link in the chain of events that has rocked the U.S. presidential race, he need look no further than his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, The Canadian Press has learned.
...
Reporters were locked up there all day, examining the federal budget until they were allowed to leave once it was tabled in the House of Commons at 4 p.m.

Since the budget contained little in the way of headline-grabbing surprises, some were left with enough free time to gather around a large-screen TV to watch the latest hockey news on NHL trade deadline day.

Mr. Brodie wandered over to speak to Finance Department officials and chatted amiably with journalists — who appreciated this rare moment of direct access to the top official in Mr. Harper's notoriously tight-lipped government.

The former university professor found himself in a room with CTV employees where he was quickly surrounded by a gaggle of reporters while other journalists were within earshot of other colleagues.

At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.

Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.

Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.

"Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.

"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

wtf, seriously?!

How come no one talks about Obama's past it seems like everyone forgot that he was raised in a radical islamic school that teaches the same thing that Osama Bin Laden believes now i know that many of you think that he is still not a muslim but their was a incident a couple of months ago were Obama didn't even salute the flag of the country that he wants to be president of the United States of America now i highly doubt it but does anyone know why he didn't salute?:confused: i do, because the koran (the islamic holy book) says that you can't make any oath to anything except to islam. now i don't know about you but i don't want a islamic fundamentalist as my president. DON"T VOTE FOR BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (yes thats his middle name)

haha

I just read Barr's post. Any post that claims that Hillary "won" MI is not actually attempting to approach the problems rationally. It ignore name recognition in FL. It ignores that most of the voters would be willing to support either candidate. It ignores that while Hillary is beating Obama on National Security and Terrorism, McCain is kicking her ass. If the Dems fight on the Republican's turf like they did in 2004, they can expect the same outcome. And the nonsense about "Obama hasn't really been involved in any controversy which makes him a lightning rod for criticism, but Hillary has been in the middle of scandals for decades so we know she can weather anything" is so wildly stupid, I don't know what to say.

There's also the kind of slippery logic that since Clinton won big blue states and Obama has won some deep red states.

They say, "Well, these states just aren't going to go blue, so that doesn't matter." But the tacit implication is that if Obama gets the nod these deep blue states that Clinton won won't stay blue. Like California and New York are making it a "Clinton or McCain" binary because Clinton won their primaries. It's ridiculous.

Of course, you can find no shortage of Nostradamus' making all kinds of predictions (amusing, on RCP's home page are two article titles:"Fight Makes Democrats Stronger - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe" and right below it "Blood-Letting Could Damage Party - Jurek Martin, Financial Times" or even better:"Hillary Has a New Math Problem - Jonathan Alter, Newsweek" and below that:"Obama, Not Clinton, Faces Tough Math - Marie Cocco, RealClearPolitics")

But here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23449606) is an interesting take on the situation (taken with the above noted grain of salt) (this article is pre-'crucial Tuesday and suggests that the results that did happen play in McCain's favor because of the following danger had Obama sewn it up)-
McCain desperately needs a Clinton resurgence because he needs more time. If Obama comes out of the March 4 contests as the presumptive Democratic nominee, McCain and the Republican Party have a very serious problem.

Imagine this scenario: Obama starts raising $75 million a month between now and the late August conventions.

He starts using that money to play catch up in two important swing states – Michigan and Florida – where he has spent very little time.

He then attempts to expand the Electoral College playing field to places like:

* North Carolina (a large African-American turnout coupled with a university "Research Triangle" that could get Obama to 51 percent);
* Montana (the war is very unpopular there);
* Colorado (the state’s been on the verge of turning blue for some time);
* Virginia (an historic black turnout could give him the state);
* Nevada (probably out of reach, but it’s a cheap state);
* And maybe even a few others – West Virginia, Tennessee and Louisiana?

Before the August/September conventions, it is likely Obama will have advertised in some 40-45 states, either in the primary or in the post-primary/pre-convention period, potentially building poll leads in some red states. These kinds of leads could scare the living you-know-what out of the GOP. At this time, the GOP must decide in which states to try to counter Obama, and in which states to call his bluff.

These decisions won’t be based solely on the presidential campaign. They will also be based on which states have vulnerable senate seats that the GOP fears losing if Obama over performs (think North Carolina).

Because of resources, McCain and the RNC are going to have to figure out a couple of paths to the magic number of 270 electoral votes. They must focus on those states and ignore the rest.

Or, instead of playing defense, perhaps McCain and the GOP can try to play in some light blue states, like New Jersey, New Hampshire and Michigan. McCain and the GOP also ought to focus heavily in the industrial Midwest and the rust belt. Obama may very well over perform out West and do well in the South because of an enormous black turnout. But he may end up struggling in states where he has to win over white working class Democrats (the so-called Reagan Democrats). Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania jump out as three states McCain should live in over the next few months.

McCain would love nothing more than buy some time to raise money and prepare for the fall. Clinton victories in both Ohio and Texas will give him just that.

It suggests that Obama's 'every state matters' strategy is more than just overwhelming and blunting big state wins, but is also a good long term strategy to transfer primary wins into general election wins. It's a fair point, as well.

How come no one talks about Obama's past it seems like everyone forgot that he was raised in a radical islamic school that teaches the same thing that Osama Bin Laden believes now i know that many of you think that he is still not a muslim but their was a incident a couple of months ago were Obama didn't even salute the flag of the country that he wants to be president of the United States of America now i highly doubt it but does anyone know why he didn't salute?:confused: i do, because the koran (the islamic holy book) says that you can't make any oath to anything except to islam. now i don't know about you but i don't want a islamic fundamentalist as my president. DON"T VOTE FOR BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (yes thats his middle name)
His school can't be that bad. I'm pretty sure it taught him proper punctutation at the very least.

6. The Red States: The central strategic argument of the Obama campaign is flawed. Senator Obama argues that his success in Democratic primary contests held in long-time Red States means he will carry those states in a general election. In reality, there are no “Red States” in a Democratic primary – there are only Democratic voters who live in Republican states and represent a small percentage of the general election population.
* Of the eleven core Republican states that have gone to the polls, Sen. Obama has won ten: Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. John Kerry lost each of these states by fifteen points or more.
* The last time a Democratic nominee won Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas, and Alaska in the general election was 1964.
* Even if Obama is “transcendent,” as his campaign has argued, the historic electoral trends and the current political environment suggest that translating those primary wins into November success will be close to impossible.
* In short: Hillary is better positioned to carry the battle ground states that Democrats need to win in November and Obama’s victories in deep red states do not .


Haven't we been through this 20 pages ago? I've been looking at the turnout numbers and they just don't bear most of this out:

In North Dakota, Louisiana and Kansas, Obama received more votes than all the Republican candidates combined.

In Georgia, he received twice as many votes as Huckabee, the winner of that primary.

In California, he received over 700,000 more votes than McCain.

In New York, he doubled McCain's number.

In Ohio, over 300,000 more than McCain.

Doubled McCain in Texas.

Numbers taken from here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914)

You know you shouldn't get your news from chain e-mails, right?

oh, and where did you hear that, huh?

How come no one talks about Obama's past it seems like everyone forgot that he was raised in a radical islamic school that teaches the same thing that Osama Bin Laden believes now i know that many of you think that he is still not a muslim but their was a incident a couple of months ago were Obama didn't even salute the flag of the country that he wants to be president of the United States of America now i highly doubt it but does anyone know why he didn't salute?:confused: i do, because the koran (the islamic holy book) says that you can't make any oath to anything except to islam. now i don't know about you but i don't want a islamic fundamentalist as my president. DON"T VOTE FOR BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (yes thats his middle name)

How come no one talks about Obama's past it seems like everyone forgot that he was raised in a radical islamic school that teaches the same thing that Osama Bin Laden believes now i know that many of you think that he is still not a muslim but their was a incident a couple of months ago were Obama didn't even salute the flag of the country that he wants to be president of the United States of America now i highly doubt it but does anyone know why he didn't salute?:confused: i do, because the koran (the islamic holy book) says that you can't make any oath to anything except to islam. now i don't know about you but i don't want a islamic fundamentalist as my president. DON"T VOTE FOR BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (yes thats his middle name)

WOW!!! Another well uninformed poster.

Obama is a Christian dude. This post has been debunked before and will continued to be debunked. Please go inform yourself before spouting more shit.

How come no one talks about Obama's past it seems like everyone forgot that he was raised in a radical islamic school that teaches the same thing that Osama Bin Laden believes now i know that many of you think that he is still not a muslim but their was a incident a couple of months ago were Obama didn't even salute the flag of the country that he wants to be president of the United States of America now i highly doubt it but does anyone know why he didn't salute?:confused: i do, because the koran (the islamic holy book) says that you can't make any oath to anything except to islam. now i don't know about you but i don't want a islamic fundamentalist as my president. DON"T VOTE FOR BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (yes thats his middle name)

You know you shouldn't get your news from chain e-mails, right?

How come no one talks about Obama's past it seems like everyone forgot that he was raised in a radical islamic school that teaches the same thing that Osama Bin Laden believes now i know that many of you think that he is still not a muslim but their was a incident a couple of months ago were Obama didn't even salute the flag of the country that he wants to be president of the United States of America now i highly doubt it but does anyone know why he didn't salute?:confused: i do, because the koran (the islamic holy book) says that you can't make any oath to anything except to islam. now i don't know about you but i don't want a islamic fundamentalist as my president. DON"T VOTE FOR BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (yes thats his middle name)



12 posts and not a single intellegent thing Ive seen come out of you yet.


Maybe its you who is Sean Hannity? God Im confused.

WOW!!! Another well uninformed poster.

Obama is a Christian dude. This post has been debunked before and will continued to be debunked. Please go inform yourself before spouting more shit.

corny, i do approve of you being actually right about things and whatnot, but it is really jarring to see a post from you telling others that their claims have been thoroughly debunked and to do some research. how far does this new fact-driven approach of yours extend?

corny, i do approve of you being actually right about things and whatnot, but it is really jarring to see a post from you telling others that their claims have been thoroughly debunked and to do some research. how far does this new fact-driven approach of yours extend?

Oh I don't know....I'll have to get back to you on that :D

...f-from an e-mail someone forwarded me. <.< >.>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHjFxJVeCQs

Another point from my post earlier: thus far, the only states where Obama hasn't outperformed the Republican winner are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, Utah, Nevada, Florida, Iowa, Maine, and Utah.

Remove the caucus states and Florida and there's not much left.

Granted, these numbers aren't indictative of how the general will go, but to say that if given the chance, all the folks that voted Obama won't do so again is pretty idiotic.

oh, and where did you hear that, huh?

...f-from an e-mail someone forwarded me. <.< >.>

It is funny how some are spinning this, though. I actually saw an article claiming that Hillary "walloped" Obama on Tuesday. She barely won the Texas primary vote and lost the Texas caucus. She was always projected to win RI and Ohio, although she did win Ohio by a larger margin than predicted (likely due to the NAFTA nonsense). Of course, that margin is significantly less than the margins by which Obama has won multiple states.

So where is the "walloping"?

It's sensationalism. It's the same nonsense that all of the sudden painted Obama as the devil the day before the election. The media took flack before, even from Hillary herself, about their "soft stance" on Obama. They let SNL affect their coverage. It likely resulted in the close win for Hillary in Texas, and a widening of her lead in Ohio. Now that they've backed off those stories as pretty well unsubstantiated, they are realizing the damage was already done. It's a fabricated walloping they are trying to play up. That's all.

just bringing this back up, because it really is quite cool if, like me, you find the actual organization work to be one of the more important aspects of the obama candidacy. though that may in fact just be me - it is a sort of strategy/activism wonk thing...

rolling stone has an excellent look into the obama ground game that everyone interested in either activist organizing or just understanding the obama campaign's operation ought read.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/19106326

Obama's army of organizers has enabled him to repeatedly outman and outwit his opponents — especially in states that vote by caucus. "The Clinton campaign is the last, antiquated vestige of the top-down model," says Trippi. "The top cannot organize caucus states; the bottom can."

As Super Tuesday approached, the Obama campaign understood that the Clinton strategy was to try to deliver a deathblow by winning big states like California, New York and New Jersey through a traditional campaign driven by thirty-second TV spots and tarmac-to-tarmac appearances by the candidate and her surrogates. The Obama team was confident that it had both the ad budget and the precinct-by-precinct support to capture delegates in states like California, whether or not they won the popular vote. They also recognized that, even with her paid staff of 700, Clinton didn't have the manpower to compete against Obama's grass-roots organizers in the caucus states. "

So in the lead-up to Super Tuesday, Obama spent only a day and a half in California. "The decision was made to pull Obama out and send him to those caucus states and run up the score," says Figueroa. In Idaho, the Obama campaign ramped up its staff to twenty paid organizers split among five field offices. It also brought in the candidate to pack the Taco Bell Arena in Boise with more than 13,000 supporters — each of whom was added to the campaign's get-out-the-caucus list. The Clinton campaign, apparently, failed to hire a single staffer in the state. The result: Obama won with eighty percent of the vote, netting fifteen of the state's eighteen delegates. While Clinton was spending lavishly to win New Jersey with 600,000 votes, Obama more than offset his delegate loss there simply by mobilizing 17,000 Idahoans to caucus for him. "The Clinton campaign made a fundamental mistake by writing states off," says Hildebrand.
...
"We saw early that, because of the energy that we were evoking, the caucuses would be a great opportunity for us," says Axelrod. "And not just in Iowa. So for months out, we had organizers in these caucus states, and the Clinton campaign had . . . nothing." By contrast, says Figueroa, "the philosophy of our campaign from the beginning was to compete for every vote. Not cede any precinct, any county, anywhere. And it got us to where we are now." Clinton has since complained that caucuses are "dominated by activists" who "don't represent the electorate." But that bellyaching, says Trippi, "is pure cover for 'We blew it.' If you can win a precinct just by getting ten people there — and that's true — then why the hell didn't she get ten people there?"

Adds Moulitsas of Daily Kos, "I don't know how a candidate can say she'll be ready to lead on Day One, when she can't even organize a simple caucus."

haha, i had forgotten that obama picked up more net delegates in idaho than hc managed yesterday.

just bringing this back up, because it really is quite cool if, like me, you find the actual organization work to be one of the more important aspects of the obama candidacy. though that may in fact just be me - it is a sort of strategy/activism wonk thing...

it is cool. it has given me a greater appreciation of why obama has done so well and clinton has been falling behind. its this kind of real grass roots organization (combined with an amazing amount of money) that gives me a bit of faith in the american system.

There's a great opportunity for Obama to throw down the gauntlet here. What he can do is offer to pay for far cheaper caucus' in both states. Not only are they cheaper, but they're also his strong suite.

This puts the ball hard in Clinton's court. How can she now say "Oh no no no, they can't re-vote, that's unfair!" If she's to sell that she thinks their votes matter she either has to back a caucus where she's likely to lose or pony up the extra dough to make it a primary.

Either way he comes out ahead. If she protests the caucus then she undermines the notion that she cares about Florida and Michigan, and if she antes up to get the primary she's just the Johnny come lately to the party.



Id like to think that if we can think of these things, his advisors can as well.

Otherwise, we are better at this than they are. Someone aught to email him...

I think it would be brilliant for either campaign to head into FL and offer to pay for another primary, per CTOAN's idea. Totally brilliant. And whichever one does it first has practically guaranteed a win in that state.

There's a great opportunity for Obama to throw down the gauntlet here. What he can do is offer to pay for far cheaper caucus' in both states. Not only are they cheaper, but they're also his strong suite.

This puts the ball hard in Clinton's court. How can she now say "Oh no no no, they can't re-vote, that's unfair!" If she's to sell that she thinks their votes matter she either has to back a caucus where she's likely to lose or pony up the extra dough to make it a primary.

Either way he comes out ahead. If she protests the caucus then she undermines the notion that she cares about Florida and Michigan, and if she antes up to get the primary she's just the Johnny come lately to the party.

Id like to think that if we can think of these things, his advisors can as well.

Otherwise, we are better at this than they are. Someone aught to email him...

In some cases it might be the same reason some of the marvelous machines I design in my head don't actually happen, because of what I don't know that makes them not work.

But I still think my scooter/copter would be totally awesome.

Haven't we been through this 20 pages ago? I've been looking at the turnout numbers and they just don't bear most of this out:

In North Dakota, Louisiana and Kansas, Obama received more votes than all the Republican candidates combined.

In Georgia, he received twice as many votes as Huckabee, the winner of that primary.

In California, he received over 700,000 more votes than McCain.

In New York, he doubled McCain's number.

In Ohio, over 300,000 more than McCain.

Doubled McCain in Texas.

Numbers taken from here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914)
You cannot compare primary/caucus support to support in the general election, as Barr already noted.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/sen.-bill-nelson-paints-florida-train-wreck-scenario-2008-03-06.html

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) warned the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Thursday that it is facing the “biggest train wreck you’ve ever seen” if a standoff is not resolved over his state’s pledged delegates to the party’s presidential nominating convention.

Nelson sent a letter to DNC Chairman Howard Dean Thursday asking the committee to either accept the Jan. 29 results of the primary election or pay for a redo of the elections, which could cost in the range of $20 million. He sent the letter after Dean did not return his telephone call Wednesday.

“If they go to the Democratic Convention and stiff-arm the Florida delegations, how in the world do you think Floridians are going to support the Democratic nominee on Nov. 4?” Nelson told reporters Thursday. “It’s in everybody’s interest to find a solution to this problem.”

However, earlier in the day, Dean said the party would not pay for any do-over.

“We can’t afford to do that,” Dean stated on CBS’s “Early Show.” “That’s not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race.”

The DNC stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates after both states moved up their primary dates. How to resolve the impasse is even more critical now that Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) are locked in a neck-and-neck battle for the presidential nomination, and neither has a clear path toward winning enough delegates to clinch the nomination. Clinton won both states, but both candidates agreed not to campaign there and Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan.

Lawmakers from both states met with DNC officials late Wednesday, but no progress was made on resolving the dispute. It’s unclear whether further meetings will occur.

Nelson warned that if the DNC does not pay for a new primary and if the delegations are not seated, Democrats could very easily lose Florida, which has long played a key role in deciding the winner of the general election.

So, the state that played such a big role in the first election of Bush, and which obviously cannot be ignored as a state that could easily go to the Democrats, is upset because the Democratic Party is set to screw them out of any representation at the Democratic Convention.

As close as the delegate count is, do you see it as a good thing or a bad thing that Florida has been essentially fucked out of participating in selecting the Democratic Party candidate? If you were a resident of Florida, would this bother you?

Do you think that either Obama or Hillary would benefit from Florida delegates?

This as already been done to death.


They broke the rules. They paid the price. Everyone agreed on the price. The only reason its an issue now is Hillary changed her mind and wants to change the rules now taht shes losing.


End of discussion. Mods, lock.

Someone call a waaaambulance.

So it would be ok with you if Florida went Republican?

Even more of an incentive to talk about it. Someone wants to censor the topic.

It sounds like it's coming up NOT because Clinton is losing but because the votes are close and the need a decisive winner to take the nomination and run against McCain on the presidential ballot.

What better way to give democracy another chance than to open up the ballots again.



Oh, I dont want to censor it. But, you see if you use those things on your face called eyes, you can see there is already a thread called "US Election Mega-Thread". And if you read that, you will see this topic has already been talked about, and if you want, you can add your thoughts there. That is, if you read the topic. You do know how to read, dont you?

I think if Floridians shoud be upset at anyone, it should be their own local election board(or whoever arranges these things). Keep in mind that the GOP punished them also, though not as severely(they lost half their delegates instead of all of them).

Ya think? So much for that whole argument about Clinton carries the states that matter, huh?

Hey hey! Watch the hits below the belt :D

Even more of an incentive to talk about it. Someone wants to censor the topic.

It sounds like it's coming up NOT because Clinton is losing but because the votes are close and the need a decisive winner to take the nomination and run against McCain on the presidential ballot.

What better way to give democracy another chance than to open up the ballots again.

Candidates were told not to campaign there. Only one person did. Soon as Hillary saw the Super Tuesday results she was all for counting them, because in Florida she beat Obama almost 2 to 1 in votes. Prior to that she didn't care because she thought she'd carry Super Tuesday.

Now if the DNC wants to pay the approximately $4 million to do another primary for Florida that everyone campaigns in and has a fair shake at, why not. Counting a flawed elections ballots because they overwhelmingly favor a losing candidate would be idiotic.

Not to mention that the delegates for all Democratic primaries are awarded proportionally, it wouldn't give Hillary an overall win, it'd just drag shit out longer.

Someone call a waaaambulance.

This as already been done to death.


They broke the rules. They paid the price. Everyone agreed on the price. The only reason its an issue now is Hillary changed her mind and wants to change the rules now taht shes losing.


End of discussion. Mods, lock.

Even more of an incentive to talk about it. Someone wants to censor the topic.

It sounds like it's coming up NOT because Clinton is losing but because the votes are close and the need a decisive winner to take the nomination and run against McCain on the presidential ballot.

What better way to give democracy another chance than to open up the ballots again.

You cannot compare primary/caucus support to support in the general election, as Barr already noted.

Ya think? So much for that whole argument about Clinton carries the states that matter, huh?

You cannot compare primary/caucus support to support in the general election, as Barr already noted.

You can't make a direct comparison, no.

But it is rather interesting to see the record numbers of voters - particularly in the younger age groups. It suggests that Obama could pull more people to the polls who otherwise wouldn't vote than McCain - based on the excitement he generates in supporters.

Florida is going to McCain regardless due to the Cuban and old people vote. Obama at least has a chance in other states that are traditionally Republican strongholds or swing states due to the black and young people votes.

t sounds like it's coming up NOT because Clinton is losing but because the votes are close and the need a decisive winner to take the nomination and run against McCain on the presidential ballot.
No, it's coming up because Clinton is losing. They knew what would happen if they decided to dick around and it happened. Everyone agreed to it. But now that it is beneficial to Clinton, everyone wants the shit to play out.

Well, what's relevant is to compare this primary to other primary seasons. Obama and Clinton both have really energized voters in record numbers. This is a very, very bad sign for Republicans.

That is indeed true and if Obama does indeed get the nomination, McCain will not win the Presidential Election. I'll make that prediction right now.

This is already being discussed in detail in the US Election thread, so the hope is that the mods will merge this before it grows too large because I hate having the same conversation in multiple places.

Well, it's been reported, so it should be merged soon.

Ya think? So much for that whole argument about Clinton carries the states that matter, huh?

CH, you walked right into that buzzsaw. Don't worry, it wasn't the first and it won't be the last time, so you'll be able to get used to it.

You can't make a direct comparison, no.

But it is rather interesting to see the record numbers of voters - particularly in the younger age groups. It suggests that Obama could pull more people to the polls who otherwise wouldn't vote than McCain - based on the excitement he generates in supporters.

Well, what's relevant is to compare this primary to other primary seasons. Obama and Clinton both have really energized voters in record numbers. This is a very, very bad sign for Republicans.

This is already being discussed in detail in the US Election thread, so the hope is that the mods will merge this before it grows too large because I hate having the same conversation in multiple places.

Florida and Michigan can end this by having new primaries, there are [url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8869.html]options[/i] (I'm borrowing them from this article now out of laziness)-


Florida and Michigan are relying on 'bully status' to flaunt rules agreed to a year and a half ago. "The rules don't matter to us because we got the chips and if you don't bow to us we'll take our chips and go home." It's bullshit. State leaders are blaming national leaders for toying with voters when the state leaders are just as, if not more, responsible. They knew the consequence so they're really the ones responsible for removing the voice of their constituency. Because the national party didn't fold like they thought it's now the national parties fault? Bullshit.

They have an option to save their voice. They both moved up to be more relevant in the choice of the nominee, well, here's their chance to be more than relevant, here's their chance to be the deciding factor. Get off their pride and hold a real primary or caucus.

There's indication that they're both now willing to do this, it's only a matter of who has to pay for it. I've proposed that as a gesture of goodwill the candidates dip into their giant warchests and do just that.


There's also the Goofball option:

Thunderdome. :)

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/sen.-bill-nelson-paints-florida-train-wreck-scenario-2008-03-06.html



So, the state that played such a big role in the first election of Bush, and which obviously cannot be ignored as a state that could easily go to the Democrats, is upset because the Democratic Party is set to screw them out of any representation at the Democratic Convention.

As close as the delegate count is, do you see it as a good thing or a bad thing that Florida has been essentially fucked out of participating in selecting the Democratic Party candidate? If you were a resident of Florida, would this bother you?

Do you think that either Obama or Hillary would benefit from Florida delegates?

How many times is this going to come up? This is as bad as when the Democrats kept saying that the Republicans stole Florida even after the media recounted all the ballots and proved Bush won the election.

Both Michigan and Florida broke the god damn rules and as such, they got punished for it.

Dean wants them to do a redo and it looks like both states are looking into it actually and hopefully they will do it again. If they don't, then they do not deserve to be seated at the convention. If they are, all hell is going to break loose.

This is already being discussed in detail in the US Election thread, so the hope is that the mods will merge this before it grows too large because I hate having the same conversation in multiple places.

Florida and Michigan can end this by having new primaries, there are [url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8869.html]options[/i] (I'm borrowing them from this article now out of laziness)-
Basically, the DNC has five options.

1. The Heck With Them Option: Michigan and Florida broke the rules and should suffer. If they are not made to pay for moving up their contests, 2012 will be even more chaotic than 2008. Strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates, and let the chips fall where they may.

2. The Kumbaya Option: Can’t we all just get along? Let’s seat Michigan and Florida the way the voters voted, and if this helps Clinton, that’s the way the nomination crumbles. The major problem with this, however, is that neither primary was exactly normal. Clinton was the only person on the Michigan ballot, and all the candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida.

3. The Split the Baby Option: Give 50 percent of the delegates to Obama and 50 percent to Clinton. At least this way, the voters of Michigan and Florida will not be insulted and will not punish the Democratic nominee in November.

4. The Mulligan Option: Do it over. Hold new contests. Maybe a caucus in Michigan and a primary in Florida. (Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican, has said he would support a do over in his state.) This option seems to be gaining in popularity within the party. The new contests could be held on the first Tuesday in June, along with Montana’s and South Dakota’s. Sure, this would cost millions, but nobody ever said democracy was cheap.

5. The Lone Ranger Option: Just wait for somebody to ride into town and save the day. Maybe Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean will be able to negotiate a settlement between Obama and Clinton. Except that a source at the DNC told me Dean is in no hurry to intervene. “He wants to let the voters have their say,” the source said. “We need to take a step back. We still have 10 states [plus Guam and Puerto Rico] left to vote and 600 pledged delegates to be determined.”

Florida and Michigan are relying on 'bully status' to flaunt rules agreed to a year and a half ago. "The rules don't matter to us because we got the chips and if you don't bow to us we'll take our chips and go home." It's bullshit. State leaders are blaming national leaders for toying with voters when the state leaders are just as, if not more, responsible. They knew the consequence so they're really the ones responsible for removing the voice of their constituency. Because the national party didn't fold like they thought it's now the national parties fault? Bullshit.

They have an option to save their voice. They both moved up to be more relevant in the choice of the nominee, well, here's their chance to be more than relevant, here's their chance to be the deciding factor. Get off their pride and hold a real primary or caucus.

There's indication that they're both now willing to do this, it's only a matter of who has to pay for it. I've proposed that as a gesture of goodwill the candidates dip into their giant warchests and do just that.

There's also the Goofball option:

Thunderdome. :)

Well, there's always Thunderdome. The best rules are ones that can be chanted by a mob. Extra points if it rhymes.

I read the article, and the post is about that article. I got from it nothing about Clinton wanting it because of her loss. Sure she may be losing but why exclude? Isn't America supposed to be a democracy or did the Bush administration change that?

State party broke rules and got the hammer for breaking those rules. Why should the democrats change the rules mid stream?

Well, there's always Thunderdome. The best rules are ones that can be chanted by a mob. Extra points if it rhymes.

There's just no substitute for post-apocalyptic justice, is there?

Sure I do. Do you know how to use punctuation?

Indeed I do. Quite well in fact.



I read the article, and the post is about that article. I got from it nothing about Clinton wanting it because of her loss. Sure she may be losing but why exclude? Isn't America supposed to be a democracy or did the Bush administration change that?


Because initially she agreed that Florida and Michigan shouldnt count. Then she got her ass kicked. Then she wanted them to count because she won them.


They broke the rules. They were told what would happen if they did, and they did it anyway. If you are told "If you cheat you are disqualified," agree and then play the game, then cheat and are disqualified, you dont get to cry about it.

I read the article, and the post is about that article. I got from it nothing about Clinton wanting it because of her loss. Sure she may be losing but why exclude? Isn't America supposed to be a democracy or did the Bush administration change that?

Because they broke the rules, they knew the penalty and counted on the DNC to fold. They didn't. Florida and Michigan got hoisted by their own petard. Everyone was fine with that (except those two states) until Super Tuesday. At which point Hillary suddenly became very concerned about making every vote count.

Oh, I dont want to censor it. But, you see if you use those things on your face called eyes, you can see there is already a thread called "US Election Mega-Thread". And if you read that, you will see this topic has already been talked about, and if you want, you can add your thoughts there. That is, if you read the topic. You do know how to read, dont you?

Sure I do. Do you know how to use punctuation?

I just don't feel like piddling through that mega thread, when there is another available without the excessive number of pages. I'd have gone there but I didn't feel like ploughing through those extra pages to find that simple post to reply to.

That thread is also general, so I wanted to reply to a specific topic and this topic just happens to be specific.

To say "end of discussion" and call on the mods to lock it to be smacks of censorship because you don't want to let people talk in another thread. Boo-hoo. You could have asked for it to merge. You didn't.

Candidates were told not to campaign there. Only one person did. Soon as Hillary saw the Super Tuesday results she was all for counting them, because in Florida she beat Obama almost 2 to 1 in votes. Prior to that she didn't care because she thought she'd carry Super Tuesday.

Now if the DNC wants to pay the approximately $4 million to do another primary for Florida that everyone campaigns in and has a fair shake at, why not. Counting a flawed elections ballots because they overwhelmingly favor a losing candidate would be idiotic.

Not to mention that the delegates for all Democratic primaries are awarded proportionally, it wouldn't give Hillary an overall win, it'd just drag shit out longer.

I read the article, and the post is about that article. I got from it nothing about Clinton wanting it because of her loss. Sure she may be losing but why exclude? Isn't America supposed to be a democracy or did the Bush administration change that?

Sure I do. Do you know how to use punctuation?

I just don't feel like piddling through that mega thread, when there is another available without the excessive number of pages. I'd have gone there but I didn't feel like ploughing through those extra pages to find that simple post to reply to.

That thread is also general, so I wanted to reply to a specific topic and this topic just happens to be specific.

To say "end of discussion" and call on the mods to lock it to be smacks of censorship because you don't want to let people talk in another thread. Boo-hoo. You could have asked for it to merge. You didn't.
Laziness is a poor excuse for thread pollution.


I read the article, and the post is about that article. I got from it nothing about Clinton wanting it because of her loss. Sure she may be losing but why exclude? Isn't America supposed to be a democracy or did the Bush administration change that?
Clinton was the one who started making these noises between Michigan and Florida and after her 'beginning of the end' loss in South Carolina. This flies in direct contrast to her stance when the decision was made in October of 2007 and even her position earlier in January. At points even she has rejected the notion of do overs since they could possibly favor Obama. As such, seating them as is has the taint of opportunism by the Clinton campaign even if they weren't the ones to make the most recent calls on Wednesday.

Either way, the posturing now seems to mostly center around who is going to pay for the do over instead of whether they should do them.

It's in Obama's interest to fund a caucus, it's in Clinton's interest to pay the difference for a primary and have it coincide with Pennsylvania since larger contests favor her with better name recognition and tarmac campaigning is easier and more effective than the grassroots campaign.

my solution:

if clinton ends up with a majority of elected delegates after the PR primary, the votes of michigan and florida get counted.

if obama ends up with a majority they dont get counted or are split 50/50.

my solution:

if clinton ends up with a majority of elected delegates after the PR primary, the votes of michigan and florida get counted.

if obama ends up with a majority they dont get counted or are split 50/50.

Well that makes absolutely zero sense. Why should they be counted if Clinton gets the majority and either not counted or split if Obama ends up with a majority?

Well that makes absolutely zero sense. Why should they be counted if Clinton gets the majority and either not counted or split if Obama ends up with a majority?

Because Clinton cares about them more

Because Clinton cares about them more

Hillary cares! Honest! She'll even break down crying on command.

What better way to give democracy another chance than to open up the ballots again.

Somehow that just sounds like "Let's keep voting until we get the answer we want!"

Whatever the party does with their own elections is fine, provided it's not in violation of federal, state or local laws that govern voting procedures.

If they're set on allowing those electors, I'd say make them all super delegates and roll the dice come convention time.

Well that makes absolutely zero sense. Why should they be counted if Clinton gets the majority and either not counted or split if Obama ends up with a majority?

Because, if Clinton has already won without them, they make no difference in the results.

If they are split 50/50, they make no difference in the results.

Considering that there was no real contest in either state, the only fair way to include them without holding a revote is to make sure they do not affect the end results.

Hillary cares! Honest! She'll even break down crying on command.
That's when she's not giggling too hard after being asked a hard question or two. Or in the middle of a coughing fit.

Do these ploys fool anyone?

Somehow that just sounds like "Let's keep voting until we get the answer we want!"

Whatever the party does with their own elections is fine, provided it's not in violation of federal, state or local laws that govern voting procedures.

If they're set on allowing those electors, I'd say make them all super delegates and roll the dice come convention time.

That's going to take a ton of dice. Or one really awkwardly-sided die.

That's when she's not giggling too hard after being asked a hard question or two. Or in the middle of a coughing fit.

Do these ploys fool anyone?

Clinton supporters, obviously.

That's when she's not giggling too hard after being asked a hard question or two. Or in the middle of a coughing fit.

Do these ploys fool anyone?

About 40% of Democrats yes.

That's going to take a ton of dice. Or one really awkwardly-sided die.

Where there's a Clinton involved, there's a way.

I think having an extra 300 or so uncommitted superdelegates at the convention would really liven up the coverage.

How many times is this going to come up? This is as bad as when the Democrats kept saying that the Republicans stole Florida even after the media recounted all the ballots and proved Bush won the election.
I don't know why this myth is so persistent. The recounts showed clearly that more Floridians intended to vote for Gore than for Bush.

I don't know why this myth is so persistent. The recounts showed clearly that more Floridians intended to vote for Gore than for Bush.
I'm not sure you can produce a report of any such recount. Even the New York Times, bastion of liberalism and made up news stories, can't argue with the results from Florida recounts as favoring Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ex=1204952400&en=d1d5f330c5180041&ei=5070

A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

I'm not sure you can produce a report of any such recount. Even the New York Times, bastion of liberalism and made up news stories, can't argue with the results from Florida recounts as favoring Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ex=1204952400&en=d1d5f330c5180041&ei=5070

Don't confuse people here with the facts.

Well that makes absolutely zero sense. Why should they be counted if Clinton gets the majority and either not counted or split if Obama ends up with a majority?

it makes every sense.

if clinton is going to win anyway, throw the poor sots a bone and count their votes.

if she isnt going to win, their tainted votes shouldnt make her win.

if someone wants to pay for new primaries, fine but the votes as they exist today shouldnt give mrs clinton the edge.

Don't confuse people here with the facts.
Sir, yes sir. It won't happen again, sir.

I'm not sure you can produce a report of any such recount. Even the New York Times, bastion of liberalism and made up news stories, can't argue with the results from Florida recounts as favoring Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ex=1204952400&en=d1d5f330c5180041&ei=5070

Stories inconvenient to your side/world view =/= Made of stories

From Myrmidonisia's own link:

"But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes." "

Ironically, the rules that Gore was advocating for would not have ended with Gore on top. But I really couldn't care less about that. What I am interested in is: who, in fact, was the choice of the Florida voters? That was Gore.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/sen.-bill-nelson-paints-florida-train-wreck-scenario-2008-03-06.html

So, the state that played such a big role in the first election of Bush, and which obviously cannot be ignored as a state that could easily go to the Democrats, is upset because the Democratic Party is set to screw them out of any representation at the Democratic Convention.

As close as the delegate count is, do you see it as a good thing or a bad thing that Florida has been essentially fucked out of participating in selecting the Democratic Party candidate? If you were a resident of Florida, would this bother you?

Do you think that either Obama or Hillary would benefit from Florida delegates?
I brought this forward quite awhile ago, and made the same claims that Nelson has made, but I was essentially shouted down by the Obama crowd. It appears that the concerns that I raised are coming to fruition. This is a sad case of the Democrats being unable to get their act together and it could cost them large in the general election.

Personally, I believe that both Michigan and Florida should be redone but for some reason, I can see reasons why Obama or Hillary might have objections as to whether it should be redone, and if it is redone, as to what the format would be.

Obviously according to the previous results, Hillary may have the most benefit of a redo.

The Republicans were smart enough to remove only 1/2 the delegates, which allowed the candidates to campaign in Florida and Michigan.

I brought this forward quite awhile ago, and made the same claims that Nelson has made, but I was essentially shouted down by the Obama crowd. It appears that the concerns that I raised are coming to fruition. This is a sad case of the Democrats being unable to get their act together and it could cost them large in the general election.

Personally, I believe that both Michigan and Florida should be redone but for some reason, I can see reasons why Obama or Hillary might have objections as to whether it should be redone, and if it is redone, as to what the format would be.

Obviously according to the previous results, Hillary may have the most benefit of a redo.

The Republicans were smart enough to remove only 1/2 the delegates, which allowed the candidates to campaign in Florida and Michigan.

Shot down by the facts on Clinton's previous view of the issue =/= shouted down

Stories inconvenient to your side/world view =/= Made of stories

What? You've forgotten about Jason Blair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair#Plagiarism_and_fabrication_scandal) already?

And it's made _up_ stories... As in fabricated.

Shot down by the facts on Clinton's previous view of the issue =/= shouted down

He keeps trying to crawl back up on that cross...

Ironically, the rules that Gore was advocating for would not have ended with Gore on top. But I really couldn't care less about that. What I am interested in is: who, in fact, was the choice of the Florida voters? That was Gore.
How do you establish that? With a bunch of folks that couldn't figure out how to read a ballot? Literacy and intelligence tests are not allowed, so these idiots are pretty much at their own mercy. They certainly could have asked for help or even studied a sample ballot -- clearly they were not smart enough for that either.

Gore's real downfall was that he couldn't carry his home state. Tennessee went Red.

What? You've forgotten about Jason Blair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair#Plagiarism_and_fabrication_scandal) already?

And it's made _up_ stories... As in fabricated.



One guy does not makethe whole paper's stories made up.


By your logic Fox News makes up its stories all the time...oh wait...

Gore's real downfall was that he couldn't carry his home state. Tennessee went Red.



You mean hicks tend to vote Republian?!?

How do you establish that? With a bunch of folks that couldn't figure out how to read a ballot? Literacy and intelligence tests are not allowed, so these idiots are pretty much at their own mercy. They certainly could have asked for help or even studied a sample ballot -- clearly they were not smart enough for that either.
I am not interested in deciding which people should have been considered worthy enough human beings to be granted the privilege to vote, either. The only question I am interested in is: of the people who voted, which candidate did more of them prefer?
As far as I'm concerned, the Presidency has been vacant since Jan. 20, 2001.

I am not interested in deciding which people should have been considered worthy enough human beings to be granted the privilege to vote, either. The only question I am interested in is: of the people who voted, which candidate did more of them prefer?
As far as I'm concerned, the Presidency has been vacant since Jan. 20, 2001.

Thats not really fair. Kerry legally and legitamitally lost in 2004, for a number of reasons, the main one being John Kerry.

You mean dumb hicks tend to vote Republian(sic)?!?
Are you as stupid as you seem? Tennessee sent Gore's father, then Gore to the United States Senate as Democrats since 1938. I don't call that a predilection to vote "Republian"

Are you as stupid as you seem? Tennessee sent Gore's father, then Gore to the United States Senate as Democrats since 1938. I don't call that a predilection to vote "Republian"



Since only people like you seem to think Im stupid, I actually take that as a sign of my intellegence.


But tell us how teh ebil muslam collective is out to assimilate us all again.

Um, you realize your conclusion isn't supported by your evidence, yeah?
I am restricting myself to the evidence that can be drawn from Myrmidonisia's article. The New York Times, like most mainstream media, buried these results rather deep, not wishing to stir up the issue of Bush's legitimacy. Most of the rejected ballots were much simpler cases than the infamous "Palm Beach butterfly": for example, in many counties with optical scanners there was a place to write in the candidate's name, as well as the circles to blacken; but those who wrote in Gore and also blackened Gore's circles got their ballots thrown out. Is there any question whatsoever who they wanted?

I am not interested in deciding which people should have been considered worthy enough human beings to be granted the privilege to vote, either. The only question I am interested in is: of the people who voted, which candidate did more of them prefer?
As far as I'm concerned, the Presidency has been vacant since Jan. 20, 2001.
Excuse me. I surrender. I had discounted paranormal means for determining preference...

Thats not really fair. Kerry legally and legitamitally lost in 2004, for a number of reasons, the main one being John Kerry.
I consider the 2004 results highly questionable, particularly in Ohio but also throughout the Diebold territories in other states.

From Myrmidonisia's own link:

"But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes." "

Ironically, the rules that Gore was advocating for would not have ended with Gore on top. But I really couldn't care less about that. What I am interested in is: who, in fact, was the choice of the Florida voters? That was Gore.

Um, you realize your conclusion isn't supported by your evidence, yeah?

Since only people like you seem to think Im stupid, I actually take that as a sign of my intellegence.


But tell us how teh ebil muslam collective is out to assimilate us all again.

Wrong thread, Slick. But do tell me why Tennessee is so solid of a "Republian" stronghold?

Wrong thread, Slick. But do tell me why Tennessee is so solid of a "Republian" stronghold?

I never said it was a republican stronghold, I said the south tends to be filled with "red states". That doesnt mean democrats wont ever carry them. Regan carried California. That just means that it is far more common for it to be a red state.

I brought this forward quite awhile ago, and made the same claims that Nelson has made, but I was essentially shouted down by the Obama crowd. It appears that the concerns that I raised are coming to fruition. This is a sad case of the Democrats being unable to get their act together and it could cost them large in the general election.

Personally, I believe that both Michigan and Florida should be redone but for some reason, I can see reasons why Obama or Hillary might have objections as to whether it should be redone, and if it is redone, as to what the format would be.

Obviously according to the previous results, Hillary may have the most benefit of a redo.

The Republicans were smart enough to remove only 1/2 the delegates, which allowed the candidates to campaign in Florida and Michigan.

So the republican leadership of the state giving both parties the bird (talking about FL) and moving their date up is the democrats screwing themselves? I think you fail to recognize this is a power struggle with both parties involved. And I'm not sure you're prediction (like every other prediction you've made) isn't a bunch of crap.

If the Republican leadership of the state tries to disenfranchise Dems, they'll likely find this not only hands the state to Dems on the federal level, but it may very well go blue on the state level as well. One thing that the elderly of FL agree with Dems on is that the state had better at least attempt to respect the votes of everyone.

I am restricting myself to the evidence that can be drawn from Myrmidonisia's article. The New York Times, like most mainstream media, buried these results rather deep, not wishing to stir up the issue of Bush's legitimacy. Most of the rejected ballots were much simpler cases than the infamous "Palm Beach butterfly": for example, in many counties with optical scanners there was a place to write in the candidate's name, as well as the circles to blacken; but those who wrote in Gore and also blackened Gore's circles got their ballots thrown out. Is there any question whatsoever who they wanted?

Um, no, you aren't. The evidence in the article says MIGHT. You're unwillingness to actually read what you cited doesn't an argument make.

By the way, thanks for enlightening me. Guess where I voted in 2000 and 2004? I'll give you 50 guesses, but you should be able to get it in 1.

He keeps trying to crawl back up on that cross...
No, actually....I just would like to see Democrats do something ummm democratically, no matter who is bitching and complaining. :)

I never said it was a republican stronghold, I said the south tends to be filled with "red states". That doesnt mean democrats wont ever carry them. Regan carried California. That just means that it is far more common for it to be a red state.
No, it was more like "...dumb hicks tend to vote Republian(sic)?!?". My contention was that those same "dumb hicks" tended to send the Gore family to Congress for most years, starting in 1930-something as Democrats. The fact that Gore failed to achieve the same support that he and his dad had received during most of the twentieth century during his run for President was his undoing.

Most politicians carry their home state. The only other recent failure to do that came with George McGovern's run in 1972. He couldn't carry South Dakota, or any other state, Massachusetts being the sole exception.

Okay, class closed -- you get the last word.

So the republican leadership of the state giving both parties the bird (talking about FL) and moving their date up is the democrats screwing themselves? I think you fail to recognize this is a power struggle with both parties involved. And I'm not sure you're prediction (like every other prediction you've made) isn't a bunch of crap.

If the Republican leadership of the state tries to disenfranchise Dems, they'll likely find this not only hands the state to Dems on the federal level, but it may very well go blue on the state level as well. One thing that the elderly of FL agree with Dems on is that the state had better at least attempt to respect the votes of everyone.
I doubt that will happen. I saw Crist on the news demanding that the DNC seat the delegates from Florida.

Um, no, you aren't. The evidence in the article says MIGHT. You're unwillingness to actually read what you cited doesn't an argument make.
What I was trying to explain to you is that this particular article is far from the only thing that I have ever read about the subject. I was restricting myself to quoting this article because Myrmidonisia could not accuse me of making it up. Whether you want to believe me or not, there is really very little question that Florida voters preferred Gore over Bush, despite the failure of the counting to show that.
By the way, thanks for enlightening me. Guess where I voted in 2000 and 2004? I'll give you 50 guesses, but you should be able to get it in 1.
Cuba?

No, it was more like "...dumb hicks tend to vote Republian(sic)?!?". My contention was that those same "dumb hicks" tended to send the Gore family to Congress for most years, starting in 1930-something as Democrats. The fact that Gore failed to achieve the same support that he and his dad had received during most of the twentieth century during his run for President was his undoing.

Most politicians carry their home state. The only other recent failure to do that came with George McGovern's run in 1972. He couldn't carry South Dakota, or any other state, Massachusetts being the sole exception.

Okay, class closed -- you get the last word.

According to repeated stories on NPR, Hillary's main core is uneducated lower to lower middle class white people, in every state she's done well in.

In other words, rednecks.

No, actually....I just would like to see Democrats do something ummm democratically, no matter who is bitching and complaining. :)

Yeah...Champ. That has shit all to do with your claims of being 'shouted down'...but nice try at deflecting the criticism...

According to repeated stories on NPR, Hillary's main core is uneducated lower to lower middle class white people, in every state she's done well in.

In other words, rednecks.

That's a bit of a leap there, and not a little insulting.

That's a bit of a leap there, and not a little insulting.

They were talking about the demographics that vote for Obama, and those that vote for Hillary.

More educated people of any income and race vote for Obama than vote for Hillary. The womens' vote splits along lines of education - the more educated vote for Obama.

They were talking about the demographics that vote for Obama, and those that vote for Hillary.

More educated people of any income and race vote for Obama than vote for Hillary. The womens' vote splits along lines of education - the more educated vote for Obama.

Okay, does no one realize that what they say actually stays up here and people can totally still see it?

That wasn't what I was responding to, I was responding to you making the leap from non-college educated low income voters to rednecks.

Okay, does no one realize that what they say actually stays up here and people can totally still see it?

That wasn't what I was responding to, I was responding to you making the leap from non-college educated low income voters to rednecks.

Take a trip to Ohio, and tell me what you see. It isn't a leap.

Take a trip to Ohio, and tell me what you see. It isn't a leap.

I've been around non-college low income people all my life. I'm college educated and low income. Sorry, I'm not going to reduce or insult a large swath of the population from a feeling of elitism. Thanks.

Because Clinton cares about them more

We all care about them but still...

I'm voting for Obama, because he did what no one else could do - he got Bill Clinton to shut the fuck up.

What I was trying to explain to you is that this particular article is far from the only thing that I have ever read about the subject. I was restricting myself to quoting this article because Myrmidonisia could not accuse me of making it up. Whether you want to believe me or not, there is really very little question that Florida voters preferred Gore over Bush, despite the failure of the counting to show that.

Cuba?

There is very little question among people who want to make giant leaps in order to get there, but, frankly, you're welcome to do that. Just don't expect anyone to act like you've got a substantiated point.

"But... but... I swear I have evidence and everyone agrees with me. <.< >.>" isn't really gonna fly among reasonable adults.

I never said it was a republican stronghold, I said the south tends to be filled with "red states". That doesnt mean democrats wont ever carry them. Regan carried California. That just means that it is far more common for it to be a red state.

Reagan carried 49 states. Are they all red?

I am not interested in deciding which people should have been considered worthy enough human beings to be granted the privilege to vote, either. The only question I am interested in is: of the people who voted, which candidate did more of them prefer?
As far as I'm concerned, the Presidency has been vacant since Jan. 20, 2001.

As far as I'm concerned, its this attitude that people is what is wrong with Americans. "boo hoo, my candidate didn't win ergo, their is no presidency."

That's just as fucking stupid as Americans stating that "he's not my president" when in fact he is since he is the head of the executive of the Nation.